2012 -- we'll totally "get his back" if he can show he has ours

[nashville_brook]

In the President’s post-mortem press conference he underscored why he thought lost, and what he thinks he needs to do better.

“You just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy,” he said. “And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector.”

I'm not sure what else the President actually CAN do to prove fealty to business. Can you?

As a matter of fact, it's this outsized fealty to corporations AT THE EXPENSE OF US CITIZEN VOTERS that doomed our chances in the midterms. So, it's too bad that the message he's taken away from the elections is that he needs to work harder to "encourage our business sector."

It's too bad, b/c what he really needs to be doing is encouraging us little guys who are getting CRUSHED by corporations, that there's a reason to give a shit about politics at all.

Would it be so hard to HAVE OUR BACKS as the banks foreclose on our homes and futures?
Would it be so hard to HAVE OUR BACKS as the insurance companies double and triple insurance premiums in anticipation of HCR?
Would it be so hard to HAVE OUR BACKS in the creation of a real jobs program that would put Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure.?

I'd have no problem having his back, if he'd show the just the smallest nod in my direction.

[jaxx]

1. He has unleashed Elizabeth Warren on them for one thing.

He passed financial reform, which some say is nothing, but the big biz paid millions for the pubs to be elected. He can instigate plenty. Remember he didn't do the financial crisis, it was a gift left on the oval office doorstep. Obama is working to bring us back and it ain't an easy road.

[DirkGently]

4. I think the feeling is creating a poster with Obama's back to, apparently liberals doesn't say that.

[jaxx]

9. LOL that was funny, I don't care who you are.

[nashville_brook]

5. he does himself no favors singing their tune. politically stupid -- i expect better.

[EFerrari]

8. BoA and Chase have resumed foreclosures and instead of dealing with that,

they're giving another 6 billion dollar bail out to business. I'm sure Warren means well but there is nothing "unleashed" about this situation. They're pursuing a policy which covers the banks' fraudulent lending and loan servicing while borrowers are still being f#cked over and being made to take Wall Street's loss.

[davidwparker]

19. you are right on this point

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

34. How can you claim that he "unleashed" Elizabeth Warren

When the leash of this so-called "consumer protection agency" was placed in the hands of the Federal Reserve.

When those who created the problem have veto power over those who wish to solve the problem, how does the problem actually get solved?

[jaxx]

45. Huh uh, it's a separate entity.

<snip>
Title X - Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
Main articles: Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Title X establishes the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,<155> within the Federal Reserve. The new Bureau regulates consumer financial products and services in compliance with federal law.<30> The Bureau is headed by a director who is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of five years.<30> The Bureau is subject to financial audit by the GAO, and must report to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee bi-annually. The Financial Stability Oversight Council may issue a "stay" to the Bureau with an appealable 2/3 vote. Even though the Bureau is placed within the Fed, it operates independently.<156> The Fed is prohibited from interfering with matters before the Director, directing any employee of the Bureau, modifying the functions and responsibilities of the Bureau or impeding an order of the Bureau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

[ThomCat]

48. The fed does still control their budget, however.

And I'm sure they have other means of control. Putting one agency under another Always includes some means of control. Always.

It isn't arbitrary.

[jaxx]

50. Didn't you read the post?

The Bureau reports to the house and senate committees. "Even though the Bureau is placed within the Fed, it operates independently."

[ThomCat]

86. Yes, I read it. Did you read mine?

There are always ways that an organization controls any agency placed under them. Always.

"Operates independently" can always be interpreted strictly to mean that the fed can't interfere with the strict day-to-day decision or operations of the agency.

That doesn't say anything about controlling their budget, their allocation of office space, or their access to any shared resources that are controlled by the Fed. For example, if that agency uses the Fed's press office, that access could be controlled because that press office would belong to the Fed, not to the Consumer Protection Agency.

The way you are interpreting "operates independently" so expansively shows you have absolutely no real experience in large organizations, or in corporations that own subsidiaries. I have both. I have 15 years of experience as a corporate management consultant for global corporations with extensive subsidiaries. Quite a few of those subsidiaries "Operated independently." None of them were ever really independent in any real sense.

[jaxx]

94. Hmm I worked for a large corp with subsidiaries.

They didn't control them, they made money off of them.

Have it your way, the agency is a sham, it's a hoax, the feds will run it and the bill in congress was just a big fat lie.

Is that better?

[ThomCat]

102. Lots of people work for large corporations. Doesn't mean you know

anything about how they are run at the top levels. Especially at the top levels of those subsidiaries.

Getting passive-aggressive certainly isn't a good sign. It just shows that you've run out of intelligent things to say.

Have a nice day.

[ThomCat]

47. Exactly. Putting that new agency under the Fed signalled that

the consumer protections would be kept to an absolute minimum. We would only see what absolutely had to be allowed through because of media pressure, and everything else would be quietly killed at birth.

They also know that the mainstream media can be trusted to kill the news stories about Warren for them once the public starts to "loses interest." Meaning, after a certain amount of time has past and the media has decided that the public should now lose interest.

[jaxx]

52. I can't believe that this is being subjected to blatantly false info.

People screamed for Elizabeth Warren, it had to be her or it was the last straw. She was appointed and suddenly she was all wrong, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is nothing.

You are wrong.

[ThomCat]

73. How am I wrong?

I haven't said she was the wrong person. Far from it.

I said that putting her agency under the fed was a calculated effort to minimize results. And that is certainly true.

You're free to argue otherwise if you can... Waiting...

[jaxx]

77. I have no need to argue, I gave you the facts.

What you choose to do with the facts is your problem.

[ThomCat]

88. You gave me a quote you clearly don't understand.

And you over-represent that quote to mean more than it does.

The fact that you don't understand the limited extent of what that quote means in any real context says quite a bit.

[jaxx]

96. I interpreted it exactly as it was written.

The fact this is now become a personal thing with you signals it's time to stop.

[ThomCat]

99. With you it's a personal thing

the moment anyone dares to disagree with you. :eyes:

[jaxx]

105. If that were true I'd have stopped at one post.

Enjoy your day.

[nashville_brook]

119. spot on. glad she's around, but she's FAR from being "unleashed"

[DirkGently]

2. My hope that Obama will not read the election as another excuse to move right is balanced on a knife

(Great post)

[walldude]

6. He's already admitted that's where he is heading...

He's ready to work with them. And they are ready to work with him as long as he does exactly what they want. So again he'll compromise, they'll call him weak and we'll eat more shit. Woo hoo.

[Andy823]

10. Pure BS!

He can't to out after an election and say the same BS the republicans are saying, that there ill be NO compromise, that's just insane. He hat to show those who want the two parties to "work" together, which is what we really need, that he is willing even if the republicans are NOT! We lost the midterms because that's what happens when there are tough times to the party in charge. It happened with the republicans, and it has happened with democrats in the past. Now we need to bring back those who voted for the president in 2008, AND get the democrats that stayed home and didn't bother to get out and vote to do so in 2012! If the president acts like the republicans and "says" he won't compromise on anything, that isn't going to happen. He accomplished a hell of a lot in less than two years, and that is something way to many people here seem to forget!

[DirkGently]

15. He ought to expose their paper-thin agenda and clarify he's not having it.

[nashville_brook]

24. he was showing them his belly waaaay before the election.

[walldude]

39. LMFAO.. yeah ok. he had to do that, just like he had to do it

when Democrats took over every branch of government. We owned the place and Republicans ran it. Now they have a piece of it and you actually think that Obama is going to get tough? :rofl: :rofl: Play football with Lucy much?

[Greyhound]

3. K&R for hope forlorn. n/t

[walldude]

7. Forget it Brook...

He's not the one. He's not the "Leader" we needed. Just another weak ass Democrat. Frankly after the lessons I have been given here today, we deserved to lose. Here are some of the best lessons I have seen on DU today.

Gay rights should be left for Republicans to decide because only 66% of gays voted for Obama.

If a woman who loses a son is a war speaks out against a Democrat she is a "piece of crap".

It's ok to fear Muslims because Bill Mahr is afraid of Muslims and he stood up against Jon Stewart.

I must support Obama because I am a Liberal.

The only thing Obama needs to worry about is the Economy.


Thank god I'm back on the road next week. I need a break from this place. Frankly if I had come in here for the first time today I would turn around and go right back out thinking "these people are just as bad as the tea baggers. Just as hateful and spiteful, and nasty with no idea what the word empathy even means let alone showing any.

[glitch]

11. It ain't what it was, no doubt about it. Cheers for the road, anyway.

:toast:

[Mimosa]

12. Walldude, you're not alone.

Some of us understand. Obama needs to have OUR BACKS.

But as for DU, people like you and Nashville and 20 others I can name keep me coming back usually daily.

[walldude]

13. LOL.. thanks.. it's probably the same list I have

with exactly the same names...

[nashville_brook]

21. i hear you -- and i don't want him to go down in flames, but he can't seem to help himself.

and, i totally saw the same threads you did this morning. sad. really sad.

i must go out and get some sun now~!!!!!!!!!

[EFerrari]

22. Can I go with you?

lol

I'm so over this already. Torture, assassination, supporting coups against democracies, enabling illegal foreclosures, telling gay people to piss off, loosing the likes of Arne Duncan upon our teachers, the FBI raiding anti-war activists. By the time the tax cuts are extended, Obama's base will be 12 people in GDP and the Republicans in the House of Orange.

[nashville_brook]

30. First thing Obama does after the election is get the hell out of this hemisphere!

seems like everyone wants the hell of the US.

[EFerrari]

33. There's a big infusion of cash about to be used in a currency war,

Wall Street against the rest of the world (and us). I think he's out smoothing the way for that.

[walldude]

36. Yeah his speech on outsourcing was um...

disheartening to say the least.

[EFerrari]

38. Here's the story on the next 600 billion the banks will get to gamble with:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/new_600b_fed_stimulus_fuels_fears

/oops

[walldude]

42. Yeah I talked about this with a person on Thom Hartmann's board

They seem to be a bit more sensible there. All they are doing here is printing money. Which by definition should be considered insanity. You can't just fucking print currency with nothing to back it. It's a sure plan for increased inflation in the next few years.

Maybe instead of printing more cash they ought to start raiding Swiss banks. This is the major problem that people miss. In American cash there is only about 800 billion dollars floating around the world. The rich take that money and bank it. The race to become wealthy has nothing to do with living comfortably or being secure, it's all about how much more do I have than the other guy. So they shove it in offshore banks and leave it there just so they can show 10 figures on their statement. Just so they can make that Forbes list. Meanwhile the Republicans convince people that it is in their best interest to allow this because one day it might be you who needs to have a billion dollars sitting in an offshore account.

Some days I think because of the brainwashed mindset of the American people, we will never get out of this mess.

[EFerrari]

43. Not only will they not raid those banks, when whistleblowers emerge

they get tossed into jail. It's a kleptocracy and it's completely out in the open.

[walldude]

44. I know.. I'm just glad

I have the likes of you guys to commiserate with :)

[EFerrari]

46. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[nashville_brook]

63. agreed x2!

[nashville_brook]

61. monetary easing = printing money

[nashville_brook]

60. oh, that's right -- as if there's any jobs left to offshore, this has to be about currency.

!

[BzaDem]

120. ... and 88% of liberal Democrats. And the highest approval of Democrats overall since JFK.

If you wanted to accurately analyze his base, you should probably look at your thoughts and take the opposite of them.

[nashville_brook]

121. got a recent link-- ?

[walldude]

122. Well I am a liberal not a Democrat and Democrats are

no longer liberal so yeah, I guess I should just shut up and let you folks run things. You have been doing so well so far. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[EFerrari]

123. I keep hearing that. And yet this historic popularity couldn't turn out

even the number of voters we had in 2006. I'm sticking with my estimate. :hi:

[davidwparker]

27. If this were HuffPo, I would fan you.

100% Correct - 0% Wrong

[Lorien]

29. +1 nt

[NorthCarolina]

37. Well said...

:applause:

[Blue_In_AK]

59. I agree totally, Walldude.

[laughingliberal]

104. +1000 nt

[bluestate10]

110. What democrats must do to come back

I am a moderate democrat that is disgusted by the results of the election. I am a Massachusetts resident. We held our ground for sanity Tuesday, California and North Carolina joined Massachusetts to a large extent.

What democratic leaders must do to bring the party back is yield to the blue states that are federal tax donor states. My state gets $0.77 back for every dollar sent to Washington, Californians fare even worse, residents of that state get $0.54 back for each dollar sent. Illinois fares better than California, but send a tad more to Washington than Massachusetts does. New Mexico and Mississippi get back somewhere around $2 for every dollar sent to Washington.

Having made the comparisons made bring me to what Democrats in Congress, the Senate and the White House must do. Let republicans yell about tax cuts. What democrats must say is "great, lets do tax cuts, but let's cut taxes so that no state sends or gets more than $0.90 per $1.00 taxed back from the federal government". Blue states like California would have to be exceptions, that state could not possibly get $0.90 back. but can be get, say, $0.65 back instead of it's present $0.54. What happens with the tax proposal is that republicans will be forced to fight tax cuts to save their red states, OR, allow tax equity to happen and watch their citizens, who now enjoy large federal largess, be forced into greater dependence on private business to run their economies. We will have no more cases where red states use money supplied by blue states to build roads and provide tax breaks to businesses, they can, but those monies will have to be found from their economies.

But my suggestion is just a dream. I do not see President Obama bucking up to propose such equity. Our President seems to think that republicans will work with him when republicans and citizens in their states have no reason to work with the President. Congress and the Senate democratic Caucasus are largely blue state Caucasus, this includes North Carolina. If democrats do not force republican hands, they run the risk of losing blue states like Illinois, Michigan, Washington State and Wisconsin. A harder policy will benefit swing states like Ohio and, believe it or not, Nevada because they will get hundred of millions or even billions back yearly to spend on state services and business development. Mr President, you told the democratic base to buck up. Now will you buck up for the base and be a democrat?

[nashville_brook]

118. very interesting points...i'd love to see this fleshed out more as on OP -- i know that little

red states get waaaaaay more back in federal dollars than the populous blue states...and i have to think this has to do with the disproportionate Senate representation that the less populated red states enjoy.

here's a graphic of the states that get less than a dollar back for every dollar to the federal govt (blue states in this graph are the ones getting less):

[scarletwoman]

14. I have to say, that's not a very good graphic if the point of is to engender support.

Hasn't anyone ever heard the sayings: "Can't wait to see the back of him!" or "Don't you dare turn your back on me!" (and all the other permutations of what "turning your back" implies).

I, for one, don't want Obama's back -- I want his front, paying attention.

sw

[DirkGently]

25. Does strike kind of a Monarchial tone, doesn't it?

[scarletwoman]

28. Too bad it isn't full length. Then it could say "kiss my ass".

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

65. it kinda says that without saying that.

[scarletwoman]

76. Either that, or it begs for a "kick me" sign.

:evilgrin:

[DirkGently]

112. Blahahahaha.

[suffragette]

41. It's completely the wrong direction to take, physically & psychologically

Agree with the reasons you noted.

There's also the sense of moving away as opposed to moving toward, of leaving rather than arriving.

And it's the complete opposite of the message of what helped to elect him. That message was of working together, of everyone being engaged, not about what we could do for him, but about what we could achieve together.

Here'a a little walk down memory road in an excerpt from Obama's announcement in Feb 2007:

That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice -- to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.

He tells us that there is power in words.

He tells us that there is power in conviction.

That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.

He tells us that there is power in hope.

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

I want to win that next battle -- for justice and opportunity.

I want to win that next battle -- for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all.

I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.

[me b zola]

91. It seems apropos to me

I feel as though he has turned his back on us, on everything that defined what it meant to be a Democrat since FDR.

[nashville_brook]

117. on first sight, it almost seems like an Anti-Obama message.

and completely apropos to the problem we face with this administration.

[VMI Dem]

16. That graphic is laughably ironic.

[scarletwoman]

17. Exactly. Message: Obama has turned his back on you. (nt)

[nashville_brook]

20. i sincerely hope this is an ill-conceived grassroots thing, and not Plouffe's big idea

b/c is SUCKS!!


omg, this messaging is hysterically, sadly wrong.

[scarletwoman]

32. It's really emblematic of the utterly wrong-headed & tone deaf messaging of the past 2 years.

Which makes me suspect that it DOES come from Plouffe.

Farking idiots...

sw

[EFerrari]

35. So much of what they do seems counter productive

if not flat out self destructive sometimes. It's just bizarre.

[scarletwoman]

40. That's because all they have is artifice instead of core values.

Seriously, there's just really no "there" there.

[davidwparker]

18. I totally agree with this. And, I want to see him to

face a primary challenger or two.

He changed this state from red to blue last time. He won't do it again next time. So, for me, at the presidential level, it's not about 2012, but 2016.

[Lorien]

23. How ironic. An image of Obama with his back turned to us

that sums up much of the past two years.

[scarletwoman]

26. It's killer, ain't it. I'd love to know who's bright idea it was. (nt)

[mstinamotorcity]

31. All we keep doing is

feeding the BEAST. Even if he gets our back he still has no Congress or Senate to Stand UP and address our problems, then having his back leaves us with little options.Don't you hear, they are trying to figure out how to keep the Bush Tax cuts.Wall Street is still doing business as usual selling imaginary products and Big oil is creeping in with pennies on the pump. If we want change then we should be it.

[jaxx]

49. I'm glad you all like the pic.

Same as the D was well liked too.

Funny how an image can work the mind isn't it?

[EFerrari]

51. In the culture I grew up in, "giving someone your back" in public

was a profound insult. I hope this thing doesn't go out into the Latino community, that's for sure.

[jaxx]

53. I have to laugh at the spin.

"Get his back" is now "giving someone your back". My gawd that's hilarious.

I do love Sundays at DU, it's a circus.

[EFerrari]

54. Yes, insulting potential voters is a real crack up and has worked so well for Obama to date.

[scarletwoman]

55. Pictures are worth a thousand words. A picture of someone's back turned to you

is a picture of someone's back turned to you. It's a picture of someone not facing you, it's a picture of someone walking away, it's a picture of someone ignoring you.

You're the one desperately trying to spin an incredibly stupid visual image into something else.

[EFerrari]

56. In Spanish, the expression is "dar la espalda".

It's a little more expansive than "give the cold shoulder" but close and probably from the same Latin root way back there.

[nashville_brook]

71. sounds a lot like showing the bottom of your shoe to a middle easterner.

[EFerrari]

82. Yep. As a kid, it's one of the first things you learn

when you go to parties with your parents, for example. It's an interesting practice because it teaches children to be aware of proxemics at an early age, to attend to others.

[jaxx]

70. No, I'm just wondering about the outrage.

It's strange.

[scarletwoman]

81. It's not outrage. It's "How could someone come up with such a stupid image?" facepalm.

[jaxx]

85. People come up with images everyday.

That's the internet for you, busy. Some want it regulated, that would be bad. Censorship.

[scarletwoman]

89. Censorship? Who's talking about censorship?

We're talking about cluelessness in crafting a campaign message.

[jaxx]

92. I was talking about the internet staying free

which means no censorship.

[scarletwoman]

95. Which STILL has absolutely nothing to do with any part of the discussion on this thread.

If you don't want to argue on topic then why don't you start a different thread?

[jaxx]

97. I like the atmosphere.

[EFerrari]

90. I haven't read any outrage here. Maybe it's strange because you're misunderstanding.

I was actually paid to design a logo this summer for a local company. It was easy to come up with an image but it took a long time to look at it from every angle of interpretation I could think of because that's what people do when they see logos or other icons. It's hard to believe someone put this out without thinking it through because you look and look and look at the thing for a long time before you hit "send".

This isn't about drama but about being aware of the social gestures you're making before you proliferate an image all over the internets.

[nashville_brook]

57. it's the most ill-conceived image i can think of at this moment in his presidency.

and i sincerely hope this is something you cooked up and not something coming from his comm people.

[EFerrari]

58. Did this come from OFA, do you know? n/t

[jaxx]

67. Not that I'm aware of.

Why do you ask?

[scarletwoman]

74. I right clicked the image, and under properties

it shows this: http(colon)(slash, slash)d21c.com/SassyYank/Obama/Get_His_Back_Vote.jpg

d21c.com is a hosting site, googling "d21c.com/SassyYank" brings you here: http://d21c.com/SassyYank/index.html

[suffragette]

78. It's connected to OFA in August

in an article in sfgate as part of the attempt to energize young voters about the midterms:


http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-03/news/22010261_1_obama-s-campaign-barack-obama-president-s-agenda
Whether throwing a 49th birthday party for Obama, as it is Wednesday in Oakland, or reconnecting with voters in barber shops, beauty salons and churches, Organizing for America's pitch can be boiled down to the image of the back of Obama's head on a flyer it is distributing at farmers' markets and college campuses.

The caption underneath: "Get His Back. Vote Democrat 2010."

The only change looks like the update to 2012.


As I noted above, it is the polar opposite to Obama's initial campaign and I agree it sends exactly the opposite message of what needs to be sent.

[EFerrari]

84. Thank you, suffragette.

:hi:

[suffragette]

98. It's so, so far away from the initial message

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9505678#9506282


It feels like a clumsy attempt to connect with younger voters through a youthful catch phrase, but it's all wrong.

It creates distance and becomes about protectionism instead of activism and all of us, but young voters in particular are more likely to respond to activism, how we can be a part of something and effect positive change.

[EFerrari]

106. You're so right about that.

I'm wondering if it wasn't designed by a very young person. But whoever gave it the green light should have their defamiliarized head examined.

[nashville_brook]

111. very well said!

[suffragette]

115. It's truly disheartening to look at the initial campaign

and where we are now.

That flier sums it up, doesn't it?

Just one more step down the wrong path.

[nashville_brook]

116. seems like we've all spent the last 18 months trying to figure out how it could all go so wrong.

now we know -- he's not been giving big business enough goodies. and here i thought it had something to do with everyone losing their jobs and homes. what was i thinking!!

[scarletwoman]

87. Thank you! So it's true, his campaign people really *are* that clueless. (nt)

[nashville_brook]

103. omg -- worst case scenario. they're reheating their own miserable failures.

[jaxx]

64. I found it on DU.

I liked it and saw no negative connotations.

But then, I'm not in to drama much so....

[nashville_brook]

68. wish i could afford to live without the drama -- like nodramaobama and the rest of ya'll

but from where i sit things are getting worse and worse, and that's creating a LOT of drama.

[Lucian]

62. I'm not going to have his back unless he has mine in 2012.

Otherwise, there's other alternatives...

[Blue_In_AK]

66. This image is ALL WRONG on so many levels.

Is this for real? Are we supposed to be inspired?

[nashville_brook]

69. our president with his back to us is what i see. and what i've seen too much of lately.

[jaxx]

72. And yet you took the image and used it in your OP.

Very interesting.

[nashville_brook]

75. yeah -- to ridicule it.

[jaxx]

80. Sure.

[nashville_brook]

113. no, really -- i'm ridiculing it. seriously, dude. it's really really stupid, and deserving of scorn.

[DirkGently]

114. I think she's kind of the authority on whether she's ridiculing it. Going pretty well, gotta say.

[Blue_In_AK]

79. I don't even like that it says "Vote Democrat"

I tend to vote Democratic, but that's just me. If it said "Vote for Democrats" or "Vote for Democratic Candidates," but "Vote Democrat" just bugs me.

I know it's picky, but I'm feeling that way today.

[EFerrari]

93. It's so counter intuitive. People respond to faces, not to the back of heads.

lol

"Get his back" would work with a (facing) Obama and real people behind him. Or even an Obama smiling over his shoulder. This is just dumb.

[nashville_brook]

100. no f'n doubt -- now we're promoting the RW linguistic agenda. sheesh!

[DirkGently]

101. Interesting observation. A telling use of GOP-speak, perhaps?

[defendandprotect]

83. From the moment he won, Obama has shown he is pro-corporate ....

and that pro-corporate stand has done more to harm the public, the

nation and the Treasury.

It's also difficult to understand how anyone could have any further trustd in Obama?!

[somone]

108. And from the moment Dems lost the House, Obama has signaled

that he will do MORE to prove he's a corporatist.

[nashville_brook]

109. this right here is the problem...it's not a LW/RW thing, it's an "are you on our side or not" thing

[laughingliberal]

107. Agree 100%, NB K&R . nt

[treestar]

124. Unrec'd

This is stupid. A President is not the one that "has your back." He is not an employee of 305 million different employers with different interests. He does have your back on your list of demands, it's just a matter of what politics is - it does not mean a President personally stops every foreclosure.

This concept that the President-citizen relationship is a personal one is really making this board look dumb. How many threads are there going to be expressing the concept that the President owes you, works for you, individually? Society and politics are collectives, not personal relationships.