Question about President Obama.

[SoutherDem]

Although I didn't expect anyone to run for the Democratic nomination against President Obama, I would think they would have stepped up by now, so I am assuming he will be the nominee. That said, shouldn't Democrats now start supporting him, even if they haven't been pleased with all he has done. Also, shouldn't they start working to get as many Democrats in congress as possible and get as many of the party of NO out?
However, I keep hearing new stories of how people who supported him in the past aren't supporting him now, because he couldn't fix all our problems over night, while the Republicans stated up front there main goal was to make him a one term presidents. I fully understand many are disappointed but would any of those prefer Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachman, Paul or any of those we see at all those debates?
I am not talking about DUers who state their disappointment on this website, I am talking about those who worked so hard for him in the past, I am talking about those who the Republicans forget, I am talking about the famous "swing voters" who we are told always decide elections. I feel the winner of the elections in 2012 will shape this country for the next 20 plus years. I have no doubt if we have a Republican President and Congress the gulf between rich and poor will grow even more. Class warfare? We haven't seen anything yet.

[gateley]

1. I've heard that many who supported him before but have

been disappointed, will still "probably" vote for him but won't be donating financially or volunteering.

That's a relief to me because I think he'll get all the money he needs and he's got plenty of name recognition now! :7 I DO think many will realize what's truly at stake if they don't vote for him (and learned during the mid-terms that not voting has dire consequences) so will, maybe grudgingly, give him their vote. That's my hope, anyway.

ETA: I think I heard that on the radio, it was the result of some poll.

[dotymed]

28. I am a Progressive and have been a Democrat all of my life.

President Obama has disappointed me. Yes, I was hoping for a viable alternative to vote for. I understand that someone, I don't remember his name (IMO, not viable) urged Kucinich to primary Obama. When Kucinich refused, he decided that he would run. I truly believe that would hurt us even if he is the man for the job (I know nothing about him).

Unfortunately, I will, as I have done many times, vote for the lesser of two evils. In 2008, I believed in Obama and campaigned, worked phones, etc. for the positive changes I believed he would bring. If Sanders had decided to run, I would have worked and voted for him.

I have been saying for years that we must expand our two-party system. I hope we do. If we do, it will have to begin right after an election. It is not something that can be competently achieved (IMO) in a rush.

Even though, I don't have the same enthusiasm, I do believe that we must vote for as many non-corporate Democrats as possible, in every race.

Whoever is elected (if our votes do count), we must always "hold their feet to the fire" and resist putting party before people.

[banned from Kos]

2. I am an avid Obama supporter but a few of the Senate seats are

almost as important. So if someone only votes for Obama and donates to McCaskill or Warren or any close Senate election I say that person is doing Democrats well.

[Herlong]

3. Don't stop to worry

and do.

[AngkorWot]

4. At this point last time Obama was way behind in a primary contest.

I really don't think there's any point in comparing fundraising with 08 at this point.

[ellisonz]

5. It won't matter if we lose local races!

Organize.

[Scuba]

6. Looks to me like a Republican sweep....

... as their right-wing loyalists vote (as always) and millions of disaffected People stay home.

[libinnyandia]

7. Election 2012

I'm hoping that people in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, even Florida, having seen what giving control to the GOP on the state level brought about, wiil come out and vote them out on the state as well as national level. Walker, Kasich, Scott, etc aren't going to help the presidential candidate too much.

[Cal33]

15. I sure hope the OWS spirit will change the minds of a lot of swing voters.

[LWolf]

8. If that's what you've heard, you've got selective hearing.

Kind of like those disingenuous folks who keep asking plaintively, "But what do they WANT?" about OWS.

People who aren't supporting him have not removed their support because "he couldn't fix all our problems overnight." It's because he not only did not make an effort to fix them at all, he supports the problems, not the solutions.

[rury]

9. WTF!!

"People who aren't supporting him have not removed their support because "he couldn't fix all our problems overnight." It's because he not only did not make an effort to fix them at all, he supports the problems, not the solutions."

:wtf: :wtf: .....

Anybody who believes the statement above has selective observing.

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!

[LWolf]

10. I observe actions.

Specifically, actions that affect the issues that drive my vote and political support.

I've observed a wealth of actions I oppose, and a vacuum of actions I support on those issues.

[Cal33]

16. I observe Obama's actions, too. And not all of them are bad. I've criticized some

of his actions, as most people have. But I'm not crazy enough to
vote against him or sit at home come Nov. 2012.

[LWolf]

17. The problem is that the actions affecting

the issues that drive me have been appalling. I've never sat at home, and I don't vote "against" people. I vote FOR people. If there is nobody worthy of my vote, I'll write someone in, but it will be a vote FOR someone, not against someone else.

[Cal33]

18. Okay, I'll be voting for Obama.

[LWolf]

19. Okay.

I don't remember asking, or suggesting, anything about your vote, but I certainly support each individual's right to vote the way they think best.

:shrug:

[SoutherDem]

21. I fully respect your position of not voting against but for a person...

unless millions also vote for your write-in person the winner will be either President Obama or the Republican. Ultimately which would be more harmful for your driving issues? That was my point behind the post.

[Cal33]

26. Let's say in a future election, the Dem. candidate is a non-descript, but the

Repub. is anoather G,W, Bush. You wouldn't be voting against the latter?

[LWolf]

31. WTF is a "non-descript?" nt

[Cal33]

32. Yes. He may have come from a wealthy American family, and served as

president of the United States, but his behavior is that
of a low-life from the bottom of the moral gutter.

[LWolf]

29. That's a good question,

and my answer...I think it's a toss-up.

Why?

One of those nut-job Rs in the WH would mean that Democrats would at least have to offer up a minimal pretense of opposition.

They didn't do a great job of that under GWB. It was still a damned sight better than they do under a neo-liberal "Democratic" president who sells us down the river while he panders to corporations and Republicans.

With a "D" in the WH, no matter how destructive his policies, they support him. They sure as hell don't offer up any effective opposition to his destructive policies.

That's my point. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't...so, in that case, I'll keep my hands clean. I'm not going to pretend that electing a neo-liberal "Democrat" offers any hope.

[SoutherDem]

20. My point is...

Is it better to withhold our support for President Obama and get one of the Republicans?

[woo me with science]

27. "...he supports the problems, not the solutions."

In virtually every major policy area, we have watched him do this.

After a mere three years, what used to be Republican talking points are now bipartisan talking points.

No wonder people are massing in the streets.

[LWolf]

30. Thanks for getting it. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

11. He's not just a candidate, but also the President.

NONE of the other candidates hold an office which is accountable to me, otherwise, I swear that Ron Paul would know me on a first name basis.

But when OUR PRESIDENT does something I'm not happy with, I'm not going to stay silent because he's in my party.

It's not all about just *winning* the race, it's what they do in office.

[SoutherDem]

22. I am not suggesting being silent,

I have often voiced my displeasure with things which have happened and have placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of President Obama when he was the one deserving the blame, however in our system the President is not always the one to blame, often it is shared with congress or all congress. I am meaning he still would be the lesser of the two evils. While I don't like it, I don't see how I can't support President Obama when you consider the Republican choices.

[DemocratAholic]

12. i don't know what you mean

it seems this post is saying that Democrats who disagree with Obama's policies ought to shut up and get in line, albeit in a nice way.

my interest in politics is about policies only, I have never felt any loyalty to any candidate, and my loyalty to the party reaches only so far as the party represents my beliefs. once that party or candidate ceases to represent my beliefs, there is no reason to support them.

there is nothing wrong with Democrats voicing their disappointments with Obama's policies. I find it ludicrous when people suggest that others should not voice their disappointment. just because someone is not vocalizing their disappointment doesn't mean it isn't there.

what we should be worried about is when people become so disappointed and cynical they cease to voice their opinions, because that means they have given up and will no longer become involved in campaigns or voting.

interestingly, the Occupy Wall Street movement...which is filled with people who have been disappointed with Obama and Democrats, has done way more to help Obama and Democrats then our elected Democrats and the DNC. They have given voice to the beliefs of ordinary Democrats...while our elected Democrats are out having $30,000 a plate fundraisers.

[SoutherDem]

23. I did not suggest being silent, nor getting in line...

and many who have replied to my post seemed to think I was meaning support as in donations. I was thinking of people who stated they would not vote for President Obama, which I heard on the radio the morning I made my post, and their reasons were valid but the alternative choices running for the Republican nominee have stated they were against the very reasons they don't like President Obama. In other words President Obama didn't/hasn't helped a given issue but the Republicans are against the issue all together. I am not saying be silent, but I am saying consider our choice.

[totodeinhere]

13. Nobody is withholding their support because "he couldn't fix all our problems over night."

Give me a break. Nobody expected him to fix all of the problems overnight. You said you are hearing new stories to that effect. Please tell us what story you heard that criticized Obama for not fixing all of our problems overnight. Your hyperbole kills your argument.

[SoutherDem]

24. Please give me a break...

Yes, I used a hyperbole. The definition of a hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration, an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” Sorry if I "killed" my argument. Considering the replies I think I made my point. Plus I am certainly not the first to use a hyperbole to emphasis my point here on DU. So to be more clear I don't think anyone felt he could fix the problems in a 12 hour period of time. But, they did expect him to repair 8 years of President Bush by now and considering I started hearing complaints 6 months to a year into his presidency that is why I exaggerated the time to "overnight" As to the story, of course I didn't hear a story of "overnight" but I have heard many stories of people who are now blaming him for things which he hasn't fixed, even if it is because of a Republican controlled house which won't compromise at all, a senate which need a supermajority to get anything done, and 4 or 5 democrat senators who are so afraid of losing their jobs they are voting against him.
Perhaps the better option is to vote for the Republican in Nov. 2012. By the way, that was sarcasm.

[Splinter Cell]

35. Then why exactly are said folks withholding support?

I would like to know what exactly these people are upset about. I don't think they really have any reason to be as disappointed as they seem to be.

[Number23]

14. Why did you leave out the "n" in your user name??

[SoutherDem]

25. Long boring story...

but basically you can blame it on a frustration induced typo, never asked if it could be adjusted. You are actually the first who notice, or took time to ask.

[Cigar11]

33. Obama now has a Salary for life …

many of his political supporters don’t!

They need to get re-elected.

[Splinter Cell]

34. The fact is

Obama has been one hell of a good president. Some people just refuse to see it. There are people in our party that can't be happy, no matter what happens. They can't live with a good thing. They must do whatever they can to destroy it.

Barack Obama has worked his ass off to reverse all the damage of the Bush years. He has been an adult and has tried to work with his political opponents, which enrages many on the hard left. They would rather he take his ball and go home then lead and work for the country by compromise. They don't see that they're just as ridiculous as the hard right. They are just as responsible for the broken legislative process in America.

We need to stop crying over unspilt milk, and start working to gain back control of congress, so we could accomplish more of the things we want to see happen.

[Johnny2X2X]

36. No options

I've been disappointed in Obama for many things, but he has done a good job in the face of being left a mess and in the face of unprecedented opposition. He deserves another term.

He's also a heavy favorite in Vegas right now to win reelection. If it's close next year, I may vote for him, if he is running away with it, I may find a 3rd party.