if you blame Reid without blaming Obama, then YOU are spineless

[Enrique]

Reid is an easy target. On the other hand Obama is extremely popular.

So, if Reid takes the same position as Obama, and you bash Reid while mooning over cool Barack and pretty Michelle, then you need to grow a pair.

[DJ13]

1. Reid's a wimp

Sorry.

[LakeSamish706]

2. The problem with your post is that President Obama has only been President for...

what.... Two weeks? Reid has been leader of the Senate for how long? Sorry, your post is BS.

[bridgit]

6. Though by Obama's reckoning he's been running for president for 2yrs...

President of The United States of America; he should have been more than ready for these first two weeks. Not to mention the Chicago brain trust that brought him here

[global1]

8. Obama Has Done More Good In The First 2 Wks Than Bush In His Whole 8 Yrs.....nt

[bvar22]

35. THat is setting the bar very low.

I certainly expect MORE from Obama than I ever expected from any Bush.
I expect MORE from my Democrats than I ever expected from any Republican.

Having to point out that Obama is doing better than Bush is sad.
That is like celebrating because an Olympic Sprinter beat a paraplegic in the 100 meter dash....
....or spiking the ball because the US WON the Invasion of Grenada.
:party:

[global1]

36. 2 Weeks vs 8 Years And That's Not Enough For You......

what do you expect miracles. You are just being unrealistic. People like you deserve to have had Mccain/Palin win. Then maybe you would have had something to complain about. I'm really getting tired of all the so-called staunch Dems on this board complaining just for the sake of complaining.

2 weeks ago there were 2 million people standing on the mall in D.C. cheering.

[stillcool]

22. The "Chicago Brain Trust" didn't bring..

him here. "We the people" did. I guess you didn't volunteer.

[bridgit]

25. Boy did you miss the point, We The People did not *run his campaign*...

That was run by, ahem, like it or not: the Chicago brain trust such as it was i.e. Axelrod et al, unless you were in there flipping pages in the playbook in which case I have some steely-eyed advise for you as regards looking down dusty roads.

This is a no-brainer that doesn't require all of 'we the people' cause that includes *them* too, and *they* are already in there doing their We The People thing in a game that is keyed not upon 'we the people' but (((us v. them)))...if it were up to me, just me; I'd be in there pushing republicans into mud puddles but that's just me.

You're being disingenuous, you're being coy, you're simply not patting yourself on the back hard enough; when you really think that by *volunteering* We The People did_not_bring_him_here...you did!

Part of the understanding within the OP's gist is to stop making excuses. I think Obama is smarter than to have not seen this kind of shit coming but it came anyway. So what is your answer? To offer more excuses? To rehash the primaries? While we watch them turn everything Obama does into shit? I disagree. I say that is no alternative. I say that is neither hope nor change. I say your enemies have always been someone else. And now is the time to go fight with them. It's time for Dems to get busier!

Well no you're right: volunteering is important. And I feel so filthy, so mercenary for having received compensation for my poli work. But if you think that it was over after the last envelop was licked, or the last email pressed 'Send' you are sadly mistaken cause that steam roller huffing & puffing just right there is capable of squishing your toes regardless of how you feel about the matter and it is important to understand *that* as well

[stillcool]

30. Ahem...in this neck of the woods..

we most certainly did 'run his campaign'. Take your condescending crap and spill it elsewhere. Did you get paid to make phone calls this week?

[bridgit]

31. Then *it is* your condescending gibberish to begin with do with it what you will

[Parker CA]

3. The manner in which they voice support for their views is about as polar opposite as any I could

imagine. To me, if Reid developed the ability to assert his views more powerfully, to stand up to his opponents more visibly, and to project and then defend his and the Dem's positions more effectively, I wouldn't have such an issue with him as I do.

Obama and he may have the same end-goal, but the way in which Obama goes about dispersing the tactics that result in that end-goal is much more effective and much more assertive. Some in the Senate have the ability, even if they don't have the "celebrity" that Obama has. Boxer is the easiest example for me to use.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Boxer needs to displace Reid. That would be fantastic.

[Enrique]

5. Boxer supports the Obama-Reid compromise

she fought the Republicans all day and after the compromise, where she lost some of the things she was fighting for, said:

"Not everybody is going to get every dollar they want, but it's still a very strong package," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "This package proves three words: 'Yes we can.' "

[TeamJordan23]

7. Obama's job is to run the country; Reid's job is to run the Senate. nm

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Thank You! I can't think of a more ineffective leader than Harry Reid....

On this, Thom Hartmann and I agree. Give me Boxer or Feingold. It's just a shame that we don't get to choose our congressional leaders.

[EFerrari]

9. Al Hunt pointed out tonight that these bills always come early in a new presidency

and are always a free for all. And, I don't blame Reid or Obama. The founding mess started with Pelosi's lack of leadership and Emmanuel should have been right over her shoulder. If anyone deserves blame, they do. By the time this mess got to Reid, it was already a mess.

[silverojo]

11. I think Obama needs to grow a pair, himself

He needs to say (in essence, not literally, LOL), fuck the DINOs, fuck the Repukes, do the job he was elected to do.

I'm not saying he shouldn't cooperate, but he shouldn't capitulate as much as he's been doing.

[Window]

17. President Obama has a nice-sized pair, LOL! There is definitely a method

to his madness. When it's all said and done, I believe he will have what he wants and then some.

[Cha]

50. You don't know the fuck what

Obama's strategy is and saying Obama needs to grow a pair just shows how ignorant you are.

[Hokie]

12. I respectfully disagree

Reid has been SML for two years. He has a record that can certainly be evaluated on its own merit or lack of merit. I agree that the expectations for the Democratic Congress were probably unrealistic after 2006 but no one can say that they did not under perform on progressive issues. In two years we can rate Obama fairly. In 2+ weeks he has been fantastic.

There is also style and appearance. Reid looks like a loser even when he is winning. He may be an intelligent, decent guy but he gives our party a look of weakness and indecisiveness when what we need is boldness. I do not think anyone could argue with that statement.

[hileeopnyn8d]

33. I agree with this:

"There is also style and appearance. Reid looks like a loser even when he is winning. He may be an intelligent, decent guy but he gives our party a look of weakness and indecisiveness when what we need is boldness. I do not think anyone could argue with that statement. "

and I'll add that he sounds like one too. He has no passion when he speaks, and it makes him look insincere.

Both Reid and Pelosi remind of those parents that ignore their misbehaving children until they see the glares from strangers/family. Then they totally over-react usually too late.

[Baikonour]

13. Reid has proven to be a wimp years ago.

Obama, on the other hand, as only been in power for weeks. I will reserve my judgment.

Right now, the only people to blame are republicans.

[Honeycombe8]

14. It'd help to explain what you're talking about. Otherwise, your post makes no sense. nt

[rateyes]

15. I've criticized both in OPs in the last week. But, Harry gets the blunt

force of it because Harry, unlike Obama, is not only ineffective, but cowardly. Obama has a spine. Harry doesn't.

I called Harry yesterday, and talked to an aide. I told the aide to pass the message along to Harry that he needs to realize the power he has in a Senate where the Democrats have a great majority, and wield that power---that we are headed over a cliff, and Harry wants to believe that he can play footsies with the Republicans and get things done. Did he learn nothing from the House on this? The Dems compromised, gave away all kinds of things for the Republicans, and then they all still voted against the bill. Senator Isakson, of GA, got an amendment in the bill to give tax credits to first time homebuyers, and afterwards said that he will probably still vote against the bill.

I also said that, rather than simply filing a cloture motion to try to kill the bill, Harry has the power to make the Republicans REALLY filibuster--keeping them talking for days on end why they are against the bill, and job creation---and, use the airwaves to paint every one of them as obstructionists. But, he wants to play nice.

Harry is a loser. He is doing more to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than anyone I've ever seen.

I also said that if Harry doesn't want to lead, then he should resign the leadership, and let someone who can lead take the job--someone like Kerry, Feingold, or Boxer.

[Baikonour]

21. Kerry as SML would be awesome.

He'd definitely crack skulls and get crap done.

[karynnj]

37. Better than that - he is both strong when he should be and is very skilled

at listening to the other side and creating win/win compromises. He and Snowe were the ones who created the agreement that let Congress pass the first increase in CAFE standards in two decades UNDER BUSH. (Note - there was NO increase under Clinton - even when we had both Houses of Congress)

Kerry is BETTER than someone who would "crack skulls" - leave that designation to Rahm Emmanuel.
Kerry is a diplomat and someone open to more information and new ideas - he is looking for solutions that help the country, not ideological wins.

[CTLawGuy]

16. Obama artificially increased the votes needed for passage

from 51 to 60? I didn't remember him doing that.

[Teaser]

18. I blame Reid because he apparently doesn't know how to count votes

Which is a big part of his job description.

[MadBadger]

19. What does Michelle have to do with anything?

[DevonRex]

24. That was just a poor attempt at the "worshipping" meme that some people

have going on here. And another swipe at a DUer who posts picture threads and those people who like to see them.

[MadBadger]

51. Oh I know

I know the post history of the OP

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Pffft

The assumption is that there's a mess. I don't see one.

[DevonRex]

23. "mooning over cool Barack and pretty Michelle" Hmmm. Not so subtle there.

[Jennicut]

28. I don't get the jealousy over Obama's popularity from anyone

He can't help it if most Americans like him and his wife...they seem like good people. Reid seems like a wishy/washy wimp. Obama comes off concerned, pragmatic but passionate as well.

[DevonRex]

32. ITA. I wonder why Reid is so afraid of a filibuster. That is what makes

him seem spineless. It seems to take 60 votes for dems to get anything done and I have a hard time understanding that. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to force the few moderates to choose sides on ending a filibuster, but I don't know. I wish somebody could explain it to me.

And about the popularity, I think that a solid 70% of Americans are really glad they have a president they enjoy listening to and looking at. Can't tell you how many times I almost broke my fool neck to get to the remote to mute * or change the channel so I didn't even have to see his disgusting face.

So right now, I'm drinking in every drop of news, whether it be speeches or photos.

[joeybee12]

26. I agree, maybe it's just the learning curve, but Obama screwed up big time...

...as someone noted, these spending/budget bills always come up early, and past history shows that the president has to show some spine on this...Reid may be leader of the Senate, but Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as such, people look immediately to him for leadership...he didn't provide it...he just sort of stood back and let everyone else get bloodied. Don't work that way, never has.

[babylonsister]

27. If you want to place blame, the rethugs would be a good place to

start, but no, this is DU. Can't have that. :eyes:

[MasonJar]

29. There is no way for us to know for sure, but it seems to me that Obama

was surprised by the lack of GOPer support. He was blindsided by the 100% negative Pug vote in the House. IMHO Pelosi did a good job. (Do not send Rahm to tell Pelosi what to do; he is a loser.) Obama had promised the American people that he would bring about change and his first attempt was bipartisanship. He found right off the bat that bipartisanship is off the table. Now he had better move on to some better type of change. As for the Senate, Reid is ineffectual as he has proven time and again. Keep the bill you want and let the idiots filibuster. How long will they do it? My guess is not too long. Then if that doesn't work, compromise Meanwhile if Obama had been out in front selling his plan and its specifics to the people (as he is so capable of doing), the people would have stopped the filibuster. Obama blew this one. He concentrated on PUGs instead of the 70% who think he's great.

[Thrill]

34. No he didn't. Force who to fillibuster? They didn't even have all the Democrats on board

The Republicans had no reason to filibuster. When Nelson and others would have embarrassed Reid and Obama when they voted against it

[Life Long Dem]

38. Reid needs to go.

Next?

[Ikonoklast]

39. Michelle Obama is not an elected official.

But, nice to see the Obama bashers still get to sneak around and get in their petty cheap shots whenever they can.


Reid is in a different branch of the government, and is doing a shitty job of running his part of it. I'll bash him all I want.

Pelosi is not any better.

[malletgirl02]

41. Exactly

The legislative branch is a co equal branch of the government. Many people forget that also, if Obama was more forceful with Congress, the same people would be saying that Obama was acting like Bush.

[anonymous171]

40. Reid is a failure and a wimp.

[Still Sensible]

42. Boxer needs to lend Mr. Reid a set of balls IMO. n/t

[DevonRex]

43. Or at least show him what a pair of ovaries can do. Seems he's not quite sure

what to do with his danglies.

[Enrique]

44. Boxer praised the Obama/Reid deal

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-stimulus_07feb07,0,1770949.story

"Not everybody is going to get every dollar they want, but it's still a very strong package," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "This package proves three words: 'Yes we can.' "

[Still Sensible]

45. Of course, I only suggest if she was leading

she might not have had to yield so much to get a compromise.

I suppose it's Reid's style that irks me the most--and the things he chooses to compromise on. I'd really like to see a strong LBJ type in that spot.

[Enrique]

46. what made LBJ "strong" as senate leader?

I agree Reid is no LBJ, but I'm not sure I want him to be. Imo, if he were to emulate LBJ he'd be compromising a lot more with the republicans.

[Still Sensible]

48. He was a strong arm type that demanded unity

on important legislation and he had the political strength and will to punish those that broke ranks when the chips were down. Sure, he would wheel and deal on matters of less consequence, but when the party simply had to have the votes he got them.

I think you are wrong on two fronts. First, the republicans of LBJ's day were a lot more diverse than today's lock step, right wing bunch. Politically speaking, someone like Richard Nixon would be considered among the most "moderate" republicans in the Senate today. And secondly, LBJ did not compromise on the most important issues. He didn't see every issue as important enough to enforce party loyalty.

In fairness to Reid, Washington today is much more polarized than 40 or 50 years ago.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Your extremes are extreme.

bashing ---------> Reid
mooning --------> Barack and pretty Michelle

whiskey-tango-foxtrot

[ljm2002]

49. Hear, hear!

President Obama has intervened on at least two occasions to have Reid take unpopular positions -- once with regard to Joe Lieberman, and once or more with regard to the "negotiations" with Senate Republics.

It's not all Harry Reid, not by any means.

I'm just pissed at the party in general, appointing insiders to the finance positions, appointing Republics to Cabinet positions without getting a single damned advantage in the legislative branch, et-fucking-cetera.

Mr. Cool better not think that he's running a debating society here, where the pros and the antis are ever so grateful for his wonderful even-handedness. The Republics will continue to bite his hand, and his base will become more and more disillusioned, turning to fury when we realize that he, too, is there to prop up the malefactors of great wealth.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Bogus claim. Reid is an ass-kisser - Obama is a warrior.

[ProgressIn2008]

53. But... but... he's so dreamy! I want date night with Barry!

:eyes:

Methinks some people are looking for their fave member of the boy band and not a public servant who works for us. You are correct -- anyone making excuses for Obama in all this is spineless. He's part of this, too, and owns his share of this mess.