The best one-paragraph summary of Obama disillusionment I've yet seen. . .

[markpkessinger]

Someone who goes by the handle "ccrider27" posted the following comment to an article titled "Obama Supporter Bites Back" over on alternet.org. I am sharing his words with permission (he asked me to cite to his website, http://www.ccrider27.com/Home.html ):

Why, if we hadn't elected Obama we might have had a president who refused to roll back taxes on the wealthy, who refused to establish a windfall profits tax on oil companies, who refused to investigate activities carried out by telecom companies who illegally helped the government tap our phones, and who continued to tap phones without a warrant, who would have turned his back on Miranda, who would refuse to investigate any of the Bush Admin. lies, incompetence, corruption or torture, who would support anti-democratic, murderous coup regimes in Central America, who might refuse to restore Habeas Corpus, who would have left Guantanamo open indefinitely and maintain that its inmates had no rights at all, who might have continued extraordinary rendition and torture, who might have fought to keep Dick Cheney's remarks to Plame investigators secret, who would have done nothing of substance to rein in Wall St., who would have continued to issue signing statements, who might have continued to delay investigations of CIA torture and even investigate those who protest that torture, who would have traded away the Public Option even while saying he was in favor of it, who would have expanded the war in Afghanistan, who would have opened "vast expanses" of Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, who would have 'put politics before science' and at first minimized the BP oil spill and then might have claimed that there was practically no oil left and that "the microbes ate it!", who might have continually filed briefs in favor of large corporate polluters, who might have even been in favor of whale hunting, who might have used cluster bombs on civilians in Yemen, who might have refused to investigate Bush's political firings of US Attorneys, why we might even have a president who would appoint a bunch of right wing psychopaths to the Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while allowing Wall St. Banks, the filthy rich and military corporations to continue plundering our economy, or who might try to institute policies which would effectively shut down the internet.

But wait…no. That's what Obama actually did do.

[elocs]

1. I wish it was broken up into 3 paragraphs. These old eyes ain't what they used to be

and that's still one big paragraph.

[BadgerKid]

4. If you're using Firefox, typing the Control and = keys

at the same time will increase the font size (Control - decreases; Control 0 resets).

[iwishiwas]

29. Hey, thanks much. Very helpful.

[Po_d Mainiac]

60. or Ctrl and mouse roller...n/t

[KoKo]

89. Also..Firefox and IE..go to View at top tool bar and scroll to Zoom and you can

Zoom in and Out.

[Scruffy1]

68. Ditto-learn something everyday-lol

[Shagbark Hickory]

192. What's the command to put paragrah breaks in a long run on paragraph like that?

[burrfoot]

230. "cut" and then "paste"

In your new note pad or word doc, you can now input paragraphs wherever they seem useful!


:toast:

[Shagbark Hickory]

246. Oh. That's convenient. n/t

:sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

202. Thanks I needed that. nm

[ohheckyeah]

33. If someone can't bother to

write in paragraphs I can't be bothered to read it.

[chervilant]

102. ...

:eyes:

[ohheckyeah]

156. .......

:eyes: :eyes:

[chervilant]

232. .........

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[ohheckyeah]

236. ...........

I'll see your :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

and raise you a :smoke:

[chervilant]

237. I am soooooooooooo

:rofl:

[ohheckyeah]

242. .......

I refuse to comment on that on the grounds that I may incriminate myself. :hippie:

[aquart]

152. That's how I feel.

You want me to read it? MAKE IT READABLE.

[JDPriestly]

171. Your frustration with that long paragraph says more about your mind

than the author's. If I could not read something because it was too long, I don't think I would broadcast that fact on the internet.

[Control-Z]

197. I don't think it is about the mind

as much as the eyes. I know I have more trouble with web pages than paper pages and actually have perfect near vision. It would be nice if people were aware and would consider the difference when writing. But it is too soon for internet writing rules to be a part of everyone's education.

[aquart]

221. Well, clearly, you are not me.

Two rules of business writing:

1. No one has time to read what you write. Make it brief.

2. No one has time to read what you write twice. Make it to the point.

Seems to me that should go double for a persuasive political rant unless one is just writing for the physical relief.

[ooglymoogly]

163. Smart nt

[rhett o rick]

203. I love your humor. lol. nm

[JVS]

34. One long sentence can't be broken into three paragraphs.

[demwing]

85. How about this:

Same text as in OP, but bulleted for easier reading...

Why, if we hadn't elected Obama we might have had a president who:

• refused to roll back taxes on the wealthy
• refused to establish a windfall profits tax on oil companies
• refused to investigate activities carried out by telecom companies
• illegally helped the government tap our phones, and who continued to tap phones without a warrant
• turned his back on Miranda
• refused to investigate any of the Bush Admin. lies, incompetence, corruption or torture
• supported anti-democratic, murderous coup regimes in Central America
• refused to restore Habeas Corpus
• left Guantanamo open indefinitely and maintain that its inmates had no rights at all
• continued extraordinary rendition and torture
• fought to keep Dick Cheney's remarks to Plame investigators secret
• did nothing of substance to rein in Wall St.
• continued to issue signing statements
• continued to delay investigations of CIA torture and even investigate those who protest that torture
• traded away the Public Option even while saying he was in favor of it
• expanded the war in Afghanistan
• opened "vast expanses" of Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling
• put politics before science and minimized the BP oil spill and then claimed that there was practically no oil left and that "the microbes ate it!"
• continually filed briefs in favor of large corporate polluters
• was in favor of whale hunting
• used cluster bombs on civilians in Yemen
• refused to investigate Bush's political firings of US Attorneys
• appointed a bunch of right wing psychopaths to the Commission of Fiscal Responsibility
• tried to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class
• allowed Wall St. Banks, the filthy rich and military corporations to continue plundering our economy
• tried to institute policies which would effectively shut down the internet.

But wait…no. That's what Obama actually did do.

[RC]

153. Thank you

:thumbsup:

[ooglymoogly]

164. +1

[mrdmk]

217. The bullets work very well, thank-you

But, some still bitch. Too bad for them...:evilgrin:

[BeliQueen]

129. I have young eyes, and I still think this massive paragraph of text is extremely hard to read.

[PatSeg]

138. Also you can hold down the "control" key

and use the scroll on your mouse to make the font bigger or smaller.

Still it is frustrating when people don't break up their paragraphs. I often wonder if it is a reflection of how they talk in person. This one isn't too bad, but I've seen paragraphs that were nearly a full page.

[Kolesar]

147. Or the "unrec" key

and then the back key

[elocs]

215. Thanks, I do use that all the time, even now,

the trouble is that if I go too big it is too large for one screen.

When writing I think of my local paper where when they write a paragraph is often just one sentence or maybe two. Rarely is it much longer so it is very easy to read.

[PatSeg]

235. Newspapers and magazines

know they will lose the reader if they use run-on paragraphs. I too try to keep my paragraphs reasonably short, as I don't want to give anyone a headache.

When I was young, I had some good English teachers who encouraged us to condense our thoughts and get to the point. It worked for the most part.

[Brickbat]

2. Recc'd, but still zero.

Here's a kick, anyway.

[rhett o rick]

204. Rec'd and 304. Feel better? nm

[DeSwiss]

3. But, but, but......

Sarah Palin could be in the Oval Office!!!!!

- Big 'ol K&R

[Canuckistanian]

6. She's the thinking man's Michele Bachmann

:thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

199. Can we be sure she isn't?

n/t.

[gateley]

5. Harsh, but can't argue with the litany he lays down. nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Logical]

18. I 100% agree Obama is better than any GOP candidate but he could have....

been so much more.

But anyone not voting Obama in 2012 is not thinking clearly.

[tomp]

83. says you. nt

[chervilant]

103. AND

a growing number of other people, including most teachers and their unions, most firefighters and their unions, AND most other observant and politically astute people.

[tomp]

210. so other people are voting for him (maybe)....

....therefore, I'm not thinking if i don't? logic, please.

[chervilant]

233. Actually,

I was agreeing with you: that many people have said they won't vote for Obama in 2012. I don't recall the other DUer's comment including the last line that's now there "But anyone not voting Obama in 2012 is not thinking clearly."

Obama has lost my respect and my support, primarily because of his egregiously wrong policies re: public education. Many, many of my veteran teacher friends have said the same.

His response to the BP fiasco iced the cake for me. No respect; no support.

[tomp]

250. sorry, must have misread your post. nt

[provis99]

162. why? I don't think Romney is any worse than Obama.

Heck, Obama even stole Romney's health care plan.

[mrcheerful]

21. One of the worst things media did was call American Presidents "the most powerful man" in the

world. People decided that he gets to run rough shod over the other 2 branches of government, they seem to forget that really the only power allowed is the power of the veto and even a veto can be overridden by a veto proof majority of the senate. It seems that some of our fellow country men are ok with Presidents that go for power grabs, notice they seem to over look the fact that such power grabs are supported by the R congress for R presidents.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[mrcheerful]

154. Yeah mr 223 because the bat shit crazy broad would have really made a better senator

then Harry. Sheeeeesh, who would have thought DU would have their very own Sharron Angle supporter. Because that was the choice voters had, bat shit crazy or a moderate D. But your reply doesn't address my point, presidents are not all powerful nor do they decide all by themselves which course the country takes, that is what congress does. The president asks and the congress then filibusters, stalls and talks about what he wants in committees until a compromise is made to pass the bill, which after 2 rounds the president gets to sign or the bill dies in committee. They really need to bring back school house rock so people learn the basics.

[Aleric]

196. Strategic thinking

The President's powers are not nearly as limited as you believe. Politics and leadership are about knowing how to work with the rules to maximize your outcome. That's why the Republicans have been in control for the last 12 years despite not always having the majority. The Republicans could prevent Reid from blowing his own nose even when REid had a supermajority to work with. The Reps know how to exploit the situation. Obama is not a strategic thinker and neither is Reid. That's why they are always on the defensive.

[mrcheerful]

225. Do much history re writing? Reid never had a super majority he had 58 D's

and 2 I's, one of which was Lieberman who voted with R's. I f you had been paying attention all the R's had to do was get someone to say filibuster and all debate was stopped on the discussion that was on the senate floor.

[Aleric]

251. Exactly

Reid caves on the mere WORD filibuster. We need a senate leader with a spine and a brain. Reid isn't it. He should have called their bluff. Let them stand there for hours and hours in diapers reading from the phonebook but Reid hasn't got the backbone to call their bluff.

[mrcheerful]

254. Once again you over look the fact that anything the D's do to stop the R's from bluffing their

bill through will then be blamed on D's tying to kill America's economy and killing jobs. The filibuster is not like you saw in some make believe movie made back in the 1930's where a senator had to stay in house for however long it took for the bill to be killed. All a senator needs to do is say he filibusters the bill and then the senate has to either come up with a 60 vote majority or compromise to get the votes to pass the bill. You really should read how congress works before you post this grow a back bone wing nut talking point. Congress has rules to follow the only way they can change those rules is with a 60 vote majority. It's called politics and that is the way the game has been played during my life time.

[provis99]

161. well then it won't matter if Sarah Palin is president.

She won't have any power anyways.

[mrcheerful]

165. Wrong again that falls into the double standards of this country

D's do not fall lock step behind the president R's do. Also R's help R presidents to make power grabs as we saw with the chimp. D's are kept from making power grabs by D congress as well as R congress, even though they are accused of power grabs every time R's are out of power. If a D tried 1/3 of what R presidents have done since Reagan they would face impeachment charges faster then you could say Obama.

[progressoid]

23. OK - refudiate all of the misleading parts for the amazingly naive...

[Ramulux]

26. Hahahaha

Love how you don't try to dispute a single thing said in the OP.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[woo me with science]

37. It's so frustrating when people point out his actual policies.

This song always makes me feel better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVhbusBDi4

[uponit7771]

46. or lie about them by telling half truths like the person in the OP

[Javaman]

61. Okay, break it down for us. Go ahead, I know you can...

I suspect crickets will be the response.

[jefferson_dem]

78. Do you really need this refuted point-by-point.

Of course, the OP is built on hyperbolic half-truths. Take the first line, for example. "A president who refused to roll back taxes on the wealthy..." That is the *full story* only in TruthinessVille. Obama didn't "refuse" any such thing. He was clear from the start that he opposed extending the Bush tax cuts. Surely you recall that the GOP was obstructing all Senate action until the tax issue was resolved. What should Obama had done - simply unilaterally deem his tax policy to be the law? Some could just as easily make the charge that those celebrating the reductionism in the OP were "refusing to support START or repeal of DADT.

It's true that the tax deal was a compromise but both sides got much that they wanted. Google the details if you need a refresher. Or link here - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/how_the_white_house_cut_the_de.html

[Javaman]

80. Okay, that's one...

You were the one that stated that it was half truths, so I'm asking you to break it down to support your position. That is all.

As for your reply..

I recall that the president also had to give in to the repukes demands for the tax cut on the rich to extend unemployment benefits which only effected "new" people on the rolls and not the 99'ers.

Okay, so that's one. There is a lot more to refute from that post. Go on.

[ClassWarrior]

82. No, he should have fought for it.

Sure, he says he supports this-or-that, but when does he ever actively argue for something worthwhile? He gets mighty fired up when he's campaigning for himself, but when he's "supporting" something for us, suddenly he starts yawning.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

131. I see, you can answer the content-free post below, but nothing for the one above.

Hmmm... Why are you avoiding the question?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

133. .

[ClassWarrior]

150. .

[Javaman]

185. Don't hold your breath...

that poster won't answer.

the poster replied to me with a half truth than vanished.

[ClassWarrior]

201. Oh, I won't.

But it's a great excuse to keep kicking the thread.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Javaman]

224. I agree! LOL nt

[ClassWarrior]

240. Thank you!

:fistbump:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

245. .

[tomp]

84. that's not truth, that's obamaspin. nt

[jefferson_dem]

86. Oh.

Well, that settles that.

[tomp]

211. as if you proved anything. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. No, he could have done what he has the power to do -

state clearly that any extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy was unacceptable, and that any bill that came to him extending those cuts would be vetoed, no matter what other goodies might be in it.

Something he neither said nor did.

And what did 'both sides' get? We got UE extension on a few people - excluding those who needed it most - and they got to add four trillion dollars to the deficit.

That's a real sweet deal, there.

[jefferson_dem]

91. Yes, he has the power to be satisfied with in-action and obstructionism.

So you would have been just fine with no extension of UE for anyone, no tax relief for the middle class, no repeal of DADT (for the foreseeable future), no START...

No compromise, no how, no way...

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. You don't get it.

His refusal to fight over that issue resulted in giving the republicans the power to SHUT US THE FUCK DOWN.

EVERYTHING they are doing now is contingent on the ballooning deficit which HE contributed to. What would have happened, really? The republicans would have re-grouped, and sent back a new bill which guaranteed middle-class tax cuts, and well as unemployment extensions etc., and then claimed a victory in 'forcing' middle-class tax cuts on Obama.

You are still trying to spin a horrific defeat into an Obama victory - and it won't wash. "Compromise" implies each side gets relatively equal value - the tax cut compromise was a 90/10 for the republicans, or more correctly, for the corporatists. That's not compromise - that's a negotiated surrender.

BTW, do you really think that a veto ends all discussion? That nothing will ever again be done on the vetoed matter? Do you think that if the bill was vetoed they would pass it again OVER his veto?

It's called 'separation of powers'. He can't do whatever he wants, but neither does he HAVE to do whatever Congress says. If he REALLY opposed the tax cuts, he could have vetoed them, and let the send him up a new, better bill. He didn't. Therefore, the only conclusion is he LIKED the bill he got and it was NOT forced on him. He is not poor widdle pwesident, helpless before congress.

[JDPriestly]

179. Look, the reason that the Republicans won in November is that

Obama has been such a weak president. Had he come out fighting for the American people, had he prosecuted the crooks on Wall Street, the torturers, the war profiteers and the rest of the criminal crew, he would have been the most popular president ever.

But he can't prosecute these powerful people because he owes them his status, his job and his livelihood and he knows it.

The Democratic Party needs to find an alternative candidate who has some integrity and will not sell out the American people.

[JDPriestly]

177. If the rich had to pay fair taxes, there would be more jobs.

Why? Because then the rich would need to spend their money on deductible items like salaries to employees and other things that would expand their businesses here in order to avoid handing a fairer portion of their profits to the government.

The right-wingers have it all wrong.

The fact is that Obama needs to state the truth which is that when taxes on corporations and the wealthy are higher, the corporations and wealthy have more incentive to invest. That's how things really work.

[txlibdem]

93. Yes, we could see how bruised Obama was after all that "arm twisting"

to get him to agree to extend the millionaire's tax cuts. And then he went on the TeeVee machine to tell us how disappointed he was that he was "forced" to take the pen from his pocket and sign, sign, sign all of those pro-Republican bills.

One question comes to mind: at the time he signed that extension, was Barrack Obama himself a millionaire? Why, yes he was. Hmmm....

[obxhead]

96. And you still haven't told the whole story on the tax cuts.

Yes Obama did state that he was against them. He also refused to tackle the tax cuts, that he knew was coming months earlier, because they were afraid to touch anything before a damaging election.

Had the tax cuts for the wealthy been addressed before the lame duck session, serious arguments could have been made before millions to billionaires got bargained away for pennies for the poor.

I understand wanting to tell the WHOLE story, but going from 1/2 to 2/3 is still a "half truth."

[jefferson_dem]

108. Fair enough.

I mostly agree with that other than than the "pennies for the poor" part.

[lark]

159. Don't you get it - Obama uses fear as a reason for inaction

on anything that means anything to the working class. His constituencies are obviously millionaires in his mind, they are the only ones he actually comes thru for. For us it's just crickets.

[truedelphi]

186. Good post. thank you. n/t

[chervilant]

105. Hyperbolic half-truths?

Truthiness isn't even the worst of Obama's many failings... Good luck with your continued support of the Corporate Megalomaniacs' Puppet du Jour.

[Marr]

136. That excuse is even more trasparently phony today than it was at the time.

If you notice, every time Obama signs some new piece of supply-side nonsense or right-wing garbage into action, he's does so against his will. He's always publicly "for" things that he slowly maneuvers into the garbage.

The Democrats had other options. Since the Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire in January anyway, they could have advanced a working class tax cut bill and gone out to promote that. The GOP would be unlikely to fight that for long. Or perhaps they would have-- I suspect you'll claim as much. We'll never know, because it wasn't even tried. Why do you suppose that is?

What I care about is actual policy, not spin. After you watch Obama for awhile, you start to see a pattern. He's always signing wealthy-first legislation into law, but it's always 'against his will'.

[JDPriestly]

176. Obama could have vetoed the tax bill. Would we all face higher taxes.

Yes. But we will face them anyway, and the draconian cuts to Medicare that we now face are far worse than the fate of losing rather inconsequential tax cuts in order to save the huge cuts of the rich.

The Medicare cuts are going to hurt the most vulnerable, helpless Americans -- those who are slowly dying in nursing homes, those who are old and disabled and unable to work and who will now not be able to afford decent healthcare.

How any person can claim to be a Christian and support the cuts to Medicare is utterly incomprehensible to me.

Obama had better not sign any bill that cuts Medicare benefits. As it is, many elderly people spend their children's legacies on healthcare in the last months of their lives. The rich, of course, do not worry about that. And the Republican congressmen who are cutting Medicare to pay for the parties and yachts of the rich know that they will never face death without medical care because by carrying the water for their rich donors, they are assured comfortable fortunes in their retirement.

[ThomCat]

188. Is that why the version of the tax cut HE backed offered

bigger tax cuts for the rich than even the republican version? He may have said he was against tax cuts for the rich when it made good political theater, but when it came time for actual policy, he proposed a bill that was even more beneficial to the rich than even the republican proposal.

[jefferson_dem]

213. You really believe he wanted a bigger tax cut for the rich than the Republicans wanted?

indeed. There's really no use in trying to rationally rebut such claims.

[cleanhippie]

70. What half-truths? Saying that there are half-truths in the OP does not make it true

unless you point out what parts you are talking about.


So please, what half-truths are you talking about?

[lark]

158. What is misleading in the OP?

Or is it that reality just plain bites and those rose colored glasses help you get thru the day?

[uponit7771]

45. Or FUDrs, Obama has an 85% + liberal approval rating

[UnrepentantLiberal]

200. Who's version of "liberal"?

Sean Hannity?

[Major Hogwash]

48. Hell, I wish I was living a fantasy.

I'd be married to Dolly Parton and getting free rides on that thar roller coaster in Dollywood!!

LoL

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[abelenkpe]

8. K&r nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

10. Would we have had a president that appointed SC justices that would strike down EVERY progressive

law of significant substance, now and for the next generation?

Hrmm?

[still_one]

13. shhh, don't bring that up. You mean there is a difference between alito and thomas, verses

the progressives members?

Of course there is, and anyone who doesn't realize that, is so bias, that they cannot think straight

[upi402]

30. That's very important.

As are the other issues that are an utter betrayal. And some choose not to ignore those, but weigh them and support a conclusion after critical thinking.

[Aleric]

122. There are progressives on the Supreme Court?

Maybe a couple of liberals but I don't see any progressives. Ohhh, you mean progressive in the way Terry McAulife watered it down, don't you?

[BzaDem]

227. There are those on the Supreme Court that would not strike down any major future proressive reform.

If Kennedy is replaced by another Republican, the group I speak of would be a minority. For a generation.

[Aleric]

252. Don't be so sure

SC Justices can be unpredictable. Remember, Blackmun was a Nixon appointee and he authored Roe v. Wade. Over his tenure he turned out to be one the most liberal appointees.

[sendero]

50. Really grasping.

... we got 1% of what we were promised so we should be happy. It could always be worse! Yes, that't the ticket.

[FirstLight]

134. thanks

:thumbsup: that's it in a very neat nutshell...

[BzaDem]

226. Why isn't it "the ticket?" Why isn't it exactly right? Do you really WANT to prevent future

presidents from passing progressive reform for a generation? If so, why would you want that?

[no limit]

88. If we had a republican Souter would not have retired. And Paul Stevens would have probably hung in

for a while longer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. As if there is not STILL a 5/4 split on the court.

He has done nothing to change the makeup of the court.

The real test will be in his next term, if one of the regressives needs replacing.

I more than half believe he will appoint a regressive, just to maintain the status quo. Wouldn't want to piss anybody off, after all.

[chervilant]

107. hmm...

And, if Thomas had been impeached--or merely steered toward a much deserved immediate retirement--then Obama might have already contributed to an important shift in the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court.

If, if, if...

[RaleighNCDUer]

113. As I said, the question is who would he appoint to replace one of the

wingers? Would he appoint a liberal? Or maintain the status quo, and appoint a corporatist?

[chervilant]

115. In essence,

I was agreeing with you...

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. Well, then, I guess we'll just have to agree

to agree.

:hi:

[bvar22]

126. Obama did NOT appoint a Liberal when JPStevens stepped down.

He replaced a Liberal with a Centrist.
The Net Results from the Obama appointments is that the Supreme Court is more conservative.

[BzaDem]

228. Making untrue statements doesn't turn the untrue statements into true statements. n/t

[still_one]

11. I can tell you one thing, the Supreme Court appointees under the republicans would have been FAR

worse then what Obama choose

There are differences between the republicans and the Obama administration

You may not like, as I don't, a lot of things that have been done under the Obama administration, but I also realize there are differences

I would also like to point out that in the first two years of the Obama administration, a hell of a lot of the blue dog Democrats were NOT behind him, and that was a huge disadvantage because he had to go against them and the republicans

Also, contrary to a lot of views, this country is NOT what it was 40 years ago. For one thing, the country has shifted to the right, and with the Communication Act , there is no equal time required

90% of talk radio is right wing. A large percentage of that is hate radio where progressives and liberals are painted as "non-Americans"

The question is this, should Obama have fought for single-payer, even though the best bought Congress would have never passed it. There is a fair argument on both sides. One side says it is better to have something than nothing, and the otherside argues that "something" makes things even worse

The bailout of the institutions that caused the financial collapse, while retaining those individuals in those institutions who contributed to the problem ranks high up there with the frustration many feel with this administration.

Nothing is going to change progressively until the country elects those progressives

Until that happens, in my view, there is still a difference between the Democratic party and the republican party. Just look at their platforms

[markpkessinger]

16. Neither I, nor the person I quoted, suggested Republicans would be better. BUT...

Being marginally better than the opposition is a minimal standard, not inspired leadership.

[still_one]

42. You have a point, and it is frustrating, but what choice do we have right now? Until we have

progressive candidates running and winning I cannot see much changing short term. What amazes me is most of the pain is the result of republican policies since reagan, and it seems that many Americans fail to recognize that. In fact, the myth of reagan is constantly perpetrated by the MSM

We need new progressive people to start bringing back the Democratic party to the values it stands for

I look at the Feingold loss in the midterms for a person who effectively told people he would put corporations over people, and have to wonder what is wrong with Americans

[chervilant]

110. No duh!

Our political system has been completely co-opted by the corporatists, who are singularly invested in protecting their wealth and primacy at any cost! We the People have to SUCK IT UP and do whatever is necessary to recover our great nation!

If we continue to vote for a candidate who is 'the lesser of two evils,' we will continue to get the same broken system, and we will continue to bend over and grab our ankles for the vile, greedy corporatists. They, of course, will continue to laugh at us, as they sip their dirty martinis and smoke their Cuban cigars.

[tonybgood]

116. That's why they all need to go!!!

Whether (D) or (R), so long as we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, we will continue on the road to ruin. VOTE THEM OUT!!!

[Kolesar]

148. Would you like a tissue? eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. No, the country has not shifted right - the government has shifted right.

The people, who thought they were electing a progressive, gave their candidate the greatest electoral victory since Reagan. The people voted for a progressive platform. Then were betrayed.

And yes, he SHOULD have fought for single payer. He should have hammered on it day and night, and sent out all his proxies to argue for it on the Sunday morning shows - THEN he could have compromised down to a workable public option. Had he even really wanted a public option to begin with.

[chervilant]

111. + a GAZILLION million + 50 million times INFINITY!

[rdking647]

12. obama accomplishments

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/obamas-accomplishments/


and what would a GOP prez have done?

[Nevernose]

20. I got as far as the 1st section: The Arts

I don't know what the Artist Corps for the schools is, but I know we just laid off our art teacher, our drama, our foods & nutrition, 1 Spanish, 4 English, 2 history, 1 math, 1 science, 1 special ed, and the entire health department. Next year most of my English classes will have 50 or more students in each class, and that a majority of them are on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder. I realize that this is NOT Obama's fault. I do know that his understanding of or recommendations for the American educational system are frightenly ignorant at best. He may by decimating the world's best school system for no other reason than to get easy votes and appeal to cost-cutting Republicans, but hey, at least we've got an artist corps, right?

And I wonder how that expansion of the NEA did in the latest round of budget negotiations?

If I sound irrational, it's because at this point my wife and I are both starting to lose it from the stress (which begins with Arne Duncan and is making its way down). He does seem to have lots of small victories, but it seems to me and many others that he loses every time it really matters: on the big stuff. In the interest of fairness, I will read the rest of that blog entry right now.

I think my main problem with Obama is that he's just not what we need right now. He's out of touch, and what the Washington Democrats need right now isn't a negotiator-politician, it's a leader.

[AgainsttheCrown]

39. Ding! Ding! Ding!

That last sentence is spot on. We needed someone that would attempt fundamental change to the system. His lack of leadership has allowed our system to get to the point that the damage may be irreparable (from within).

We needed a course correction...a counterrevolution to the Reagan-Bush revolution. And instead we got a deceleration of the speed we're careening towards the cliff.

And I'm not saying that he's a Republican, but he's going with political flow. Just like Clinton and Nixon did with divided governments.

(There is no doubt in my mind that we would have been turned in to a fascist state if Nixon had a Republican congress. But he didn't. He went with the flow and passed some progressive programs.)

A better model for how to run a divided government was Reagan. He strongly made his case, but had to negotiate with Democrats to get it done.

As an eloquent speaker, I think that if Obama strongly made his case for robust reforms and failed after calling out the entrenched interests that impeded it, that the American people would have given him a stronger congress. And although the Corporate media would have diluted his message. He would have projected strength by being principled and that is hard to dilute.

Given his character, Obama may have been better than Clinton was during the 90's in the same position, but not for today's times. We're teetering on the edge. Hopefully our Plutocratic overlords won't give us that final push.

[truedelphi]

40. It is often forgotten that it was under Reagan's tax reform that

We arrived at having the Earned Income Tax Credit,
which ever since has helped low income workers.

He also successfully put together a program that made it impossible for dead beat parents to avoid paying child support by moving across state lines away from the kids.

His budget director, Stockman, has argued against most of the current era's slam against education, infra structure needs, and basic safety net programs, even as Obama "compromises" these necessary items away.

I have never ever voted for a Republican for President in my life, but if Reagan came back from the grave, I would gladly take him over the current WH occupant.

[disillusioned73]

51. I had to rub my eyes and double check the website I was at...

Ray-gun.. are you serious?? Since you didn't vote for him the first go around, you may be too young to fully comprehend the damgage that that puppet unleashed on this country..

[truedelphi]

169. I am a bit sorry to have posted that.

It's true that the two good things that happened to my family on account of Reagan probably don't outweigh so much of the damage that he has done.

For instance: his and Nancy's War on Some Drugs.

The Iran Contra Affair.

And a host of other things.

Feel free to bring up those items of oppression that galled you. I am listening.

However, he did have advisers who were quite unhappy with the notion of "globaliization." And who wondered what had been happening with regard to the Anti-Trust actions. Why was Anti trust activity being frowned on, when it clearly was good to get rid of monopolies?

[Javaman]

62. I guess revisionist history is your forte'.

you would want ray-gun back???

wow, just fucking wow!

[truedelphi]

155. Hey, at this point I'd take Nixon.

I hated that guy for his ONE stinking, non-winnable war.

Now we have four of 'em.

[Javaman]

184. wow...

I would take neither. repukes are repukes.

nixon and/or ray-gun would exploit the system to their own benefit just as the morons repukes are doing today.

Both assholes were fucking evil bastards.

[truedelphi]

187. Nixon was President during the passage of the

Clean Air Act, the establishment of a meaningful EPA, he held off the John Birch style fanatics that would have preferred a war with China to meeting with the Chinese.

He did some bat shit crazy things as well. For which he was forced to resign. As on account of having a Free Press, he was held to account for those things.

It could be that my nostalgia for these Repuke Presidents is somewhat of a nostalgia to return to an era when we still had a Free Press. My real preference would be for a FDR-style leader.

Or a Kucinich with balls.

Sorry to rile you up so much Javaman.

[Javaman]

247. Nixon was nothing more than a broken clock...

right twice again, but for the other 22 hours was an evil prick. I give him nothing.

Read up on his glorious red baiting in the 1950's. He was such a swell guy.

[Dawgs]

66. I think you need to read a few things before making posts like this one.

He started the destruction of this country. The last thing we need is another Reagan.

[truedelphi]

175. Well, as RaleighNCDU'er points out in his post below yours -

The nation's Congress had a Democratic majority while the changes were being proposed.

So I cannot see how you can blame Reagan for everything.

Often times, the two parties are much more in collusion than loyalists of either party allow themselves to admit.

[_ed_]

73. Reagan?

Were you conscious during the Reagan years? We were introduced to the lovely moniker "welfare queen" among other treasures. Did you know his administration faced over 250 separate indictments?

Wait... this is a progressive site, right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. As AgainsttheCrown said, above, those items were the product

of negotiation with a divided congress. Good as those programs might be, they came out of a Democratic majority congress, and were counter-balance to things like Star Wars, the MX program, support of the Contra war, mining of Nicaragua's waters, proxy war in Afghanistan...

Let's not give credit where none is due.

[truedelphi]

170. I am not sure about the Tax Cuts for the underemployed,

And marginally incomed - if you can reference where those were from the Democratic side of the aisle, I am listening.

But I was an early on follower of everything related to Reagan's program to help single parents collect the money due them.

I had written Dems for years on the issue. I had met with Democratic congress people for years. They would say that welfare was one option - go collect the money you need from the government.

Of course, that meant filling out forms at the County AFDC office, standing in line, being audited, being threatened with jail (As I was once, for forgetting to report a five dollar birthday check. They kept me for three hours inside a tiny, windowless office, and no one would tell me why I was there, other than to say I was going to jail. And BTW, this was a very Democratic part of the country - I am pretty sure all the soical workeers hassling me were Dems.))

Because of Reagan, I was able to sue my son's father from a state I had moved to where he was not in residence, and collect decent sized checks from the guy, regardless of how much money I was or wasn't making. Why stick the government for a bill that is not rightly theirs?

[deutsey]

118. Stockman also revealed how it was Reagan's plan to create huge deficits

intentionally so we'd have to cut social spending.

He caused a brief stink at the time but it seems largely forgotten these days.

[truedelphi]

174. Thanks for reminding me.

Believe me, on several levels I regret writing that post.

[AgainsttheCrown]

219. Reagan would have done so much more harm to the country...

With a reThug congress. The EITC was http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/02childrenfamilies_holt/20060209_Holt.pdf">actually passed in 1975 and the chief proponent was of course a Democrat - Russell Long. Reagan expanded it. Probably a compromise with the Democrats to drop the tax rates to the levels that he did.

Obama may be going with the flow and not pushing back against the rightward drift. But if Reagan had the same numbers that Obama had in both houses AND the SCOTUS we would be a fascist state.

[russspeakeasy]

64. Thanks nevernose.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. The Artist's Corps is a thing still being talked about not yet

being done. I think it is going to get done, but it is not yet a working program. It has great potential.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. That appears to be the conservaDem approach to governing

Do some little things and brag about them as if they were epoch-making accomplishments but either neglect the big things or cooperate with the Republicans in ruining the country in the name of "bipartisanship."

We do not need the conservaDem approach. Whether they intend to or not, they are complicit in the destruction of the America we once knew. (Nobody under 50 has personal experience with what REAL "hope and change" are like.)

[go west young man]

99. So true.

Paul Krugman said something akin to that the other day. We need a leader and all we have is a conciliatory fella.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

124. That's what he ran as

Remember the whole "no red states, no blue states" spiel that got him started? Read "Audacity of Hope" and tell me whether or not it's the same guy who's POTUS today.

[catrose]

135. I couldn't get through the book for that reason

He really believes in his working-together idea, that we all really want the same things...like a community organizer, you know?

But reality is the other side just wants to take him down. And make more money. Not sure which they want more.

[chervilant]

112. OMG!!!

Especially true is your last paragraph!

And, as a fellow teacher, I can tell you that Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan, and their continued assault on teachers and public education, are the primary reasons Obama no longer has my respect or support.

[AllTooEasy]

157. You're right - "this is NOT Obama's fault" and yet...

...you blame him anyway. Lowered state revenues got all those people fired. Along with elected Republican state employees, local tax cuts for the rich, and Bush's global economic crisis.

The president is not a dictator or a messiah.

[truedelphi]

172. In many ways, It's just "Good Cop" va "Bad Cop"

as far as our political parties. Thanks for your post.

It details all that is currently wrong with our government at the highest levels.

I see some great differences when voting for a Democrat or a Republican at lower levels, but not many I can think of when voting for people at the higher levels.

I cannot for the life of me figure out the differences between say, a reformed Ahnold Schwartzennegger and a Diane Feinstein. Well, Ahnold is a bit more intelligent on the War on Some Drug issues.

I could point out many differences between Ahnold and Barbara Boxer. To my mind, she is one of the few truly principled people with a D after her name. But she has a hard time getting anywhere with legislation that she writes. And we are a sadder nation for that.

[ThomCat]

189. Most of those "accomplishments" aren't accomplishments at

all.

Creating a commission with an impressive sounding name that is deliberately loaded with business lobbyists who will make sure the commission does the opposite of what the name applies, that's not an accomplishment.

Proposing stuff isn't an accomplishment if nothing good ever really gets done.

This entire list is a sham, designed to sound good for the easily-fooled.

We keep seeing variations on this list. When one list finally drops out of circulation because it has been fatally debunked too often, another appears. Sad. Very sad.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Did that person never hear of paragraphs? That's a hard read...

Breaking it up would've helped.

In any case, I agree with some of those things mentioned. But as usual, it's not an informed, rational argument. It totally ignores the good things Obama has done, and maybe go on to state that the bad outweighs the good.

When all someone has to say is negative...well, it's not true. So that means the argument is not true. And the opinion is no good.

[TheKentuckian]

57. Balanced is not truth and neither is fair. You cannot dispute the points so you make some

you declare someone a LIAR because they didn't present positive points?

Is a person who makes a uniformly positive post a LIAR because they didn't get the negatives in there? I bet a search would show you never have questioned the veracity of such a post which would make you a hypocrite and a bit of a LIAR yourself.

A liar is a specific charge that I doubt you'd make in real life where it will get your ass kicked in such circumstances. You can't refute a damn thing said so you pop of with an attack on a person's integrity because they didn't also mention things you feel are positive.

Are all your thoughts all encompassing or as limited as this one?

If the standard for honesty is the complete truth then I'm afraid we are all LIARS. Every story isn't a ledger, the writer is under no obligation to balance their writing anymore than an Obama Super Friend has to spend half their post ripping his ass to be telling the truth.

[Honeycombe8]

229. Yes. When summing up a person like the President, only mentioning the negative...

as that person perceives it, turns it into a juvenile rant, not to be taken seriously.

Read a serious column sometime on Obama, one that is critical. It will ALWAYS contain positive statements about him.

But what can a reader expect from someone who doesn't know about paragraphs.

[TheKentuckian]

253. No, you called the writer a liar. Would you call a writer a liar that spoke only positively?

A juvenile rant is a lot different than a lie.

Is the person lying, meaning you dispute the veracity of their statement or are you saying they didn't make a reasonable effort to present a balanced view point?

When you say a person like the President, what does that mean? A person of a certain rank must be spoken of in balanced terms? I don't get the "like the President" thing, the office is a first among equals deal not a Lordship or elevation to a godhead.

No one is required to give a broad overview, positive or negative, to tell the truth about the points they wish to discuss. I think "liar" is jumping the shark and that you are close to spitting "Heresy!!!".

[femrap]

17. So is this a

'remorse vote' and HRC would have been the FIGHTER we needed after all?

[TNLib]

55. At this point I think anything is possible

I'm starting to think she might have been a better choice.

[upi402]

19. Here it is with line item BREAKS! ugh... run-on writing

Why, if we hadn't elected Obama we might have had a president who refused to roll back taxes on the wealthy,
who refused to establish a windfall profits tax on oil companies,

who refused to investigate activities carried out by telecom companies who illegally helped the government tap our phones, and who continued to tap phones without a warrant,

who would have turned his back on Miranda,

who would refuse to investigate any of the Bush Admin. lies, incompetence, corruption or torture,

who would support anti-democratic, murderous coup regimes in Central America,

who might refuse to restore Habeas Corpus,

who would have left Guantanamo open indefinitely and maintain that its inmates had no rights at all,

who might have continued extraordinary rendition and torture,

who might have fought to keep Dick Cheney's remarks to Plame investigators secret,

who would have done nothing of substance to rein in Wall St.,

who would have continued to issue signing statements,

who might have continued to delay investigations of CIA torture and even investigate those who protest that torture,

who would have traded away the Public Option even while saying he was in favor of it,

who would have expanded the war in Afghanistan,

who would have opened "vast expanses" of Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling,

who would have 'put politics before science' and at first minimized the BP oil spill and then might have claimed that there was practically no oil left and that "the microbes ate
it!",

who might have continually filed briefs in favor of large corporate polluters,

who might have even been in favor of whale hunting,

who might have used cluster bombs on civilians in Yemen, who might have refused to investigate Bush's political firings of US Attorneys,

why we might even have a president who would appoint a bunch of right wing psychopaths to the Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle

[progressoid]

22. Thanks!!

[cleanhippie]

71. Does that make it any less valid?

[Citizen Worker]

24. Yep, that's the hope and change we voted for alright.

[DiverDave]

32. My thoughts exactly

EOM

[FarLeftFist]

25. Congratulations.

On falling for the rightwing tactics as noted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4809248


ITS ONLY BEEN 2 YEARS!

[markpkessinger]

27. So, anyone who thinks differently from you has "fallen for rightwing tactics?"

...Give me an effing break.

[FarLeftFist]

28. I was referring to the author of that article.

Physician, heal thyself.

[uponit7771]

47. Nah, just those who post half truths like the person in the op

[Javaman]

63. Okay, so refute the charges. nt

[cleanhippie]

72. You keep making that claim, but refuse to support it with example. Why?

What parts are half truths?

[Thunderstruck]

90. Which parts are half-truths? GET UP ON IT!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

59. You nailed it. The media has one core message "Obama bad".

The right says he's a socialist the left says he's a corporatist ............. message ... Obama bad.
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D

The right says he's a coward, the left says he's a war monger ................ message ... Obama bad.
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D

The right says he's weak on terror, the left says he's a torturer ............ message ... Obama bad.
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D

The right says he's redistributing wealth, the left says he hates the poor ... message ... Obama bad.
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D

There is one core message running 24/7 from the right and the left.
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D
O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D O B A M A B A D

The "Obama bad" message, is gleefully accepted by Republicans, and also accepted by democrats.

The fact that the REASONS given to claim that "Obama bad" are diamentrically opposed is totally irrelevant.

In the end, the Republicans will vote because OBAMA BAD and the Democrats will stay home because OBAMA BAD.

Lacking any ideas on how to actually govern, this is the right wing plan for 2012. And its working.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Which one of those "the left says" is wrong? Besides the "hates the poor."

[JoePhilly]

151. Your Caricature is not better than that of the right wing.

Both the right and the left have created caricatures of Obama, keeping the evidence that supports theirs, and discarding all other.

btw ... down below ... the item "hates the poor" is accepted as true bu others who think "Obama bad".

You threw it out, others kept it in.

But as I said earlier, the moderate Dem is not internalizing the details ... they only internalize the core message ... "Obama bad".

If Obama got ANY praise, that would be one thing. But he doesn't.

Both the far right and far left paint him as evil in the media. The fact that the reasons are seperated by 180 degrees does not matter.

Have you ever wondered how the right wing can call Obama a Socialist, a Communist, and a Fascist, all at the same time, even though those three models are totally different?

Because the REASON to hate Obama does not matter at the individual level. The GOP does not care if you hate him for being a Socialist, a Communist, a Fascist, or a Corporatist ... they need you to hate him.

That hate will increase GOP turn out, and decrease Democratic turn out, especially in the middle. And that's the plan.

Scream, hate Obama ... whatever ... and if you do a good enough job, we'll all get to enjoy a President "Scott Walker".

[Cherchez la Femme]

81. You bemoan "OBAMA BAD" yet don't point out nor even acknowledge

the huge disappointment this President has been to a very many Democrats.

Keep crying, throw all the fits you want -- it's not going to change the realities of Obama's actual governance and "leadership"

[JoePhilly]

120. The folks screaming OBAMA BAD are the ones endless crying, all

I did was point out its effect.

Moderate Dems will stay home because all they ever hear is ...OBAMA BAD.

The reasons whether, false, misleading, exaggerated, or accurate, is irrelevant.

[Cherchez la Femme]

141. Oh, THEY'RE 'crying' -- YOU, you're just 'point(ing) out'

Suurrree... I get it. :eyes:

[frylock]

166. the irony of the whining post complaining about the whining..

we're here to discuss issues, but spend most of the time cleaning up the shit that's flung about by his most ardent supporters.

[JDPriestly]

182. JoePhilly, you actually see the problem quite well.

Obama's big failing is that he does nothing to encourage the activists, those who formed his base in 2008 -- the people who would get out the vote for him if they liked what he was doing.

At this time, Obama's base, that is, his supporters (to the extent that he hasn't alienated everyone), are in big business -- the Wall Street crowd like Goldman and Morgan Stanley, and the lobbyists in D.C.

He certainly does not have much more than nodding support from union members. He has left them out to hang along with teachers and nurses.

Obama has managed to insult every activist group out there.

I am probably still listed as an OFA supporter, and I would not vote against him in a general election. But who is going to work for Obama? Who is going to talk to voters?

Are those guys at Goldman going to walk the streets in Cincinnati? I don't think they would want to spare the time from their trading desks to volunteer for Obama. So who is he going to persuade to do that?

Young people still "like" him, but how much energy will they put into re-electing him? Not much I'm afraid. They are too busy trying to get jobs and survive. He cannot count on that enthusiasm any more -- and he has no one to blame but himself.

[ClassWarrior]

249. +1

NGU.

[Zoeisright]

127. I suggest you read this

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[Cherchez la Femme]

139. Needs updating

first one to pop up: "Significantly expanded Pell grants..." :rofl:

When I have more time I'll read that lovely propaganda site. It already is amusing, can only get better.
Thanks! :hi:

[blackspade]

95. Team Obama has allowed this framing to occur

The Rethugs will say 'Obama Bad' no matter what. The Rethug memo is a lie.
On the other hand, the message from the left is generally the truth.
To take your examples:
'The right says he's a socialist the left says he's a corporatist'
Obama has supported Wall Street over the other 95% of the country for the last 2+ years. His bailouts without requirements, his embracing of corporate honchos in his administration, and his continuing support of rethug fiscal policies are just the start.

'The right says he's a coward, the left says he's a war monger'
Again, he has continued the militarism of the Bush administration without pause in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and now Libya. He has made no effort to curb the MIC or rein in DoD spending.

'The right says he's weak on terror, the left says he's a torturer'
He holds people in indefinate detention without trial, or judicial recourse, Hasn't closed Gitmo, is holding american citizens in appallingly abusive situations and has authorized extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens.

'The right says he's redistributing wealth, the left says he hates the poor'
This one is the kicker. Of all of the above issues, this is the worst. He has bought into the rethug austerity scheme hook, line, and sinker. By not championing the poor and middle class in this country, he has effectively denied them a voice at the negotiating table run by bought and paid for rethugs and DLC Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich, cutting desperately needed social spending, and conceding to rethug focal arguments appear to be just the start.
Where is Obama's line in the sand? He and his team don't seem to have any position that they will hold fast to. He is more than willing to give away his supposed core principles before the negotiations even begin.
The problem that you and others are missing is that Team Obama is going for a conciliatory middle ground that does not exist.

[JoePhilly]

149. The CARICATURES of Obama, from the left and the right, are what "does not exist"

The far right and the far left have created DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED CARICATURES of Obama.

Each cherry picks to prove he is a SOCIALIST or a CORPORATIST. And this is true on EVERY ISSUE.

The reality is that he is NEITHER of the caricatures presented.

I've spend a lot of time debating folks on the right wing. And I came to conclude that they saw everything in very black and white terms. They never saw complexity or nuance. And I would argue that "the LEFT" was not the same. That they left understodd that the word is a very complex place. And that there were many grey areas, lots of nuance.

I now know I was wrong about that, the EXTREMES on the left and the right BOTH see only black and white.

And the only evidence they consider valid, is that which supports their caricature.

[blackspade]

160. So you are not going to address my points?

Fine, but don't lump the left in with the right-wing nutjobs because there is no comparison.
Being a critic is not the problem.
Even if your point about caricatures is true (which is a right wing media creation as well, that the left and right are equally crazy) Team Obama's messaging on the issues is terrible.

[JoePhilly]

178. I did address your points ...

Let's take that Obama sided with the banks and the rich over the other 95%.

As a candidate, Obama said that he WOULD NOT raise taxes on the 95% making under 250k. And to KEEP that promise, he allowed the tax cuts for the rich to remain for 2 more years.

From that, many on the left IGNORE that he kept that promise to the 95%, as you do now, and CHERRY PICK the fact that he allowed he tax cuts for the rich to extend as well. You IGNORE that he protected the 95%.

Both the right and the left do this.

This is not about being "critical". It is about being nothing but critical. It is about the difference between using what 'we did not get' as the next goal, versus using it as an ANCHOR.

And again ... the moderate Dem, the one who isn't following this debate about the NUANCE of tax cuts for the rich and the middle class.

All they hear is "Obama bad". And they will stay home. And the GOP will gain even more control.

[blackspade]

231. First off...

Thanks for responding! I don't agree with you, but that is one of the reasons why I love this place.
Reasoned debate is ehat makes the world work in my opinion.

To your point:
'And again ... the moderate Dem, the one who isn't following this debate about the NUANCE of tax cuts for the rich and the middle class.
All they hear is "Obama bad". And they will stay home. And the GOP will gain even more control.'

I totally don't agree with this statement. It insinuates that moderates and independents are stupid. They're not. Possibly uninformed, but not stupid. In fact the 'Obama Bad' message seems to be a failure according to polling posted by several of the rabid pro-Obama folks here (not a slam, just a fact, which is their right). I'm actually more inclined to think that progressives and lefties were the ones that stayed home last year, and not because of the 'Obama Bad' message. It was their profound dissappointment in his agenda.

As for the tax debate from the lame duck session, there are a few issues that you are ignoring.
One, the tax debate should ahve taken place last summer and fall, before the lame duck session, when Democrats held a majority, and Obama had much more freedom to message in his favor.
Two, the tax cuts for the middle class would not have been a great loss. I say that as someone who would have been effected by them. The tax deal reached actually raised taxes on the poorest people, and blew a huge hole in the budget that only benifited rich people.
Three, You might call it cherry picking, but letting tax cuts for the rich was also one of his promises. He caved to the rethugs out of fear. As a person that would have been adversly impacted by letting the tax cuts expire, I would have applauded his coourage standing up to the rethugs. I was willing to reward his courage and punish the rethugs for THEIR lack of compromise on this issue.

Thanks for the debate. I look forward to your response. :beer:

[JDPriestly]

181. Your ridicule of the truth does not change that truth.

Obama is a good guy but a BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD president.

He has not sided with ordinary Americans.

Rather, in each instance, he has sided with Wall Street and the rich against the rest of us.

If he agrees to major changes in Medicare and Social Security, he will not be reelected even if the Republicans put up Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

I spoke to a very elderly, life-long Democrat. She is crushed by Obama's silence on the Republicans' gleeful proposals to change Medicare. There is a voter who will stay home if Obama is the nominee. And there are millions more like her.

My big problem last fall and for any election in which we are supposed to be defending Obama's recod is that, while I will probably vote Democratic, no matter what, I can't campaign for him.

In the past, I was a very active campaigner. I can't tell you how many times I have walked my precinct, how many campaign tables I have hosted at Farmer's Markets and supermarkets and, you name it for liberal causes including the Democratic candidates. Not to brag, but I have a great smile and can really talk with people. Th folks in my community know me and trust me. It makes me sad, but I could not campaign on Obama's record. He just has not performed honorably. He has sold out to Wall Street and I cannot betray the trust of my neighbors by campaigning on his record.

That is why I don't think Obama can win in 2012. What honest person would go out and campaign for a man who so readily agreed to austerity measures? Why is he working so hard to promote "free trade" when we can see from the record that it has destroyed America's economy? Why do the rich never pay for their theft, for their crimes while the poor sit in prisons for, in many instances, relatively minor offenses? The least that Obama could give to the poor in America is justice. He would not have to ask Congress to help him with that.

[JoePhilly]

198. One more caricature.

When he saved the auto industry ... did he not help "ordinary Americans"??

He maintained the tax breaks for the middle class ... those under 250k ... guess that proves he hates them.

Pre-existing conditions for kids ... covered ... he must hate kids.

Largest infrastructure stimulus in decades ... the bastard!!!!

You only want to see those facts that support the Obama Bad meme. The others, you discard.

The far right does the same thing, just in the opposite direction.

Both of the extremes have one thing in common, they hate Obama. And each thinks that their reasons to hate him and OBVIOUS and anyone who does not agree is stupid.

Or ... it could be ... that Obama is neither a socialist or a corporatist. That he is not the caricature that the right and left present.

Naaaaaaaa.

[TransitJohn]

220. You should be a big-time media pundit. Your 'left and right equal' meme would go over very well.

It's the exact same behavior I see in the media non-stop. Give it a shot.

[JDPriestly]

234. Was it Obama or Bush who bailed out the auto industry

I don't like Bush, but . . .

— The emergency bailout of General Motors and Chrysler announced by President Bush on Friday gives the companies a few months to get their businesses in order, but hands off to President-elect Barack Obama the difficult political task of ruling on their future.

The plan pumps $13.4 billion by mid-January into the companies from the fund that Congress authorized to rescue the financial industry. But the two companies have until March 31 to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

He maintained the tax breaks for the middle class but at the expense of cutting back on money for other government programs -- EPA anyone?

Pre-existing conditions for kids are covered if you can afford to cover them. But his plan does virtually nothing to cut insurance or healthcare costs. And it does not provide universal coverage. A public option would have made it easier for parents to pay for the insurance they can now buy for their children with pre-existing conditions and would have contributed both to cutting real costs and insuring to universal coverage.

The infrastructure stimulus was great but it is not being maintained. Our infrastructure is still in horrible disrepair.

Obama could have maintained his popularity. He hasn't. I do not think he will be re-elected in 2012.

[obxhead]

101. in 2014

you'll be able to scream "but it's only been 6 years!"

How's that working out for ya?

[Zoeisright]

125. Exactly. And I notice there's no mention of stem cell research in that screed.

Or the healthcare law, which, in spite of all the whining, is actually HELPING people.

Plus all of THIS

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

For Christ's sake, is this FR?

I wish I could unrec this stupid OP a million times.

[frylock]

167. no profile: check. super far-lefty screen name: check. disparaging of leftist ideals: check

if it walks like a duck......

[Chris_Texas]

35. Obama represents his employers.

As this is patently obvious, I can only conclude that those who don't understand how the system works choose to keep their eyes closed in order to maintain their illusions. At the national level both parties and special interest groups are financed by exactly the same industries. These industries are putting on a show. That's all.

Obama is going to do exactly as he is told, and if he is a good boy he will get into the club.

[yurbud]

38. sadly true

[harun]

92. +1, he is clearly not "the boss".

[Raine]

41. EXCELLENT! k&R nt

:dem: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Major Hogwash]

44. " . . . If we hadn't elected . . " Course, he was the first to rush down and vote for Obama, huh?

Yeah, right!!

Do you know what I think is funnier than hell?
McCain/Palin didn't even distribute bumper stickers here in Idaho.

In Idaho!!

Redneck marlboro country, Bush got 69% of the vote here in 2004.
But, McCain/Palin didn't even bother printing out and giving out bumper stickers in 2008.

I don't even know what they look like, and I live in GOP Central Committee Country.
That's CCC, for those following at home.
Their motto is "We're CCC, not the KKK . . . but we used to be!"

[markpkessinger]

209. I can't speak for how the author of the quote voted, but I certainly did vote for Obama!

And yet, I am just as frustrated as the person I quoted apparently is.

[indimuse]

49. KNR! n/t

[FlyByNight]

52. K & R

Sadly.

[democrank]

53. K & R

[MissDeeds]

54. K&R

[oldlib]

58. The points

that you made suggest that Obama can be beaten, if the GOP runs a reasonable black man, like Micheal Steele, the former RNC chair.

[Pooka Fey]

65. K&R

[mod mom]

67. I wish someone would pass it on to him.

Maybe he doesn't even care...maybe it full steam ahead to protect the elites.

[bertman]

75. RECOMMEND. Maybe someone should send this as a letter to the President.

He appears to be shielded from the reality of his decisions and how they are perceived and felt by working class Americans.

[ProSense]

76. " continued extraordinary rendition and torture"

Bullshit!


"who would have left Guantanamo open indefinitely"

Bullshit!


"who would have opened "vast expanses" of Atlantic seaboard"

Bullshit


The OP amounts to: Obama hasn't done everything in two years and Congress' failures are his fault.

[chervilant]

114. hmph

Your hyperbole would be laughable if our media, our government and the global economy were not completely co-opted by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who couldn't be happier with Obama's 'performance' and the hoi polloi's continued bickering and whinging.

[JDPriestly]

183. ProSense, are you planning to walk precincts for Obama in 2012.

Because if you are, you should come to my hometown and walk mine. I won't be joining you.

Do you really volunteer for the nitty-gritty work in the elections. I have in the past, but I won't be volunteering for Obama.

Please stop at my door if you decide to do some campaigning.

I knocked on many, many doors and walked long distances for Obama in 2008. Did you?

[davidthegnome]

79. K & R

Poorly written truth is still truth.

[Hotler]

98. kicking n/t

[bhikkhu]

100. Perhaps reading comprehension is the real problem!

Seriously, the sad joke is how many upthread didn't "get" the OP at all, but imagined they were piling on to just another fact-free rant.

[BrklynLiberal]

109. sad.....just so disappointingly sad.

[Daemonaquila]

119. K&R

I am asking myself now if, when the next election rolls around, I am going to stay home. How bad would the rethug candidate have to be for me to feel it's too risky to vote with my conscience, and NOT vote for Obama?

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

205. Please don't stay home

Your vote is needed for all of the other races in 2012.

The dem candidates for congress need to win. Don't let your distaste for the president prevent you from voting for candidates in other races.

:)

[SOS]

123. Palin/Bachmann 2012!

Might as well get it over with.

[davidwparker]

128. But, the other side is so much scarier. Why doesn't the

party take its base seriously like the GOP takes its base seriously?

The Dem base just goes along to get along. It will protest Bush and the GOP, but its own ... not so much.

Obama is unacceptable as the candidate for 2012. This base had better send the party a message.

[bvar22]

130. The real Heart Break is that...

...2008 was a Once in a Generation opportunity for REAL "Change"
.
.
.
.
wasted. :(




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?

"By their WORKS you will know them,"

[leeroysphitz]

132. +1

Once that fact has well and truly sunk in even the die hard willing thralls around here will shed more than a few bitter tears.

[FirstLight]

137. THAT's what we need to hammer...

If only our Pres. could recall his own wave of enthusiasm... if only he would really stand up in the face of these corporatists and BE the man he was in the election!
I don't know what 2012 will look like, but right now i am waiting for the man i voted for to show up in the white house.

I used to be moved when he spoke, and now i don't even care to stop and listen...it's like the invasion of the freaking body snatchers.
What happened?

Everyone upthread who is talking about 'balance of power' is full of shit. Obama had much more opportunity to make a difference for us and stand up for the things he SAID he would do and be a fighter for when he was comapigning. He could have done so much more. Bush took that power and ran with it...Obama let it get away from him. and I am still waiting for reversals of those bush doctrines...

The wars continuing and tax cuts for the rich continuinig were my biggest heartbreaks... but the recent wisconsin issue is even more telling.
Where's your comfortable shoes, mr pres?

well now it's been proven, we are a plutocracy and a corporate oligarchy, or whatever you want to call it. but the people in power are ALL against us, regardless of the letter by their name. No more hope, no more change...unless WE bring it.
question is how.
we thought our president would be a champion for us, he bullshitted us - easy as that

so now what?

[mistertrickster]

143. +100 nt

[leftstreet]

146. +1

[LWolf]

248. +10

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[mistertrickster]

142. Don't forget the Employee Free Choice Act . . .

"I will make it the law of the land when I'm President of the United States," Obama told a labor federation meeting in April 2008. (Wiki)

Yeah . . . right. CON Dems killed it in the Senate, and Obama didn't raise a peep. Instead he campaigned for them in 2010.

[Plucketeer]

145. Kicked, rec'd

and complimented.

[Pisces]

168. More attacks on our Democratic candidate. When will this bullshit stop???

[truedelphi]

180. He's not merely a candidate. He is the President.

Like many others have said, it's not merely that he hasn't gotten advantages for our side very often. (And by our Side, I mean the Middle Class.)

It's that he hasn't tried. The summer of 2009, he pretended that a President cannot offer anything from the bully pulpit, for instance, when Congress was dealing with the Health Care Reform legislation. He cited "Separation of Powers."

Yet for some reason, it was A-okay for him to negotiate away some 800 + Billion dollars of tax relief to America's richest segment of the population, during a lame duck Congress session. By himself, basically.


He's inconsistent. He's never met a Republican notion that he didn't feel he could be all comrpomise-y with. The price of this "negotiatory" stance of his is that people are remaining on unemployment, if even that.

Those of us who remember what FDR was about cringe when they think of this man's inability to get a jobs program going. And with the 800 + billion in tax cuts going to the rich, the Middle Income is probably going to see a total fraudulent raid on the SOical Security fund that has a two point one trillion dollar surplus. Because unless those that have the money pay for our wars, the money for those wars has to come from somewhere.

[markpkessinger]

212. Well said! n/t

[markpkessinger]

193. Perhaps when the President starts acting like a Democrat n/t

[Metta]

173. When a Republican runs agains a Republican-lite, the Republican wins.

Common wisdom. Let's see how Obama folds, er, I mean, what the future holds.

[Nye Bevan]

190. .... who didn't ban health insurers from imposing lifetime maximums ....

ooops, that one doesn't work.

[markpkessinger]

191. I am astounded by the response to my OP

I originally shared this because, when I originally read it, it struck me as a powerful indictment of both the specific actions and the overall direction taken by President Obama since he took office over two years ago. Like many here, I not only voted for this President, but worked to get him elected. I did so not in some naïve belief that he would be able to accomplish all the things he promised; indeed, I knew full well that the myriad problems we faced couldn't possibly all be addressed by a single President nor even in the course of a single presidency. Nor did I have any illusions about the fierce opposition that would be mounted by the GOP against each and every initiative this or any Democratic President would attempt. But I did vote, and work, for President Obama's election, in the belief (apparently mistaken) that there were some overriding, guiding principles to which he was committed to fighting for. What I never anticipated, though, was that two years after his election, President Obama would have become such a polarizing figure among Democrats — and the enormous response to my OP stands, I think, as a testament to that polarization. I'm not sure where we go from here as Progressives — there are no easy answers. But it does not portend well for 2012.

[WillyT]

194. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Carolina]

195. K&R

[RBInMaine]

206. Fringe Rant. Litte more.

[markpkessinger]

243. And yet, such a response to that "fringe rant". n/t

[Maraya1969]

207. No wonder our party is fucked up! Someone puts one of the worse smears

against the man that we want to win the next presidential election and over 300 people recommend it?

And then people wonder why we lose elections.

[markpkessinger]

208. Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with the actions of the candidate?

[Maraya1969]

222. Really? Just how much of your brain are you using when you compare

bush with Obama and it looks equal to you?

Just because someone with their very own website wrote it does not mean it is not filled with lies or 1/2 truths. Have you checked out what this person said?

If we were still sanctioning torture why are you up at the White House? Because that was one of the biggest horrors of the bush regime. Do you really think Obama is sanctioning torture? Really? Do you really think Obama is allowing illegal wire tapping in this country? If so why have you been so damn silent.

It looks to me like the President has been trying very hard to keep the re thugs from turning this country into a peasant society. He is fighting an uphill battle everyday with this and so are our Congress people and you have the nerve to say he is sanctioning torture!

[jefferson_dem]

214. +1.

Some simply feel destined to be depressed. Wallowing in trumped-up self-pity. How boring...

[ChiciB1]

216. Well, There's That Tired Old Statement That Asks... Would You Rather Have

had the alternative?? I'm sure others here will post it, but perhaps we DIDN'T get the other one, but it seems we got one like the one he replaced.

It's such a downer for me. I'm sorry to have to read stuff like this, but the thread does point out the obvious. Then there's the other comment... whatta ya gonna do??

I HAVE NO CLUE, just know I don't like what I'm seeing.

[Maraya1969]

223. At least you are being honestly intelligent and not just following with the sheep.

It sounds like you want to but something is stopping you. See my post above this one.

[Rex]

239. I knew he was a corporate shut, I just didn't think he would

let shit get out of hand like his fumble with BP and the Gulf of Mexico.

[markpkessinger]

241. That's the question I think many of us are wrestling with . . .

I have not yet decided whether or not to vote for Obama again -- the only thing I can say with certainty at this point is that I will vote and that my vote will not be for a Republican. Whether or not I vote for Obama/Democrats, or go with any third party option (assuming one is available), is a determination I will have to make closer to the actual election, as I weigh both the shorter term and longer term consequences entailed in an Obama victory versus an Obama loss.

But regardless of how I ultimately come down on that decision for myself, I will not, in the interim, remain silent about what I see as a disastrous direction taken by this President and Congressional Democrats.

Meanwhile, for my part, I feel as if it is the Democratic party that has left me -- as well as many of its core values -- behind, and not the other way around. I can tell you the exact year when that departure began: 1995, when President Clinton, in the wake of the GOP sweep in the '94 midterms, partnered with Republicans to pass toxic legislation, including, inter alia, NAFTA, thereby cementing the demise of the American manufacturing base, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing the resurrection of the 1920s-era unholy alliance between commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, the painful consequences of which we have yet to fully recover from.

Getting back to voting considerations for 2012, I think it is worth pointing out that, under some circumstances, wining the battle (the 2012 elections), might mean ultimately losing the war (the officially undeclared Class War that has been waged since the Reagan administration by a cadre of corporate interests and the very rich against the middle and working classes). For my part, I find it increasingly difficult to escape the conclusion that both major parties are fully bought and paid for, and are tools of, that cadre of moneyed/corporate interests. The GOP represents their agenda explicitly. The Democrats, on the other hand, are useful whenever the natives get restless, because Democrats have learned how to ply the rhetoric of "change," temporarily quieting the restless natives, while simultaneously working behind the scenes to ensure that actual change is limited to fiddling at the margins. It may well be that we have come to a point where, in order to be able to build the kind of massive public support for a substantive overhaul, we may have to be willing to lose a Presidential election or two -- and live with the consequent horror of a few more years of GOP domination. Otherwise, we will continue in perpetuity to be hostage to this dysfunctional system wherein our electoral choices will always be between a toxic corporatist, and a slightly less toxic corporatist. In other words, our choices will continue to be (a) a fast, further rightward regression and (b) a somewhat slower rightward regression. If we fail to find a way to change the underlying game, then it really won't matter who we elect, the direction in which we move politically will be the same; only the speed will be different.

[somone]

218. Recommended

[democracy1st]

238. K & R

[ClassWarrior]

244. This is like the Madison, Wisconsin, of threads.

NGU.