It's amazing how many liberals want a dictator

[Radical Activist]

In a more autocratic country a single person could quickly deliver health care, completely change our energy economy and do everything else you think Obama should have done a week after entering office. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and I don't want anyone to have that kind of power.

Obama said in every speech that change will come from the people, not handed to us on a silver platter. Can we accept that Obama doesn't have the power to make unilateral decisions and instead put more pressure on the Senate? The Senate is the problem. I guess whining is easier than doing something productive.

[jobycom]

1. Bulshit.

A good leader gets things done, not by decree, but by fighting on behalf of the people. Wake me up when you see that in Obama.

[Radical Activist]

7. Yes, he fights on behalf of the people

and the people also need to fight for themselves. I don't think constant whining about Obama is effective fighting. Convincing the Senate to do the right thing is the job of US the people just as much as it's Obama's job. He's pushing the agenda he campaigned on.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Who has he fought for? Show me the fight.

[Juche]

93. We did fight in 2006 and 2008

We had 2 landslide elections back to back. The GOP lost 15 senate seats and almost 60 house seats in those 2 elections. I don't think there has been any time in US history where we had 2 back to back landslide elections. Several states that were considered safe GOP states (Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina) went Obama in 2008.

We progressives registered millions of voters and donated hundreds of millions of dollars.

I've called my senators and representatives several times. I've donated hundreds of dollars. I've done volunteer work. I've emailed. I've talked face to face with my representative.

We did fight. We are not lazy whiners. We donated hundreds of millions of dollars, we emailed, we called. I'm not saying we should give up. I'm saying it is insulting to think we are just sitting here whining.

We are disappointed that after all that work the dems are barely even fighting for what we elected them to do.

In 2006 they said 'elect us and we will end the war'. They didn't even try. Then they said 'give us 60 senate seats and Obama and then you'll get reform'. We did that, and they still didn't fight.

Obama is not pushing the agenda he campaigned on. He ran a campaign ad talking about how unfair it was that Billy Tauzen got a revolving door lobbying job and how he'd end special interests in Washington. Then he invites Tauzen to the white house a dozen times.

He didn't end DADT.

He helped block prescription negotiations via medicare

He ignored the public option

He refuses to let the health debates be on CSPAN



Overall, he is keeping far more promises than he has broken (87 to 11). So not so bad.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



The Obameter Scorecard

* Promise Kept 87

* Compromise 28

* Promise Broken 11

* Stalled 63

* In the Works 241

* Not yet rated 80

[chimpymustgo]

101. Obama has fought for the banksters, the health insurance industry, the military industrial complex.

He's has actively kicked us in the ASS at every turn.

Pulleeze.

[ima_sinnic]

174. hey, he really put up a big fight for a public option, didn't he? even "promising" not to sign

a bill without one.

He didn't do jackshit except hand it over to Max Baucus, the insurance co.'s senator, and walk away smelling like a rose. He didn't say jackshit when the teabaggers took over the message, totally distorting it (what happened to his "rapid response" teams? I guess he only uses those when he wants our vote. After that, the swiftboaters are free to confuse the American people and turn them against him--is that how it works?)

He fought for the piece of shit bill he wanted--behind closed doors--and gave the bloodsucking insurance companies our lives on a silver platter.

You can pretend it's all about "wanting him to be a dictator," but I call bullshit on whatever your pandering agenda is. Nobody's buying that fucking crap.

Oh, and he doesn't care about you, either, unless your office is as big as a normal person's whole house and your bank account bigger than the economies of several third-world countries combined, made up of taxpayer-provided "bonuses" for robbing said taxpayers.

[shawcomm]

How about the people putting up a little fight?

We are the ones Congress is supposed to answer to. They work for us, not the President.

[jobycom]

26. Too many excuses.

A president works Congress. That's what all the presidents who accomplished anything did. He's got as liberal a Congress as he could have hoped for, now it's his turn.

[treestar]

157. So maybe he did and couldn't get them to go along

They aren't supposed to just go along with the President.

You're taking Congress out of the equation, as if they were powerless. They aren't supposed to be. That's Bush/Cheney thinking. The reason they were wrong and the U.S. voted them out was they wanted all the power to go to the executive.

[treestar]

151. Exactly, and since it is by state/district, that conflicts naturally with

what the President wants. People don't care about other districts/states, and that is how Congress exists to slow things down or create compromises.

One could even argue the people in Conn. have an interest in insurance companies doing well - they may work for them or sell things to them - and that's a natural drag on health care that comes from Conn. reps fighting for their people only, which is their job.

[rwheeler31]

24. Are you going to help or just complain?

[jobycom]

33. Well I'm not going to shut up or make excuses while it all slips away, if that's what you want.

What do you want me to do? Hold his hand? Explain to him how it works up there? Christ, if he can't get anything done with control of both houses of Congress he needs a lot more than help.

[Radical Activist]

37. Obama doesn't control Congress!

The people do. That's why he needs your help pushing them left. Stop expecting Obama to do your job for you.

[PVnRT]

96. Name me one president that didn't lobby Congress to get their agenda passed

Well, other than Obama.

It would be one thing if he had been out there, leading, lobbying and failed; instead, it looks like he was content to sit back and let things go, because that means you don't have to be mean to anyone.

[hfojvt]

168. you lie!

Why?

[greenbird]

Sit back and let things go?

How do you know what he's been doing behind the scenes? Do you have special access to the Oval Office? Where is your evidence that he sat back and let things go?

[V_Byl]

152. Seems like we elected...

...Democrats to control congress for us, that worked well.

WTF do you expect people to do, join the Tea Baggers and Glenn Beck in a revolution to turn this country back 150 years?

[Radical Activist]

206. Yes.

I would like to see the left getting louder and organize more aggressively like the tea-baggers are. But, with more intelligence and direction. It's embarrassing that these faux-populist morons are the most visible grassroots movement in American right now. Fucking pathetic really.

[treestar]

156. The authoritarians expect the Demcrats to march in lockstep

Then when they don't, they complain it's Obama's fault the Democratic party doesn't march in lockstep, which of course, should never be done, and that's why we should blame it all on the President. :crazy:

[jobycom]

161. The people do? Seriously, you've been here this long and you think the people control Congress?

The way you get legislation passed through Congress as a president is you rally Congress. You work the members on the fringes, try to sway them, pressure them, bribe them, do what you need to get their vote. That's how Clinton got his progressive tax bill through Congress. That's how LBJ got Civil Rights passed when Congress knew it was cutting its own political throat to do it. That's how it works.

Has nothing to do with who controls Congress. No one controls Congress. Congress can't even control Congress. It has to do with who influences, who leads. That's why we elect a president. Otherwise it just wouldn't matter who the Hell was in office.

[Radical Activist]

205. Voters had this coversation during the primary.

If I wanted someone to play an insiders game to make change for us, the kind of change that can easily be undone by the following President, then I would have voted for Hillary. That's what she promised. Obama understands that dramatic, lasting change comes from people's movements, not haggling in Congress. I want someone who understands that his term is an opportunity to empower the people in a more lasting and meaningful way.

[Winterblues]

109. When was the last time you saw or heard of a General leading the troops in an assault up the hill?

They are usually quite some distance from any real battles...Very much in the background until a TV camera gets close to them..

[treestar]

149. What?

What is "fighting on behalf of the people?" Where does congress fit into this? What about the courts?

[ima_sinnic]

176. please link me to instances where Obama made a strong case for a public option

repeatedly, like he really fucking believed in it. Where he had his "rapid response" teams batting down the teabaggers who took over his message. Where he INSISTED that everybody really would "have a seat at the table." Where he said anything "stern" against closed-door hearings with insurance co. and pharmaceutical co. fat-cats.

Where he actually refused to sign a bill without a public option as he so glibly and insincerely "promised" (like any good con artist, he says what people wants to hear).

oh, poor widdle Obama, the most powerful person in the world, can't get anything done because of Joe Lieberman--he must be weak and ineffective, then, if he has no fucking leverage over him of any sort--sheesh. should I :cry: because I have to feel so sorry for the way the "obstructionists" "obstruct" him? or :rofl: at the idiot idea that we are going to believe how "helpless" he is?

hey, Obama fought for and got exactly what he wanted--and it ALL benefits the insurance companies--just like the bank bailouts--no strings attached--is he a pushover for them, or just a total sell-out?

If he had the GUTS and the PRINCIPLES to "fight," he really would MEAN IT when he says he won't sign a bill without a public option. He wouldn't be talking about a public option and then pretending he didn't say anything about it.

But please continue with your delusion that he has no strings he can pull, no levers he can yank, no nothing he can do outside of his little oval office. he's just an ordinary powerless ant like the rest of us nobodies, so it's only fitting that he not bother to fight for us.

[DJ13]

2. You're right, he's completely powerless to push for real change

I guess it was just an empty slogan to sell him like any other product.

[Jamastiene]

91. +1

[ima_sinnic]

177. +++1 yes, those who said he was "too inexperienced" were right

he just doesn't have the connections, the leverage, the backing of other politicians. he's easily "obstructed" by Joe Lieberman and doesn't know what to do about it. Nobody will go to bat for him--he's soo alone on his lonely mission of "change" :cry:

[Political Heretic]

181. Best counter-argument.

[Radical Activist]

203. When Obama repeatedly said change comes from efforts by the people

and that he couldn't do it for us...it wasn't an empty slogan. Were you listening?

[tabatha]

3. Nail on head.

[MadHound]

4. More hyperbolic bullshit designed to attack liberals,

And the sad thing is you know that you're spewing bullshit, but doing it anyway. Sad, really sad.

[Radical Activist]

9. You don't think we need to put pressure on the Senate

instead of expecting Obama to do everything for us?

[MadHound]

12. I think that your claim that liberals want a dictator is hyperbolic bullshit,

And again, you know that, you're just trying to stir up shit. Also your claim that liberals expect Obama to do everything is also hyperbolic bullshit, but again, you know that too.

So answer me this, why are you attacking liberals with this sort of bullshit?

[Radical Activist]

17. Did I write ALL liberals or liberals in general? No.

I wrote that I'm amazed by how many liberals act as though they want a dictator to hand down everything they want. There are authoritarian liberals and that mindset shines through at times. I'm an anti-authoritarian liberal so I never expected anything to be handed down easily from on high.

I'm not attacking liberals. I'm criticizing people with an authoritarian mindset and unrealistic expectations.

[MadHound]

25. Actually yes, you did, so stop trying to weasel your way out with a lie

From your OP, first line: "It's amazing how many liberals want a dictator". That certainly implies liberals in general, otherwise you would have written something like how "a few liberals" or "a minority of liberals". Words do mean things when you write them, and if you're going to write such hyperbolic bullshit as you did at least have the courage to stand by your word instead of trying to weasel out of them when you get called on them.

"Not attacking liberals" Geez, is your short term memory that shot that you don't even remember what your wrote? Or are you just trying to have it both way, launching hyperbolic attacks while claiming to be innocent. What a specimen you are:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

Try valium or pot or something.

Calm down.
"How many liberals" implies a number less than all of them. But if you're determined to be really, really angry then you're free to interpret it in the worst way you choose along with accepting at face value everything you read that's critical of Obama.

[MadHound]

39. Ah yes, here comes the condescending rejoinder to try and deflect criticism away from yourself

Sorry, doesn't fly there. I'm not really angry, in fact I'm perfectly calm pointing out the illogic and fallacies of your posting in this thread. But since you're getting your ass handed to you on the actual substance of our little tete-a-tete you're now resorting to trying and paint me as out of control and angry. Again, sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Meanwhile you're left with a lame ass, hyperbolic OP wherein your attacked liberals in general and now you're getting your ass handed to you on style as well. Give it up, admit that you're being foolish and stupid and get out while you're still a bit ahead.

Anyhow, being as it's late, and this is a pointless conversation, I'm out of here and going to bed. So get your childish last little word in, I'll have a good chuckle tomorrow.

[Radical Activist]

44. I gave you a thoughtful response in reply 12.

Apparently that's not what you were looking for. I'm pretty sure I know what I meant when I wrote it.

[MadHound]

47. Given that I wrote post number twelve in this thread,

I'm pretty sure that you don't know what the fuck you're writing about, period. Good night:hi:

[Radical Activist]

52. Fine. #17

More cussing. So much anger. Why not try to converse with people?

[dionysus]

121. wow, he typed the wrong number. boy, you sure showed your superiority to him.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

120. not all liberals. he's clearly speaking about a subset of DU... not all liberals are running around

unhinged, screaming at the moon...

[treestar]

154. Then why aren't you madder at your Senators than Obama?

Depending on who they are and how they vote? Are they representing your state? That's what they are supposed to do. And Senators from other states are supposed to represent their state, not yours.

it would seem more logical to be angrier with the people who sent Nelson to the Senate that with Obama.

[alittlelark]

83. +1

[rockymountaindem]

5. Right, because FDR, Truman and LBJ were dictators

So was Clinton when he passed NAFTA over the objections of some in Congress. Please.

[Radical Activist]

72. There are no more LBJ's.

Truman never had much luck with Congress. LBJ and FDR had larger majorities but were still limited. Some of their plans went away pretty quickly after successive Presidents. That's why pushes for new legislation need to come from the bottom up, and not just pushed through Congress by the President. Change that comes because the people organized for it is more likely to last.

[depakid]

6. Talk about irony-

In your sorry apologia you neglect to note that much more effective- and much more popular legislation could have been accomplished through the 50 +1 reconciliation process.

All that was lacking was the political will and fortitude- but instead of cluing into that (recurring) problem- you chose to play the poor Obama victim card- and whine about progressives and "dictatorship."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. Radical Activist? Che?

I'd act surprised, but I lost that capacity somewhere along the way.

Is Fidel too old to do Escalade commercials? I'm thinking that's the next step in this continuum.

[readmoreoften]

23. And Lenin is pro-imperialism now. And the Zapatistas are shilling for ConAgra.

I really can't stand these phonies and their "ironic chic" commodification of OTHER PEOPLE'S ENTIRE HISTORIES.

[PVnRT]

97. Fidel has a contract with Dodge, not GM

[DisgustipatedinCA]

171. Awesome. I want a Castro Edition Durango

It's got a little humidor built right into the visor and the horn plays the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

[Moochy]

10. He has a lot more power than you give him credit.

no mandates.
yes public option.
no taxes on cadillac plans.

Change, (in positions) you can believe in.

[Radical Activist]

14. I think people have the power

if we organize well. I just hope people who constantly complain about Obama are doing more than that to make change. Sitting back and expecting Obama to do it for us isn't liberal and it isn't good organizing.

[Juche]

94. How do you organize

What does an organization do? How do you define organize, and why/how is an organization effective?

For what it is worth, many of us consider giving the democratic party landslide elections in 2006 and 2008 to be a result of organizing. What are we supposed to do now? You seem to want to believe the current situation (where the dems have the power to pass progressive legislation but refuse to do so) is in a vacuum. The only reason the dems have such super majorities is because the people you are criticizing as lazy did the work of voting and encouraging other people to vote.

I will organize and fight for primaries from the left in 2010. But as one person I am limited. I can donate a few hundred dollars, but that is about it.

[janx]

11. Wow. Haven't seen you around here in awhile!

:rofl:

What brings you back?

[Radical Activist]

34. Snowed in.

Passing time.

[andym]

13. Most of the Western democracies are more autocratic

in that they use parliamentary systems that allow the majority party to effect changes.

Of course, that means the majority party can easily repeal all of the work of the former government.

[Radical Activist]

48. True.

The Senate's resistance to hasty change can be good at times, but this is one of those times, like civil rights before the 60's, when the culture of the Senate is hurting the people too much.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Jesus fuck. There is no reason to treat people here like children.

You and Obama act like we have no memory and that we don't know what a leader looks like. He didn't raise a finger to fight for his popular campaign issues.

Not only did he not lead, but he fucked us over behind closed doors.

[tabatha]

16. BS

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[tabatha]

38. What is Everclear? I have no idea.

You know, what really pisses me off, is that the Republicans are fighting him tooth and nail on every damn thing - there have been the most filibusters in the history of the congress in this session. His appointments have been stalled. The corporations are undermining him, and instead of backing him, some on the left are tearing him down as bad as the right.

He is fighting as hard as he can for us, and when his presidency is over, he will have the luxury of explaining why he did what he did.

And we are living in a time that is hugely different from LBJ - the acrimony and partisanship from the opposition who do not want to work with him AT ALL, started planing his downfall from day one, have put him in a uniquely difficult and almost impossible position.

And you cannot see that - what have you been drinking?

[Radical Activist]

41. There are practically no voices supporting Obama

I understand the need to push Obama left and I do it too. But dammit, there needs to be a few people who support the good things he tries to do. My paper carries Ann Coulter, Ted Rall and nothing positive about Obama.

[Zhade]

59. We don't generally relish supporting people who lie to our faces.

I don't know why you'd be surprised by that.

[PVnRT]

98. But wait!

According to polls I see every few days in GD-P, most all Democrats support Obama, and it's only a loony fringe who criticize. You guys really need to get your message discipline down.

[Luminous Animal]

53. There has not been one filibuster. Only threats.

What is historical are cloture motions which indicate that the Democrats capitulate, again and again, to mere threats.

If the Republicans want to filibuster, make them do it.

[Radical Activist]

58. Yes! Make Republicans filibuster.

Senate Dems need to stop playing nice. They should have kept the Senate in session and kept the Democrats in town until they got a vote. Let's see how long the GOP will keep up their filibuster instead of going home. Force the GOP to embarrass themselves as they explain why they're standing up for the insurance industry.

I don't think it will be any great loss of Reid is defeated. He can't even pass legislation with a 60 seat majority. Get a new leader with guts.

[tabatha]

69. see #67

[Luminous Animal]

75. # 67 is incorrect. That you both can't tell the difference between cloture and filibuster

gives even less credence for your political acumen.

[tabatha]

104. See #105.

[tabatha]

67. Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress.

Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress.

Yesterday, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) slammed the idea of passing health care reform and other Obama priorities through a simple majority of the Senate, a process called reconciliation. “Now, if they do that, that, in effect is the nuclear war,” Kyl said. The Republicans have become experts at using Senate filibusters — or often just the threat of filibusters — to block the Democratic agenda while in the minority. As this chart from Norm Ornstein shows, the use of filibusters have skyrocketed under Republicans:



Ezra Klein writes, “If you want to understand why the earth is likely to heat and why comprehensive health reform is unlikely to pass and why the government is increasingly letting the Federal Reserve govern its response to the financial crisis, that graph basically tells the story.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/

[Luminous Animal]

73. If you'd actually look at the graph it specfically tracks CLOTURES.

The title of that post was wrong.

[tabatha]

103. Nope.

cloture – The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

Reid filed cloture to overcome filibusters

[Luminous Animal]

107. Invoking cloture is a method of avoiding a filibuster.

Even Reid admits to that. From his website:

http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/blog/entry/the_next_steps_forward_toward_health_insurance_reform

"Senator Reid files a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill on the Senate floor (“Invoke cloture” is just a fancy way of saying the Senate is avoiding a filibuster)"

Reid has used cloture as a procedure to avoid threatened filibusters. There hasn't been an actual filibuster yet in the 111th Congress.

[tabatha]

110. Obama: Republican filibustering 'unheard of'

And the concerns over the filibuster march on. In the past few weeks, we've heard from Andy Stern, Paul Krugman, Sen. Jeff Merkley, and Sen. Tom Harkin on the difficulty the Senate has functioning now that it's subject to a 60-vote supermajority requirement. Next up? One Barack Obama.

"s somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation -- to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of.

I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s -- even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control, for example, and Ronald Reagan was president -- you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule.

So I think that if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now.

Perhaps more important, though, is the province of that answer: Jim Lehrer asked Obama a question about the filibuster in an interview, and then followed up with, well, "Is there anything you can do about this?" (Short answer: Not really.) David Axelrod got a similar question from David Gregory on Sunday's "Meet the Press." The fact that something is wrong in the Senate has begun to penetrate the Washington establishment. Pressure on this might ease in the coming months as health-care reform has brought an unusual clarity and urgency to the chamber's dysfunctions, but this is progress. Like with so much else, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/obama_republican_filibustering.html

[Luminous Animal]

117. Please show me one incidence of an actual filibuster in this Congress.

If you looked at Reid link, it reveals that he invoked a preemptive cloture vote (and he plans on doing it again before the final vote on the health insurance bill). That is, he invoked cloture on the threat of a filibuster.

[tabatha]

127. Why did Obama, Axelrod say that the number of filibusters

were unheard of?

I saw a graph some time ago, with the numbers of filibusters, but I cannot find it again.

[Luminous Animal]

131. I don't know why they pretend that a threat is reality.

Perhaps you can ask them? Or Reid? I'm not the only lefty who want to see Reid call their bluff and actually make them do it.

[tabatha]

147. Well, maybe if someone says they are going to filibuster

and stuff will be held up even more if it happens, then avoiding it is a good idea.

There may not be "60" dems at the end of 2010, and there is a lot that has to be passed before then.

Bernie Sanders just said as much now - the ONLY way to get stuff done, is by the numbers, and the 60 we have now is not really 60.

[Moochy]

30. BS? More Like B.T. Who is Billy Tauzin ? President of PhRMA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cfzf-9pmis

Obama's Health Care Summit - Bloomberg news interview with Billy Tauzin.

Watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin

[tabatha]

45. see #38

[Moochy]

49. BT met with the White House

many many times in the past months. How many times did any advocates of single payer or the public option get to lobby in person during this same period?

I hope that Candidate Obama can lead the house and sentate to achieve some of what he promised back before he became President Obama.

[tabatha]

65. Do me a favor -

go visit with lieberman, nelson, and all of the other blue dogs who were voted in by their states and tell them to support PO.

[Moochy]

74. What do they have to do with President of Big PHARMA visiting the White House?

Besides the fact that Obama and the Blue Dogs probably got to see the same power point presentation.

[tabatha]

105. Obama said everyone would have a seat at the table.

[Moochy]

112. I guess he did not say how many times he'd set the table for the Big PhARMA

That depends on what the meaning of seat is.

[tabatha]

116. Well, if you know what was said ....

But I bet more meetings would occur if agreement was not easy - that means one side would not cave after the first 10 meetings.

Interpretations of what happened at the meeting are like religion - sheer biased belief.

[Moochy]

139. Well I don't need clairvoyance to see the Shifting Positions

You say knowing what went on in those meetings is like faith. Except unlike religion there is verifiable evidence of total capitulation by merely comparing the shifting positions between Candidate and president.

[tabatha]

148. What were the shifting positions re Pharma?

[Moochy]

162. Really ? At least open your eyes

At least recognize the shift from Campaign to Presidency and cynically say that's to be expected, or that is "Reality".

But to not recognize that he supported the Public Option, No Mandates, No taxes on Cadillac Plans as a candidate and has now settled for less, seems obvious to even the most stalwart partisan supporters.

[tabatha]

165. Public Option was for Pharma?

[Moochy]

166. PhARMA was opposed to a Public Option

Lobbyists have positions.
Public Option, a policy, has no 'position' on PhRMA.

I think I missed the point of your question.

[tabatha]

172. The house included the PO in their bill.

The Senate did not.

Pharma visited the WH, which voted on neither.

[Radical Activist]

20. He didn't get health care and climate change bills through the house?

He didn't personally lobby to get them passed?

Yes, he did. If you're not happy with the watered down bills going through Congress then get angry at Congress and make it easier for Obama to move left. Don't whine, organize.

[DJ13]

31. Nothing Congress does gets past a President opposed to the legislation

short of a veto proof majority.

If Obama wanted to remain true to his campaign promises he would tell Congress what he is willing to sign, and let them try to pass a bad bill under threat of a veto.

Of course he wont do that, he WANTS the crappy bill thats nothing but welfare for the insurers, that was why the deals were cut with them behind closed doors.

This has Obama's fingerprints all over it from the start.

[readmoreoften]

32. No. He didn't. That's not a HEALTH CARE its FORCED INSURANCE.

And the climate bill was a joke.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

55. With no insurance industry cost controls. Go, team! (n/t)

[Luminous Animal]

43. It is on record that he cut deals with Pharma.

That is, he negotiated behind closed doors. And I have been organized. Have you? How many meetings have you gone to? How many protests? How many phone calls, letters, faxes, and emails have you sent? I've worked with thousands of people over the years on this issue and I and most of my compratriots are thoroughly disgusted with Obama's weakness and silence. Did he think he could (like any other stinkin' politician) merely, say it on the campaign trail and then not take the reins of this issue? Hundreds of thousands of people worked their ass off to get him elected and he can't be bothered to publicly advocate, as President, for a health care system on which he garnered support?

FYI, this is not a health care bill. Even Obama, around the end of July, gave up the charade of calling it a health care bill. The White House accurately calls it what it has been perverted into, a health insurance bill.

Make it easier for Obama to move left? That is complete bullshit. He was a smidge to the left on the campaign trail. He campaigned from that position and the majority of people voted for him. On health care, for most people, he didn't have to move anywhere. They already supported him.

[Radical Activist]

50. He put forward a good plan at the state of the union.

I'd like something that forces insurance companies to be non-profit, but the plan Obama put forward was at least a step forward. Do you think he would have negotiated for something less if he didn't that it was necessary to get a bill passed?

I'm still hopeful that what comes out of conference committee will be better. Either way, the Senate is the problem.

[Luminous Animal]

56. If he has no power...

why would he need to negotiate?

[Zhade]

61. CHECKMATE.

Nicely done.

[Radical Activist]

64. strawman

[Radical Activist]

63. Because his power is limited

No one is arguing he has no power.

[treestar]

155. No one says he has no power. He has limited powers. That is how it

is supposed to be. :banghead:

[ima_sinnic]

180. he has gotten exactly what the billionaires wanted him to get

he hasn't fought for anything that wouldn't directly benefit them.
meanwhile, he hasn't fought for anything that WOULD directly benefit us. He's "reformed" the health insurance scam system so the insurers can now make unlimited profits, with enforcement by the IRS, no less.

poor, poor powerless Obama :cry:

[readmoreoften]

29. Yes, but "fucking the people behind closed doors" is what they mean by democracy.

That's what it's been reduced to by these assholes. Sorry for the ad hominems, but I've really had it with them. They're making excuses for nothing more than politically organized mass murder for profit. And unfortunately, that ain't no hyperbole.

[rwheeler31]

36. That is not true and you no it is not true.

Why do you do this? Think a bit about what you are saying.

[NashVegas]

128. Except We So Often Behave Like Children?

[treestar]

153. You are so determined to be a victim

No child is like that.

Children tend to know there are three branches by the time they are in 5th grade.

[Political Heretic]

190. True - I don't care about Obama, and have no interest in making it personal.

It Aint About Obama
Obama enters into my criticisms because, well he is the President of our country. But the failure of our political and economic system to hang onto any semblance of social or economic justice is the fault of entire parties and entire industries, and their relationship to money and power.

The main reason Obama gets a fair amount of criticism is because he promised change from politics and usual and the political status quo, and then before even elected stacked his administration with status-quo neoliberal "pro-business pragmatists" (to borrow a Bill Clinton self-description) who were entrenched beltway insiders with absolutely not experience in systematic institutional change and zero intention to bring any such change.

Don't know why that happened, if Obama is really just as tragically naive and not ready as others claimed during the campaign, or if he simply had no intention of truly backing his campaign rhetoric, but it is a reason why he takes a lot of criticism.

But as far as I'm concerned we have bigger issues to address than the failure of Barack Obama to be a president that prioritizes the needs of low-income and working individuals and families ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite.

It's Bigger than the Democratic Party
We have a Democratic Party that has lost touch when any sort of commitment to workers it may have arguably once had. A party that no longer even makes poverty a serious plank of its platform (talking about the comfortable, cushy "middle class" haves is not the same) a party that continues to walk further and further away from labor, that has exchanged grassroots power and populist power with establishing connections with big dollar donors representing the financial elite, and corporate interests that are happy to pay well for favors.

This is a real problem. Some people believe we need to fight a bare-knuckles desperate fight to retake the Democratic party and get it back on the right track. I can respect the sentiment, but truthfully I don't feel that the Democratic Party has ever been exactly where we the ordinary working folk need a political party to really be.

They've been better, I'm not blowing it all off. But only "better" within the constraints of an economic social structure that is built on oppression - keeping many poor so that few can reap the rewards. We can and should dream bigger than that. Democrats of history have done great things to "humanize" that basic travesty or our social and economic system, and make it more palatable to all. Social Security, the efforts of the Great Society serve as examples of that humanizing effort. Very significant aids to the working class to ease the pain of their basic exploitation.

But the basic exploitation exists, and the guaranteed trajectory of our political economy is towards increased exploitation and widening gaps between the rich few and the poor many. It's the basic trajectory that has always been, only slowed at points or "beautified" at times by bits of "humanizing" policy.

The System itself is Unjust
Talking about historical figureheads of the Democratic party such as FDR (in particular, since he is always referenced) or Johnson is a lot like talking about benevolent slave-owners of the past as compared to vicious, violently oppressive slave holders.

One is way better than the other. But, they both still hold slaves.

It's the system itself that needs to be undone. It's a system of economic and social slavery for many, a system of complete apathy and slumber in a haze of basic consumer comforts of others in the comfortable middle class, and a system of dominance and exploitation of all the underclasses - comfortable and disengaged and actively oppressed alike - that needs questioned and challenged.

Only in the United States do so many who are actively put down by their own political-economic system also so vociferously defend it. And only in the United States do you find some many people who believe that its somehow absolutely impossible blind fantasy to consider any sort of political and economic alternative to the narrow little spectrum of corporate politics we allow today.

Systems Do Get Changed!
People act as though no one in the world has never existed in an oppressive system that wasn't serving their needs or actively representing them and chosen to do something about that system. Only Americans think that the only answer is blind acceptance of the political-economic structure itself, and that daring to suggest anything else is blind utopian fantasy.

I just wish people could realize how ridiculous they sound when they claim that to any student of world history and anyone who has lived abroad in more than one hemisphere.

The system itself is the problem. I had hoped Obama would be another FDR (and was stupid for hoping that because I had more than enough evidence to suggest that would not be the case, and I let my hope blind me to it) but even if he had been another FDR, he would have served to put a humanizing tough on an oppressive, exploitative machine. We need to be thinking bigger than that.

Corporate Capitalism fails People. Period. Dress it up any way you like, the reality is exactly the same, and it does not matter how you put in political office, until the system itself comes under deep scrutiny we are not going to make good progress.

The answer may be a more well-regulated "publicly owned" free-market economic structure such as many European countries have successfully adopted. (Success by the way, does not mean perfection, and it doesn't mean free of all problems or injustices - but they enjoy higher standards of living almost across the board than the average US citizen).

Or the answer may be something completely different. I know some people believe that capitalism in any form is a problem. Personally, discussions and debates about that would be a great thing, as long as people start agreeing that this system is inherently unjust - and no amount of sticking the "right" people in offices here or there is going to change that.

The system needs changed... we can disagree about how to do that and what that would look like. But let's at least move things forward by accepting the basic fact that our long-standing political-economic structure is fundamentally flawed and needs undone and then start having those kinds of conversations.

[Political Heretic]

188. It wasn't even behind closed doors, friend.

Most of the fucking has been voyeuristically out in the wide-open.

[readmoreoften]

18. Instead we have a plutocrat who advocates for corporations. Freedom for the Corporations!

Some "radical activist" you are. Do you really think Che Guevara would like his face by your pro-Obama (i.e. pro-war, pro-health insurer, pro-corporation) bs?

The ultimate cliche of the "kitschy" fashionista use of the radical politics REAL people fought and died for.

[Radical Activist]

27. The Obama presidency

is a great opportunity to grow progressive movements in a relatively friendly environment. We can make great strides if we don't focus too much on what we think Obama can do for us.

[Zhade]

62. Friendly? Are you seriously that out of touch?

NT!

[tblue]

19. In other words: "Don't post anything I disagree with."

Good luck with that.

[donheld]

22. Gladly Unrecommend!

What ever else may be going on his continued suck up to Tim Geithner and Goldman Sachs. His continuing
caving to Insurance and Pharma is something he could change if he only would. His blad faced lying also is
FAR from what I expected him to do.

[neverforget]

28. It's amazing how many whine about those that hold him accountable.

[Starry Messenger]

35. Che Guevara would spit on

your thread.

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. Seriously, it is hard to reconcile the icon with the post.

[Radical Activist]

60. Did Che want a mass movement of the people

or a bunch of people who whine that dictator won't give them what they want?

[Moochy]

77. His Greatest Hope was to be Turned into an Avatar on a DARPA network

Either that or sell his likeness on T-shirts, hats and designer sneakers to an upscale, urban professional demographic.

[Radical Activist]

78. lol

Then I have more in common with him than I realized.

[fascisthunter]

144. no shit....

[kevinbgoode]

40. It is not a desire for a dictatorship to expect the President

and the majority party holding the Congress, to deliver on the promises which were a key part of the Democratic Party's platform. That platform is what sold the party's candidates to the American people, and their failure to actively pursue those goals is the institution of a dictatorship. Manipulating and lying to the people to gain power doesn't enhance representative government - it destroys it.

[Radical Activist]

207. There's no rational basis

to claim that Obama hasn't pursued the goals he campaigned on. Health care and climate change were his top two campaign priorities and both have passed the house.
The bills he introduced didn't pass without changes. That's how our representative government is set up.

[JamesA1102]

42. Not A dictator, THEIR dictator. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

51. A week? Check your calendar...

It's been nearly a year. Nice try, though.

[Quantess]

54. Your logic needs work.

Unrecommended.

[proteus_lives]

66. Given how many DUers spit-shine Castro's shoes.....

I don't find that fact amazing at all.

[laughingliberal]

68. unRec for another liberal bashing post from the message discipline team

The 'people' went out and drummed up support for the health care reform plan Obama said he wanted (you know, the one he wanted before he didn't want it). Even after he allowed the teabaggers to have the debate all through August while he was MIA the 'people' drove support for a public option way up in the polls and the support for a mandate way down. The 'people' also rejected John McCain in the election who wanted to tax benefits. The president fought what the 'people' wanted tooth and nail in order to make sure Billy Tauzin and Karen Ignagni were happy. I'm not sure how the 'people' bring about change when the President decides he doesn't want it.

[paulsby]

70. many liberals are also statists

sad, but true.

ditto for many conservatives.

[Radical Activist]

216. yep.

there's hardly a name for the anti-authoritarian liberal ideology any more. Its different incarnations are all slandered into disuse.

[madrchsod]

71. we gave him the power to change the direction of this country

but he`s listened to the people who paid him more than we did.
he`s another bill clinton neo-liberal. he knows we have no where else to go.

[Radical Activist]

81. i never give away my power to change this country to anyone.

I'd like to have an ally in the White House but I expect no more.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Sebastian Doyle]

79. Hey, Chad's back from vacation!

How's your dad (Bruce Reed) doing these days? :)

[madrchsod]

80. is that you saul?

[jgraz]

82. Welcome all, to this month's talking point.

Pony? Chess? Only X months? Those are sooo 2009. No, for 2010 we'll go one better: if you have the temerity to ask your president to follow through on even the most basic of his campaign promises, you want a DICTATOR! You probably would have voted for HITLER, wouldn't you???

[Bluebear]

88. And you want SARAH PALIN as President and hate puppies!!!!!1

PS Obama has sexay sexay six-pack ABZZZZZ!!!!!!!

[laughingliberal]

108. ROFL!! Perfect! nt

[Bluebear]

84. "Whining" . . .what an idiotic & shallow thing to call people venting their issues.

[HughMoran]

86. Guess that one hit home

doh!

:P

[jgraz]

89. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.

Seriously, just post "Neener neener." It means the same thing and it will be less taxing on your wittle bwain.

[Toasterlad]

194. Now, J...You KNOW You Didn't Expect Anything Better.

[jgraz]

195. At least he picked an appropriate username.

It's like a little warning label on all his posts.

[Toasterlad]

198. So Very True.

[dionysus]

114. did it ever...

:rofl:

[Toasterlad]

196. I'm Going To Start Calling You "Roll On the Floor Like a Lap Dog Poster".

Because you use that stupid smiley in every post, and you do whatever your master tells you to.

Have a great weekend, ROTFLALDP!

[HughMoran]

85. Good conversation starter

It's a characteristic I've noted among many of the 'my way or the highway' types - though I have to tell you that they don't refer to themselves as liberals. One DUer who thinks along those lines posted on another blog "I FUCKING DESPISE LIBERALS". She doesn't say stuff like that here though :rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Your screen name is a joke, right?

It sure doesn't fit you.

[QC]

142. Have you ever noticed how some people here

don't act like liberals so much as they act like what freepers think liberals act like?

[fascisthunter]

146. you nailed it there

to some it's obvious but to the rest I guess it would never ocur to them... strange to say the least.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. I have indeed noticed that

But we're not supposed to mention any names.

[Toasterlad]

199. Very Nicely Stated, QC

[Radical Activist]

214. Sure it does.

A radical never expects too much from a politician and always remembers that the power of a mobilized public is greater than the power of their representatives.

[anonymous171]

90. A leader who is not afraid to use the coercive power of the state for his own ends =/= dictator

I want a president who is not afraid to fuck his enemies up. If he has to tread in some gray areas, then so be it.

[moondust]

92. Bush's imperial presidency created some unrealistic expectations. n/t

[Radical Activist]

201. Interesting insight. n/t

[mmonk]

95. When can you all get it through your heads that Obama wants

a Bill like the Senate one, and has gone against his previous positions on the subject? He doesn't want what we want.

[Radical Activist]

208. So his state of the union address and frequent defense of the public option

was just an elaborate ruse to throw everyone off? That's seriously paranoid.

He was forced to compromise in the Senate. It's unfortunate but it doesn't make Obama a lying devil.

[GreenMetalFlake]

99. Whole-hearted un-rec

[ima_sinnic]

100. you are someone whose posts I will now regard as a joke

I hadn't really noticed you before, I don't think, but now I see your silly avatar and equally preposterous username and have mentally noted "idiot," "waste of time," "talks through his ass making meaningless noise like that old joke about the guy who said he could sing through his ass but dumped a pile of crap on the bar instead, claiming he had to clear his throat first."

the chaff is more and more quickly separating itself from the wheat on this board.

[dionysus]

115. awww, isn't that a pity...

:rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

140. another one with Big Thoughts

[sendero]

102. You don't know..

... the alphabet, but you're still talking.

What a ridiculous straw man bullshit argument. We're not asking for everything, we're asking for ANYTHING.

Change your name, you are much closer to milktoast than to radical.

[Odin2005]

106. Look at all the Chavez apologists.

[Skittles]

111. this is ridiculous

"the people" were cut out of the healthcare debate

[Radical Activist]

209. No one can cut out the people

except the people themselves by their own cynicism and inaction.

[dionysus]

113. this'll touch a nerve...

:popcorn:

notice how touchy the culprits are whenever this gets brought up?
they won't admit they want a left wing bush, but see how angry they get? it's a dead giveaway...

[HughMoran]

118. that little chuckle you feel inside

...when somebody posts what hundreds who read DU are thinking every day when they read some of the arrogant dictatorial ranting of the "I want it NOW!!!!!!!!" troglodytes.

[dionysus]

119. you can even smell burning hair...

[HughMoran]

133. .

[dionysus]

136. o shit i need to find one of those for my guitar rig!

[Radical Activist]

217. *snort*

:spray:

[shadowknows69]

122. And it would be much easier if it were me. Day one: Pot legal

Day one and a half: All troops are on planes home. End of day one: All people get the same civil rights in this country and anyone who doesn't like it can get the fuck out.

[shadowknows69]

123. Day two. I'm partying.

[Fire1]

124. Simply put, "NO," It is increasingly obvious that so-called

liberals and especially progressives do not comprehend that we live in a DEMOCRACY!

[KG]

125. is that all you got? the 'whining' card?

:rofl:

[blindpig]

126. The Senate is but a small aspect of he problem

capitalism is the overarching problem.

[joeybee12]

129. He's just taken office! He hasn't been in 100 days yet! It hasn't even been a year!

Rinse and repeat.

[shadowknows69]

130. It's pretty much been a year.

[joeybee12]

132. Then let me change the third refrain to...

"It's only been a year!"

[shadowknows69]

134. We do have that "it's only been 13 months" to look forward to.

[joeybee12]

143. He's only had one term! We need to re-elect him, becasue two terms

are needed to get anything done, of course.

[HughMoran]

135. .

[ima_sinnic]

138. they pretend not to get: it's not what he hasn't done yet, it's the lies and BS already done

and so much of the divisiveness is based on pretend, made-up shit, like, "wanting him to be a dictator."

yes, we're simple-minded and think "a dictator" is what he needs to be.
of course, having a little "influence" or "leverage" wouldn't hurt, but I guess he's too weak and powerless to have even that. Remember when people thought he might be too inexperienced? I guess they were right. He has no bully pulpit skills, or people skills in general. He's the most powerful pwerson in the world, but he can't get anything he wants done because of Joe Lieberman.
Ineffectual is another word for it.
are we supposed to feel sorry for him because of the bullies in Congress? is that what we're supposed to feel?

awww :cry:

[Doctor_J]

137. Sadly, "the people" can change almost nothing in the US

The country is now completely controlled by lobbyists and their corporate clients.

[fascisthunter]

141. what idiotic flame baiting garbage

it's people like you who think we should walk lock-step and agree with your twisting lies and excuses. You sound like a totalitarian yourslef in regards to loyalty of this President. Go to hell.

[Radical Activist]

202. I enjoy the irony

of you telling me to go to hell after accusing ME of posting flame bait. heh

[Individualist]

145. Unrec

[krabigirl]

150. Nope, I just want a REAL liberal in charge...in the WH and as the speaker.

All we get are socially conservative corporatists.

[Gman2]

160. Count your blessings. Our multiple choice test isnt. EVER. Or ever will be.

[Kansas Wyatt]

158. Obama is a dictator...

He removed Single Payer from the start, against the Peoples' wishes.

He used bully tactics to get the DLC/HRC SHIT Bill he wanted through, rather than pressuring legislators to deliver a REAL HRC Bill for the American People. It wasn't Congress... It was Obama pushing the Republican wet dream DLC/HCR SHIT Bill all along.

[ima_sinnic]

173. +100 yes, he can get what he wants--but we're supposed to think he's weak & helpless

and has no leverage with Congress.

only the most sheepish of people just accepts what a politician tells them at face value, and what that politician's sycophants start bleating about. The more these mindless boosters defend the crap we're being handed, the more screwed I know I am.

[jgraz]

178. You only need to look at the death of the Dorgan amendment to see the truth of this

Dorgan threatened Obama's sweetheart deal with the drug companies. Rahm was able to organize a filibuster in the Senate to kill the re-importation of Canadian drugs.

After that, no one can possibly believe that Obama has no power over this legislation.

[ima_sinnic]

179. & don't get me started on that republican, rahm

Obama has his "enforcer"--he can be as "dictatorial" as he wants, and he is--for whatever will benefit the haves and have-mores, the ones who don't pay taxes on the bonuses we pay them to rob us.

[Posteritatis]

182. Ahhh, the hyperbole of the comfortable. (nt)

[Kansas Wyatt]

191. Care to explain that?

[Posteritatis]

192. If you think Obama is a dictator you're clueless as to what the word means. (nt)

[Kansas Wyatt]

197. I guess you have to live in America to comprehend the term, since the Village Idiot was President.

He uses the same dictatorial powers that George W. Bush used, except he says he cannot get anything done for the American People. But behind closed doors, he gets Rahm to attack and threaten anyone who stands up for the American people.

Maybe you are just clueless and exaggerate how 'comfortable' the American People really are, while you snipe from the sideline. Besides, what business is it of yours, regarding American politics?
Are you Canadian or a United States citizen in Canada?
If you are a U.S. citizen, then why are you in Canada?

[Radical Activist]

200. How could Obama have

removed single payer "against the People's wishes" when a majority of Americans don't even know what single payer is? Educating people about single payer is something Obama is already helping with, but it's primarily the responsibility of us, the activist grass roots.

I think the bill Obama introduced was a good step forward and the House version included the public option. It may till be included in the final version after conference committee. The Senate is the problem.

[Gman2]

159. And the Repukes are using them as a wedge. Concern trolling for

disaffection. And feelings of betrayal, on those things they destroyed any chance of happening.

[ima_sinnic]

184. where was Obama's "ready response" team when the teabaggers took over his msg?

no repuke is "using" me--Obama betrayed me by himself.
He SAID he wouldn't sign a bill without a public option.
He now disowns even wanting a public option.
He is the laissez-faire president who hands our health care to the health insurance co's own senator.

if any "wedges" are being driven, rahm and his republican democrat asshole friends are doing it quite well. we're only important every 4 years when the liars and con artists kiss up to us for votes. After that, we can go to hell.

and unless you're a fucking billionaire, you ain't jack to him, either.

[ItNerd4life]

163. DAMN! Ran out of popcorn. Can someone refill my bowl?

[Radical Activist]

210. Yes, but not with popcorn

:smoke:

[mzmolly]

164. True.

K and R. You're in the "top tens" btw. :hi:

[silverweb]

167. A dictator or a magician.

K&R.

[LanternWaste]

169. I'm beginning to notice that...

I've started to notice that the word "whining" is incorrectly being used more and more in place of the phrase, "criticism of a position/person I myself happen to agree with...".

[Political Heretic]

187. You've just "begun" to notice that???

:)

[Radical Activist]

211. I don't think so.

I know the difference. I criticize Obama often enough but I don't whine or have unrealistic expectations. There's a lot of whining and misdirected anger at DU.

[EFerrari]

170. What a pantload. The grassroots job is to speak up on their own behalf.

And do you really understand who the ef is paying for that "silver platter"? WE ARE.

[Edweird]

175. People supported him because of his position during his campaign. He is now 180 degrees

from his campaign position. He has broken his word. Attempting to shift responsibility for that is disgusting.

[donco6]

183. If change comes from the people, here we are.

Demanding the President bring about the changes he promised. Guess it's a win-win!

[ima_sinnic]

185. the natives are getting restless, too. what's he going to do about it?

I guess we'll hear some more eloquent speeches full of million-dollar ad agency slogans, esp. in late 2011.

[Radical Activist]

213. What are WE going to do about it?

[Political Heretic]

186. You call it whatever you want. From my vatage point, its a dictatorship right now.

Technically an oligarchy or kleptocracy, but basically the effect is the same. A tiny sector of ruling privileged interests dictate the terms for me and my neighbors.

So as far as I'm concerned you can call the way in which I want things to be different than they are not anything you like. I certainly don't think our political system is the "best," in fact I find to to be close to the worst.

I don't want a totalitarian tyrant, but I do want leaders who put the needs of low income and working individuals and families first, ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite. And I want leaders who do that more than in slogan - if that means drawing lines in the sand, getting "ugly" with other political constituents, taking more matters into his own hands, and being a hard-nosed, outspoken, no-nonsense fighter of rich bullshit - then so be it.

Having said that, you can look to many examples of political systems in Europe that function without a dictator and yet still manage to keep super-greed and the ultra rich in check - places that have higher standards of living and lower poverty rates and lower child mortality rates than the united states, higher quality of life ratings and do all of this without being Stalin.

Well, it depends on who you ask - the governments in these countries draw sharp lines between corporations and politics - much of the political "influence" of politics allowed here is illegal in these countries, key industries are nationalized because they are too big to fail.... wait, not too big to fail some rich assholes, but too big to fail ordinary people - what a novel concept.

So, if you side with the rich consumptionists then it might "feel" like a dictatorship to you, i.e. you representing 1% interests aren't getting your way, while "they" representing 99% interests, are.

I hate to break it to you, but to me, America feels like a dictatorship right now - just one that serves the interest of a tiny elite and not the interests of me and my neighbors.

[Toasterlad]

193. "Can we accept that Obama doesn't have the power to put more pressure on the Senate?"

Yes indeed we can, if you change "power" to "balls".

[noamnety]

204. When I look at the appointments he's made

I have a hard time concluding that the problem lies solely within the senate.

[ShortnFiery]

212. No, but this is as bad as a Dictatorship in some ways: We live in a Corporate State.

Every legislative bill on the national level that's passed FIRST and OVERWHELMINGLY benefits "large Corporations" OVER the health and welfare of "the people."

[Radical Activist]

215. Yes.

That's a problem bigger than Obama, although we may be able to make some progress while Obama is in office. It will take more than voting and writing letters.