President Bill Clinton as Wimp ? Did anyone feel that way at the time?

[FrenchieCat]

What about after his 2 terms. Was he a wimp then?
He is a wimp now, if he was then, and if not,
what did he do to show his backbone?

Seems like he did things that could earn him that label.

He couldn't get his health care passed,
and signed a whole lot of legislation without a fight....
actions that weren't very beneficial to progressives.
Seems like he caved in a lot.....
with stuff like DOMA, DADT, the Telecommunications Act,
Rwanda, Steaglass and had Rahm working there, and Summers and Rubin,
and Greenspan and shit.
:shrug:

Was he a Wimp?
Is he still a wimp?

Just asking. :shrug:

[mrcheerful]

1. The wimp title for democrats goes all the way back to JFK and even as far back as

the McCarthy years. In McCarthy years dems were weak and allowed commies into Hollywood, they were wimps. JFK was a wimp for allowing the Bay of pigs. Dem's were wimps because they wanted out of VN. Carter was a wimp because he didn't attack Iran over the hostages. When you use republicon terms to decide how presidents handle the country, your just feeding into the monster of misinformation.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I only asked because of the question being asked of the current President.....

and yet, Clinton had 8 years, and I didn't see anything particularily brave that
occurred that would make him so much more bold or brave....
unless it's bold and brave to invade a country where the White folks are having a civil war (Bosnia),
while allowing 800 Rawdans die because him making a move there wouldn't be
"popular".

And unless cheating on one's wife makes one less of a wimp.

I know at the time, most of us Black folks were taking up for him,
and fighting back the GOP name calling.....and we kept right on supporting him,
instead of dogging him out ourselves. Even during the "welfare reform" thing.

The post asking that question of Barack Obama got quite a few Rec's,
so obviously folks here feel that is an appropriate question....
on the day of this president's inauguration first anniversary.
I think it's fucked up personally, but that's just me.

[mrcheerful]

5. Yeah I can understand where your coming from, I was just trying to give you an ideal of

just how long dems have been viewed as weak or wimps. The really funny part is the same folks that call dems weak or wimps are afraid that Dems are out to steal their country, hows that for irony? I been around since JFK was president, I was born when Ike was president. The one thing I have learned was the way the country is since WWI neither party can really do anymore then they can convince others to go along with them and their agenda. The republicons have one advantage, they march along lock step and have been since Reagan.

This country is nothing like the country before Reagan came along. Reagan caused this screwed up system of all or nothing thinking. Remember the only Reason Clinton won was because Bush 1 screwed up and told folks he was raising their taxes after saying "Read my lip's". If he had pulled a Reagan, remember Reagan raised taxes, he also invented new income taxes to come in by taking tips and wages kids earned on paper routes or lemon aide stands. It was really slick how Reagan made it a child's patriotic duty to pay taxes for their lemon aide stand and not one out cry from the tax whinners that Reagan raised their taxes. It was a good ideal to make these people pay taxes damn it.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Anyone?

I want to be talked out of it!

At least I bothered to call him President!

[Webster Green]

4. Total fucking wimp!

Anyone who "smoked pot" and didn't inhale is a fucking wimp.

I'll bet he was scared to eat the acid too. :rofl:

[Ildem09]

6. Yeah

Clinton Sucked as a Democrat. He was the best Republican President we've had since Eisenhower

[FrenchieCat]

7. So he was a wimp?

Did folks call him that?

Cause I only remember him being called Slick Willie....which is almost kind of cool.

[Ildem09]

8. i was too young under clinton

but my family thought he was lame. Dad lost called him out after NAFTA

[FrenchieCat]

9. Oh yeah...that's right! I forgot to include that in the litany of

wimpy ass shit that he did.

That one was a beaut!

[JI7]

10. wasn't that republicans ?

[FrenchieCat]

11. Oh yeah...that's right. We called him Big Dog!

Guess that doesn't have the same ring as a Wimp.
It's even positive; Big Dog.

[Ildem09]

12. i think being heartily critical of the president

regardless of who he/she is and how long he/she is in office is a good thing.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Calling someone a name is not a good thing.

I even taught my children that.

I'm finding that folks have an easier time respecting someone that did a whole lot of
messed up shit, like Clinton,
than one who really hasn't....because there really isn't much that Barack Obama has done
that deserves that kind of name calling.

Wonder why the difference in treatment?

Clinton got re-elected, and wasn't called a wimp by his own party.
I think that stinks like shit, considering...

[Ildem09]

16. i've never called the President a wimp

i've criticized the dude a lot. but never called him a wimp

[JI7]

13. Big Dog is positive for sure

[FrenchieCat]

15. Of course it is.

But you know, he was "Special". A real Bubba!

[JI7]

17. if Obama is a wimp they should run someone against him in a Primary

Ted Kennedy was in the Senate for Decades and never passed universal health care . was it because he was a wimp befriending people like Hatch ?

people are full of shit on here.

[FrenchieCat]

18. A party full of wimps.......

that know how to talk a whole lot against their own party,
and trying to figure out why they get nothing done.
Hell, when one is this busy demonizing one's own side,
seems like there is little time for anything else.

[JI7]

19. i don't believe most of them are talking against their own party

considering the crap i read from many of them i would bet most of them didn't even vote for Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Possible.

You may be right.....

There's no other way to explain the outright name calling.

[JI7]

23. some of them have defended teabaggers

insisting they aren't racist .

[FrenchieCat]

26. Heard about that......

While let a whole lot of bad apple spoil the small bunch?
So not wimpy!

[Webster Green]

28. Links?

What a pantload.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x511683

[Webster Green]

36. That was about how to deal with them..

IT wasn't exactly defending them.

You are hopeless though. You will just make shit up to trash progressives.

Get a life!

[FrenchieCat]

40. I didn't make anything up.......

that's not my editorial....talking about we need to understand them,
work with them and convert them....

Convert them to what?
Everybody hating the Government?
That's what Republicans do....they hate the Government,
last I checked. They want to drown it in the bathtub.
and they are fucking racists on top of all that.

[Webster Green]

27. Lots of Obama voters are really fucking pissed, me being one of them.

I talked so many of my apolitical friends into registering and voting this time around.

They told me I was delusional if I thought it would CHANGE anything. They did it for me though.

Well, they were right, and I was wrong, but I won't get fooled again. I doubt I will vote again after this.

What's the point? Nader was correct. The only difference in the two parties is how quickly they get on their knees to their corporate masters.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Well yeah......

He was supposed to be the Michael Jordan of politics,
a Tiger Woods (before his fall), a Denzel Washington; oscar worthy,
the MLK of the peace movement, and of course the new Mandala of the world...

So with everyone, from Dems to the GOP holding his feet into the fire,
after 30 years of consistent government fuck ups,
and dealing with a congress elected by voters,
he gets all of the blame for everything....
you know, cause he was supposed to be the Perfect Black guy,
the history maker, the unmovable force,
maybe even to some, the messiah.....
so he should do everything just so,
at all times.

No recognition on how Iraq is shaping up,
no recognition on the economy he's rescued from the brink,
no recognition for his work on the enviromnent,
on Nukes, or his work the world stage,
his new supreme court appointee,
or anything else he's done.....

He's just proclaimed a failure, straight up.

He's not a leader, they say.
He's "bought and paid for" they yell,
He's a corporatist they claim,
He's a puppet they holler...
He's just like Bush they insist....
and he's a this, and a that, and whatever else comes to mind.

Watch it...cause Haiti's next.
He'll get the blame for that too.....
the fault won't lie on the earthquake,
or past administrations policies toward Haitians,
that left them without infrastructure,
but instead, it will be what he did or didn't do,
cause he didn't go and help land the airplanes..
cause we were supposed to rescue 3 million people,
just like that....real quick and perfectly, without incident.
They think that might help turn Black folks against him,
so you know that's a go!

And plus remember, with another attempted or accomplished terrorist attacks,
it will be 3 strikes, so he's out anyways.

So, there's not a lot to look forward to
or any hope that he will get any respect,
or any assistance about anything anytime soon.

After all, he's just a wimp.

[Webster Green]

32. Oh please spare me the fucking drama.

He's not even trying. It's absurd.

He's surrounded himself with fucking losers, and they will continue to lose.

We're fucked! You'll figure it out eventually. :smoke:

[FrenchieCat]

34. Yeah......like all of what is puked here all day ain't drama! What-E-ver!

Folks want to micro-manage this particular President
on a minute to minute basis and put words in his mouth,
bark orders, while calling him names.

It's been going on since he swore the oath,
and I'm getting fucking tired of it.

if we end up avoiding a deep depression,
the American auto companies rescued,
the Iraq war wounded down,
Guatanamo closed,
Torture specifically outlawed,
Terror not the way that government keeps citizens in line,
The Afghanistan War on a near sane footing with an end in sight,
Health Care policies improved, even if the problems are not totally solved,
the world seeing us as allies again,
Nukes significantly reduced,
Environmental issues addressed,
Science elevated,
the Arts re-appreciated,
Education rethinked,
Labor treated with dignity status,
Student loans federalized,
Banking companies with more regulations on them then before,
Haiti helped greatly,
No longer on war footing with Iran,
good solid supreme court justices appointed,
Net neutrality saved,
and yes, more transparency to government than ever before....

by the end of his first term,
no matter what the vocal critics say on a day to day basis,
that will be quite a list, and I'm sure there will be more added
as we go.

Those of us sane ones who try to look at the big picture,
instead of wanting each day
for this President to do and say
exactly what we would wish are doing fine....
We appreciate what is going on....and history will bear us out.

But go ahead with your drama....
it's so much more productive.
Go Nader!

[Webster Green]

37. You forgot the stuff about my pony.

You're losing your touch.

[FrenchieCat]

38. That's your job.....

you and Do nothing since 1966 Nader.

Perhaps you'll hear from a "frustrated" voter who claimed to walk 100 miles to canvass for Obama. And that voter will tell you that Obama is weak because he didn't fix eight years of bad policy in his first year of office. This voter will wax poetic about a time when he or she once made out to Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" song. And, if you're lucky, this "disenchanted" voter will lecture you on how Obama should have done XY or Z without the necessary votes in Congress because Presidents FDR, LBJ and GWB were. . . (sigh) I don't know . . . special?

And you’ll certainly hear endless criticism of the Democratic establishment and stupid mistakes by the candidate.

But if history is any indicator, you might also hear pundit after pundit talk about the "protest vote" or those who deliberately chose to sit on their hands to "teach the Dems a lesson" (assuming they are qualified to teach whatever that lesson may be).

What lesson, you may ask?

Well, the same lesson Dems supposedly learned from their great teacher, Ralph Nader, in 2000. That oh so persuasive "lesson" that only the truly progressive, ideologically pure, intellectually superior must teach to the masses of mindless "Obamatons," "kool-aid drinkers," "cult members" - feel free to add any of a number of condescending pejoratives -who are just too emotionally swayed by the President's swagger to remove the rose-colored glasses when judging this President and his policies.

You'll hear it, and you'll know it verbatim. Why? Because you've heard it a million times before. Which speaks to one of two possibilities:

1. Democrats are extremely dense; or
2. Liberals take themselves way too seriously

But whatever you hear, ask yourselves this . . .


When was the last time the self-righteous liberal actually did something? Sure, they talk a good game. They're well-read. Articulate. Impressive. And I'm certainly not saying that they don't do good work on a local level. But please name the last time you saw a legitimate sustained social movement from the left? Because it seems that such victories (if any) have been few and far between in a generation of conservative dominance in our national politics.

See, there's a lot of history to fall back on. Most will cite the Civil Rights Movement, the Feminist movement, the rally for labor rights. But those things happened decades ago. Of course there's the current struggle for marriage equality. But, while long overdue, don't look towards the ballot for success stories as far as that's concerned either.

What am I getting at?

Liberals better start looking in the mirror. Liberals better start reevaluating how they relate towards the very people they claim to represent. And they better start talking to rather than at the American people.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2010/01/lesson-learned-dont-trust-fair-weather.html

[Webster Green]

39. Pantload..

Deleted sub-thread.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Why is that?

Naderite!

At least you are honest about doing jack shit.

[Webster Green]

60. Not that crazy about the thought of Nader being president.

I did vote for him in 2000, because I live in a "safe state", and I think we need more than the two corrupt parties we are currently stuck with.

When I listen to Nader, there's not much to disagree with. He's been right about everything.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Yep, no difference in the Supreme Court Justices.......

they usually vote 9 to 0, right? :sarcasm:

[Webster Green]

73. Ok. Whatever. The fascists have won in any event.

I give up. I hope you right wingers are happy with the government you are going to have.

This horrible, liberal, progressive (and any other insults that please you) is moving to Mexico.

I'm done. You win! :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

75. you are wrong......

as always!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=144194&mesg_id=144194

[Webster Green]

79. I said I give up. You win.

You win. Have a nice country.

[Spazito]

65. Yep, that's my take on it too n/t

[OHdem10]

21. Bill Clinton was not a wimp. Some said he could have a short

fuse (bit of a temper). From what I remember when working
on legislation, the Republicans thought they could roll him,
even Gingrich once came out of a conference at the WH
and said "He won" referring to Clinton. He seemed to have
a line in the sand in his mind of just how far he would go
in negotiating. When he reached that bar he dug in and held
firm. Some people might not have liked where he set the bar.
He is a Conservative Democrat. His bar may be set at a different
point than if he were a Liberal. This does not make him a wimp.
He got what he negotiated for.

+

[JI7]

22. he wanted DOMA ? don't ask don't tell ?

[OHdem10]

33. As a conservative he probably would go with the pereived wishes

of the country at that time. The Cultural Issues are tricky.

It has been my observation this is pretty much what most
Democrats especially Conservatives .

[FrenchieCat]

35. What about Rwanda? Where was the "courage" there?

Or was that a time in this country when we couldn't help
Black people getting macheted to death,
cause it wasn't....Popular.

I know he said sorry years later and held himself accountable,
so I guess that is all that's required, right?

Let's hear the rationale.

[struggle4progress]

66. DADT was the best he could get when he tried to eliminate the ban on open gay service.

DOMA seems to have been a firestop against Republican efforts for a Constitutional amendment

[FrenchieCat]

24. So what did he hold firm on?

Cause we got NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, The Telecomunications act, the Steagall repeal (done at the 11th hour), Rwanda where 800,000 Blacks were killed, the Great Welfare Reform Act.

So which of these did he "Hold firm" on?

Unless you mean the Health Care bill that he delegated to his wife,
and went nowhere.

Or perhaps he drew a line in the sand as to whom to cheat with!
Nope.....didn't do that either.

[LooseWilly]

25. Yes, Clinton was a wimp... until he got a blowjob in the office.

Then he started really fighting. In fact, until the blowjob and the impeachment over it... I couldn't give a shit about Clinton... and I don't remember anyone in Oakland giving two shits about him or his presidency. Once the blowjob persecution started though... the Republicans showed themselves to be shallow minded witch hunting puritanical hypocrites. Clinton suddenly looked virile... not just for the blow job, but because he was fighting. He was willing to fight over the definition of the word "is". A point that he's often ridiculed for... but ridiculed with a begrudging respect I think.

I remember EVERYONE in Oakland was on his side once that horseshit started. East Oakland. West Oakland. North Oakland. Downtown. The hills and the Acorn projects alike. And the Eastlawn projects too.

The point is... it wasn't just that he was running the country competently... or even running it well. The point, in the eyes of the public at large, was that he was fighting. That he was pushing back against the puritanical neo-Leave-It-To-Beaver-ism of the Republicans. And in so doing he became Not-A-Wimp.

If only Al Gore would've comprehended that lesson... but his wife was part of the PMRC. The Gores were just as neo-Leave-It-To-Beaver-ish as the Republicans... so they campaigned on the Republican's "turf", and left the left to wander over to Nader's camp... or stay home and get stoned with some of the kind drugs they could afford with their DotCom Bubble monies...


(Ironically, the Obama campaign idea of moving past the old politics of the 60s, if they could pull it off, would involve the Democrats shedding the "Wimp" image. It is, if I'm not mistaken, a vestigial remainder of perceived ties between the Democrats and the Hippies... whose pacifism made them "Wimps". Unfortunately... to break the Democrats free of that left over labelling, which is also the source of the "legitimacy" of the Tea Bagger labelling of the Democrats as "socialist" or "leftist", would require a major "re-branding" effort on the part of the Democrats... a relentless PR campaign that would make the "Yo quiero Taco Bell" commercials as relatively immemorial as the Scott Trade ads with the helicopters... But Obama doesn't even seem determined enough to mount enough of a PR campaign to counter the FreedomWorks PR misrepresentations of the HCR bill in the works now... let alone willing to go "mind control" enough to launch a PR campaign to undermine all the vestiges of the anti-hippy & hippy=Democrat PR that has permeated the US social/cultural landscape since the early 80s at the very latest...)

[FrenchieCat]

29. I lived in Oakland at the time, and was defending the hell out of him.

I remember going into the beauty Salons.
We were dogging out the Republicans all day long for dogging Clinton out.

Things have changed though. Now folks are into pile on gang banging....
Both parties jumping on this guy....
and he ain't done anything remotely close to what Clinton
allowed to pass.

But I guess when you can't keep your pecker where it belongs,
you need a whole lot of help rationalizing that shit.

BTW, my husband was born and raised in the West Oakland ACORN Projects,
Cypress village....Right there next to where the BART station is now on 7th.

When I first came from France, we lived on 76th Avenue, about two Blocks
from what was called "E. 14th street" (Now International Avenue).
Our Church is Allen Temple, which of course is also Barbara Lee's Church.

[LooseWilly]

43. Everyone was defending him... but what's the difference from Clinton then, and Obama now?

The Fight. It's the only difference that I can think of. Clinton was fighting, and in his fighting, he was forcing the Republicans to try to push the points that they thought they could "score" with. When forced to fight to push those points... those idiot-ass Republican points... the public (at least the public I was exposed to) saw through the bullshit.

On the other hand, Obama has a chief of staff pushing the Senate majority leader to make a deal with the likes of Lieberman. If that's not "not fighting", I don't know what isn't.

(And BTW, the Acorn projects are many blocks from the West Oakland BART station. I assume that the Cypress Village you mention is the now Cypress/Kirkham projects, or maybe the Cypress/Center street complexes... or upon those sites, as both are newly rebuilt apartment-style HUD buildings... or maybe the neo-condo HUD complexes around 9th and Willow... similar to the re-built/re-building HUD condos around 64th and Eastlawn... all of which neighborhoods are surprisingly distinct from the East Oakland neighborhoods like 76th and E. 14th (I presume "above" E. 14th, rather than "below" toward Rudsdale... Spencer... the neighborhoods featured in the gangsta rap videos these days... not to mention the other side of 73rd... 71st and Spencer being almost like a different world than 76th and Rudsdale...) ... though, I do remember a short window, around 2000, when some folks I knew bought a house on 76th just "above" Bancroft, and the neighborhood was on a definite upswing... Even money whether or not the house is "underwater" now... )

Obviously... everyone living in those neighborhoods... or working in them... is used to the idea that you have to fight for everything, because there is precious little giving... or respect... so a President who is fighting can get some respect, but caving on a TSA appointee with a super majority in the Senate?... Anyone who pays attention, isn't gonna respect that. Negotiate a deal with Lieberman... on Lieberman's terms... with Rahm pushing it... Obama's COS... no one's gonna respect that. It... makes people think Wimp...

[FrenchieCat]

42. Unrec me

bunch of wimps! :rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Okay. Done.

[TheKentuckian]

44. He came out swinging, got beat back, and went hard corporatist

Sometimes he was a wimp, sometimes he got rolled, sometimes he fought hard, sometimes he sold us down river without a paddle. DADT is kind of unfairly hung on him, in my opinion because it started with him actually trying to allow gays to serve rather than getting booted or even court martialed. He made his push, got beat back from both sides and in the middle, and actually got the mystical "half a loaf" which has to be seen as a real upgrade over Leavenworth or dishonorable discharges. A regrettable situation but I don't think it was anything for it because a veto would have been overridden and probably axed the deal.

For me the frustration with Bubba was born of his shitty financial policies and trade deals (along with playing into the Reich Wing BS and going after "welfare queens") and the same goes for Barack. I've got no stomach for the taint licking of corporate America and selling out the people to enhance their profits.

I don't really think Obama is much of a wimp, he can get tough as nails on liberals I'm more concerned that he just buys scamy-flammy bullshit and thinks people are generally decent. I have little question he laid down the law to wrangle Harkin, Sanders, and a few others in. He took on the Clinton machine and the GOP so he can't just be inherently spineless.

I think the highest probabilities are that he is a corporatist that gives first, second, and maybe even third importance on big business and other "stakeholders" and then concerns himself with the people OR that he has some wild eyed belief in some zen fusion of left and right, using market solutions to implement liberal policy and the reverse, "Audacity of Hope" gave me mild impressions of both.

The only other guess I can come up with is fucking stupid but I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

So, we got sucka (more rube than wimp but a lil mix), corporate water carrier, delusional dreamer of post-partisanship, or the googleplex level 11-D chess is beyond me.

I just hope I have to eat crow and kick myself for ever doubting Obama but I'm not seeing the people's work being done for whatever reason and worse he seems hellbent on being Mr. Privatization, corporate welfare, and pretense regulation.

[chimpymustgo]

45. Damn, girl. Get a grip. Obama may grow a spine and change course.

[Cha]

74. You get a grip..it's a fucking fair question.

[nofurylike]

46. your point is made, and very well, FrenchieCat. i feel the same

way about that double standard, among others.

thank you for making the point while knowing it meant taking the heat.


peace and solidarity

[Geek_Girl]

47. Nah Bill Clinton was a Corporatist DLC but at least he wasn't a war mongering Corporatist

and at the time the economy was doing exceptionally well.


As for Obama, he isn't a wimp he is a corporatist pretending to be a progressive.

[FrenchieCat]

48. You're right! Clinton didn't go into Rwanda......

and Bosnia was short and sweet! :eyes:

[asdjrocky]

49. Clinton's policies and his decisions hurt the poor and the working class.

Bill wasn't so much a wimp, he was more of a DLC Corporate sell out.

[Texasgal]

50. Wimp? Nah... He's a white male.

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

He wasn't a wimp

He was the best Republican President we have ever had, who knows maybe that title will be Obama's.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Obama is being called all kinds of names,

but none of them are complimentary.....

But after a year, it's easy to see why.
Some we prefer demonizing over others.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

55. I for one don't think Obama is a wimp

I think this was intention all along.

[fadedrose]

51. Nafta ? nt

[TexasObserver]

53. You are attacking a good former president as flamebait.

Did I leave anything out?

[FrenchieCat]

62. Yeah...you left out the long highly recommended thread attacking

or good current President as same flamebait.

[TexasObserver]

69. That one is flamebait, too.

And just as inappropriate. You're speaking of this thread, are you not?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x140842#142719

The president needs to be more forceful with big business sectors. That's constructive. Calling the president or the former president a wimp is not.

[blm]

54. Yes. Scared to cross Poppy Bush, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, so he carried water

for them. Deepsixing BCCI, Iraqgate, and CIA drugrunning for Poppy was done out of SUBSERVIENCE, not out of courage.

[treestar]

56. This whole meme supposes the government is like a business

A President cannot hire and fire Congress. He can only hire SCOTUS justices with Congress' approval.

This is just an insult they apply in the attempts to be superior. They know all about what Obama should be doing. If only they had gotten elected POTUS themselves. They just didn't bother.

They'd be calling the Dems wimps no matter what. No matter what passed for healthcare, even if is destroyed insurance companies would still involve drug companies and doctors and the same posters would rant on about how that wimpy Dem or that caved or capitulated to Big Pharma or the Doctors.

[jillan]

57. No I didn't. I may not agreed with everything he did but he was able to overcome

alot and still maintain high ratings. And he was excellent at connecting to the middle class voter...even when some of his actions were wrong.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

59. Yeah the Ted seat loss got me down, but a real good point throwing around this label has been

hyper destructive for us. It's fine enough that folks disagree with policy but when potential voters see our side call the President various names, it can only logically talk ourselves out of power. Frenchie is always on the money and on point. I'm sure folks didn't try do any of this intentional but it is possible to talk ourselves out of power, maybe some want that but it isn't the best way to go. The brand of the Democratic party needs to stay strong even if there is a potential upset. I understand the disappointment, we're just saying let's keep it about where we agree and disagree on legislation.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Aye!

I'm just trying to show the hyperbole for what it is....
the double standard of calling some names, but not others....
none of which will get us what we want in the end.

[euphoria12leo]

63. Some cases of forgetfulness

mid and late stages of it. Some people need to snap out of it.

FrenchieCat :applause: to you for reminding people.

DOMA, DADT, NAFTA great reminders etc.,

three strikes law.

[Armstead]

67. Not a wimp....An opportunistic sell-out

[FrenchieCat]

68. Why is that not a wimp in his case?

[Armstead]

70. Because he didn't really have any beliefs to sell out --Obama does

[FrenchieCat]

71. Says You?

One Year: He Told You So
Posted by Larissa MacFarquhar

We’ve heard a lot about the dissatisfaction of progressives. Obama has betrayed them. They thought he was their man, but he was not their man. They thought he was going to sock it to Republicans and stage a revolution. He didn’t. But this perception on the left wasn’t based on anything Obama actually said. It didn’t need to be. It seemed obvious: he was against the Iraq war, he used to be a community organizer, he was black—how could he not be one of them?

In fact, yes, he was against the Iraq war, but he was also for the Afghanistan war. On health care, he ran to the right of Clinton and Edwards. And, most importantly, during the campaign he spoke over and over again about changing the corrosive political culture in Washington. He wanted an end to partisan bickering, he wanted politicians to come together for the sake of the country. He said this a lot. He spoke about it, it seemed to me at the time, as much as any other issue—as much as health care, as much as Iraq.

In the primaries, the contrast with Hillary Clinton could not have been starker. While she talked the traditional Democratic talk about fighting greedy corporations and battling the right, Obama tended to avoid blaming Bush and the Republicans. He preferred to talk about America’s problems as “ours,” and how “we”—a nonpartisan we—might begin solving them. And he has always done this. In the most famous passage of his 2004 Convention speech, he rebuked pundits for slicing and dicing the country into red states and blue states. When Obama talked about change and hope during his campaign, in other words, he was talking as much about changing Washington and hoping for a new kind of politics as he was about anything else. But for some reason, this simply didn’t register. People just didn’t hear it. Or they heard it but didn’t believe he was serious. It would seem to be evident that a guy who was running on a promise of patriotic bipartisanship was not going to be the guy to crush Republicans and try to make real the most ambitious hopes of the left. But, somehow, it wasn’t.

He was serious. Obama’s belief in bipartisanship is not just about cordiality and tolerating different viewpoints—it goes deeper. When I interviewed Cass Sunstein—who knew Obama when they were both law professors at the University of Chicago, and who now works for the administration—for a profile of Obama early in the campaign, Sunstein said: “I think with Obama it’s like Learned Hand when he said, ‘The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.’ Obama takes that really seriously. I can’t think of an American politician who has thought in that way, ever.”

It’s now clear that there’s a reason for that. In his attempt to change Washington, Obama has failed. For the most part this failure should be blamed on Republicans, but it has also become clear that one of Obama’s crucial flaws is his overestimation of his ability to bring people together. But are we worse off for him trying? I suspect that even though a more conventional Democrat might also have won in 2008, she would not have inspired so much cross-over voting, or so much idealistic passion, and would not have carried with her so many House and Senate victories. Would the economy be doing better, or would health care be in better shape, if Obama had not even tried to get the Republicans on board? It’s hard to say.

In his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama wrote: “We must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side.” It’s rare for any sort of person to think this way, and for a politician it is radical. Maybe it’s politically stupid. It certainly hasn’t worked out too well during this past twelve months. But it’s a profound creed and a noble hope. And don’t say he didn’t tell you.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/one-year-he-told-you-so.html

[Jennicut]

72. Clinton was clever, in his second term, with Newt. He let Newt overplay his hand.

Obama will learn, Clinton was naive when he came to DC in the beginning too.

[Cha]

76. You're refering to that stupid thread that's

asking if President Obama's a wimp by some wimpy little internet shit.

[inthebrain]

77. Clinton was the best president the Republicans ever had

He ended Welfare as we know it, passed the telecommunications act of 1997 and started Medicare Advantage. That amongst a whole host of other things like bombing the shit out of Iraq whenever he saw fit.

I hear those cluster bombs make for wonderful childrens toys.

[ibegurpard]

78. No, he was a corporatist

he could've vetoed any one of those things you just listed if he truly believed they were as harmful as they have been.