Obama didn't run on catering to Democrats. He ran on catering to Republicans. So stop bitching.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I have mixed feeling about Afghanistan but I do not have mixed feelings about "blame the victim" hostility the peace folks have faced here.

Since everyone who complains about Afghanistan gets the "Guess you didn't watch the campaign" thrown in their face, why not expand the meme?

The incessant call for bipartisanship, with its implicit crapping on the Dems who resisted the Contract on America in the 1990s as a bunch of children beneath Obama's standards of seriousness, was not a minor theme.

Obama ran on the need to marginalize the left and cater to Republicans.

At the time it was widely assumed to be standard political BS... Sister Souljah theatrics.

Of course, some of the naive peace-nicks thought the Afghanistan tough talk was also Sister Souljah theatrics.

To my ears he ran on recreating the dying republican party so he'd have someone to be bipartisan with.

Many would disagree that I heard correctly, but since what I heard has proved to be a sound basis for prediction of subsequent events I think what I heard was what was being said.

[NJmaverick]

1. The only hostility I have seen is not toward "victims" but rather the purveyors of venom and vitriol

[Armstead]

8. Ha....Glass house-- meet stone

[NJmaverick]

14. nice agenda post! score once for the vitriol dealers

:eyes:

[Kdillard]

2. Just when I think DU couldn't jump the shark any further.

[liberalmuse]

3. President Obama is making the best of a horrible situation.

People have forgotten that he's still cleaning up Bush's 8 years of devastation, and he's only had about 12 months so far to try and put an end to Bush's 'endless wars'. Give the man some time. We won't see the outcome of what he's done this year for at least another two years or so. I am confident President Obama is privy to much more information on Afghanistan than than the haters sitting on their fat asses and typing and regurgitating garbage to post here on DU. I've been on DU long enough to know the Obama haters have been here for over a couple of years now. I am familiar with their names - they're nothing new or even interesting. They have zero credibility since these same people refuse to acknowledge all that he's done right since he's been in office. They just want to spread the hate here and frankly, they can all suck it. I'd like to know where they were when Bush was proposing his heinous policies? I doubt many even bothered to vote (and if they did, they probably voted for Bush at least once), never mind protest, write, call and boycott.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. The fantasy that Obama critics on DU voted for Bush is lovely.

It's probably not true but must save a lot of wear and tear on the cerebellum.

Good coping strategy.

[snagglepuss]

10. Yes Obama inherited a horrible situation but he CHOSE his advisors. nt

[brentspeak]

13. Actually, he's kind of making the WORST of a bad situation

Someone on another thread said that Obama was the worst Democratic president of all-time. I don't know if he's THE worst, but he's certainly making a strong argument for being among the bottom of the list. He is about as weak and ineffective a Democratic president as you can get, kow-towing and abetting corporations and Wall St. at every single turn. The fact that his detractors on the right call him a "socialist" is the horselaugh of the new century (but it's also their way of "moving the center" as far right as possible.)

[dionysus]

18. bitterness of the sort you have brent, makes you take completely insane and illogical view-points.

get *over* smoove johnny for christ's sake. he was a fraud, and we're lucky no one voted for him.

the dem's hating obama shit is a message board phenomenon, that doesn't occur in reality

[tblue]

29. But there are things we'd say here among the "family"

that we would never say among right wingers ever. I express frustrations here but, around Republicans, I say Obama is cleaning up their mess and showing them what a Real President with a brain in his head can do. Don't forget that.

[dionysus]

32. well, if you put it that way, i see your point.

[dionysus]

20. i know, isn't that funny. if you're a long-term DU reader, you know quite well where people stand.

or in this case, have stood, for the last 2 years at least.

what's especially rich is those who backed ultra-DLC candidates and now act as if they are a cross between kucinich and chavez...

[phleshdef]

4. Afghanistan had the approval of many Democrats in the beginning while Republicans grew to ignore it.

Just because some disapproved or got to the point of disapproving of the operations there does NOT mean its a Republican specific issue. They are the ones that spent 6-7 years not giving the operations there any attention to begin with.

[theoldman]

5. I wonder just how many people will be bashing Obama a year from now.

I will give him 28 months to correct 28 years of Republican screw-ups. Anyone who expects him to turn things around in less than a year is just as dumb as most Republicans.

[babylonsister]

7. If you think that, why are you even here? Your schtick is getting old. nt

[sandnsea]

9. This is pure disruption, flame bait,

whatever the mods want to call it. These threads need to be stopped, right now. Enough.

If you want to debate the issues surrounding Afghanistan, fine. You don't need to say a word about Obama in order to do that. Where are those threads??

[NJmaverick]

15. you are correct

[Armstead]

11. I heard him somewhat differently

I was a little leery of his "bipartiusan" talk but I chose to frame it differently.

My interpretation was that Obama was going to go for things that reasonable people could agree on and find some common ground. For example, that included loosening the entrenchment of special interests over the system as epitomized by healthcare and the power of lobbyists. IMO, that bothers moderates and reasonable Republicans as much as it does liberals.

I also saw it as a return to civility in areas of disagreement.

As for Afghanistan....Well, frankly I glossed over that one. Maybe I didn't want to think of it, but I figured at least he was against the real boondoggle in Iraq, so it was a step in the right direction.

What has subsequently bothered and angered me is that once in office he placed so much emphasis on attracting conservatives that he has in fact pushed away the left from the table.

[NJmaverick]

17. The far left was not pushed from the table, they left in a huff

[dionysus]

19. yes. they couldn't stand strong for even 3 months before they crapped their underoos

and ran away sobbing. it's the most childish shit i have ever witnessed.

but i wouldn't go so far as to say it's all lefties. just a small subset

[NJmaverick]

21. Agreed not all lefties stormed off angry. There are many that are more reasonable

and are willing to sit down with the rest of the nation to work out the best solutions and ensure the left's voice is heard and that we have input on policy.

[dionysus]

22. it's foolish when people think we need a left wing bush that doesn't care about breaking laws...

[phleshdef]

26. Exactly! If the majority of us had the fortitude and resolve that the right wingers have...

...we wouldn't be having these kinds of conversations nearly as often.

[dionysus]

33. they have fortitude even thought they are completely wrong on everything.

think how it would be to have that cohesiveness AND be right on the issues.

[Armstead]

23. No they were pushed away

rewmember that from the very beginning the idea of a single payer system, or even optional Medicare for all, was immediately pushed off the table. They would not even hear from peopel who supported that. Peoploe like Max Baucus shut out anyone who favored that, even on the hearings. And Obama went along. He did not even say "hey, at least listen to them."

When you can't even get into a hearing, you tend to get annoyed.

[NJmaverick]

24. So you were annoyed and left, that is not the same as being pushed away

working with others mean that you don't always get your way. This isn't a dictatorship. While it would be nice to entertain every point of view in Congress there has to be practical constraints (due to things like time and scheduling and the like). The idea of single payer is well know by most in Congress so hearings would not have offered up any new information. As such, what was the point in hearing about a plan that was pretty much a non-starter? As much as we all wish it were otherwise, America is not ready for single payer, it's just too drastic a change (not that it wouldn't be a good change, but the change would be disruptive and it scares too many people).

[Armstead]

28. I didn't leave....But i got very frustrated and angry because...

the "practical constraints" did not seem to apply to those who favored the status quo and the insurance industry.

You don't seem to realize that building consensus is a TWO WAY STREET. Why is "the left" supposed to accepot being shut out, while people who spout out more conservative ideas that are just as well known to Congresspepole get a forunm nand seat at the table?

Why couldn;lt the ;proponents of some form of single payer system get to explain the practical -- as well as the moral -- benefots of more serious reforms and government action? Why did Democratic leaders refuse to even to give the genral public the option of weighing the idea?

Morew annoying -- Why the hell weren't REAL DOLLARS and CENTS advantages of meaningful reform included in the discussions? Instead the deficit hawks were allowed to present one side, while the actual savings to the system and to families were brushed aside with no discussion.

I am all for moderation and compromise. A synthesis of differing perspectives is generally how things get solved wisely.

But that has to be a two way street. Yet again, after being proven correct on so many other issues, liberals and progressives are treated like a naive fringe by the Democratic establishment.

Yes, it gets frustrating to see the same pattern being repeated yet again.

[NJmaverick]

31. I realize well enough that issues like healthcare reform and global warming

and finance regulatory reform are all liberal agenda items. If the right wingers controlled Congress these would not even be issued that were discussed or voted on. They would be looking for ways of making the rich richer and the middle class and poor poorer.

[dionysus]

12. you should stick to kurt-o-nomics. at least you don't sound AS foolish in that arena.

:shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

16. He wasn't catering to Republicans....

... he was catering to independent voters.

It worked the first time, I believe it will the second time, but time will tell.....

or as Rahm best put it, "We dont have to succeed at bipartisanship, we just have to TRY."

[tblue]

27. Clio, man, I think you're spot on!

That's his constituency! I was thinking that, too, just the other day.

That's his ideological base! The "moderates": the Chuck Grassleys and Olympia Snowes and Max Baucuses and the Crown Jewel Joe Lieberman. Obama doesn't seem to have much to do with the Progressive Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus, not publicly anyway. Does he reach out to the Far Right? He tried to appoint Judd Gregg. Anyone else?

If you can win the Center, you win elections, I guess is the thinking. It did work in '08, as you said. Wow, it's all so apparent now. And, by the way, it's also crystal clear in both of his books. We elected an Independant.

[Lord Helmet]

30. He was casting a wide net and it worked.

:shrug:

[tblue]

25. I try very hard to base my vote on policy, not personality.

I love Obama, but I'm not infatuated.

I was reluctant to support someone so centrist, but I eventually chose the Democrat most likely to defeat the Repub nominee, and that was Obama. (And I worked very, very hard in '08 to elect him.) And yet I'm still shocked and dismayed at how far to the right he governs. What I don't understand is why so many people believe Obama is making choices against his will or that he is some kind of helpless victim of circumstances. He's not. He is a brilliant, gifted, powerful, capable politician and an ardent student of history and the Constitutuon. I have tremendous respect for his knowlege and abilities, and I really don't believe he needs a handicap. I take him at face value.

Yes, he inherited a mess, but at some point, the president will have to own his presidency and his own actions, and he will have to be judged by what he actually does rather than what we hope he may do someday or what we imagine he would do if only...... When someone tells you who they are, I've learned it's best to believe them.

Who forced him to choose Tim Geithner or Judd Gregg or Rick Warren or to defend John Yoo or DOMA? These were his choices, bottom line. For everyone on this site telling me to lower my expectations of President Obama, I'm not giving up on him yet, but I am getting tired of exploding my head.

[mkultra]

34. AND HE SUCKS AT CATERING TOO

WHERE ARE THE DAMN NAPKINS HUH?P