It seems that many would prefer that Obama be a liberal version of Bush. Governing for 23%

[Aramchek]

Running things as the most extreme members of his base would have it, and saying screw you to the other 3/4 of the Country.

Sure, Bush was able to engage in some Neo-con fantasies(starting wars, giving tax breaks, torturing, etc.)
But he made very little lasting progress for his cause.
Why?
Because he has become an example of what not to do in the eyes of the World. And the things he did do are gradually being erased.
He was a failure as President.

Obama is trying to make progress that will last for generations rather than being erased the next time there is a Repuke majority in Congress(though I pray this never happens).

Obama is dealing with reality rather than fantasy.
He is trying to work for the needs of the many, rather than the demands of a few.

The change he achieves will remain and be remembered because of the benefits it provides for the majority of Americans.
Healthcare Reform, Climate Change action, Financial reform, Nuclear disarmament and Ending the Wars of Bush will be just a few of the achievements that help millions of Americans, living and yet to be born.

Obama is not like George Bush in any way.
He is no Partisan-in-Chief.
He is a President for all of the People.
And he will succeed...

[TheWraith]

1. Can I be the first to offer a "hell yeah"?

Seems a lot of people here have forgotten the lessons of the Bush years, and think that the only thing that was wrong with the imperial presidency is that we weren't the ones in control of it.

[stray cat]

2. Many like democracy in name only - dictatorships with themselves at the helm

now that ROCKS!

[NJmaverick]

10. Until the next glorious "people's" revolution

:-) :hi:

[rockymountaindem]

3. Except that he hasn't achieved any of those things yet. You're counting your chickens

and all we've got is a bunch of eggs. He's not going to achieve them, IMHO, by trying to play nice with those opposed to change. We need to see some perfectly legal and legitimate old-fashioned Congressional arm-twisting before anything really gets moving. I understand that our system is built to stymie rapid movement, but that's no excuse for allowing Senators like Lieberman and Nelson to go around thinking there will be no consequences for their obstruction. That's no excuse for Obama not putting the squeeze on Reid somehow.

What we need is a President with the mind of Obama and the attitude of LBJ. We've got the first one, but we need to see if we've got the other one. "Consensus building" with corporate stooges isn't going to work. I'd say it's time for our President to start playing by *their* rules.

[nosmokes]

16. EXACTLY

And even as the GOPosse spoon feeds him runny shit while smiling, O continues to talk bipartisanship even though Snowe is the only republican that publicly has even acted human in the HCR processs. And did the BUSHCo war crimes just suddenly dissappear when O took office? because all those heartfelt promises about seeking truth and justice and the American way AFTER the election, well, those dissappeared too. funny, no? NO.


Obama is a great politician and statesman. but he could use some of Bush's testosterone. After 8 years of Clinton's Republican lite and then12 years of BUSHCO, We NEED a president governing for the 33% that are the liberal base. And you can bet your sweet bippy w/ 10% unemployment nationally, we have folks on our side w/ the right leadership.

FCOL, NIXON is gonna end up w/ a record more liberal than the last two Dem Presidents. Chew on that.

[paulk]

81. well said

[countingbluecars]

4. Good post..

K&R

[timeforpeace]

5. Might be that he seems to be a liberal Bush and they are objecting to that. War escalation for

example.

[NJmaverick]

29. How is he like Bush exactly? The example you give is not a particularly good one

as Bush neglected Afghanistan for 6 years so that every gain earned by our soldiers were lost.

[timeforpeace]

62. Excellent point. The OP tried to ignore that Obama is acting like a liberal Bush now. He failed.

[BklnDem75]

79. Did you just agree with yourself?

I guess that happens when you're the only one who believes your own crap.

[Diane R]

6. Fabulous Post.

[NanceGreggs]

7. So true ...

It does seem that a lot of people wanted another cowboy in the Oval Office - just one wearing a white hat this time around.

After eight years of W and his posse, I've had enough of cowboys to last a lifetime.

[NJmaverick]

22. I second that!

We need a thinker in the White House

[firedupdem]

76. +1 So true. n/t

[NJmaverick]

8. A very balanced and thoughtful post

you correctly point out that Obama is the anti-Bush in EVERY way.

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. The 23% are advocating for the 99%.

That's something to keep in mind. This isn't some game, where both sides deserve consideration. ONE side of this perpetrated this disaster on the other side. Balance in this case is unconscionable.

"The right thing" here isn't so hard to figure out. And the 23% are in the mood they are, to get that done. Triage. THAT'S reality. It doesn't GET more real than that.

[Aramchek]

12. are you sure? some of the 23% already seem ready to dump Obama

and with him, the best chance we have had of doing anything for the 99% in decades

[tavalon]

19. Nope, I'm kicking his ass because he said he would be better than he has actually been

He said we need to make him do what's right. That is so fucked up, but since he has told us he's incapable of using his spine, I'm going to kick his ass until that spine grows. It's not just a good idea, it's what he said he wanted.

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. I think the 23% are only feeling the urgency

and Obama should too. That said, it doesn't justify self-destructive positions such as not voting, or 24/7 cynicism, or failing to credit the good that's done.

I just see where some of the more agressive 23% are coming from, and why. It can become over-the-top, I agree, but the 23% are not the problem, they're to a large degree the solution. And ignored too much so far by this administration, I might add.

[Odin2005]

25. The Bolsheviks used the same reasoning.

"the vanguard party" and all that BS. :eyes:

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. That's bullshit, Aramchek. A MAJORITY of Americans (not "23%") want real HC reform & ending the wars

What Obama's critics want is for Obama to fight for the MAJORITY of Americans, and to stand true to his values, which are shared by the MAJORITY, rather than compromising with the corporatist status quo.

For you to suggest that his critics are advocating that Obama represent the values of a 23% minority is not only wrong, but it is insulting.

[Aramchek]

13. the 23% want their exact demands or nothing

They want Single Payer or nothing.
They want full withdrawal from Afghanistan or nothing.

They are willing to fight against Obama if he doesn't appease their demands.
Call him a One-Term President or Obama=Bush, etc.

In fact, the number is probably much lower than 23%. Probably closer to 10%.

[tavalon]

21. It's hard staying optimistic when he's looking more and more like a slightly darker Big Dog

but we are still here and still sending the letters and expressing our anger at his waffling, middle of the road, bipartisanship for who knows what reason, crap. If he stops spewing Republican lite stuff, the love fest will begin again. He could be awesome. He sounded for all purposes, beyond awesome as a candidate. We're choosing to keep his feet to the fire. I'm sorry if that bugs you. Actually, I'm not sorry. Your feelings in this are really not all that important.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. It is important to note

That DU is indeed not a microcosm of the American electorate. Just because there is a lot of push back here doesnt mean there is everywhere else. The majority of Americans still support our President. I think your OP is tilting windmills.

[Aramchek]

38. agreed, the haters here don't represent the Majority of Democrats

and I'm not tilting at the 'Windmills', just questioning their purpose

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. You are right about one thing. . . . . .

Those critics who want things exactly their way or nothing are much lower than 23%.

In fact, those who want all or nothing is a miniscule % of Obama's progressive critics.

The great majority of Obamsa's critics (disregarding the rabid RW) want Obama
to fight for his values, which are shared by the majority of Americans, rather than dressing corporatism in the progressive rhetoric of "reform".

To say that these critics want "all or nothing" is just wrong.



Specifically, the great majority of Single Payer supporters were willing to support a public option plan. It was only when the plan became so compromised that the rhetoric of "public option" became political cover for corporate welfare (not to mention innumerable other corporate victories in the bill) that these critics realized they had be betrayed.

Similarly, the great majority of antiwar Americans have been willing to bend over backwards to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in bringing these wars of choice to a close. It was only after Obama chose a deliberate path of escalation (and months after escalation had begun) that conscientious opponents of war had a similar epiphany.




The fact is, Obama's Democratic critics ARE NOT THE ONES demanding "all or none".

The ones demanding "all or none" are his sycophantic cheerleaders.

The reality is that if Democrats loyal to American Democratic values make any criticism at all of administration policy, they are immediately accused by the cheerleaders of demanding "all or none."







Glenn Greenwald recently astutely observed a major difference between progressives and conservatives (the willingness to level constructive criticism when a leaders make poor policy decisions.)

It seems perhaps ironic for you to assert that progressives who criticize Obama based upon substance are of the same ilk of those who would like "another Bush", when it is the compulsive cheerleader "supporters" of Obama that is fact bear more than a little resemblance to the uncritical Bushbots that were willing to blindly follow their dear leader literally to the gates of hell.

[xynthee]

34. Well said!

:applause:

[NYC_SKP]

59. The percentage among these who are name-calling Obama-bashing types is "wee".

Great post, K and R, interesting how few recs are showing.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. That is exactly how I see it . nt

[Algorem]

14. he's bush pretending to be a liberal

[Aramchek]

17. case in point. QED

[NJmaverick]

30. That comment is meaningless without explanation

[jenmito]

18. "He is trying to work for the needs of the many, rather than the demands of a few."

Thank you. K&R.

[slay]

23. No, we want him to do THE RIGHT THING - you know, like no more wars, REAL health care, end DADT

you know - the right thing - a concept you are clearly unaquainted with. I refuse to continue to vote and support Dems who are really Republican-lite. I'll leave that up to you.

[NJmaverick]

28. So let me get this straight. YOU have the monopoly on what is "right"

and if they don't share your view of the world they must be a "Republican-lite" Sorry I don't share your Bush like moral certainty.

[nosmokes]

44. it's what the man said he would do.

change!

I'm waiting.

I hear lots of pretty speeches.

I don't see much change.

I'm waiting for Iraq to be US GI free.Waiting for Gitmo to be closed. Waiting for war crimes to be vigorously investigated and war criminals prosecuted to the fullest; Waiting for DADT t end, which takes the stroke of his pen; Waiting for him to show some fucking leadership on HCR instead of having secret meets w/ Pharma;Waiting ffor real reform in environmental policy instead of Monsanto execs and other corporate foxes getting put in charge of the very agencies that are supposed to regulate their industry;I'm still waiting that promised CHANGE, but it was just another fucking pol looking me in the eye and w/ no compunction whatsoever as he drank the corporate kool-aid lying his sorry ass off.

But I'm waiting.

[slay]

56. Dude I told you what I thought "right" is - if YOU like escalating wars and selling out health care

I'd say you're the one with the Bush-like mentality. Sheesh. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

26. What do you expect? They don't want the Rule of Law, they want a Chavez.

[Faryn Balyncd]

32. So, Odin2005, if you criticize a corporate welfare HC "reform" you "don't want the rule of law" ?

[treestar]

86. No, you don't want the rule of law because you don't want it to

come from the system, which is the elected "corporatists" (your cynicism). If the system doesn't give you the health care you want, you blame Obama as if he had the power to just decree it. You're what the right said we were: worshipers of a Messiah. When he didn't deliver exactly what you asked, you were "betrayed." Because a messiah would have ordered it as you asked and it would be perfect.

[Faryn Balyncd]

33. & if you criticize an endless occupation/escalation that means you "want a Chavez"? Where did you

...learn your smear-mongering, Odin2005, from Karl Rove?

[ima_sinnic]

77. no, we DO want the "rule of law"--that's why the "leftbaggers" are upset

you see, massive war crimes are against the law.
the President of the United States swears to uphold the law; it is the DUTY of the President to ensure that the Rule of Law is upheld.
the current president is not upholding the rule of law, in fact, his administration is opposing it. Any effort to bring the war criminals to justice is met with resistance and secrecy. In fact, this administration is actively pursuing NOT bringing these criminals to justice.

so what were you blathering about the "rule of law"? Do you even know what you're talking about? And what the hell does "Chavez" have to do with anything? Are you implying that Hugo Chavez is a dictator who does his own thing outside the laws of Venezuela and the Venezuelan constitution? And if so, why would anyone want that?

Your post is just weird and hints of someone with a terrible cognitive dissonance problem.

[treestar]

85. What efforts have been made to bring these war criminals to justice

Do you really think a case can be made against them in an instant? It would take years.

With the economy like this, it's just not what everyone wants to spend tons of energy on. I'd rather have a healthcare bill than a prosecution of Darth - he's going to die of having no heart soon anyway. He's away from the levers of power where he could do damage.

[ima_sinnic]

87. um, I'm thinking of the ACTIVE resistance by this administration to any effort

not just a matter of "slowly working on it," but any opportunity, such as a court case, is handled from the exact opposite side of what it should be, with much effort.

and it's not just "darth"--all of them have been infesting our halls of government for more than 30 years, and they will continue to do so until those halls crumble from the corruption, incompetency, and plundering.

[treestar]

90. The court cases they have to defend

Like a search warrant case. The government defends the cops' right to search while the defendant argues the cops had no right to search. The courts decide. That does not make the government attorneys evil fascists. They are simply making the case that the search warrant was valid or that the search did not require a warrant. In some cases, the courts may find them to be right. Likewise any government employee being sued. it's about a legal issue. Hate Cheney all you want, but a legal case has to be made, and yes, he will have a right to defense from the government, because he was acting in a government capacity. Then it'll be how dare Obama defend Cheney!

Or if you mean direct criminal charges then believe it or not, even Cheney will be entitled to a day in court. The government will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That will mean admissible evidence. Darth and his lawyers will tie it all up and complicate it to death and he'll be dead long before it could be resolved.

So I say pay attention to what the people need and let Darth die a natural death.

[ima_sinnic]

93. right--gee, how have other countries EVER managed to bring war criminals to justice?

I mean, it's sooo impossible, and would take so long, why bother?
far easier to let the criminals continue to walk the earth and put pot smokers in prison. And then people wonder why there is no respect for the law (what law?).
And I don't buy that BS about "having to defend the war criminals." I can't remember the specifics, but there have been more than one case where "the government" went out of its way to oppose rulings. It could have said nothing and let those rulings stand, but no, that would upset the status quo and the MIC and PTB would not be happy about that. No, best to cover everything up and violate the law by not enforcing it.

[treestar]

108. If you don't like the rule of law

Because it is too slow and prefer "other countries" methods - then I don't know what to say. The U.S. goes by the rule of law.

[tekisui]

31. You sound like you are making excuses.

[Aramchek]

36. on the contrary, I am stating the obvious.

[NJmaverick]

67. Stating a reasoned opinion is not the same as making excuses

[Kermitt Gribble]

35. Governing for 23%??

Show me 1 policy that the left is pushing for that would not benefit the vast majority of US citizens.

[tekisui]

37. Or 1 policy that the left is pushing that has less than 23%

support.

This OP is weak apologia.

[Aramchek]

40. how are you going to explain your stolid opposition to Obama, when he succeeds?

[tekisui]

41. I do not oppose Obama.

I oppose *some* of his policies.

I still challenge you to find a cause championed by the left that doesn't have greater than 23% support. Although staunch liberals may only poll at 23%, the policies that liberals support, taken one at a time have far greater support.

Your OP blurs that distinction.

[Aramchek]

39. the problem is not pushing for progress, it is in thinking your way is the only way

and fighting against anything that doesn't meet your standard

[tekisui]

42. You got it wrong. It is not fighting against anything that

doesn't meet our standard. It is fighting for our standard, which is often the standard supported by the majority of Democrats, and often even the majority of the American people.

[Aramchek]

48. so you aren't fighting against Obama's Afghanistan plan?

face it, you think withdrawal is the only way, and you don't consider anything else.

[shirlden]

63. And you think O's plan

is the only way and don't consider anything else???


:hi: I am so confused. There really can be some grey between total withdrawal and escalation.

[Aramchek]

71. Obama's plan is the grey. It's not withdrawal, but it's not the 80,000 troops the Generals wanted

[Kermitt Gribble]

43. Is that not our duty

as US citizens to push our govt in the direction we feel is right? To speak up when we feel our govt is wrong? Those are core principles of our system of govt - well, before it was taken over by the corporations, anyway.

[Aramchek]

49. there's a difference in trying to influence Obama and calling him Bush because he doesn't please you

[tekisui]

73. Yeah, and most people here have never made that claim.

Get over yourself and your faux outrage of other posters. It is misdirected and not constructive.

[depakid]

45. Along with being about the shallowest, least informed sycophantic apologia I've read in a while

it does give one some small solace to know that the author will learn- and deserve to learn, the hard way about the consequences of failing to enact and implement responsible policies.

[Armstead]

46. You're not being "reality based"

heh

[QC]

47. Or "pragmatic."

Lordy how I have grown to hate that word!

[depakid]

58. One would think the pragmatic thing to do is support popular policies

and harness the majority of the electorate -using populist resentment and people's anxieties to counter the corporate money and propaganda that's increasingly falling on deaf ears.

Indeed- after http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission comes down- this will become a problem solving imperative, rather than the simply the most effective way forward.

[QC]

60. Well, that would be the actual meaning of pragmatism.

But around here it has become a euphemism for "I'll settle for any scrap the big boys are willing to throw me."

[NJmaverick]

66. echo chamber anyone?

:shrug:

[QC]

80. Pedantic twit, anyone? n/t

[timeforpeace]

88. No shit. Well, that one knows an echo chamber from first hand experience.

[Aramchek]

51. you aren't in any position to teach anyone anything.

and you seem even less capable of learning.
I doubt you will even accept it when Obama does succeed.
You have been against him from the beginning.

[NJmaverick]

65. He thinks he is brilliant, so brilliant he doesn't even need facts

[NJmaverick]

64. yet more claptrap

:boring:

[mcablue]

50. OP is vague. Does not make his point clear. Lacks knowledge of public polling

As bad as Bush's policies were, many more than 23% of Americans (sadly but true) supported torture in some cases. Americans also believe (erroneously) and believed back then, that tax breaks were a good thing, although economists know this is not the case.

Starting wars wasn't something that 23% of the population supported. A majority supported the Iraq war, let alone the Afghanistan war. What most Americans opposed was the handling of the war after a certain time, when it all became chaos.

We are not told which are the issues that are supported by 23% or less of the population that the Left is pursuing. Neither does he say what approach should be taken regarding the issues in which the Left coincides with the majority of Americans.

[Aramchek]

52. I think you understand exactly what I'm saying.

You just don't like it when anyone shines a light on what's happening.

[mcablue]

53. Then why aren't you linking to polls?

You cited a specific #: 23%; but you didn't provide examples of the issues that allegedly are supported by only 23% of the population.

I would love it if you "shined a light on what's happening." But you just didn't.

[Aramchek]

54. Bush governed for the 23% who consistently supported him

The Far Left who I doubt even adds up to 23% (Probably closer to 10-15%)
are trying to force Obama to govern exactly as they would have it.

He will not bow to their demands, so they piss and moan, call him Bush or a One-Term President, and consistently deride everything he does.

That's what's happening.
Do you deny this?

[NJmaverick]

68. The OP offers some good facts

and I would challenge your Iraq war sentiment since it was based on lies provided by the Bush administration, so you shouldn't have used it.

[mcablue]

75. He cited zero polls about tax breaks, torture, or anything he mentioned

And you are talking about him having used "facts"? Please.

He simply typed "tax breaks," "torture," etc. without mention what percentage of the population supported those things.

[Enrique]

55. those accomplishments you predict are all very partisan

health care, climate change, financial reform, nuclear disarmament, ending the wars. Not my idea of bipartisan support for these.

If he sells out every single one of them, then it could be rationalized that they were too partisan, too Bush-like.

No, his "reasonable", "bipartisan" accomplishment will be the privatization of public education.

[mkultra]

57. OABMA IS A RW ROBOT

manchurian candidate who let 911 happen to get into the white house.

[spoony]

61. The right does not, and will not ever, like him.

I think he, and you, and frankly everyone will be better off once he figures that out and decides to dance with who brought him. We have parties because we want the people we vote in to enact certain agendas, not to act like they're fucking Fox News by pretending everyone's ideas deserve equal consideration while skewing rightward.

Caving in to the right is not being above partisanship, it's just caving in.
And if you don't want people comparing Obama to Bush, maybe you shouldn't start off by comparing liberals to right wing extremists.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Ah now we are extremists.

For opposing PermaWar?

For being disgusted with a corrupt and nearly meaningless health care deform?

For opposing the continuation of almost all of the policies and programs of the former regime?

Yeah we are extremists. In rightwing looney toons 21st Century America, this 'extreme left' dares to promote universal healthcare, respect for human rights, and a foreign policy that does not involve a permanent and violent garrison of the entire planet. How radical.

[Aramchek]

70. no, for serving as a stumbling block to the best President this Country has had in decades

[Warren Stupidity]

72. We are the stumbling block?

What administration efforts has this 'extreme left' you go on about blocked?

[ima_sinnic]

74. oh, I didn't know that AFFORDABLE, AVAILABLE health care was such a minority concern

I did not realize that such a vast a majority of Americans actually value the profits of insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers over their own health and are eager to be forced to buy overpriced "health insurance" for at least half their wages that will not cover much unless they add even more money.

I did not realize that the vast majority of Americans are cool with war crimes--I mean, they do love Bush so much and really do not want to see him and his buddies who robbed them blind, illegally spied on them, jailed some of them for no real reason, tortured in their names, started illegal and unnecessary wars on their dime and at the expense of their children's lives and the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis--I mean, only a small minority believe that war crimes should be punished--most Americans WANT the same people who perpetrated Watergate, Iran-Contra, and "Bush's wars" to walk among them and be their "public servants."

I did not realize that ALMOST ALL Americans want gay people to go away, much less have "equal rights."

I also didn't know that a huge majority of Americans want marijuana to continue to be illegal so their sons, daughters, and spouses can be put in jail for possession of a naturally occurring, god-given weed.

Since I have been advised of my mistake regarding the true desires of the American people, I will work my hardest to make sure their desires are met by continuing to vote for "democrats." I swear never to vote for someone like Dennis Kucinich, a nutty leftbagger who caters only to "extreme elements" (i.e., scruffy, unshaven, Birkenstock-wearing (even in winter), undesirable, socialist kooks).

[Ganja Ninja]

78. Oh yes! Hooray! He's standing up to his base.

Way to support all those people that didn't vote for you Mr. President.:yourock: :applause: :woohoo: :headbang: :fistbump: :loveya:

:hangover: :eyes:

[paulk]

82. iow

sit down and shut up




Obama - Love it or Leave it

[Aramchek]

84. how does that bitter taste?

[paulk]

100. you know what?

you are just about the biggest idiot on this board

my god

the stupid just never stops

you can't even be clever with your insults

LOL!

[bvar22]

83. Your premise if faulty.

*Ending the WARS

*A REAL Public Option "like Medicare"

*Bailing out Main Street instead of Wall Street

*Decreasing Military Spending

*Bottom UP instead of Trickle Down Stimulus and Jobs programs

*Less "Free Trade" and MORE Job protection

*Less outsourcing and insourcing, and MORE jobs for Americans

..are ALL supported by way more than 23% of The Left.



"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

[timeforpeace]

89. Exactly. The whole thing is knowingly based on a false premise. And it failed.

[bvar22]

91. Let me repeat that:

"...knowingly based on a false premise."

Goodness, THAT is the definition of propaganda.

[Aramchek]

96. and yet you guys show up to prove the very point I made in the OP

thanks for being my living, screaming evidence

[ima_sinnic]

97. you need to explain that, because it makes no sense at all (nt)

[Aramchek]

98. you would have Obama govern as Bush did. you prove my premise.

[bvar22]

104. Another faulty premise.

Calling you on your bullshit made-up propaganda somehow proves your original bullshit faulty premise?

:rofl:
Thanks for the laugh.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. No. Liberals knew that Obama was no liberal. Many of us voted for him anyway.

We all knew that he was going to send troops to Afghanistan. We supported him anyway. We knew that he was lukewarm on the gay rights agenda; we supported him anyway. We knew that he was vague on support for a single payer health care system; we supported him anyway. He invited Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation; we supported him anyway. He surrounded himself with DLC corporatists and Republican appeasers. We still support him. He refused to pursue criminal investigations against the Bush administration's war crimes. We support him still. His administration extended key provisions of the FISA Law and Patriot Act. And still we support him. He has been duplicitous on some climate issues (e.g., off-shore drilling). We support him still. Most offensive of all. Out of all the constituencies that have been invited to the policy making table, the liberals/progressives have been left out every time.

So, I don't understand what you want from us. We're not asking Obama to be a liberal; we're requesting that he at least be open to listening to our side and not asking us to further compromise in order to appease the Republicans the DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats, to our detriment.

And of course, he is the president of all people. But "all people" includes liberals/progressives...his most loyal of constituencies. When the Blue Dogs turn their backs on him and side with the Republicans, the liberals/progressives will have his back. When the DLCers scream about deficits even before the stimulus has had a chance to work, the liberals/progressives will be yelling right back that the stimulus IS working but that its key provisions have not been implemented yet.

Again, the president is the president of ALL PEOPE, but please stop marginalizing his most loyal supporters: THE LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES!!!!!

[ima_sinnic]

94. I won't make that mistake again--he obviously does not want or need my vote (nt)

[budkin]

103. I will vote Dem over Puke any day of the year... but I won't be excited about it

[branders seine]

95. well, that would be an improvement over the conservative version fo bush

we've gotten so far...

[swilton]

99. There is merit for not being 'The Great Decider' a la Bush

Having said that, the only problem with your argument is that for most progressives and for even most of the country, Bush was leading the country in the wrong direction vis a vis foreign policy, the economy and the environment.

Perhaps other DUers have the figures - at the time of the election the majority of Americans wanted the Afghanistan war to end - to date it is closer to 50/50 -
the majority of Americans want the public option in health care
the majority of Americans want bailouts for Main Street and not Wall Street

Obama who promissed to run on change has not brought dramatic change from the way things were done in the Bush Administration. Thus, things are continuing to go in the wrong direction in vital areas. Yes, there are degrees of difference between Obama, Bush and Clinton with Obama offering slight improvements - but the economic and environmental and foreign policies of Clinton and Bush set the respective bars so low that Obama's degrees of difference are not offering real solutions to the grave problems that are facing the country.

[mkultra]

101. Obama IS RIGHT OF BUSH

[budkin]

102. Accusing us of complaining because we wanted real healthcare reform over insurance co. giveaways?

YOU FUCKING FAIL.

[JCMach1]

105. No we just don't want him to BE Bush... Governing to the Right of Bill Clinton IS NOT

acceptable for a Democrat.

[LittleBlue]

106. Except Bush's policies were nonsensical and unpopular. Ours are popular and rational.

Stop comparing Bush's policies to progressive policies as if there's no difference.

[Hekate]

107. Kick, Aramchek.

:kick: