Why is it so difficult for some of us to admit that a politician let us down?

[last1standing]

Most of us learn early in life that nobody is perfect and sometimes everybody makes mistakes. Over time we learn that the best way to overcome a mistake that everybody sees is to admit to the mistake and move on.

For some reason, this common sense approach seems to be ignored by many when it comes to politics. Why is it so personal to some people when a politician turns out to be a disappointment? If a politician fails to make good on campaign promises, is this the fault of his supporters? Do his supporters have an obligation to continue defending the politician even when he's let them down?

Wouldn't it be more sensible, more healthy, for people to take a more objective approach to politicians? Doesn't it make sense for us - the people who elect politicians to represent us - to speak up when a politician lets us down?

Suppose that the politician lets us down in some areas but not others. Is it wise to ignore the disappointments and continue supporting the politician as if he did everything to our satisfaction? Is it wise to treat a politician - a grown person who chose to run for election by promising certain things - as if he were a beloved child who can do no wrong? Wouldn't it be better to continue to insist that the politician fulfill all his campaign promises?

I offer this question in the hope that people will be thoughtful in their responses.

[YOY]

1. While I think folks expect the letdown.

I don't think some folks here are capable of admitting the level of the letdown.

[dionysus]

9. except that outside of DU, not many folks feel let down. it's funny, you guys like to say he's our

"messiah", but you're the ones dissapointed that he hasn't pulled off messiah like miracles such as ending all government corruption and legislating the insurance companies out of existence.

[YOY]

13. I consider a constitutional lawyer approving the renewal of the patiot act a letdown.

My bad. Does execting constitutional law to be upheld comprise a "pony" request? This was one of my main complaints about the Zippy presidency. I was under the impression that it would go away like the shit that it is...but it lingers...and no one here wants to address it.

[Clio the Leo]

55. And if the opposition to the provisions in question...

.... were unanimously opposed by all constitutional scholars as neat and tidily as you're implying you'd have a point. Even David Cole, one of the acts loudest critics doesn't oppose EVERYTHING in it. The very provisions Obama renewed Mr. Cole characterized as sensible tactics for maintaining public safety.

Unfortunately, things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be.

[last1standing]

61. But Obama made them sound very simple when he was campaigning.

His words were simple and unequivocal. I will close Guantanamo Bay. I will stop the torture of prisoners. I will end the war in the Iraq. And so forth. Very clear, simple, promises.

Why are you thinking up excuses for why he hasn't fulfilled them? Isn't it his job to think up excuses for why he has failed to do what he promised to do?

[Clio the Leo]

94. Because I'm capable of complex thought....

.... and I understand there's a difference between moving the ball down the field and what you're implying.

If all of those things you listed had not been addressed AT ALL you'd have a point. But he ordered Gitmo closed on day three .... he signed an executive order banning torture about five minutes later. After battling with Congress for most of the year trying to get funding to move the remaining prisoners to US soil and meeting road block after road block he fired the lawyer supervising that (or the attorney chose to quit, take you pick.) He then announced the government was buying the Thompson prison which is in HIS OWN BACK YARD to move any prisoners that are not transfered elsewhere.

Do these guys look upset because Obama "hasn't closed Gitmo"? Do you even know who they are?


On day two of his presidency, he announced a 16 month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. We're not even to the 12 month mark yet but troops have already pulled out of all urban areas. Get back with me in May and then tell me how that's not in keeping with his "promise."

Now, you want to talk about a disappointing politician? There was a politician who I respected very much. I know he's one of the greatest minds in the party and I respect all that he's done in his service to it. But he ... for whatever reason .... decided to show his natural hind end in some half-cocked macho display. He seems perfectly satisfied now but his words will haunt us from now until the mid-terms. I dont dislike the man, I still respect him, but I was VERY disappointed in how he handled the whole situation. So if you want to talk about a politician can disappoint, I'll be glad to.

[treestar]

172. It's way more complex than that

I'm willing to bet big money you aren't going to bother with reading the provisions and the cases.

I'm not going to judge on that until I've taken the time to sort it out.

[Clio the Leo]

24. very good point...

.... I had never thought about it like that before.

I love irony.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

145. "you guys" n/t

[dionysus]

yes. it's not a conspiracy to refer to a group that constantly rails against the president as

"you guys"

:eyes:

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Who let whom down?

Or are you broadly suggesting we were all let down by Pres. Obama? Because I know I wasn't. So, why should I admit to anything?

[Clio the Leo]

5. last1 let me down with this OP.

:)

[last1standing]

10. You don't feel that he has broken any campaign promises at all?

His promise to close Guantanamo Bay - not done - and you don't feel let down? You don't feel that he misled us when he talked about his universal health care plans, almost none of which are included in the bills he's supporting?

You are saying that you don't feel that President Obama has failed in any respect to keep any campaign promise? In that case, my OP is not about you.

[dionysus]

15. ok. simply. gitmo is indeed closing.. outrage fail. furthermore, you conveniently choose to blame

obama rather than the congress that won't support single payer.

[last1standing]

17. When is Guantanamo Bay closing?

[dionysus]

21. do believe they are in the final stages of figuring out where to transfer the rest of the guys there

:shrug:

[last1standing]

25. Last I heard, Obama announced that Guantanamo Bay would not close in January

and he declined to give a timeline for closing it.

That is quite a change from his campaign promises.

[dionysus]

30. so if it takes a few months longer due to red tape it's somehow a betrayal? jesus man he doesn't do

everything personally, all by himself...

[last1standing]

33. Why are you making excuses for him?

He promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Then he changed his mind and announced that he wasn't closing it. Now it's up in the air whether he'll close it or not.

And that's just one example. He's done the same with at least a dozen other campaign promises. Why do you feel the obligation to defend a politician who failed to keep his campaign promises?

[dionysus]

43. you seem to see things in an almost childish shade of black and white. some binary thinking you've

got.

this isn't a game show. he's got to deal with the government apparatus you seem to think doesnt exist, and he's privy to a hell of a lot of information we don't have.

the fact is you don't give him even a tiny benefit of the doubt.

[last1standing]

49. Where did I state that I don't give him "even a tiny benefit of the doubt?"

I'm asking a simple question, and you seem to be clouding it up with things I didn't say.

For the sake of simplicity, let's take your argument to its literal extreme. If the president fulfilled every single one of his campaign promises except one, how would you react? Choose one from below:

1. I would thank him for keeping most of his campaign promises and insist that he work hard on fulfilling the last one.
2. I would feel satisfied with his completion of most of his campaign promises and let the last one go, even if it was very important to me.
3. I would attack anyone suggesting that the president should fulfill all his campaign promises and call them names on the internet.

[dionysus]

54. don't be coy, your whole premise in this thread is that he is a letdown. which for most people he

isn't. what more do you want? you're basically trying to make people agree with you that he sucks. this is obvious.

you also operate from the standpoint that people who aren't upset like you think he's perfect. this is faulty reasoning.

:shrug:

[last1standing]

64. Your post is so full of straw men I can't find a single honest statement.

You accuse me of being coy for asking a simple question. A minute ago you accused me of seeing the world in "childish black and white." Which is it?

Then you say, "you're basically trying to make people agree with you that he sucks." Where did I say that President Obama sucks?

Then you say, that I "operate from the standpoint that people who aren't upset like you htink he's perfect." Where did I say that?

Try again.

[dionysus]

73. your OP is the strawman. but you can't even see it.

:rofl:

[last1standing]

81. Could you point out exactly where you see a straw man in my OP?

[dionysus]

84. OP: obama is a letdown, why can't you admit it? Reality: not everyone is let down by Obama

can't say it any plainer.

[last1standing]

87. If you feel that Obama has fulfilled every single one of his campaign promises

then this thread is not about you. Said it before.

[treestar]

174. You will be let down by every single politician who ever lives

Since you demand 100%.

Whoever told you that's a good idea, it's not.

You're a perfectionist, prone to negativity and depression and with a desire of depressing the rest of us! We won't go along, sorry.

[Hansel]

182. Some of us never expected him to...

fulfill every single one of his campaign promises. It's kind of an unrealistic expectation given the polarized state of affairs in Washington DC and the crap-assed media we have.

I'm not let down because I had no unrealistic expectations of what he would and could do. I voted for him because he is an intelligent man who analyzes events from all viewpoints before making a decision. I voted for him because he is a pragmatist and I generally hold the same values as him. I voted for him because he is a decent man with the ability to speak well and lead. He is still that same person and therefore I am not letdown.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he does, but I do give him the benefit of the doubt that he is making well thought out and researched decisions.

Even though, as an Obama supporter, I was accused of seeing him as the Messiah, I never saw him as the Messiah. I think there are still too many people who bought the right-wing and gullible media's premise that Obama's supporters looked at him as the Messiah. They have never, for one second, thought that maybe this premise was never true. That maybe that was the furthest thing from our minds and that there were far more practical reasons for supporting him.

[Clio the Leo]

68. Apparently I have misunderstood what a campaign "promise" is....

.... I have ALWAYS understood them as a "goal" and not as a "promise."

This notion folks have that everything was going to be checked off the list exactly as outlined by ..... what are we on .... day 345 is just bizarre.

[last1standing]

74. As one of the president's bosses, I expect him to do the job he said he'd do.

Yes, he made what sounded like promises to me. I voted for him to fulfill those promises. I intend to continue asking him to keep those promises.

[Clio the Leo]

100. Ok, lemme break it down for ya how the whole thing works...

.... a guy decides to run for office ... the voters dont know anything about him ... so he goes around making speeches that explain the policy ideas he supports. If you read a statement, "If you are one of the 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance, you will have it when my plan becomes law." .... Now, there's an important word in there, "law." We all paid attention in Jr. High civics class (or to that School House Rock) video at least and we understand that if he's talking about passing a LAW that requires more than just him doing it. If he could, with the stroke of a pen, enact the "promise" then he would have done so right after ordering GITMO closed and banning torture.

So to be disappointed with the executive because the LAW is not precisely as he planned represents a complete misunderstanding of how the Federal government works.

In short, they were not "promises" and you are incorrect in thinking they were.

Are you pleased that he kept his Afghanistan "promise?"

[dionysus]

75. because HE IS EVIL!!!111 WHY DON'T YOU AGRE WITH ME!!11!!

:P

[last1standing]

83. Well, that's very mature and helpful. That really contiributes to civil discourse.

[dionysus]

86. it's kind of the essense of what you're pushing here.

[Clio the Leo]

101. ah right .... what was I thinking. NT

[dionysus]

90. if you are predispositioned to dislike someone, it's very easy to set yourself up to constantly

perturbed by them...

[Clio the Leo]

103. That Palin woman....

..... CONSTANTLY pisses me off.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. According to the Scriptures used to rationalize prejudice against

minorities some do not like, words are to be used with painstaking exactitude, and the very idea of claiming that a word with a definition actually 'means' something different is a huge breach of the rules of those Scriptures. Jesus was extreme in the teachings, he said "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
From evil. So when he rejects equality in the name of his faith, one is free to expect that he might actually live by that faith, at least to the point where his words can not be said to 'come from evil' due to spin and vagueness. Yeah, the honesty of one's words was more of a concern to Christ than the genders of the couple next door, but for fun, let's go after people's rights while we say anything, any way we think might sell it.
In my opinion, no politician can work and meet the standards of Christ. Which means they need to shut the fuck up about what others do. It is that simple. If 'no mandates' means 'universal mandates' and 'promise' means 'goal' then 'marriage' means 'open to everybody' because this is open season on definitions.
Hypocrisy carries great costs.

[JohnnyLib2]

107. " Happy Binary Day 010110!" from liberaltrucker's thread--

in the Lounge. Who knew?

[phleshdef]

142. Have you watched or listened to ANY news regarding Gitmo closing?

Apparently you haven't or you would know that they have been working out where to transfer remaining prisoners, a great many of them have been tried, let go or transferred and that congress has been pushing back on funding the closing. You would know that its been in process this whole time and that NO campaign promise in regards to it has been broken AT ALL.

If you can't pay attention to whats been going on, then you need to keep your mouth shut.

[ima_sinnic]

151. sorry, I'm not going to "blame congress" for not supporting single payer

because the leader of the country never really fought for it. He would have had the massive support of 3/4 of the citizens, who would have pressured their congresspeople relentlessly--one of the important factors in ultimate passage of civil rights legislation in the early 60s. The idea of a single payer system, which he could have explained in detail (remember his gift of eloquence?), could have been a predominant topic of discussion everywhere in the country.
Instead, he handed health care "reform" to Max Baucus and walked away; he was not that vocal about it all summer while the teabaggers were working overtime to distort the idea of "socialized medicine," confusing the public and monopolizing the media. Obama and his spokespeople could have been monopolizing the message (remember his ready-response teams during his presidential campaign?)--we've seen when he wants to fight for something, he can do it well and gain the support he needs--the stimulus bill, which put some money in the hands of the people, is an example. Many in Congress balked at that, but they were whipped into line. He gave single payer only a passing glance, gave lip service to a "public option" after "promising" not to sign any bill without it, but through his POS--er, COS got people to kiss Lieberman's ass. He delivered for his sponsors but in a way that he came out smelling like a rose.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. That's exactly what I am saying.

[last1standing]

26. Then this OP is not about you.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. I don't feel he let me down regarding Guantanamo Bay

Because I have studied the issue and I realize what a legal mess the entire situation is and also how uncooperative Congress has been. He set a goal for one year but sometimes things don't go the way you planned and you can't meet deadlines. If it takes him a year and a half or two years then I won't feel let down one bit.

[Clio the Leo]

Seriously, Bush has been out of office for almost a year now...

.... we all know he was a miserable failure, MUST we continue to belabor the issue?

Cant we just leave the man alone with his beer, his baseball and his Saddam pistol and move on with our lives?

Sheesh!

[dionysus]

4. nicely played

:D

[Clio the Leo]

7. Yes but YOY and Irishman ruined my fun...

.... by posting before me. If I'd have gotten in first it would have been WAY funnier.

That's what I get for spell checking.

(My New Year's resolution is to be less forgiving of people who rob me of my job on internet forums)

[dionysus]

3. except not everyone feels let down. a lot of people think he's doing the best he can.

sorry if he couldn't strongarm the congress like you wish.

[last1standing]

14. He hasn't disappointed you in any respect? Not at all?

You are completely, 100% satisfied and happy with President Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promises? If so, then this OP is not directed at you.

[dionysus]

20. sure, on some things. but i'm not ready to cast him into a lake of fire like so many here.

does it ever occured to you he promised some things he thought having 60 seats in the senate would be doable, but later found that wasn't the case?

[last1standing]

31. If he has let you down "on some things," why aren't you asking him to fulfill them?

Instead of making excuses for the president of the United States - arguably the most powerful, influential person in the world - why aren't you - a simple citizen - insisting that the president work harder to fulfill his campaign promises?

Why are you making excuses for him instead of insisting that he do what he said he would do?

[dionysus]

35. who said i am not? i don't take it upon myself to rag on the guy when so many people here do it

like it was their daily job.

[last1standing]

45. I'm curious about why you jumped on my OP so vehemently, when you say that you are,

in fact, disappointed in some of Obama's decisions.

Like you, I don't find "ragging" on him or "casting him into a lake of fire" on anonymous bulletin boards to be particularly helpful or useful. It's obviously more important to write directly to our elected officials and express our dissatisfaction in specific terms. However, given the level of vehemence with which even the mildest criticism of the president is greeted, I have to assume that there are a lot of Democrats who aren't complaining at all. They seem to be busier defending the president from any criticism by attacking those who are expressing disappointment than they are interested in asking him to fulfill his campaign pledges.

[dionysus]

50. okay.i feel that he's doing the best job he can with the system he finds himself in. do i think he's

perfect? of course not. but you seem to be operating from the stance he's purposefully breaking promises.

he's not the "decider", he's only one part of the government. i think you've set yourself up to be constantly dissappointed.

[last1standing]

57. Yes, I do see some evidence that he's purposefully breaking some promises.

He promised to protect the environment, for instance. I remember those campaign promises very clearly. And then he appointed a Republican as Secretary of the Interior and supported decisions that damage the environment, such as continuing mountain top removal in West Virginia and lifting protections for wolves and polar bears. I call those purposeful breaking of promises. Yes.

[dave29]

6. why is it so hard for people to admit they don't see things the same way?

Many of us do not feel let down. Why is that so hard to swallow?

[dionysus]

11. they have to be proven "right " about, well, haing his guts for so long. easier to do if you can

make him into a villain.

[scheming daemons]

8. Lots of politicians have let me down.... Obama, however, is not one of them

...

:shrug:

[last1standing]

16. Obama has not let you down in any way? He has fulfilled every one of his campaign promises?

Your point of view is that Obama has done absolutely everything right?

If so, then my OP is not about you.

[dionysus]

28. seriously, lack of perfection doesn't piss everyone off....

[last1standing]

34. I'm not talking about lack of perfection. Obama made promises. He hasn't kept a lot of them.

Doesn't that bother you?

[dionysus]

46. you can feel as jaded as you want. pardon me if i don't partake.

[last1standing]

52. I didn't not say that I feel jaded. I don't like jade.

A jade is a liar. I don't think of myself as a jade.

[scheming daemons]

51. Um.... Not achieving 100% of his goals in first year is NOT a failure

We elected him for four years.

He's managed to accomplish an astounding amount of his objectives during the first year.

He has three more years to accomplish the rest.



...and... I'm not requiring 100% promises fulfilled in order to consider him to have not "let me down". That's an impossible standard to keep and your attempt to try to hold him to that shows more about you than it does him.

No human being can attain 100% of their goals. If they do, then they've set their bar too low.



Seriously... are you saying that any President that hasn't accomplished *ALL* of his campaign promises in one year has "let you down"?


That's just assinine.

[last1standing]

67. It's spelled asinine, but that doesn't matter right now.

You'd have a point if Obama had not promised to achieve quite a few of his goals immediately. He didn't say, "I'll end the war in Iraq by the end of four years." He said that he'd end it quickly. Furthermore, many DUers were quite loud in telling their fellow DUers that Obama would end the war "immediately." So why aren't they upset that it isn't over yet?

[scheming daemons]

76. From the earliest days of his campaign, he promised an 18-month withdrawal

NEVER did he say immediately... NEVER did he imply immediately.

That's made up by you.


The fact that his withdrawal of combat troops from Iraw will take 24 months instead of 18 is not that big of a deal to me.

Being off by 6 months, but still achieving the goal, is a win... not a loss.

[dionysus]

82. damn your rational thinking. damn it all to hell

:D

[last1standing]

85. Actually, that "immediately" thing was made up by quite a few right here.

Now they pretend that they never said that, but some of us have long memories.

[scheming daemons]

91. Then THOSE POSTERS have let you down, not Obama

He's never promised what you are saying you were promised (with respect to Iraq).


He promised an orderly withdrawal of combat troops withing 18 months of when he took office. He'll get it done in 24 months from when he took office.


That's a promise kept... or at a minimum, a promise well on its way to being kept.



But in your world... a world in which you have expectations based on nothing the candidate actually ever said or did... that's a promise broken.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Clio the Leo]

106. lol, so now he's expected to fulfill his supporters promises to?

ha ha .... you're killing me Smalls! You're killing me! :rofl:

[laugle]

168. It's

simple human nature; people don't like to admit they were wrong..........nobody likes being had!

I suspect his biggest defenders are hurting the most.............

[emilyg]

102. You jest.

[kid a]

12. I had no illusions about bush...he sucked!

[mitchtv]

36. funny,I had no illusions about Obama

a politician, no more no less. I expected nothing, See? no disappointment

[kid a]

88. my expectations of Obama are in check...I think he is doing well as can be expected B+

[busymom]

18. Or more importantly,

Why is it so hard for us all to accept that some of us feel let down and some of us do not...that we all have
differing opinions on the various issues. Instead of debating and agreeing to disagree on certain points,
it becomes an all out hatefest sometimes.

Life is many shades of grey...not black and white.

[last1standing]

22. If you don't feel let down, then my OP is not about you.

However, I've been around DU for a while, and I remember many, many DUers posting a lot of promises about what they were sure that Obama would do as soon as he was elected. He's failed to do a single one of those things, as far as I recall. So, I would assume that those DUers would feel let down. The fact that many of them claim to be 100% satisfied with the president is hard for me to understand.

[busymom]

27. Actually, I DO feel let down....but

I wonder why we can't have discussions here like grown-ups. Every time I bring up something that disappoints me, I am lambasted as if I were a poster from the free republic web site

[last1standing]

37. I was hoping that we could have a civil discussion here.

If anyone lambastes you in this thread, please hit alert. I will, too.

[quakerboy]

126. No frikin joke

One cannot have a civil and meaningful discussion of anything in any way related to Obama on this board. There's a couple people who hate him for some reason. There are more people who worship him beyond anything I've ever seen outside of a fundamentalist worship services. And then there are the rest of us trying to discuss and being hijacked by the other two groups.

[billh58]

183. The statement:

"If you don't feel let down, then my OP is not about you," makes absolutely no sense. The entire OP is addressed to those who do not agree with your feelings of disappointment, and challenges us to tell you why we "can't admit to feeling let down."

So the reverse is actually true: If you DO feel let down, then this OP is not about you.

[Politicub]

23. Is this some kind of crypto anti-Obama thread?

It's very bizarre.

[dionysus]

32. if it was intended as crypto it failed miserably.

[LakeSamish706]

29. He has let me down in many ways actually! The first was not appointing an

AG that would bring the previous Admin. to justice... Appointing Rahm Emanuel was another mistake, and so was Geithner.

[last1standing]

40. Yes, those are just some of the ways in which he has let me down.

I'm disappointed in a quite a few of President Obama's decisions. I'm wondering why it is so difficult for some posters here to acknowledge that they feel the same way.

[YOY]

48. Because they think snark is a good way to discuss things.

Honestly, we have moved past that stupid "getting a pony thing" phase and into the "you clearly must be stupid/inferior/an extremist" phase.

I don't hate the guy...but fuck all if I am going to act like he's the best thing since sliced bread. We do not need Clinton part two...I am sorry to tell them. The situation is not the same.

[mitchtv]

41. Salazar was no prize either

while we're at it

[JohnnyLib2]

38. Some of "us" will be meeting, trying to motivate D volunteers soon.

In my state, that includes working to replace the hopeless Sen. Bunning in 2010.

Dealing with the various levels of (dis)enchantment looks like a big part of the work.

Looks like I, and presumably others, need to balance my own complaints against the role I want to take in larger causes.

[last1standing]

70. Excellent. I agree that actually working in the Real World is more important

than bashing one another on anonymous boards.

[billh58]

39. The only thing that

I feel "let down" about, is the deterioration of the quality of discourse on DU. My question to you would be, "why do you take it so personal when some people don't agree with your views and perceptions of what constitutes being "let down?" The tone of your OP assumes that everyone should feel as you do, and that there must be something wrong with those who do not.

I fully respect your right to criticize our elected Democratic President, and even call for his replacement. Why do you and others find it so difficult to respect my right to support President Obama, and to defend him against those with whom I disagree.

I find it difficult to tell the difference between the open animosity and vitriol of the recent Primary Campaign rhetoric on DU, and the abject hyperbole still being displayed over one year later.

[Politicub]

42. +1 - my sentiments exactly

[dionysus]

44. excellently stated.

:thumbsup:

it's like being on trial for not being sufficiently outraged, on a daily basis.

basically the OP translates to "WHY DON'T YOU THINK HE SUCKS AS MUCH AS I DO!!111!!11"

[kid a]

47. +1

[scheming daemons]

53. I agree... DU has let me down far more than Obama has

[LakeSamish706]

60. I have no problem at all with the fact that you don't feel let down by our current President.

The reality is, in the later part of the Primaries, Obama was the only choice! For me it wasn't going to be Clinton, and it certainly wasn't going to be McPain... Obama was looking very good at that point and I actually donated to both the Primary and the GE. Am I sorry for any of that? NO! But my expectations were very much higher than what is currently happening.

[billh58]

65. And your response

is a perfect example of how debate and discussion should be undertaken on DU. I fully respect what you have stated about having higher expectations than what is happening currently, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for not attacking me for stating my opinions and views.

Happy New Year...;-)

[LakeSamish706]

72. Thank you, and a very Happy New Year to you... You see, we can disagree and

yet we can discuss in a very mature manner.

[tabatha]

62. +100

[JohnnyLib2]

69. Agree as to what I'm let down by at this point.

[last1standing]

79. Yes, I am puzzled by the fact that so many people are willing to ignore Obama's failings

and pretend that he's done everything he said that he would. It seems to me that vitriol is aimed more at those of us who are pointing out that the president is not doing what he said that he would do.

[billh58]

98. You see, that's a big

part of the problem: you actually believe that many of we Liberal Democrats who approve of President Obama's performance so far (87% by the latest Gallup poll) are acting in concert to tell you to STFU. We are not, nor would we, as that approach does not work, and it is antithetical to what we believe in. As a result, we as Democrats are failing to communicate and end up calling each other names, while engaging in mindless circular arguments.

If you will try to understand, I do NOT consider ANY of President Obama's actions, or lack of action, as "failings." I did not vote for him because I believed that he had even a snowball's chance in Hell of completing ANY of his (or my) "wish list" in the first year, or even in the first term of his presidency. I voted for him, and remain supportive of him, because he represents my world views, and shares my hopes and dreams for the future of this country.

I do not believe that President Obama is a "corporatist shill," a "war-monger," nor a "DLC plant." I believe that he is an intelligent, mature, and thoughtful natural leader who is growing into his role and exhibiting more confidence and polish every day. Then again, these are just MY thoughts and opinions, and do NOT take away from your thoughts and opinions.

[AVID]

99. thats a +1 for well put

[JohnnyLib2]

109. and another from me.

[Clio the Leo]

111. bill is hitting on all cylinders tonight....

.... another good post.

[billh58]

118. Thanks Clio...

:hi:

[cornermouse]

131. History clearly indicates that Obama's best opportunity to make

changes was in the first year of his term. Other than talking to the other countries of the world, there really isn't that much that is positive for the average voter. In 2010, people will have the chance to either validate or reject what he's done or not done so far through the 2010 election and in 2012, people will have the chance to validate and re-elect him or reject his attempt to get a second term.

The problem I see with all the blind support around here is that it ignores what he's doing wrong or what he should be doing but isn't. In the not all that long run, that will lead to defeat of whatever you thought the democratic agenda should be. His idea of healthcare reform is definitely a failure. And yes, I firmly believe the bailout of Wall Street and the banks was a clear mistake. Their subsequent "pay-offs" so that their lavish bonuses can continue unabated is an indicator that it was a mistake. I oppose escalation and want us completely out of there because, put simply, we need to take the money we're wasting over there and spend it on our own domestic problems. Things he's doing right? They aren't a problem and fall under the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it and why waste time talking about it when other things are still broke" category.

The argument you hear often that people shouldn't be surprised at the moderate to conservative positions he's taken while president because he indicated during the election? Why do you think all the really good thought-provoking, long time posters don't post here any more?

[billh58]

157. To partially answer

your question, "Why do you think all the really good thought-provoking, long time posters don't post here any more?":

The most common reason that I've come across is the absolute deterioration in the level of discourse on DU, the continuation of the vitriol and personal attacks left over from the Primaries, and the fact that DU has become more hateful to Liberal Democrats than FR. I realize that not everyone will agree with that assessment, but I have seen those reasons given for a lack of participation much more often than, "I'm angry with President Obama, so I'm just going to go in the backyard and eat worms."

If you will do an honest count of the number of anti-Obama posts on a daily basis, you just may find that the overwhelming majority of them come from a small minority of the same very vocal, and very persistent, posters. And every one of those threads ends up in a pissing match with both sides secure in the knowledge that only their particular views and opinions represent mainstream Liberal Democrats. This, of course, is the most likely intended outcome, and the real purpose of the "bait" being dangled.

Mainstream Middle American Liberal Democrats overwhelmingly approve of President Obama's performance to date (87%), as do 52% of the voting population. One would never know that by a quick perusal of the daily posts on DU, so I have to believe that there are more non-Democrats (or "Progressives") posting more often, than Liberal Democrats who feel alienated by the "new" DU (since the Primaries).

[cornermouse]

162. If that's what you want to believe, that's what you'll choose to believe.

One thing though. A bunch of the long time posters didn't just leave. They were tombstoned, probably due to their high profile and large readership early in this thing for not saying what some thought they should be saying. The few that are left find it tough going and could soon be gone as well. Do you really want DU to become nothing more than a group of sycophants?

[billh58]

163. I am not aware

of any "long time posters" who have been tomb-stoned, but it's my guess that they broke the Rules and became disruptive. It is my understanding that number of posts, or length of membership, does not provide immunity from bearing responsibility for, and accepting the consequences of, one's actions.

If you feel that the Administrators and/or Moderators of DU are undertaking some deep, dark, plot to eliminate "dissenters," then I strongly suggest that you keep those highly inflammatory accusations off of the open boards, and take it up directly with Skinner.

If you truly believe that those of us who approve of President Obama's performance, and remain supportive of his administration, are "sycophants" because we disagree with you, then you are also "free to believe" what you want.

[cornermouse]

166. There you are.

I say "If that's what you want to believe, that's what you'll choose to believe."

You reply with a threat. Sort of says it all.

[billh58]

167. Threat?

I did not "threaten" you, and I am not in a position to do so even if I were so inclined. As a former moderator on another site, I merely pointed out that discussing moderation (and speculation about why individuals have been banned) on the open boards is generally, and universally, frowned upon. If you do indeed believe that posters are being banned from DU for questionable reasons, your best bet is to contact an Administrator.

We are ALL entitled to choose to believe what we want, but we are NOT entitled to speculate about what others believe, or don't believe.

[CBR]

136. +1 nt

[DutchLiberal]

177. No, if you don't believe he's a corporate shill, a warmonger and a DLC-plant,

YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. You're burying your head in the sand to stay willfully and voluntarily ignorant.

And that's not an opinion, but a cold, hard FACT.

[billh58]

180. Ah, but you are

stating an opinion, and a fact-challenged one at that. The only fact evident here is that attacking me personally does not further your argument, and shouting an opinion on an Internet discussion board does not turn it into a fact.

What your opinion actually says, is that you are extremely unhappy with President Obama's performance so far (and possibly even the fact that he was elected) and you can't understand why everyone doesn't see things your way. This kind of vitriol was extremely common during the Primary elections, and doesn't seem to have faded for a few.

Your message that those of us who voted for, and remain supportive of, President Obama and his administration, are somehow dim-witted, unintelligent, and "ignorant" of the facts, is a common tactic used to support otherwise weak arguments. For the record, I don't believe that any poster on DU is lacking in intelligence, but a few tend to get overwhelmed by emotion in an effort to prove the unprovable. I've seen those same traits in religious missionaries when they're out proselytizing, and run out of convincing arguments.

[billh58]

188. Just one more attempt

to explain our differing points-of-view:

Where you see "corporatist shill" I see sincere attempts to stimulate our economy, and honest compromise with Congress (I realize that that statement borders on being oxymoronic) in order to get at least some form of HCR enacted into law.

Where you see "war monger," I see a thoughtful effort to extract the USA from one ill-planned war, and one unnecessary war, without leaving either a power vacuum, or total anarchy in either country. I subscribe to the school-of-thought that ALL Americans were guilty of allowing these two countries to be "broken," and it is our responsibility to not only fix them, but to make them whole.

Where you see "DLC-plant," I see political reality and a well thought out strategy of "dancing with the devil" in order to achieve compromise and forward progress.

My main concern is not with a single individual who may occupy the Oval Office at any given point-in-time, but with the professional politicians in the combined Congress who have made a career out of selling our country and its treasury to the highest bidder.

Again, these are only perceptions, and either of us could be completely off-base. On the other hand, we could both be partially correct and the truth, as usual, could lie somewhere in the middle.

After reaching the age of 68, one of my observations has been that things are seldom as they appear, and that there is no one simple definition of perceived reality: every opinion is colored by our biases, life experiences, and dreams. Our job, it would seem, is to become adept at picking the fly shit out of the pepper...;-)

[Number23]

114. Perfect. Brilliant! I'm starting to love you, I am...

[billh58]

116. I'll bet you

say that to all the guys from Maui...;-)

[vaberella]

128. + Infinity. n/t

[quakerboy]

134. I find that disturbing

And somewhat odd. A few messages down, you talk about nuance as a positive new thing, but you admit that you are have trouble admitting it to exist in other side of this argument.

This extends into how you answer his question. Where I read a nuanced question, a tenuous thread to try to find common ground among the different ideas represented here, you read into it a personal attack against anyone who thinks as you do.

I will grant you that there are some who still hold a primary grudge against Obama. I would argue that they are a tiny and relatively tamely jaded minority, especially compared to the ones holding a primary grudge against them, at least here on DU. But even if that were not so, there are a lot of us here who were strongly behind Obama through the primaries, who now are having adverse reactions to some of what is happening.

I think my postings would prove that I was one of those, and I have seen others. I cried with joy when Hillary finally officialy conceded and the primary was done and we had this great hope for the future. I cried more when Obama was sworn in. I don't cry much. But now I feel like tearing my hair out with frustration.

I feel 100% completely ignored in the political process, and that stings on a major level given what I personally put into electing a new senator here in Oregon, and in supporting President Obama through a tough primary and then a tumultuous general. And until your postings in this thread, the most understanding or reasonable response that I have seen here from anyone to anyone on the other side of this was earlier tonight when a poster said "I don't care" in response to my concerns.

[billh58]

159. Again, your post is

an example of the disconnect. I DO care about your concerns, but I don't SHARE them. I have never actually seen an intelligent post from a supporter of President Obama which tells anyone to STFU. I have seen accusations by critics of President Obama about being told to STFU, but most of them turned out to be assumptions based on tone and implication, rather than the actual words being used.

While you, and others, may "feel completely ignored in the political process," many of us do not, because we know what it really feels like to have been ignored all throughout the Dubya years. I fully support your right, and obligation, to speak your mind loudly and often, but I do NOT support your right to assume that I am an idiot for not agreeing with you, just as I do not assume that my opinion is the only correct one, or that yours is invalid.

We have not managed to put forth convincing arguments for our positions to each other because the noise of the anger and vitriol drowns out the substance of what is being said. I remain convinced that there are hateful and artificial wedges being driven between us by a few malcontents on DU whose only goal is to disrupt -- for reasons unknown.

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest response, and here's hoping that despite our differences, we can work together for a better future for our kids, grandkids, and their offspring...;-)

[DutchLiberal]

176. Why shouldn't everybody feel betrayed?

Have a homophobic priest perform at his inauguration.

Appointing Geitner and Summers. Appointing Emmanuel. Appointing Iran-Contra criminal and Bush-administration-veteran Gates.

Championing public option, supporting Senate bill without public option, lying he ever championed a public option.

Renewing Patriot Act.

Continuing 'extraordinary rendition'. Continuing to imprison terror suspects for an indefinite period of time without trial.

Escalating the war in Afghanistan.

Not overturning any of the Bush-legislation.


If you are NOT disappointed by Obama, you're either not paying attention at all, or you value your own pride over principles because you don't want to admit it.

[billh58]

181. Because "everybody"

does not agree with you. Your stance, and that of the OP, erroneously assumes that yours is the only valid and moral opinion to adopt. You and the OP appear to be outraged that everyone does not see reality through the same tinted lens that you do.

No one has done the reverse (even though there are many claims to the contrary) to the detractors of President Obama: you are free to criticize, call for his replacement, rail against him, call him names, and be angry at the world. You may not, however, tell me that I must think as you, and agree with your position, or you will sling immature insults at me in retaliation, insult my intelligence, or question my sincerity, just because I am opposed to your thinking.

The word "Liberal" (with a capital "L") should be an inspiration to be more acceptable of like-minded Democrats' broader thoughts and opinions. We all share the same goals, but we often disagree on how to get there, and that is what separates us from Conservative "followers."

[DutchLiberal]

185. It's you who is the "follower". The blind follower of Obama.

Uncritical and unquestioning.

[billh58]

186. Again, attacking

me with hyperbole and childish accusations because I don't agree with you, does absolutely nothing to further your argument. The fact is, that I am not a "blind follower" of anyone (including you and your "anti" camp), and political support does not equate to cult-like subservience. I understand your views about President Obama, but I don't share them.

If your main objective is just to be angry and lash out at those who disagree with you, then your efforts are a complete waste of time and energy. If, on the other hand, your aim is to change minds and provide support for your point-of-view, you are going about it in a very strange, and unhelpful manner. Why not try using mature reason, calm debate, and provable fact rather than vitriol and name-calling?

[Ozymanithrax]

56. There is a difference between campaigning and governing...

Some of the decisons made by Democrats in General and Obama or the Senate specifically, I don't like. Some I do.

I don't feel let down because I recognize the difference between campaigning and governing.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Therefore, we should never believe the words of a politician running for President

because they will lie, cheat, and steal to get us to vote for them.

Okay.

[JohnnyLib2]

66. Welllllllll, it does help with realistic expectations!

Sorry, couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

[billh58]

78. There's that pesky black & white

thinking again which was popularized by "I don't do nuance" Dubya The Dunce.

Warning: too much reliance on the words "never," and "always," may be harmful to your mental health and/or detract from your credibility...;-)

[IndianaGreen]

89. There are only two things; you either tell the truth, or you don't

Many things are black and white: murder is always bad, as is torture.

[dionysus]

92. so now he was supposed to prefix everything with "i'll try to"? jeebus h christ....

Jesus himself could never win with you guys...
:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

96. Not voting is a legitimate option

for voters that no longer trust the political system.

[Hippo_Tron]

130. We should listen to what they say with a great deal of skepticism and ask questions

For example when somebody promises to pass an enormous piece of legislation in their first year, we might ask them "well how specifically do you plan to get that through congress in a year given the amount of opposition it will have?" The only reason they make unrealistic promises is because they expect us not to scrutinize their promises.

[IndianaGreen]

147. We need to stop voting for blue dogs and conservadems

and ignore those that say that a Republican would be worse. Blue dogs and conservadems are de facto Republicans. Voting for them is to vote against our class interests.

[Ozymanithrax]

149. No, we should understand that the President isn't an beneficient dictator...

In order to deliver he must get the House, the Senate, and Public opinion to back him.

NO matter what Robert Heinlein said, the best form of government is not a beneficient dictatorship. Ours is messy, but it works, and it gets better over time.

[boppers]

58. I think life is difficult for perfectionists.

Some perfectionists refuse to admit flaws, some refuse to accept anything having (and even needing) flaws.

It makes life hell on their friends, family, everyone around them to have to tolerate either their rampant denial, or insufferable constant critiquing.

[Clio the Leo]

112. the only thing worse....

.... is being a pragmatist and being surrounded by them. :)

[levander]

59. Same reason a blacks started opposing Vietnam before whites did...

When your treated well by an organization, it takes you much longer to realize it's shortcomings. (There was more racial tension in the 60's than there is now).

Go read about how public opinion started turning against the Vietnam war. It's very telling as to how Americans make up their mind about politics.

[SeattleGirl]

71. I you are referring to Obama, I don't feel let down.

No, he's not perfect, but then I never expected him to be.

[dionysus]

77. a simple fact, yet lost on so many here....

[SeattleGirl]

93. I think that some of the most disappointed/angry people

are those who either didn't want Obama in the first place, or who put their own expectations on him. But then, that's probably true of any politician, and any given group of people. They are always bound to be disappointed if they have done that.

[dionysus]

104. i tend to think it's the first sentence you typed.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

95. Agreed! I have been disappointed in Joe Lieberman actually well before 2000

As a matter of fact, Mary Landrieu has been a letdown as well. She was so cute when she was young.

[depakid]

97. As a more objective approach- one would have expected a law professor

to understand the importance of holding banksters, fraudsters, torturers and food poisoners accountable for repeated behaviors that have not only harmed so many people- but have shattered faith in government institutions

Unfortunately, this president in uninterested in this- preferring to use "constitutional duty" arguments to defend statutes that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or are otherwise an affront to civil liberties and limits on executive authority.

For ANY thinking person- left, right or center, this ought to be a disappointment.

[dionysus]

105. now he's in bed with "food poisoners"... jesus christ you guys make me laugh...

"he hates gays, and freedom!!11 any thinking person would agree!!!1!11!11"
:rofl:

[depakid]

115. Has anyone from Peanut Corp been prosecuted- despite mountains of evidence?

Nope.

The e-mails alone going back and forth between the CEO and management (many across state lines) as well as multiple -and rather egregious false statements made to federal officials (each one's a serious felony) militates prosecution.

But instead, they bankrupted the corporation- stiffed all those who they'd harmed and hid behind their corporate veil.

Meanwhile- the administration looks the other way, and cynical Americans like you make wisecracks.

Thanks for the post, though- as it'll be very important to be reminded over the next decade, that there are a lot of folks in the states that will deserve what they're well on their way to getting. Repeatedly.

[OhioBlue]

108. Do you really want to know why or are you just trolling for

anti-Obama sentiments?

Seriously?

Because... I will give you an absolute honest answer here. I was an Obama supporter from the primaries. Volunteered many hours to his campaign along with what little money I could. I was delighted and still am in his election - it was fantastic and the experience of being involved was something I will remember and cherish forever.

I don't agree with every appointment and decision he has made.. at all. But there are many, many appointments, decisions and statements that he has made that have made me proud. Now - back to the areas where I disagree with him..

Should I focus on those, start threads and belittle it to "where is the hope and change" type crap that is often posted on DU??? Fuck no. that makes me sick. I am proud of our President. I love that we fucking won and put an end to the abysmal failure of Republican rule,. Are we perfect? no. Do we have many miles of progress to pursue? yes. Can we discuss it on DU in a rational manner? Not so much lately with all the Obama haters, and that makes me sad. B/c I would love it if we could have an actual discussion about issues w/out vultures ready to pounce on anything that might be critical of our President with a "see, I told you so" type of 'tude.

[dionysus]

110. !

:patriot:

thank you.

[JohnnyLib2]

113. Agreed. But I don't see trolling--

I see (again) the faulty premise that remaining supportive of Obama is not a deliberate political stance, but somehow involves blind "cheerleading," etc. It's frustrating, to be polite. :banghead:

[OhioBlue]

120. very true.

I shouldn't have used "trolling". I think your assessment is more accurate. Some of us approach politics and political discussion from very different aspects.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

117. Your post carries an assumption that everyone has been let down by Obama, but some just

can't admit it.

That no one can legitimately claim not to be let down.

[last1standing]

119. I've learned my lesson with this thread.

Trying to make those who cannot see why the president has let many of us down, is a losing battle. If you feel that he has done absolutely nothing to let us down (which some here have stated) then you will certainly not listen to anything I have to say on the matter. Personally, I thought that most could agree that all politicians let us down, but the ones we should support are those who work to rectify their mistakes, not the ones who dig in deeper.

But once again, if someone absolutely feels that this president can do no wrong, there's little chance of having an honest discussion.

[boppers]

121. Do you have children, or know anybody raising them?

Should they stop supporting their children if they feel let down by them?

[billh58]

124. Well, there you go again

accusing those who disagree with you of being incapable of having an honest discussion. I can not find one single post in this entire thread where anyone said that they felt that "this president can do no wrong." The only battle that you are losing, is the one where you falsely assume that your views and opinions are absolutely infallible, and that those who disagree with you must be part of some evil conspiracy, or just too stupid to see and understand your version of the "truth."

One more time, what is actually being said is that more Liberal Democrats approve of President Obama's performance than disapprove, and that some of us here at DU are among that group. That is an honest, and provable (at least by current poll numbers) fact. That does NOT mean, or even imply, that your opinion and assessment in not valid from your very own perspective.

"Honest" debate requires at least two opposing points-of-view in order to proceed. If we all agreed, then there would be no need for discussion of any sort. I gave the reasons why I voted for, and continue to support, President Obama, and you have stated your reasons why you do not support him and his actions. I accept your position, while reserving the right to disagree with it. I did not call you any obnoxious names, nor question your sincerity, parentage, or patriotism, but you did question my honesty -- after calling for civil debate in your OP.

If we can all just step back and take the personal animosity out of the equation, along with the assumptions that only our own views are valid, perhaps we could arrive at agreement on a few things. Why not attempt to focus on those things that we have in common, rather than those hot-button issues which are certain to divide us. That is NOT a call for anyone to STFU about anything, including constructive criticism of President Obama -- it is a call for maturity, civility, and tolerance.

[JohnnyLib2]

133. Amen and amen.

[Hansel]

184. And Amen. nt

[Kaleva]

125. Going by the polls posted here, Obama has let down a few, not many, Democrats and liberals.

[vaberella]

129. Now you're playing the role of some martyr?! Pathetic.

[Laelth]

135. That is wise. They perceive this thread as an attack and respond accordingly.

They are not rational when it comes to this particular subject.

:dem:

-Laelth

[treestar]

173. Of course the President has done wrong

He's human.

You are incapable of anything but negativity.

You wanted a messiah. You got a human being.

God you're the stereotype of what the right wingers accuse of us being. For once I admit, right wingers, you are right. The OP indeed is what you said, someone who thought a politician was his Messiah, who thought that politician could do it all alone and who is indeed as lazy as you say liberals are.

[elana i am]

122. ok...

up front...i didn't vote for obama because he is not a progressive. i am not disappointed by obama because i did not have expectations of obama therefore i am pleasantly surprised at what he has been able to accomplish, especially given the circumstances he inherited.

Most of us learn early in life that nobody is perfect and sometimes everybody makes mistakes. Over time we learn that the best way to overcome a mistake that everybody sees is to admit to the mistake and move on.

i'm disappointed at his decision about afghanistan. i'm disappointed he's not doing more for gay rights. but here's the thing...i don't equate these disappointing decisions with betrayal and they don't make me disappointed in him. nor do i think these decisions make him an incompetent boob or a shyster. i'm a progressive, and i have principles, but i don't let my ideology get me all stoopid in the head. two things are required to successfully navigate the political realm - pragmatism and common sense. BOTH are in short supply around here lately.

If a politician fails to make good on campaign promises, is this the fault of his supporters? Do his supporters have an obligation to continue defending the politician even when he's let them down?

no and yes.

but there needs to be a little bit of pragmatism and a lot more common sense. what a candidate wants and what a candidate says is not always what a candidate is able to get. seriously, what idiot actually believes that a candidate can deliver 100% on all of his/her promises once they get elected? this is after all some semblance of a democracy, with built in "checks and balances". congress is going to weigh in on anything obama tries to do. and on the HCR reform the did. a lot. do i blame obama for not delivering on HCR the way he said? hells no! have you been paying attention at all?????

i was disappointed in obama's decision on afghanistan, but he never said he would get out of there, just iraq. he's the president so he's also privy to important info i don't have. i had hoped he would change his mind once he was in office but i like to give politicians who show no sign of being corrupted scum the benefit of the doubt. we don't see eye to eye on things, but i have no reason to doubt obama's sincerity on anything.

so, c'mon, lets stop pretending that campaign promises are anything more than very helpful platitudes (i said platitudes, NOT lies), designed to give you an indication of your candidate's beliefs. there's no doubt in my mind that obama believed in his HCR. but there's also no doubt in my mind that it was an impossible goal from the getgo. "candidate a did not deliver on campaign promises = candidate a is a two-faced liar" is a theory i reject. i also reject the theory that every single politican is so crooked they are all bought off by corporate interests.

Wouldn't it be more sensible, more healthy, for people to take a more objective approach to politicians? Doesn't it make sense for us - the people who elect politicians to represent us - to speak up when a politician lets us down?

write letters. call. do something constructive. temper tantrums, pity parties, heaping scorn, stomping feet and getting huffy is not. this is democratic underground therefore it's not wrong to expect that if you are here you are still ultimately supportive of democratic candidates even when they disappoint you. well...it's become awful hard for me to tell around here these days who's just disappointed, who needs to move on to somewhere else and who's a straight up a troll.

Is it wise to treat a politician - a grown person who chose to run for election by promising certain things - as if he were a beloved child who can do no wrong? Wouldn't it be better to continue to insist that the politician fulfill all his campaign promises?

no, and yes, where applicable. obama was dreaming big with HCR. but with congress such as it is right now, the public option was not going to happen. even i didn't expect repugs to turn into the borg. i thought for sure at least a few of them would do the right thing. *sigh* i don't expect much big reform will happen until there's a shift in congress and more progressives are elected. and now i know repugs are a lost cause.

i will continue to write and call, but i'm a pragmatist and i know better than to set myself up with expectations. obama might be able to keep all his campaign promises if he can figure out how to herd cats. until then it ain't gonna happen and that's just the reality of the situation.

[FrenchieCat]

123. I'm feeling pretty good, myself.

Perhaps because I set expectations for others,
as I set them for myself,
cause the good Lord knows,
I'm not perfect enough to expect
the most from anyone else.....

But of course,
whatever makes one's boat float!


We’re Still Closing Gitmo
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/white-house-to-lieberman-and-repubicans-sorry-were-still-closing-gitmo/


White House Releases Name Of Every Visitor For First Time Ever
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/white-house-releases-name-of-every-visitor-for-first-time-ever.php?ref=fpblg


Obama's Smart Sex Education Funding
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/28/obama-s-smart-sex-education-funding.aspx


Obama Administration Looking Out for Labor in 2010
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/12/29/101312/85



Jobless Claims Fall Unexpectedly as Layoffs Ease - lowest level since July 2008 in sign of recovery
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9454580


Senate approves Lubinski, nation’s first gay U.S. Marshal
http://minnesotaindependent.com/52601/senate-approves-lubinski-nations-first-gay-u-s-marshal


Obama Curbs Secrecy of Classified Documents (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/politics/30secrets.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics



Progress in Pres. Obama’s Goal of Ending Child Hunger by 2015
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7336540



President Obama announces new rules for electronic health records
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/politics/30secrets.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics



Obama Quietly Changes U.S. Immigration Policy
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=f35b300ec73d76f7ccc97e547a14056a



Obama, HUD Announce $1.4 Billion For Homeless Assistance Programs
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/politics/30secrets.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics



President Obama - Most Admired Man In America in 2009
http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2009-12-30-1Apoll30_ST_U.htm?csp=34



Five notable bills from '09
http://www.congress.org/news/2009/12/28/five_notable_bills_from_09?all=1


But as we all know;



Obama takes the heat Bush did not
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091230/pl_politico/31049

[lamp_shade]

132. Whoa... hold on there. You're asking for a thoughtful response?

... A thoughtful response? To this? Are you serious?

[secondwind]

138. last1standing, you sound very pessimistic, chill out! It's only been one year! Sheesh.

[mmonk]

139. The message control persons I doubt will be thoughtful.

But who knows?

[mstinamotorcity]

140. Ok what is it you want?

You want him to keep his promises. Are we going back to adolescent days when daddy told you he was going to buy you that shiny new bike on friday,but his paycheck was short that week and you couldn't get it.I don't seem to get what you are saying.See some of us have not seen delay in some campaign promises as a disappointment.We look at it as an opportunity to see the obstructionist for who they are,that won't allow an agenda that is in the best interest of the people.This is the way we can see the road blocks to clear the way for our politicians so that the peoples agenda can move forward. Last1standing you didn't mention any names in your op,are you speaking of anyone in particular?

[freddie mertz]

141. It's only difficult because the disappointment has been so great.

What I do not understand is how people can insist there has been no back-pedaling on key issues.

Cause there has been.

[JohnnyLib2]

143. There has been some backpedaling. And beyond that,

I'll be working on D campaigns in our primary this year--trying to the seat sometimes kept warm by Sen. Bunning.

The pigeon-holing these days is just plain irritating; I for one don't fit the hole!

[billh58]

156. And there again

is the disconnect: no one has said that there has not been "backpedaling" (although I would use the term "reality-based compromise"). What I AM saying is that I did not expect President Obama to be able to follow through on his wish list (the use of the word "promise," I believe is disingenuous, and a bit naive, as I do not recall ever being directly "promised" anything by ANY politician) within his first year, or even his first term. I did not vote for President Obama, nor do I continue to support him, based on his campaign speeches. I voted for him, and continue to support him because he is a capable leader, has respect for our Constitution, and represents my view of a president for the people -- ALL of the people.

It is okay to criticize, rant, feel unfulfilled, and to call for whatever action you feel may be justified (within the Rules of DU). It is NOT okay to assume that those of us who disagree with your assessment of President Obama, and who do NOT feel "let down," are idiots who "just don't get it." We get what you are saying, and we get the depth of your anger. What we don't get is your assumption that those don't jump on your anger-train, and wave your flag of righteous indignation, are somehow intellectually challenged, or not paying attention.

Both supporters and detractors of President Obama can co-exist on DU, but only if we tone down the anger, and let go of the confrontational bullshit. If we continue to play into our opponent's hands, and further divide ourselves, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we lose this opportunity to further the Liberal cause in this country. There IS strength in unity, and in keeping our "eyes on the prize."

And lastly, in my opinion where we really need to focus our anger, and efforts, is on the combined Congress, beginning with the reform of term limits, and campaign financing. That is where the bad sausage and the nasty smell is coming from. Just imagine a Congress where the Joe Liebermans and Ben Nelsons would be long gone after two terms, and never allowed back. Imagine the confusion on K Street when lobbying became a lost art. Imagine a Liberal America where our political representatives actually cared about the People more than the money. Sigh...

[bvar22]

144. Why do I feel disappointed?

Watch THIS clip from the campaign, and TRY to count the "misleading" statements:

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



Black is White.
War is Peace.
I did not run on a Public Option.

[Phx_Dem]

146. Because I don't feel let down. At all.

[jenmito]

148. Maybe some of us KNEW that nobody's perfect when we voted for whomever

we voted for. It seems to me that only those who DID expect perfection would feel let down. :shrug:

[winyanstaz]

150. Well we had such high hopes..its hard to turn lose of a dream

It's sad.

[mitchtv]

152. well, he was a blank slate,

and everyone put their "hopes" in the vacant box marked "place your hopes here".I saw this coming. The Gays found out first, then women,then environmentalists, next comes unions

[Odin2005]

153. Cult of personality.

I admit, I fell for it for a long time.

[Splinter Cell]

154. He didn't let me down.

I didn't have my head up my ass during the election. I listened to what Obama said he was going to do in office, and voted for him. So far, he has done his best to live up to everything he said.

Why is it so difficult for some of us to admit that we expect too much and don't live in reality and can't be pleased?

The fact is, I don't give a shit if people want to spend all their time bitching. We have a GREAT president, who is honest and working his ass off for our country, and I'm happy about that. If others would rather cry, bitch, and sob, then so be it. I don't give a shit.

Quite frankly, I can't figure out what the problem is. Eight years of the worst president in history, and now a fine president, that is worthy of the job and attacking things head on. If that's not good enough for some folks, then it's their problem and their fault and they need to fix it.

[Dream Girl]

155. I don't feel "let down" whatsoever.

I know what he's up against. Could you do better? It's all about realistic expectations. I never expected Obama to wave his magic want and change things overnight. It's the spoiled brats "want it when I want it now" who are expressing poutrage. Apparently they thought he could and should change the world overnight.

[depakid]

164. Thanks again

as I posted upthread- in watching the nation decline over the next decade, it's important to be reminded that there are those who deserve consequences of poor policy public choices- and the corruption that "spoiled brats" warned them about.

[DevonRex]

158. Some of us are smart enough to realize that he's got 2/3 of Congress AGAINST

what he campaigned on and would like to have happen. First, you have the Repukes. Then you have the Blue Dogs. Then you have the Dems in Congress who are beholden to special interests. It's simple math. It's reality.

No matter how liberal a president is, until those numbers turn around change will be slow and incremental.

[LWolf]

160. Gang loyalty provides identity for those who can't provide their own.

A harsh response, but one I believe to be true.

You ask some good questions.

My response is but one of numerous probable answers.

[Dinger]

187. Sums It Up Pretty Well

Spot on as usual LWolf.:)

[mzmolly]

161. Perhaps because some of us haven't been let down?

Many people understand that our political reality isn't about perfection. It's about progress ... or not.

[CakeGrrl]

165. Why do you care what others admit?

This sounds a lot like 'Why aren't you as disappointed as I am?'

Not everyone IS. I myself have said repeatedly that I'll see where things stand further in his term before I draw conclusions. I think that's far more reasonable than angry calls for a primary challenger at this stage.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

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

[shadesofgray]

170. ITA . It is not difficult for me at all. I see a lot of Obama supporters using the same arguments

I saw Bush supporters using to defend Bush.

When Obama does the complete opposite of what he promised during the campaign, I feel betrayed by him and I will not defend him.

[treestar]

171. Your first paragraph belies your second

Politicians are human and imperfect, so how can they "let us down?" We knew they could only do they best they humanly could, which was human, or course.

[jeanpalmer]

175. A better question is

why do people put themselves in the position where a politician can let them down? Surely they realize the politician is bought and paid for by the MIC and serves its interests. So why do they feel letdown? If people were to adopt this common sense attitude, they would realize nothing a politician does is a "mistake."

[DutchLiberal]

178. People who say they don't feel 'let down', are either lying or not paying attention.

Have a homophobic priest perform at his inauguration.

Appointing Geitner and Summers. Appointing Emmanuel. Appointing Iran-Contra criminal and Bush-administration-veteran Gates.

Championing public option, supporting Senate bill without public option, lying he ever championed a public option.

Renewing Patriot Act.

Continuing 'extraordinary rendition'. Continuing to imprison terror suspects for an indefinite period of time without trial.

Escalating the war in Afghanistan.

Not overturning any of the Bush-legislation.


If you are NOT disappointed by Obama, you're either not paying attention at all, or you value your own pride over principles because you don't want to admit it.

[stray cat]

179. The same reason some seem to expect a politician to do nothing but please them

as if they were the most important and only constituent in the entire world and everyone else was irrelevant trash

[Peacetrain]

189. Did you have anyone specific in mind? With the exception of Lieberman.. I am not disappointed

[Orsino]

190. Because success and failure are rarely unalloyed.

Most "utter failures" aren't as utter as some spin would have us believe. The HCR bills headed toward the White House contains successes as well, and most of us can reasonably claim to have been for those good things.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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