Do you think the President realizes...

[SHRED]

...just how much he has turned off his Democratic base?

Does he realize that he got so many people's hopes up with his populist style speeches while running for office?
People that were not even involved with politics prior to hearing him?
People that now are scratching their heads wondering why he is so cozy with the corporate rightwing?

Does he care?
Is he counting on us not having any choices anyway?

I am wondering if he understands that we are not "fringe" elements here?
I am wondering if he understands that we are fighting for the working-class?


----

[Darth_Kitten]

1. Apparently not...

Has he even said ANYTHING about the workers in Wisconsin yet? How about the protests around the country?

[tridim]

2. Did we go back in time last night?

It's the only explanation.

[LibDemAlways]

3. There is a wealthy elite who run the show regardless

of who is in office. The President is there to do the bidding of the corporations. The populist style was all a smokescreen. And I'm sure he's confident of being reelected because whoever the R's nominate will be 10 times worse.

[martymar64]

95. To use a Dune analogy, Obama is Feyd Rautha to Bush's Rabban the Beast

They're both Harkonnens.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Scuba]

5. I can only assume that either....

A. He's a "false flag", or

B. Aliens are controlling his brain, or

C. Cheney threatened to eat his children.

[NV Whino]

7. You forgot "all of the above"

[Divernan]

8. O likes to say "I get it!" & he does.

He just doesn't give a shit.

[uncle ray]

9. i don't thing "base" means what you think it does.

[Avant Guardian]

11. Base = Democrats who voted for him

[sufrommich]

16. He polls quite well with democrats. nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

24. Of course he does, even democrats who are disappointed

in him are not going to answer poll questions that would denigrate democrats.

Stats show that he has lost the Independents who actually tipped the election in his favor, and the young.

A better picture of what those who voted for him think is the fact that Democrats lost Congress in November.

Airc, they had lost Independents which is what lost them the election.

[sufrommich]

33. We lost the independents to republican candidates.Which means

independents went farther to the right. Independents favored the republicans by 10% in the last election.

[amandabeech]

35. Or they were upset with the Dems because jobs and the economy are a still

in bad shape. I know some who were genuinely concerned about the deficit, and had been during Bush's terms as well.

Independents don't see the pukes as the bad guys. So for them, throwing the dem bums out and bringing in puke bums in just isn't that big a deal.

[sabrina 1]

36. Many of those who voted for Dems in 2008 didn't bother to vote

or voted third party in 2010. They were lost because the Dem Party moved too far to the right. There are many Independents who left the Dem party years ago because of its corporate takeover. They will not vote for rightleaning Dems, ever.

[BzaDem]

40. Isn't that their problem? If someone enables a Republican in the voting booth, why should they be

taken seriously in the slightest?

If someone enables a candidate who starts a war or busts a union, but then has the gall to complain about the new war or the busted union, why should anyone take them seriously?

[tekisui]

45. WHy rally behind someone who continues wars and doesn't stop

union busting?

It is a difference of degree, not kind.

[BzaDem]

49. What if you knew for an absolute fact that once a Republican started a war, NO PRESIDENT would EVER

stop it immediately? That it would take years to stop any war started by Republicans, no matter how much you wished that this weren't the case?

Would you then agree that enabling Republicans is not a bright idea?

As for union busting, you are now blaming Obama for Walker's actions? Are you serious?

[tekisui]

52. Not blaming Obama for anything, just saying that wasn't the strongest

argument you made. You could make other arguments about why to vote Dem, but those were weak. Dems are not anti-war, so you should couch it.

Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, which is not unlike starting a war, if you want to be frank.

[BzaDem]

56. "which is not unlike starting a war, if you want to be frank"

No, that's actually nonsense. It is quite unlike starting a war.

If you want to see the difference, just watch what happens when the next Republican gets elected. I assume a war in Iran will begin, but I'm not even sure it will stop there. If Cheney were President instead of Bush, we would have been at war with at least Syria and North Korea (and of course Iran).

[tekisui]

58. And a Democrat will come along and expand one of them and

drag their feet on the other. Escalate one. Expand covert drone wars on another. Give general lip service on some, escalate some.

The point is, war is not a distinguishing factor between the parties. The Dems are hawks and love to get their war on, too.

[BzaDem]

62. To the extent you believe war is not a distinguishing factor, you are wrong.

There isn't anything else to it. There is a difference between 2 wars and 5 wars, and if you don't realize it, that is a problem with your analysis of the statement (not the statement itself).

People should realize that we are never going to immediately leave any war upon the election of a new President, and use that information to convince themselves not to enable Republicans to start wars in the first place.

[tekisui]

67. There is a great difference between 'ending immediately' and escalating.

War is war. It's been two fucking years of escalation in one war, and an expansion of war into another county.

It is a fucking joke to say that voters should consider war as a distinguishing factor. You employ hyperbole and fear to suggest five wars. It really isn't about the number of wars. It is about feeding the war profiteering beast, which Obama, and the Democratic Party, is happy and willing to do.

If people vote Dem because they think they are not pro-war, they are fucking idiots and have been duped. We have two pro-war parties.

[BzaDem]

90. I'm sure people here would have called the idea of going to war in Iraq for no reason "hyperbole"

if DU were around back in 2000.

[tekisui]

94. That doesn't address the pro-war nature of the Democratic Party.

Which is my point. It is a weak argument to try and distinguish the parties along support of war. They both support wars. Yours is a difference without distinction, a degree not of kind.

Make your points without depending on the argument that there is a great difference when it comes to war. There are other issues that will be stronger.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. Better to say, I think, that both parties are imperialist and view

war as an instrument for advancing those imperial aims.

Best evidence for this statement with regard to the Dems: In Colorado Springs in 2004, John Kerry was asked if he would have still voted for the war with Iraq even if he knew that Iraq had no WMDs. Kerry replied simple "Yes."

WTF? That's when I decided not to work for Kerry in General Election 2004.

The only explanation is that the Dem Party is an imperialist party, just like the Repukes. If the stated pretext is shown to be false, that doesn't deflect Dems from the underlying strategic aim of using war to advance empire.

[rhett o rick]

85. Ah yes, the "be happy, I could be worse" argument that has gotten us where we are today.

The race to the bottom. It could be worse so be happy. I say fuk that shit.

[BzaDem]

91. "I say fuk that shit." But what happens when you finally realize that reality is reality, REGARDLESS

of what you want it to be?

Your logic goes something like

"lesser of two evils is stupid"

therefore

"there must be some alternative"

But of course that logic is incredibly naive. Pretending and wishing and hoping for an alternative doesn't actually create an alternative. You will eventually realize this, just like Nader's supporters did in 2000. Being irrational for long periods of time was selected against during evolution, and that applies to politics just as much as it does to anything else. Eventually, you will recognize reality -- it's just a question of how much damage occurs in the meantime.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

82. Well, you are blaming the people for not having much of a choice.

Since now people have become aware that both parties are corporate owned, it will take a little time for them to decide what they must do about it. Meantime, does it really matter who is in power?

Are the wars over? Is torture still a policy in this country, extraordinary rendition? Have the Wall St. criminals, the war criminals, the torturers been brought to justice?

What has changed since Dems first got a majority in 2006? What changed when they had both houses and the WH? What MAJOR issues that were important to a majority of Americans, such as a real healthcare system like those of other democracitic nations? We KNOW crimes, major crimes were committed and were told to be patient, to wait until Dems had the WH and Congress. We waited, and nothing happened. A few minor crumbs are thrown our way when Dems are in power but not much of any significance in terms of real change.

Dems are slightly better than Republicans but that is no longer good enough.

I am GLAD Walker was elected. His over-reaching has exposed a lot about our system that might not have been exposed but would have continued anyhow, otherwise.

Personally I'd rather have a quick exposure rather than the long, slow disintegration that has been happening now for several years. The system was set up to destroy the working class no matter who was in power. So, it all worked out better than we could have hoped for because it's always better to get a good, clear look at the real problems than to just go along satisfied with a few crumbs now and then because once the people are awakened, THEN they can do something really worthwhile, as they are, to end this system that favors only the wealthy.

[BzaDem]

92. "Dems are slightly better than Republicans but that is no longer good enough."

Just because you WANT there to be a third choice doesn't mean there ever will be. That's what some people just don't seem to get.

You keep acting as if there will ever be a President that prosecutes the Bush administration. Why do you think this? This is on its face implausible in the extreme. I know this, and almost everyone else knows this. Why is it so hard for a few people to get? Why do some people keep thinking that there is ever going to be a President they are satisfied with on this issue (and others)? Why do some people act as if they are EVER going to get what they want, when it is so obvious on certain issues that it is simply never going to happen?

Eventually (after years or more of it not happening), you will realize this. But why is it so hard to realize before then?

I can understand the outrage about it. But the key disconnect appears to be that some people think the more outraged they are, the more likelier they will get what they want. As if there is any link between their outrage and reality.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

102. Sad, really sad and I mean that.

I keep demanding, NOT ACTING LIKE anything, that this country live up to the rule of law, AS PROMISED BY DEMS before they gained a majority. In fact, Dems were doing better on that issue when they were in the minority. What happened to Leahy's and Conyers' Committees on torture, onth US Attorney scandal since they gained a majority? This was a major, major issue during the Bush years and we were told then that if only Dems had the majority, we start returning to the rule of law. I have not changed at all, have you? This is still a major, major issue for this country's future.

I'm sorry it offends you that a fast growing number of people actually do expect this country to abide by the law, to, as Candidate Obama pointed out so eloquently, make sure that 'no one is above the law', and they expect leadership from those they elect on these matters.

I find your questions to be very sad and very indicative of how far away the country has drifted from even being able to claim to be a democracy or any kind of decent society that we can be proud of.

You keep acting as if there will ever be a President that prosecutes the Bush administration. Why do you think this? This is on its face implausible in the extreme. I know this, and almost everyone else knows this. Why is it so hard for a few people to get? Why do some people keep thinking that there is ever going to be a President they are satisfied with on this issue (and others)? Why do some people act as if they are EVER going to get what they want, when it is so obvious on certain issues that it is simply never going to happen?

Eventually (after years or more of it not happening), you will realize this. But why is it so hard to realize before then?

I can understand the outrage about it. But the key disconnect appears to be that some people think the more outraged they are, the more likelier they will get what they want. As if there is any link between their outrage and reality.

This is sad because you have accepted living in a country, like any third world dictatorship, the old Soviet Union, where people did seem to just accept the fact that the rule of law did not apply to the ruling class.

Egypt, Tunisia, Libya would be good examples of what you want this country to be before the revolution. Just accepting of the decline into fascism, a democracy replaced by a Corporate State and then if we could just accept that, everything would be fine, if we just elect the team that is a little less obvious about it all.

Same thing in Latin America, lectures such as yours were given to those who, no matter how far into dictatorship their countries sank, no matter how hopeless it seemed that things would ever change, simply did not, could not accept it.

You say there will never be an accounting for the war crimes etc. Of course there won't, IF we allow that to happen.

Same thing was said about Argentina, but 30 years later, and it might take that long, those war criminals ARE being held accountable.

To simply sit back and accept this state of affairs is a scary proposition to anyone who actually cares about this country.

When did you come to the conclusion that we must accept that war crimes are just par for the course and if someone from our team does it, we should just accept it quietly because being blown to bits by a Democratic Drone isn't as painful as being blown to bits by a Republican Drone?

When did you arrive at this point? I'm asking sincerely. Were you railing against Bush or were you saying the same things back then, there will never be any accountability for war criminals? Or, were you, like the rest of us, pushing the idea that there would be accountability if only we could get Dems into power? And now the goalposts have been moved again.

Sorry, but I will keep on trying to get the same justice for those in elected positions as for those who are not. Nothing else is acceptable. As Obama said 'no one is above the law'. Was he jokiing when he said that? I didn't think so.

[Avant Guardian]

10. He is not the transformational president that we voted for

He just is not that guy.

Bait and switch

[DutchLiberal]

12. I don't think he has turned off the Democratic base...

Because the Democratic base WILL vote for Obama in 2012. Even if they're now vowing not to. But when Obama is running against Palin or Gingrich or even Jeb Bush, as someone has suggested, they will vote for Obama. Not that he deserves it. But the alternative is even worse... at least, that's what the base believes. Not that it REALLY matters who'll become president. But they're lead to believe that it matters and they WILL vote for Obama. And Obama KNOWS this. He can take the Democratic/liberal/leftist base for granted. Like all candidates since Clinton have taken them for granted.

[Uta]

14. How did Hope and change.....?

turn into, the ever-so-slightly lesser of a couple of evils.
I had been a believer .
I'm terribly disappointed.

Sure. I might vote for Obama again, but I will not do it with one millionth the excitement and confidence that I did in 2008.

No T-shirts. No buttons.No contributions, No bumper stickers. No pride. No enthusiasm.

If I have nothing else going on, I'll probably apathetically slump to the courthouse and pencil in the lessor of two mother-fuckers, knowing both mother-fuckers answer to the same boss, and that boss is certainly NOT "We the people".
'

[DutchLiberal]

22. Anyone who believed those marketing tricks was not paying attention...

I said it then, I say it now.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. He can afford to take us for granted, so he does.

We're the ones he stands up to, not with, after all...

[sufrommich]

15. Where is your proof that he has "turned off the Democratic base"?

[uponit7771]

20. Cricits from the OP

[golddigger]

96. You know Du'ers are not locked up in their rooms

on the computer all day. They do go out and have conversations with other Democratic and Independent family and friends. And this one right here is hearing rumblings how disappointed they are in Obama and his administration. And it's spreading like a wild fire.

[blindpig]

17. Perhaps he is working with a different set of rules than you assume

Perhaps we are nothing but background static in his decision making, or the croaking of frogs.

Perhaps he only hears the language of the ruling class.

Given the track record to date those are reasonable assumptions.

[bvar22]

18. This graphic says it all.

Who speaks for these overwhelming majorities?



"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."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[uponit7771]

19. Obama has 85+ approval rating amongs democrats, DU does NOT represent his base

[DutchLiberal]

23. That's true: the general public isn't informed and doesn't know anything...

Obama is counting on that.

[Arkana]

26. "They support the President? Well they must be STUPID!"

And you wonder how Republicans get away with calling us elitists.

[DutchLiberal]

43. Maybe not stupid. Maybe they like endless wars and tax cuts for millionaires...

... and supporting coups in Latin-America and extra-judicial killings in Pakistan and keeping Guantanamo Bay open and lying about his stance on a public option and corporate-run health care which still leaves millions uninsured...

Maybe they genuinely like that. But yes, that would make them stupid.

[BzaDem]

48. What's the word for people who think that Obama's healthcare bill is somehow not progressive?

Or who generally claim that the most progressive healthcare bill/financial reform bill/student loan bill/stimulus bill that passed in a generation are somehow not progressive?

In general, what is the word for people who constantly deny reality at every possible opportunity, and will NEVER be satisfied with any president they see elected in their entire lifetime?

I'll give you a little hint -- it isn't "smart" or "intelligent."

[DutchLiberal]

51. What's the word for someone who puts party over principle?

What's the word for someone who defends bad bills and bad legislation, just because the person making them has a D behind his name? An apologist? Republican-light? Hypocrite? You choose.

If the left stays home next elections and the Republicans win the presidency, you'll hate yourself for having been such a condescending prick.

[BzaDem]

55. The problem isn't that Obama is defending bad legislation -- the problem is that you call good

legislation bad.

See how that works? If you mischaracterize everything, you of course are going to get illogical results.

"If the left stays home next elections and the Republicans win the presidency, you'll hate yourself for having been such a condescending prick."

Not really. While I hope Obama wins and will work to have him re-elected, perhaps the lesson of Nader does need to be relearned by some people. I hope not, but I have long since learned that only a hard dose of reality is enough to stop the most irrational. Whether it is in 2012 or 2016 or some future decade, sometimes people will adamantly deny reality until they inflict so much political pain upon themselves that they simply cannot do so anymore (at least until they all collectively develop amnesia a decade or two later, and the cycle repeats itself).

If the "left" stays home in 2012, that just means they will swarm to the polls in 2016 to elect Ben Nelson for President (if that is what it takes to reverse their own actions 4 years prior). We have evolved in such a way that disfavors being irrational for long periods of time, and this is no less true in politics than anything else.

[DutchLiberal]

53. What's the word for someone who puts party over principle?

What's the word for someone who defends bad bills and bad legislation, just because the person making them has a D behind his name? An apologist? Republican-light? Hypocrite? You choose.

If the left stays home next elections and the Republicans win the presidency, you'll hate yourself for having been such a condescending prick.

[BzaDem]

39. Perhaps your description applies to PRECISELY the people who oppose Obama "from the left?" n/t

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

46. I doubt it.

Though I think it is obvious on its face that your description of Obama supporters is a much better description of Obama's opponents who claim they are "from the left."

[DutchLiberal]

50. Why? Because they are rightfully angry over all of Obama's broken promises?

Because they're angry Obama lied about his position on a 'public option'? Because he caved on the health insurance corporations and still lets them run the show, leaving still tens of millions of Americans uninsured? Because he said he would close Guantanamo Bay, but over two years into his presidency, he still hasn't? I remember reading how horrible Gitmo was every day on DU when Bush was in office. Now Obama is in charge and suddenly we're pretending it's not there anymore.

People have a right to be angry with this president. Because he supports right-wing fascist coups in Latin-America (Honduras); because he extended the Bush tax cuts, adding billions of dollars to the deficit, which regular people will have to pay for. Because he still clings onto all the unconstitutional powers he inherited from Bush; because he let the war in Afghanistan spiral out of control.

But you go ahead and mock all those people on the left who are mad at him. You continue treating 'the left' like they're loons. I'm sure that, if they'll vote for a 3rd party candidate and thus hand over the presidency to a Republican (not that it matters much anymore), you'll be the first one to blame THEM instead of a president who didn't do his job well.

[BzaDem]

54. "You continue treating 'the left' like they're loons."

I'm NOT treating the left like they're loons. The vast majority of the left approves of Obama's job performance. In fact, Obama has a higher approval rating among Democrats overall than any President since JFK.

Your first problem is to assume that your views approximate those of a non-negligible portion of the "left."

You go on and keep pretending that Obama could have gotten a more progressive healthcare bill unilaterally, or that he could have closed Guantanamo Bay over the opposition of an essentially unanimous Congress, or that ensuring that families at the poverty line don't lose thousands of dollars a year is somehow a bad idea. As I said, there is a small percentage of both parties like this -- who will never be satisfied with anyone their party elects for the entirety of their natural life. This is nothing new.

"you'll be the first one to blame THEM instead of a president who didn't do his job well."

If people vote third party and that swings the election, aren't they to blame by definition? How would Obama be to blame? Presumably, Obama voted for himself -- Obama didn't enable his Republican opponent in the voting booth.

Usually, these third partiers figure this out in good time -- that's why Nader's vote share dropped by 90% from 2000 to 2004. But if they need another dose of hard, uncompromising reality, they are certainly capable of giving it to themselves in a close election. But to pretend that in such a scenario, they are not to blame, when by definition they would be to blame, is pretty silly.

[rhett o rick]

86. Pres Obama has made it clear, not only doesnt he need the left, he doesnt want the left. nm

[tabasco]

41. Thank goodness for enlightened ones such as you.

Why don't you run for something, Oh Wise One?

[DutchLiberal]

47. The Owners of America certainly don't want that...

They need a puppet, that's not me.

As long as Obama is keeping the wars going and keeps honoring right-wing war criminals like the Bushes, he makes his masters very happy. But you keep on supporting him. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your fantasy.

[eridani]

84. Because Democrats, no matter how dissatisfied, will not put down Democrats--

--in public polls.

[Arkana]

25. What are you people on about now?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

87. God only knows. And the truth is, no one honestly cares anymore

[Curmudgeoness]

27. If he doesn't understand, a few hours spent at DU should help.

Has anyone invited him to join?

[fayhunter]

28. Go back to 2008...

At that point, under the Bush Administration, even Newt Gingrich seemed liberal and sane.

I don't think Obama portrayed himself as anything other than what he is, which is centrist. But at the time, the center was so forgotten, such a distant memory, that it came off as ragingly liberal. We didn't elect a ranging liberal President. It just happens that time reorganized polarities.

[JoePhilly]

34. I think that is pretty accurate. nt

[sad sally]

37. You're probably right. The "hope and change" mime wasn't

anything other than a catchy slogan. It was misunderstood by the liberal middle class as something meaningful, something different than the administration at the time (Bush/Cheney). We liberals expected investigations into the illegal Iraq war, torture and internment of prisoners without being charged, bankers who fleeced and profited, an end to tax cuts for the wealthy, but like most politicians, words to get elected are just that - words - they don't really have to mean anything. Fooled again!

[tallahasseedem]

64. +1

Welcome to DU. Don your flamesuit! :)

[treestar]

29. Unless he's talked to you, he has no way of realizing it

As the polls say 85% of liberals are happy.

[dionysus]

31. it's funny how a simple statement of fact proves the premise of the OP is false.

[rhett o rick]

100. The poster is playing 8th dimensional intellectual chess. And he will tell you when you have lost.

[dionysus]

30. see, that's the problem. your entire premise is false.

:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

59. your laughing at real people's concerns is antithetical to defending Obama

you do realize this right?

[dionysus]

71. straw, meet man.

[fascisthunter]

79. just using that term isn't an argument

nor does it apply to your attitude in anyway except to pretending to be in denial. You hurt the dem party more than help.

[rhett o rick]

101. Actually I agree. The OP assumes Obama's base includes the left.

Obama has a new base. He has rudely dumped the left in favor of the right of center. Geitner, Summers, Bernanke, Daley, and Immelt, Alan Simpson, Dave Cote, and now Jeb Bush.

Actually it is genius. No more two party system. Now we have Democrats (those holding onto true Democratic principles), New Democrats (centrist/corporatist) and the Right Wing Republicans wacko's.

[BzaDem]

38. Why would he realize something that isn't true? Heck, why would we WANT him to realize a falsehood?

Just because a tiny percentage of a party will never be satisfied with anyone their party elects does NOT mean that he has turned off the Democratic base. In fact, this week, 84% of "liberal Democrats" APPROVE of Obama's job performance. Furthermore, his approval among Democrats overall is the highest since any president in the last 50 years, with the exception of JFK.

[madokie]

42. You know as much as I hate to say this

but I wonder if his heart is in it anymore. Does he even plan for a run in '12

I mean the man really thought that he could talk sense to these retillicons but by now he's surely realized that theres no way that'll happen. I see a man that's just given up and thrown his hands up and said what the fuck, why bother?

[fascisthunter]

57. He Realizes he doesn't need us.... just read comments from his most ardent defenders

according to them, we on the left are not his base...

[BzaDem]

60. It's more according to essentially every poll, which shows Obama's support among the left at the

highest level among any President in the last 50 years, save for JFK.

[Shagbark Hickory]

61. I'd argue that he hasn't done that to his base. To leftists, yes. To centrist democrats (his base),

no.
People who are pissed over no public option or over drill baby drill or lack of financial reform or about gitmo, about afganistan... these people are not going to vote for the republican. People in swing states will probably vote for him for being better than the alternative.

But he knows this.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[NorthCarolina]

63. I don't think "realizes" was the correct term. "Cares" would be more appropriate. nt

[KoKo]

76. Exactly. It really wasn't important to him...at any time. It was the SPIN and the EUPHORIA of the

Campaign where he could appear to be all things to the Hopes and Aspirations of the American People who had suffered under Bush....while in fact he thought Bush was a Pragmatic President who followed in the tradition of Reagan (Obama's childhood idol..as he was a kid of the Reagan years) and, so, all this "STUFF" out there is but gnats buzzing around at the beach on a sunny day when life is good...golf is good and America is the "Shining City on the Hill" that will be in it's glory once again...after the "insurgents" have been dealt with.

It's a beautiful dream. And, one that is amazing given the stuff our President had to suffer through his whole life. It's very good for HIM. It's redemption. "Dreams of His Father" have now been realized. It's a true and lovely American Experience Story for future generations to dream of an fulfill as he has.

[Tatiana]

65. I think his new base is Independents and I think he feels he can win with them

along with the rest of us that will vote for the "D" even if we hold our breath long enough to suffocate ourselves.

The President and his team are not concerned at all about progressive voters. They feel like they either can make up any votes they will lose from progressives with independents or that progressives will have no other place to go.

[sufrommich]

66. His base is democrats, and he polls in the 80s with them. nt

[Tatiana]

68. That depends on your definition of Democrat. Perhaps the Reagan Democrats.

But the FDR and LBJ wing of the Democratic party? Dunno if his support is so strong there.

That's why you have supporters like Matt Damon answering "No" when asked if he is doing a good job as President.

[jp11]

69. He doesn't see it that way.

He got some idea that people thought he was something when they voted that he either feels he never said he was or that they simply misunderstood him.

Does he care that first time voters along with apathetic voters who may have voted in the past but didn't keep up with it or start/stop/only vote in presidential elections don't understand him, only since some of that is probably why democrats lost so big last year, otherwise he doesn't seem to mind.

Yeah he and the party count on 'democrats' having no other choice, you vote for them or you let the republicans 'shout' louder with more voters, if he and democrats appeal to 'independents' which are really moderate dem/repub who vote what they think is 'right' but probably vote closer to one party than the other they feel they can/will win.

I doubt the party understands that the progressive/liberal left aren't the 'fringe' or they wouldn't be so cavalier in treating them like they don't matter or at least like the 'independents/moderates' matter more since the narrative is that the country is 'center right'.

[lib2DaBone]

70. He has a Big Fat Pension and a desk at Goldman Sachs...

.. free health care the rest of his life and Secret Service protection.

He could care less if he is re-elected.... he is set up for life.

[rug]

72. He hasn't needed it for 28 months.

[jefferson_dem]

73. "The base" = you, a handful of serial cynics on DU, and a few random supposedly progressive bloggers

Meh.

[KoKo]

75. You know, Jeffereson_dem....you have spoken the truth. There's no one left except a few fingers on

a hand.

So...what does that mean to you? Is it important? Not really.

[KoKo]

74. Polls say his "Democratic Base" is with him in overwhelming numbers...

So...if that is true...and that's the Meme the MSM puts out there is true and the polling says it's true..

Then.....WHO ARE WE who are PUSHING BACK?

NOBODY.... And, there you have it.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

78. "nowhere to go." That's what it is. Who would have thought it would come down to

"Nowhere to Go."

What kind of society can survive ...if that's what their "rulers" give as a choice to those who vote for them. :shrug:

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

80. It really doesn't matter. The alternative is

unthinkable. We will not be given any other choice. The ruling class? They don't give a shit.

[Moondog]

81. Doesn't care. Figures it's either him or Palin, so he's OK.

[Bluebear]

83. Yes I do.

[Skittles]

88. of course he realizes

does he give a fuck? no

[tavalon]

93. He doesn't work for you anymore

He works for any corporation who can afford him. The koch brothers have his ear now.

[golddigger]

97. +1

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

105. The centerpiece of his strategy is courting big business interests.

Tweaking the party's traditional constituencies is part of that sales pitch. When the unions are upset with him, he points at that and says, "see? I'm with you, Wall Street. How about some campaign donations?". I don't know if his strategy is something long term, meant to turn the Democratic Party into something completely at the feet of big business or just a cynical, short-sighted method of self-promotion, but I suspect it's the latter.

Obama seems like a modern CEO to me; get in, get yours, get out. Damn the business, damn the product, damn the employees.