We needed a liberal, progressive President... we really did.

[kentuck]

Since the days of Ronald Reagan, we have been governed by conservative orthodoxy. When Ronald Reagan took office, we had less than $1 trillion dollars in debt. Look at us now.

With the disaster of the last eight years, it became evident to anyone with two eyes that we needed dramatic change. Our unfair tax system, our military bureaucracy, the decline of labor, the export of our manufacturing base, the deficits, the loss of freedoms, the general disrespect around the world, and the irresponsible corporate media, were all reasons for needed reform.

The crash of the big banks and Wall Street last fall was the last chance we had to fix the conservative mess once and for all. We needed to bust up the big banks and enact trust regulations on the big insurance companies. We needed to put a windfall tax on the big oil companies. We needed to put a tax on the big bonuses, just like France and Britain have now done. We needed to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs overseas. We needed to stop torture that was done in our name. We needed to prosecute those that delved into such practices. We needed to end the wars.

We needed a reform-minded progressive in the White House in order to accomplish those goals. We needed him badly. We needed reform throughout our entire system. Yet, it appears, one year in, that we will not get the change we need so desperately. We do not have a liberal progressive in the White House. And sometimes, peace is necessary.

[Goldstein1984]

1. I'm not optimistic either, but...

Either he's one of us, or he's one of the economic and political elite. Time will tell.

He's certainly better than what we had.

[kentuck]

3. Unfortunately...

Under the present conditions, that is not good enough.

[RainDog]

4. true. I wonder if our nation has the capacity to fix its problems

because the entire system is so corrupt.

some days I wonder if the Obama democrats were paying off the bankers that got them elected with this whole bailout...just like Bush paid off the oil companies with Cheney's energy bill that divvied up Iraq's oil fields and refused to allow anyone from any environmental groups to have any say in what was done as national policy. that policy was written for the benefit of the oil companies.

the bail out was for the benefit of the Wall Street crooks.

same system, different names.

[Goldstein1984]

7. I can't disagree with either one of you, but

right now Obama is what we've got. If he doesn't get back on track we can try again in three more years.

This corrupted system is self-sustaining--it isn't going to be fixed from within. Yet yesterday, when I posted a call for a little non-violent activism and civil disobedience, I was inundated with negative posts and unrecs. Where do these people think change is going to come from? Just voting for mainstream candidates?

Somehow we need to get the attention of our elected representatives. My preference is an economic jolt--a boycott, hunger strikes, a general strike--because economic jolts will make them pay attention. I don't think they think we the people can do it. I'm not sure if my can.

[xiamiam]

15. it was the black uniforms..try everyone wearing white..lol..or white hats at least

we're screwed...our elected representatives excepting a very few just want to get re elected and need those campaign $$$$'s...whatever change will happen has to come from the groundswell of angry americans...problem is that many of us have been defeated by economic problems ...fear of or losing our homes and jobs..confidence at all time low...and now, a sense of betrayal by the president we helped to elect..many aren't paying attention and even if they were, they dont believe it or dont want to believe it..
but I do think, our only solution is to begin organizing..a strike..something

people here are a little more aware than most..and the tide has definitely shifted this past week..the cheerleaders have a difficult job defending indefensible actions...they'll come round..truth, as always...will reveal itself..

its just been a heartbreaking experience so far..for us and ultimately, for them

[RainDog]

16. when people have to work two jobs or 60 hours a week just to be able to survive

it's hard to get them to participate in a general strike. union dues were supposed to make such actions feasible for those without rich uncles. very few have the means to do any such thing. most have families and kids who need school supplies and grandparents who need their companionship and jobs that feel uncertain in the current climate. since mass action has not been effective for a while, why would anyone risk what little security they have?

I wish I had bookmarked the link, but I read that those who made fortunes are facing some blow back at the individual level. One guy's mercedes was set on fire while in his driveway. another guy was found dead outside his home. Wall Streeters are arming themselves after these reports. I don't want this to happen, but I think this is what happens when there is no justice. maybe there will be a catalyzing event that brings this outrage to the point of shutting down the system, but I don't know what it would be.

the teabaggers are offering group action, but their backers are just as corrupt and offer worse solutions, so who would want to join ranks with them?

people have their heads down because they are struggling to survive. there is no viable group that offers solutions that people think will make a difference so people are simply trying to survive. Americans work hard. They still think that work will be rewarded.

[xiamiam]

25. hard work is not rewarded ultimately...not in this corrupt system

i learned that lesson this past year..its an illusion

[RainDog]

26. it's a gamble. it's the only game most have

elitist theory in politics notes that it is important to allow a few access to power who are outside of the same in order to create the illusion that such success is possible for anyone who works hard enough.

but the goal of that access is for the elite to maintain power. but the illusion keeps people believing and the reality of life keeps people working within the corrupt system simply to survive as best they can.

[Goldstein1984]

30. Like George Carlin said

"They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

[goclark]

44. I appreciate your thoughts and the way they are presented

That is the kind of post that everyone at DU can feel comfortable responding to.

My thoughts on your thoughts --- "Somehow we need to get the attention of our elected representatives. My preference is an economic jolt--a boycott, hunger strikes, a general strike--because economic jolts will make them pay attention. I don't think they think we the people can do it. I'm not sure if my can."


It has always been important for Americans to organize and boycott for those issues mentioned above.

The problem is right now, when people are trying their best to make ends meet - that is a tough call IMO. But ~ it is still a RIGHT.

What if we boycott the banking system -- Michael Moore's last movie absolutely told us about those crooks.
... Right now people are so worried about feeding their family and praying they have a bank account to even get the energy to protest.:shrug:


Let's March On Washington against the War -- we had plenty of Opportunities to do that under George Bush and as far as I recall, Democrats were really united in hating his War Tactics, Where was the big March that made a BIG difference?

If we didn't make a dent then, I'm not sure that would make a difference now but that's just me.:shrug: We would need a huge amount of people but it would be a way to express being for PEACE.

Who will be in charge of organizing it? :shrug:

Thanks for your Post

[kentuck]

47. People have to reach a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty...

Before they will boycott, strike, or rebel against the system. The "system" has figured out a way to keep the masses timid and unthreatening, with the minimal use of social programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, etc. There is never the feel of impending doom, as was the case in the 1930's.

[goclark]

51. I agree and if we take the Civil Rights Marches as an example

The feelings were so strong that those that marched were so strong in their feelings that they were willing to go to jail, be injured by dogs and hit with clubs by po;oce -- with nothing happening to the police.


This is a different America I want to believe -- those that March will not be hit with clubs by police but still --- how many Marched against George Bush and the Rethugs?

[Goldstein1984]

74. All good points...

I think you are correct on every point.

Unfortunately, that means things must get worse before people will be willing to sacrifice to make it better.

Myself, I'm doing fine. I have a secure job with medical benefits. My wife doesn't have to work, and there's plenty left over to support our causes and help our children. I really have no personal reason to be active, except that I'm worried about the world my children and grandchildren are inheriting.

We do what we can, but there just seems like more that could be done.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

[ChiciB1]

101. I Too Agree With Your Post AND As I Just Posted At another Thread I

want to put this link out there http://peaceoftheaction.org and say I would LOVE to be there, but I too, as far too many of us are having some financial difficulties which may prevent our physical presence. Because of the drastic down turn in our economy PROTEST will be difficult, BUT IT IS NEEDED!

"We The People" need representation for all of us who work so hard just to make ends meet. I consider myself luckier than many, because I'm not facing the prospect of losing my home and I can still make ends meet. Still we have tightened our belts and watch our "pennies" now!

It's a shame it has come to this, but I fear there WILL be some real backlash that won't be so pretty! Many say it may take a decade to come, but I'm feeling more and more that it will be sooner rather than later!

PEACE TO ALL!
:hug:

[blues90]

56. Main stream candidates is the entire root of the problem

That's what we are presented with alone with their high volume campaign selling points called slogans and they of course all know just what the people want to hear and what the people want and promise this and present it in just the right way, by omission.

ALL of these candidates are on the inside loop of DC and they choose and decide just who they will put up in front of us to run, we have what appears a choice which is an illusion.

I can only say IF we had a country of imformed critical thinking people none would have voted for the choices presented and say , sorry but they will not do and what they have said leaves an opening one could drive a truck through. Then where would the parties be?

We cannot buy into this false idea of holding feet to the fire because once a candidate wins the lines are cut off and it's business as usual.

There get away with this simply because we buy into the rules they have set up and swearing the oath on a bible is a matter of tradition but means nothing at all, it's procedure and that's all it is.

We are sold a brand of a product. Just like a brand of food that the lable is not very clear at all.

[swilton]

105. The bar was set so low

by the previous administrations (including Clinton's a la welfare reform, NAFTA, and yes the war waged in the Balkans)that any elected politician save McCain and Palin would have been an improvement.

But Obama's iotae of improvements are not solutions. And, saddly he had the mandate to make some substantive reforms and this has been squandered. We won't see that mandate again.

[Frank Cannon]

28. The lesser of two evils is still evil

I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm sick of being forced to vote for the candidate that isn't a) an imbecile, b) crazy, c) blatantly corrupt, or d) all of the above. Seems like I've been doing that my whole life.

[goldcanyonaz]

83. I know how you feel, but until our system changes that's what we're stuck with.

[harmonicon]

67. time will tell?

How many years in the past are you living? I can assure you, time has already spilled the beans, and it was long before the swearing in.

[salguine]

72. Better than what we had? If that's all the higher we're setting the bar, then why

don't we all just kill ourselves now?

[sharp_stick]

2. Clinton ran surpluses

There's a cartoon around showing the Presidents since Raygun. All the asshole GOP listed themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and a graph in the background showing debt/deficit climbing until the "tax and spend" Clinton when it dropped.

I wouldn't call Clinton a liberal by any stretch but at least he was able to start fixing the financial stain that the conservatives of the GOP put us in.

[dysfunctional press]

13. clinton also had the tech boom happening under his watch...

THAT is what did it- not any special 'magic' by bill and his boys.

[niceypoo]

19. What a crock of shit

Your implying the dot com boom created 22 million jobs? Your ignorance on the matter is duly noted.

Clintons 1993 economic plan passed with zero republican votes. He raised taxes on the top 2% while cutting them on the lower class and 90% of small businesses. He also SHRUNK the government to cut waste. A dot com bubble wont balance a budget, economic responsibility will.

[kentuck]

29. No. It's not a crock.

The tech boom was the major reason for the balanced budget and the creation of 22 million new jobs. He raised taxes by 3 percent on the top. No one predicted the balanced budget when it happened. This was also the time of employee 401Ks in the stock market. The tech boom was not a trivial matter in balancing the budget or job creation.

[dysfunctional press]

36. and your ignorance on the misuse of the word 'your' is also noted.

you're implying that you weren't paying attention in remedial English class.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Actually, the use of "your" in tnat sentence is gramatically correct as either "Your" or "You're"

Just sayin' .....

[dysfunctional press]

69. no, it isn't.

"Your implying the dot com boom created 22 million jobs?"

'your' would be correct if the sentence/question were longer- "Your implying the dot com boom created 22 million jobs...is actually quite correct", for example.

as the question is written, and in the context, only "you're" would be acceptable.

[Stinky The Clown]

77. True enuff. I stand corrected.

I am guilty of not reading far enough. You're right and I'm not.

Your right. You're write. Yore right. Right?

[dysfunctional press]

82. wright.

[sharp_stick]

23. Always an excuse for either side

I don't care what the argument is there is always a "but" in there. The fact remains that Clinton ran surpluses when nobody else did. The Stock Market continued to rise under shrub to over 14,000 and that asshats tax cuts did one hell of a lot to destroy the surplus.

[dysfunctional press]

the fact also remaiins that the tech boom was MUCH more responsible for it...

than any of clinton's dlc policies.

[sharp_stick]

41. can you prove it?

until then it's just another but and another opinion.

[dysfunctional press]

50. back atcha.

yours is but an opinion as well.

everyone has one. :hi:

[izquierdista]

38. Clinton and his fixes

Yes, sure, he was able to raise taxes to the correct amount to balance the budget. However, he never did anything to constrain the Pentagon budget, pushed NAFTA, and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley), three things which raise the financial strain to the breaking point.

[sharp_stick]

49. And when did you think

he would take care of any of the stuff you mention? He balanced the budget, he said he was going to balance the budget he also said repeatedly that he believed in NAFTA.

[izquierdista]

76. I didn't expect much of him

However, one out of four is better than we would have gotten with another Bush term or Dole.

[tblue]

46. Lately, I've really been missing Bill Climton.

For all his flaws, he always left me feeling liberals had his ear. I never felt he ignored us. I disagreed with certain policies he implemented, such as NAFTA, but, he would at least tell us how and why they were part of his vision for a more equitable society. I liked the way he pulled up his sleeves and worked the Legislature with passion and not taking no for an answer. DADT, though a ridiculous compromise, was crafted in this way only after he got such horrific blowback from the military (in which he had never served) when he attempted, in his FIRST month in office, to overturn the miltary's ban on gays. He did that right out of the chute. I think he was honestly taken aback by that blowback because he never thought such calcified bigotry still existed. The resulting policy was substandard, but I will always love Bill Clinton for trying to do the right thing publicly and with no hesitation and no apology. Damn, how miss that man.

[Leftist Agitator]

5. I don't know who has been unreccing this post...

But whoever they are, they can go fuck themselves.

We did (and do) need an unabashed firebrand liberal to reverse the American decline, and Obama sure doesn't measure up.

K&R

[niceypoo]

14. We will never have an unabashed firebrand liberal president

...ever. Such a person would never make it through the primaries. Obama didnt run as Dennis Kucinich.

[Armstead]

54. Bullshit

Kucinich was a bad presidential candidate, but it had nothing to do with his positions on real issues.

A candidate who had a mix of true liberal/progressive passion and the necessary political skills and charisma could certainly make it.

[tblue]

58. How sad. A quasi-liberal would be nice. nt

[niceypoo]

59. Quasi-liberal or stealth liberal is as close as we will ever get

Until the GOP just goes away

[kentuck]

17. democratic "underground" ?

buried. dead. pushing daisies.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. I LOVE the unreccers

They contribute so much to the discourse, dontcha think?

[dhpgetsit]

6. We also need to quit treating politics as a spectator sport.

We sit back and expect Obama to single handedly spread Change like fairy dust across the land.

It is up to US to effect Change.

[HughMoran]

8. Giving advice to the keyboard warriors

is a waste of time.

[Stinky The Clown]

62. .......... said the keyboard warrior, authoritatively.

:hi:

[Mithreal]

90. more like keyboard clown than warrior, no offense to you though stinky

yur won uf thuh gud clouns

Hugh said it himself, he doesn't like people, very progressive attitude that one has.

[treestar]

80. Amen!

The right wing succeeded by working hard at the lowest level offices, too, getting onto school boards and winning local elections. The duller, less sexy stuff. It's so easy to just blame the person in the top office! The M$M does it too, so maybe some who think they are so progressive are not immune to the M$M's messages.

[JVS]

9. Yup. To clean up Bush's mess we need someone who will get things done, not simply...

patch things up a bit until the next Bush comes around. Also, after the primaries but right before the general election the economy went into a major crisis. Such a crisis called for more pro-active changes than had been deemed necessary at the time of the primaries, and sadly president Obama has not risen to the level required by circumstance.

[The Straight Story]

10. was there one even running for office? (nt)

[kentuck]

12. Obviously not.

Since he was a "community activist", we thought he had certain reform-minded principles. However, he was living in Chicago. The best way to win elective office is to register Democratic. I'm not even certain about that anymore.

[stray cat]

11. Then you better get enough of the American People to vote that way

so far that view is the minority.

[QC]

18. YOUU JUST WANTED SARHA PALIN TO WIN!1!!!11

[kentuck]

21. Sarah was a socialist by Alaskan standards.

She taxed the shit out of the big oil companies. :-)

[L0oniX]

34. ...more like a social terrorist.

[kentuck]

35. President Sarah Palin.

at the rate we are going. How sad.

[OHdem10]

20. Okay, let us be fair. Obama never gave his positions on issues.

He managed to be this "empty vessel" or blank slate on which
people put their own dreams and thought he agreed with them.

I believe if you could go back- Review the Comments at the
time of Campaign, Obama dealt in generalities. Some believe
this is heights of a good politician. Everyone seemed to believe
Obama agreed with them.

I remember because here on DU I was pointing this out during
the campaign and I was pilloried practically condemned.

I was not being critical. Just pointing out what was going
on.

Sure, when I voted for Obama, I hoped against hope that he
would be the Democrat who put the working class and poor
front and center. I never believed he was a Liberal. I just
hoped he would change the system. Right now Business takes
Precedence in both parties. My hope --people would begin
to take precedence over Business. NOT Happening.

If we look hard, Obama made very few real committments.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Judging from the hissyfits from average people over reforming

the health care insurance system in this country TO THEIR BENEFIT (because they're afraid of any change, and afraid that someone is going to get something they don't deserve), I'd say that a very progressive agenda would be doomed no matter who was in office to push it. I still think Obama is the right man for the times.

[Armstead]

53. Some hissyfits were inevitable -- But we have failed to answer them

The job of leadership is to take people into the unknown and giving them the confidence tho make the trip.

The only reason a progressive agenda is "doomed" is because people like Obama have chosen to follow instead of lead.

[TwilightGardener]

64. I think he'll get done what he's able to get done, within the constraints

of Congress and the media and the public's whim. I don't see anyone in the political landscape who could do a better job, really.

[Armstead]

71. He has great political gifts....But he left his principles at home when he was elected

Obama ran on a message of change and real reform. He may not have been a rip-roaring populist, but he came close enough to make people (including myself) think that he was going to push hard to break the stranglehold corporate interests have over our lives and government.

His stated analysis of issues and solutions were very close to a real progressive/liberal populist message. Maybe not Howard Zinn, but at least a Ted kennedy liberal. And he won on that message.

The problem was not the populist message, or his skills. It is what he has chosen to do once he got elected, which has repudiated much of what he said in his campaign.

[treestar]

79. +1000

People don't even know their own self interest. They are nearly impervious to reason! Still going on about not being able to choose their doctor and the death panels, even if you point out they are wrong!

[LaydeeBug]

24. Look, he's said it time and time again...WE ARE WHO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR

it is time for US to hold his feet to the fire.

[kentuck]

31. He did say that he wanted us to hold his feet to the fire.

We are trying but it's hard to get his ear with the people arouund him whispering to him.. Bob Gates, Larry Summers, General Petraeus, Timothy Geithner...It's hard to get a word in edgewise.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Yeah .... he said that ..... he said a lotta shit.

And so far, that's all it has proven to be ..... a lotta shit.

How do we hold his feet to the fire?

[RainDog]

32. tell me how you "hold his feet to the fire"

because I'd really like to know what, if anything, has made the Obama administration do ANYTHING that was not to the benefit of the powerful.

can you get millions to march on Washington to demand a "new deal?" do you know people who are willing to die in "bonus army" camps so that veterans are given the respect they deserve?

FDR was the result of the breakdown of capitalism, combined with a powerful ideological view from the left that threatened to overthrow the elite. even then big business opposed these needed changes with all their might - to the point of plotting to assassinate FDR. if they had, we might all be singing the Horst Wessel Song.

[Enthusiast]

96. Excellent points, RainDog. nt

[treestar]

81. Didn't you just contradict yourself?

He said we needed to be in on it. Not to just sit back and tell him what to do.

[LWolf]

27. Democrats didn't want a left-of-center president.

They made that clear in the primaries, when the only 2 choices left standing after a couple of caucuses and primaries were both centrist/corporatist/3rd way/"new" dems.

I agree with you about what we needed in '08, what we have needed since the Reagan era, what we need right now.

How are we going to achieve that, when both parties don't want it?

[kentuck]

33. We needed Barack Obama..

But we needed the "most liberal" Senator in the Senate. We needed the "community activist". We needed the "labor supporter". We needed the "change we can believe in". So far, we haven't gotten it. I still haven't given up on him but he is making it very difficult to support him much longer.

[xiamiam]

37. lots of optimism there kentuck...not gonna happen unless michelle

pulls a 'lysistrata'..and speaking of michelle, i think SHE is the community organizer, the populist,...and i bet she is wondering wtf..i do believe she is a woman of substance and wont have her head swayed by the designer gowns much longer

[Toasterlad]

107. Bullshit. It's Never About What Democrats "Want", It's About What They're Told Their Choices Are.

Real progressives like Dennis Kucinich get marginalized, and corporatists like Obama and Clinton - who between them don't have two personal convictions to rub together - get tarted up with enough makeup to make them seem palatable to gullible liberals who'll fall for anyone with a "D" after their name that promises them "change".

Democrats didn't elect Obama because he was right of "center" (whatever the hell the "center" is in this corporate-run country), they elected him because he promised to change the status quo. As MANY people have pointed out since, he didn't actually promise to do any of the specific things necessary to actually CHANGE the status quo. But those people who say that he didn't "run" as a left-of-center candidate are being as disingenous (or as full of shit, as you like) as Obama. As has ALSO been pointed out many times, the man can give a good speech. Any man capable of getting standing ovations for saying that war is justified while receiving the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE (and never once saying exactly why THIS war is justified) is certainly capable of promising change in one breath, while pledging to do absolutely nothing to bring it about, which is exactly what he did. Or, to put it another way, he lied his way into office.

Until Democrats refuse to swallow the pap that is shoveled on to their plates every election year, and go out and start looking for REAL progressives to support...until they stop using phrases like "holding my nose" and "lesser of two evils" and flat out REFUSE to vote for DINOs, their party will continue to be an ineffectual joke, and this country will continue its ever-quickening spiral to collapse.

[LWolf]

114. It must not be bullshit,

because you just made my point.

If Democrats didn't WANT the dlc/corporatist/3rd way/"new" dem candidate, then they should have refused to vote for them in the primaries, or the one nominated in the general.

They didn't. They bought the "lesser of two evils" lock, stock, and barrel.

The party got what the majority voted for.

[Toasterlad]

115. You're Missing MY Point. It's Not What They WANT. It's What They're Told They Can Have.

The vast majority of Democrats have been brainwashed to believe that they have no choice. All someone has to do is jump out of the bushes and yell, "Republican! Boo!", and your average Democrat will run for the nearest voting booth and push the button next to the "D".

That doesn't mean that elected Democrats are doing what their base WANTS. It means that their base is full of easily cowed sheep who are as easy to manipulate as a kindergarden class.

[LWolf]

116. In that case,

they want to be told what they can have.

Semantics.

Regardless of the semantics, the bottom line is that the party is the way it is because Democratic voters have allowed it. If they WANT something different, they're going to have to be accountable for doing something about it.

And, frankly, while your words are harsh, they are also accurate.

[Toasterlad]

119. I Agree With You That The Voters Have Allowed Things To Be The Way They Are.

And unfortunately, the only way that thing will change is if Democratic voter DON'T allow things to be the way they are. Yet even here on this site, which is supposed to be a haven for progressive thinking, you'll see every single thread that dares to suggest that progressives should vote for true progressives and not for the DINO on the ballot completely flamed by DLC cheerleaders claiming that unless you vote for the the DINO, the Republican will win. To which I reply, who cares? Life under Obama isn't really any different than life under Bush, and I defy anyone to explain otherwise. The fact is, there will be NO change until we ditch the government of rhetoric and vote in a progressive government of true change. That government is NOT headed by Barack Obama.

[LWolf]

120. That happens here because

there is an inherent conflict between the identities and goals of the site.

You can't be a "premier left-wing" website hosting "left-wing" discussions, and restrict discussion to protect the Democratic Party at the same time, because the Democratic Party is not left-wing.

Between those two conflicting identities, the support of the Democratic Party has always come first. It's the one that is enforced, through censorship. Centrist and conservative Democrats are not censored.

Many of those on the left, including myself, who have been here for some years understand that the discussion is always going to lean partisan here.

[Echo In Light]

39. Rigged system, control via perception management, phony rep democracy

[kentuck]

40. Noam?

Is that you? :-)

[Echo In Light]

42. I found my way to him while becoming politically aware, & he clearly left an impression

... especially re how one approaches their examination/analysis of social systems, the how/why they exist and operate as they do, why people abide them, the few who resist them, etc.

[Thickasabrick]

43. Well when Palin, Thune or Jeb take over - maybe the democrats

will finally wake up and go "duh". It's really sad how this awesome opportunity the democratic party had to change things for the betterment of our society for decades was squandered.

[pipi_k]

45. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but...

I wonder what, exactly, a "more liberal" president would have been able to accomplish, given that Congress itself doesn't exactly resemble a hotbed of Liberalism. It looks more Centrist to me, and I really believe that most of the country IS Centrist, just a touch more to the left or right for each side.

I don't believe any candidate going too far to the left or the right is going to get very far, never mind be elected by a majority.

And even, if by some strange twist of fate, a more liberal candidate did get elected, do people actually believe that person wouldn't, after a while, become part of the very political machine s/he swore s/he would fight against?

No one person can be everything to everybody.

It seems to me that the key to surviving in politics is to make the most people happy the majority of the time. Going too far in either direction (left or right) is probably a political death sentence. Look at GWB, for example...he couldn't even deliver on the promises he made to his "base". All they had was hope that he would eventually deliver on all his promises, even into his second term, but he never really did, as far as I can see.

Anyway, as I said...maybe I'm just a cynic, but there's no Tooth Fairy, there's no Santa, and there's no Liberal White Knight candidate out there who's going to save us from the evils of the D.C. political jungle.

:shrug:

[kentuck]

48. Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right...

Here I am...

Stuck in the Middle with you.

?

[jgraz]

55. For starters, we could have had an actual debate about Single Payer

And other scary subjects that the corporate Dems refuse to discuss.

[Stinky The Clown]

68. A president's job is to lead.

We haven't had a lot of leadership.

[JoeyT]

88. Had we actually had a president that was willing to fight for change, we'd be moving in an entirely

different direction.

I'll give you one example:

"From the Office of the President of the United States:

Dear Blue Dogs,

Give me a bill with real health care reform, by which I mean single payer or at the least a strong public option, or I'll veto every single fucking pro-agriculture bill that hits my desk for the next four to eight years.

Sincerely, etc etc"

How many do you think would've called that bluff? Not a single one. Lieberman would be screaming bloody murder for single payer at this point.

[Armstead]

52. You are correct -- And it is very depressing that Obama hasn't walked his talk

Listening to Obama, one would think we had a liberal progressive president. he articulates what we need very well.

But he has chosen to surround himself with the same crowd that created this mess, and has taken liberals and progressives for granted.

He coulda been great. But instead it's just the same old, same old shit in a more pleasant package.

[Enthusiast]

97. President Obama can afford

to take liberals for granted when the alternative is the insanity represented by Sarah Palin and her ilk. I don't think this is a mistake. This display of ignorance and insanity has to have been orchestrated.

[Romulox]

57. Losing two wars, Wall Street collapse proved that the old way didn't work

And so we did everything in our power to restore the status quo on the back of massive new debt for future generations. It's madness.

[wiggs]

60. I have a RW friend who pilloried P Obama because he and the dems merely cut

the number of earmarks by 2/3s instead of eliminating all of them. There were 27,000 earmarks under gop budgets, 9,000 under the last budget. Maybe next time there will be even fewer. The point is that you can't always guess the end game based on the first moves.

I'm disappointed as well to see that P Obama is governing in a much more centrist way than hoped. But I still believe that he's been in emergency mode since day one, trying to deal with disaster after disaster. Part of the formula for dealing with abysmal conditions is moving forward with as much support as possible, even if the direction isn't ideal and isn't what is ultimately intended. He could have pulled out of Afghanistan, published torture photos, closed Gitmo, called for prosecution of Yoo, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Scooter et al, scuttled the f-22, allow Iran a nuclear energy program, hired progressive dems for military positions, scuttle the latest FISA, etc and lost many independents, moderates and congressmen in 2010. Might even be more massive demonstrations every weekend. More fevered ramblings by Cheney. He might lose enough congressional support so that future foreign policy decisions would be compromised.

He could have let banks sink or swim, called for massive and groundbreaking overhaul of bank regulation, gutted NAFTA, let Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2%, cut bonuses for TARP companies, hire non-industry economists for cabinet positions, insist on cap and trade immediately, regulate CO2 as pollutant, insist on single payer health care, start negotiating with pharmacies for lower costs, etc. and then try to govern amidst failing industries and unemployment.

He could pursue a Bernie Sanders agenda (fine with me if he could pull it off), including public financing of election campaigns, but dems might lose a couple of election cycles first and never get there.

These are all positions that most at DU would applaud...but pursuing them all at once might leave a crippled and embattled administration. He's done some and will do more. I hope that in another year we'll see more effective progressive agendas. For right now I'm holding my nose and waiting.

[wiggs]

70. We know the Afghanistan issue to be a complex one. Analysis by Rude Pundit and Eugene Robinson

of P Obama's Copenhagen speech (posted elsewhere on DU) suggests a very thoughtful and critical decision process on the subject of war. While Obama would rather NOT escalate in Afghanistan, he chooses the least bad of a series of poor choices and talks about reality and idealism.

I suggest that most of the issues I list above are also complex, murky, messed up situations in which choices are unclear or poor at best and in which strict and immediate adherence to ideology may be more satisfying in the short term but harmful in the long run.

[Enthusiast]

99. If President Obama would have

simply insisted on a strong public option his approval rating would have remained high. And adopting a more progressive stance would hardly have contributed to MORE Reich Wing outrage. The RW is as outraged as they can get right now, anyway. What are they going to do, hold their breath?

[blindpig]

61. The times called for an FDR

And all we got was Silent Cal with LBJ's foreign policy.

[krabigirl]

73. Well, Obama did run on bi-partisanship, not as a progressive.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

75. excellent--and thank you.

[treestar]

78. Please try to convince the massive middle of this

Because that's just your opinion, not shared by enough of the 300 million other people in the country.

[Thornleylv]

84. Life long dem...

And I have always gone Democrat for the White House. I wanted Clinton but threw my vote to the party choice. But it really bothered me the way Obama completely ignored the public option and I can't help thinking the Fix was in. Say it ant so O.

[Enthusiast]

100. Oh, the fix was in. No question about that. nt

[xiamiam]

110. he also said his presidency would be defined by health care reform...well?..nt

[autorank]

85. k*r What an outstanding statement, a lament and exhortation all at once n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

86. You should have supported Kucinich with all your heart and soul

HE was progressive. What Obama represented was someone progressives could get behind who was also electable.

I just don't understand what part of this equation eluded you guys. I really don't.

Obama will do what is right despite all the carping around here, and he will clear the road for the real progressives that will follow. But, like the eight years it took to get in this hole, it will take eight years to get America where it needs to be.

So start today:

KUCINICH 2016.

[freddie mertz]

103. "Carping?" Other words for that could be "dissenting," "analyzing," lamenting"

Just because the man won the election (with our votes), that means that any expression of "buyer's remorse" or disappointment with the unexpectedly LOUSY leadership the man has shown since taking office should be dismissed as "carping"?

As someone posted last night somewhere: "Healthcare is Not a Pony." Neither are such basic principles as personal freedom, social and economic justice, or peace. All of which are issues (along with healthcare) where the president has failed to live up to even the most minimal of our expectations.

Or so a large number of his constituents here have come to believe.

Last time I checked, we still live under a constitution that permits freedom of expression.

And if, as constituents, supporters, contributors (etc) to the fortunes of this political leader, we find it useful to share our thoughts (and yes, disappointments) with others on a freaking internet board, it seems to me that we have every right, even a responsibility to do so.

And if we decide not to stop there, we also have the right (I would suggest, the duty) to undertake whatever reasonable public actions we can to petition that leader and his party to represent us (and the needs of our country) in a manner in keeping with the best of his campaign promises and rhetoric.

Waiting until 2016, and for the candidacy that you propose with a liberal seasoning of snark, is no solution to anything.

But then, you already knew that.

[Deep13]

87. That would have been Edwards.

Because of that, he did not have the money to compete.

I would have settled for Obama keeping his limited campaign promises.

[upi402]

89. Kucinich was blocked from nomination debates

Not even Edwards stood with him and demanded he be allowed to debate. I guess someone didn't want him saying in public what many of us already know. And now it may be too late.

Great OP about a terrible situation.

[DailyGrind51]

91. A "Kennedy" could have pulled it off!

You need a president rich enough to give the finger to Party honchos and corporate lobbyists.

[quakerboy]

92. Thats what is missing from so much of the discussion here

Obama is not evil. In other times, he would be a good or even very good president. If we had gotten him instead of Bush, I guess the good times would still be rolling.

But we are not in better times. And whether any other president has "acomplished so much in their first year" or not makes absolutely no difference. Whether things are better or worse than any particular historic precedent makes no difference. All that matters is whether we do enough to fix the problems that we have now. Or not.

[Vidar]

93. It's a shame we just got another corporate crook. Recommended.

[LaPera]

94. 30+ years of corporatism & union bustings firm grasp - We really needed a strong FDR liberal leader

As JFK said, "Liberalism will save the world"...(paraphrased).

But unfortunately, corporate fascism is well on it's way to ruling the world.

[Enthusiast]

95. That's what we're saying, kentuck.

I appreciate you posting this. How could we not have been taken in by Obama? He looked like one thing but he turned out to be something else entirely. At least now we know.

[DemReadingDU]

104. We were so tired of Bush

Aren't we all enamored by Obama's speaking? So much better than Bush.

But when the text of Obama's speeches is read, it is eerily similar to Bush. Almost like they are both speaking to the wealthy, reassuring them that their wealth and status quo are being preserved.

[Enthusiast]

111. Zactly. nt

[defendandprotect]

98. And everytime I put C-span on, the Repugs are still there complaining about new expenses ...

adding to the debt--!!!!

Unbelievable gall and hypocrisy -- !!!

And completely agree with you on ALL of this . . . and more!!

With the disaster of the last eight years, it became evident to anyone with two eyes that we needed dramatic change. Our unfair tax system, our military bureaucracy, the decline of labor, the export of our manufacturing base, the deficits, the loss of freedoms, the general disrespect around the world, and the irresponsible corporate media, were all reasons for needed reform.

The crash of the big banks and Wall Street last fall was the last chance we had to fix the conservative mess once and for all. We needed to bust up the big banks and enact trust regulations on the big insurance companies. We needed to put a windfall tax on the big oil companies. We needed to put a tax on the big bonuses, just like France and Britain have now done. We needed to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs overseas. We needed to stop torture that was done in our name. We needed to prosecute those that delved into such practices. We needed to end the wars.

We needed a reform-minded progressive in the White House in order to accomplish those goals. We needed him badly. We needed reform throughout our entire system. Yet, it appears, one year in, that we will not get the change we need so desperately. We do not have a liberal progressive in the White House. And sometimes, peace is necessary.

Fairness in Broadcasting Act, for one --


:)

[DemReadingDU]

102. I'm not so sure we even have a 2-party system anymore

It's really 1 party run by lobbyists and banksters who buy politicians to enact laws to keep the status quo for the wealthy.

[Echo In Light]

109. "America has one political party with two right wings." - Gore Vidal

It's been that way for a long time...it's just that it's so blatant nowadays that the propaganda ruse is no longer effective for as many.

[DemReadingDU]

112. It's blatant to us

but many still see 2 separate distinct parties. Spouse refuses to talk to Republicans, but slowly he's seeing the middle class destroyed by the policies of both parties such as outsourcing of jobs, lack of affordable healthcare, and greedy banksters.

[goclark]

113. Wake Up America ~ Republicans Own this country- Democrats are Puppets

We can blame the Democrats if we want to but Democrats don't own America -- the Bush thugs do.

We could have elected Dennis/Dean/Clinton/Biden/or the most left leaning Progressive on DU and they would still find out that the
Rethugs may not be technically in "office" but "WE DEMOCRATS" don't control a damn thing - not the banks, insurance, military, Supreme Court,M$M.

The Republicans hold all the keys to all the closets and that's why when they say "NO" they will do anything and use any resources to make sure they get what they want.

The ONLY reason they did not steal this election is because there was such an overwhelming number of Democrats that voted, they couldn't stop that train.

They are STILL in charge.

Therefore ~ if some of us wanted to start other "Progressive" Parties, let them go on and do it but they won't win because the votes will be split even more and that would delight the Rethugs.

They must love visiting DU ~ they can see all "Democrats" acting like they don't like each other and I sincerely hope that is not true. If we all don't work together for our Party (I thought that is what DU was meant to do ?????????????) we are DONE.

[valerief]

106. We need a democracy. nt

[Deep13]

117. Yeah, but I'm afraid if we have it the RW loonies will win.

:-(

[DFW]

108. But there was no way we were ever going to nominate, much less elect such a president

Howard Dean's crash and burn in 2004 showed us that in no uncertain terms.

The fear of such a man in the White House is still all too pervasive, all too exploitable.
Fear is a powerful emotion, and Republicans have been experts at exploiting it, from Joe
McCarthy's Red scare of the fifties, through Willie Horton for Bush I, to Cheney seeing
Al Qaeda hiding under his bed and behind every tree (another reason to cut them all down).

I'm just happy we have a man in the White House who has shown he will nominate Supreme
Court Justices like Sotomayor, and not like Alito, as McPalin promised.

Obama may not be all that we wanted, but he's OUR not-what-we-wanted, and he still has the
chance to grow. McPalin was the alternative. Think about that for a while. Obama's heart
can still be nudged in the right direction. At least he has one, as opposed to what would
have been there if he had lost. Whether Hillary might have done a better job is no longer
a relevant question. Whether Obama might show more of a progressive inclination as time goes
on is a better question. I say he has about 6 months from now to inspire what was his base
to the degree he did before his election. If he does OK in the midterms, my bet is that he
will get more progressive. If not, I fear that he will (to his ultimate detriment) pander
more and more to the "center (=right)" to "get things done," and to solidify his re-election
bid. It's obscene that a newly-elected first-term president should be thinking about that
less than twelve months into his administration, but it is naïve to think he's not doing just that.

Back in 2000, a Republican/conservative activist I know named Richard Viguerie was asked what
advice he would give the newly "elected" George W. Bush when he took office in a few weeks.
Richard answered that despite his narrow "victory," he would advise Bush to take a hard-right
stance to everything, and make the most of it while he could. He did. Unlike Bush Lite, Obama
won with a resounding margin of victory. I wonder if Richard would have had understood if Obama
had done the same thing to the left that he advised Bush II to do on the right? In 2 weeks, I get
to ask him. I am already fireproofing my sweater. One thing Bush Lite had that Obama does not:
Bush Lite had a lockstep Republican majority in Congress to rubber-stamp everything Uncle Dick
wanted. Obama couldn't get 60 Senate Democrats to endorse a bill confirming that the sky is blue.

[varelse]

118. We need our liberal media back

Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.