My note to Obama for America

[Melissa G]

in response to a plea for support:

It's hard to think of supporting someone who is trying to weaken social security, medicare and medicaid. It's hard to support someone who is getting us into more wars. It's hard to imagine supporting someone who supports fracking. It's even harder when this person is supposed to be a Democratic president. As a matter of fact, it's downright shocking.

[DURHAM D]

1. But he's a "nice" guy. nt

[Lorien]

2. And he makes people feel good with his speeches

in fact, he positively "glamors" them!

[swilton]

13. Who has an attractive wife and two darling daughters

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Cute. I think I'll mosey on over to OFA and make a donation in your name.

:rofl:

[daleanime]

4. Can't stand to do it in your own?

I understand completely.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Monthly contributor to OFA & DNC. But this'll just be an extra $50 cause the o.p. was so cute.

:rofl:

[calimary]

6. Okaaaaay... then the alternative is...... ?

Okay. DON'T support Obama. Punch as many holes in him as you can! Get him primaried, and therefore weakened, going into the general election next year, the way Ted Kennedy did to Jimmy Carter, and you'll get another republi-CON in the White House so fast your head will spin off the top of your neck.

And THEN you'll be happy, correct? THAT'LL fix everything, won't it?

[daleanime]

15. Sorry, I just don't get that.

If I have concerns, shouldn't I express them? Is it undemocratic to do so? If winning primaries make you lose the election, then how does anyone take the election(since they all have start with the primary?)

Jimmy Carter didn't lose the Ted Kennedy, he lose to Raygun. Obama losing will not make me happy, do you know what would?





Seeing us work together to put people back to work.

Having congress spend more time working on climite change, and less on cutting social security.

Spending less of our budget killing people and more on helping.

Having a 'news media' that isn't allowed to out right lie.

Dealing with the insane income gap that is only growing worse.

Putting less people in jail.

Stopping torture.

Helping the homeless.

Having a polical discussion, not a spin session.




Feel free to flame away.

:popcorn:

[emilyg]

16. ++++++++

[calimary]

27. No flames from here. And of course you should feel free to voice your concerns.

Yes. reagan beat Carter. But it was made all the easier after Ted Kennedy left him roughed up and inadvertently supplying the enemy with a lot of advance work by running oppositional campaign ads and direct mailings and so forth. Carter became a softened target by then. Everybody had just been reminded and reminded and reminded yet again about all his shortcomings, and he WASN'T perfect by any means. But do you REALLY wanna do that, approaching a presidential election? Do you really want to see Obama so beaten up (by Democratic voting universe that thus shows itself to be deeply divided and squabbling with itself) that he isn't able to fight as effectively? You REALLY want that?

Look, Obama isn't perfect. I've been deeply disappointed in him in many cases. I mean, we still have freakin' WAR CRIMINALS walking free. But consider the alternative? You want the way made easier for a republi-CON or heaven forbid, a republi-CON with a teabagger VP (which would be THE way I'd expect for the GOP establishment to strategize a win without losing the teabaggers 'cause they picked a more "moderate" candidate - throw them a bone and give 'em the VP slot)?

I suggest we do our utmost to make Obama look like frickin' Osama-bin-Laden-vanquishin' SUPERMAN moving into the general election next year. Besides, he's done some good stuff and set us on a path toward more good stuff - whether it's softening the landscape for full acceptance of gay rights or establishing at least a foothold in the health care coverage crisis or any of the other stuff. I had a close friend remind me last night, in some disgust, that Obama's first act as President was to sign an order easing restrictions on that damn litmus test - no foreign aid if you allow full family planning services, including abortions. My friend thought that was bad. "We're killing babies!" Well I don't see it that way, as an ardent pro-choice and family-planning supporter. What if it had been President McCain? Would that have happened with him making the decision? With that wretch of a VP HE would have had? With the kinds of advisors and inner-circle people and Cabinet selections HE would have assembled around himself?

There was something I heard - MAJOR apologies here because I can't remember where - one of the MSNBC shows I THINK or maybe Olbermann last night or the day before. But somewhere I heard a talking head referring to a comment Obama evidently made to a few insiders about one issue in particular that he felt he couldn't support full-on until after he'd been reelected. Hearsay, I admit! But if that's even come up, if it's even in his thinking, I'm wondering whether that's on his radar. If it is, all the more reason to try to bolster him for next year.

And if I remember correctly, not everybody was fully convinced about reagan back then, especially after HE had helped tear up his own party four years earlier. He wouldn't give up on challenging Gerald Ford in 1976, and there was even talk about them being co-presidents. It just split the GOP into all kinds of disarray from which they weren't able to recover, and Carter succeeded in moving Ford out of the White House. There were those voters who didn't forget that. reagan was viable, but what helped him the first time around was two-fold. You don't just win because you are the stronger candidate, you also win because your opponent is somehow weaker, or weakened. When you manipulate those dynamics, and add more to the "because your opponent is somehow weaker, or weakened" side of the equation, you've accordingly increased your own odds on the other side of the equation - about you being the stronger candidate.

ANYWAY - the issues you're most concerned about, I'm totally WITH you on those! ALL good points that have been neglected during this term. Lots of stuff wasn't played correctly. The health care debate got WAY outta hand. He should have gone in for the kill in his first week, while the enemy was still dazed and confused and licking lots and lots of wounds. They weren't as able to get it up for a fight and he should have closed in for the kill, FAST. He didn't. He's always trying to be too reasonable. Fortunately now the polls keep showing he's the adult in the room, compared to everybody else. In all the polls I've seen over the past few weeks about who's handling the debt ceiling problem better, Obama, or the Dems in Congress or the CONS in Congress, Obama has the highest positive approval numbers and lowest negative numbers of either of the other two. The GOP consistently comes out THE WORST of the three choices: highest negatives and lowest approvals.

But I can't just go with the "we gotta send a message" crowd. We can't afford that anymore. Every time I've seen that, or talked to people at various political rallies or gatherings or even in civilian get-togethers when politics comes up, I've seen this. FOR YEARS I've seen this. The "we gotta send a message" crowd ends up siphoning OFF support from the only realistic supporter of their positions, and handing victory to the candidate who is GUARANTEED to oppose or obstruct or outright do away with their positions.

Your chances of seeing your positions addressed are more likely if Obama goes in strong and well-supported next year, which renders him far better-equipped to win reelection. Your chances of seeing your positions addressed are ABSOLUTELY NIL if, heaven forbid, ANY ONE of the GOPers targeting him actually defeats him.

Aw crap - sorry this is so long. :hi:

[indepat]

29. The Repugs would probably cut social security, Medicare, and Medicaid even more severely

heightening poverty, malnutrition, inadequate housing, heating and cooling, and inadequate medical care and medications ever so much more which would, as a big bonus, serve to save Uncle Sammie large heaps of money through spiking mortality and thereby getting a lot of old, frail, and poor geezers removed from the social security, Medicare, and Medicaid rolls: Repubs would likely bring about killing off the old, frail, and poor hard and fast rather than the Dems seemingly preferred softly and slowly. :patriot:

Edited to remove superfluous words

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Bet I can guess which "fools" got your "money".

:rofl:

[a simple pattern]

23. Caesar ROFLs

as Rome burns.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Burn this!

:rofl:

[a simple pattern]

25. A compelling argument for your point of view.

You must be a Very Serious Person!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Jersey Devil]

7. Yes, certainly, that's his plan, probably his platform for 2012

"trying to weaken social security, medicare and medicaid"

Did you have a straight face as you typed that?

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. "Did you have a straight face as you typed that?"

:thumbsup:

[Fire1]

10. Lies, conjecture and speculation. Fringe and Fox. LOL!!! n/t

[Melissa G]

18. Conyers is taking this seriously and so am I.

At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week. "We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that," Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. "My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this," Conyers said strongly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1603312

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Of course not - his plan is to SAVE them

by reducing their funding, delaying access to them - you know, ADJUSTING them to today's economy.

Just like he's going to shore up America's infrastructure by privatizing its assets - they've already put the Brooklyn Bridge up for sale. Interested?

[TreasonousBastard]

11. A lot of things are downright shocking.

[Fire1]

14. Most of all, imo, democrats feeding into talking points created

by the lunatic fringe.

[dionysus]

12. .

:rofl:

[Melissa G]

17. Response from OFA

I hope they read my concerns. I prefer that the president not volunteer to put social security and medicare into negotiations. There is no need for it. There is no need to link these social programs and the debt ceiling because there is no link to the deficit and these important social insurances that most of us have paid into. They are solvent. Republicans have long wanted to loot them and we, as Democrats, don't need to help them.

I hope more people contact OFA.

Friend –



Thank you for for taking the time to write to Obama for America. This campaign is being built by people like you, and your input will always drive it.



We are dedicated to reviewing every comment, idea, and opinion we receive. Although we may be unable to respond to your message individually, we do appreciate hearing from you. We hope you’ll work with us as we build this campaign together.



If you are contacting us because you’re interested in getting involved with the Obama campaign in your community please visit: http://www.barackobama.com/get-involved



Thank you again for your input,



Obama for America

[MannyGoldstein]

20. "Make no mistake: it's time for old folks to eat their peas and catfood" nt

[VeryConfused]

21. Excuses are like butt holes

everyone has one and they usually stink

[blkmusclmachine]

28. You were way too kind.

n/t