He's President, not a superhero: The left has been too quick to jump ship

[babylonsister]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_hes_president_not_a_superhero.html


He's President, not a superhero: The left has been too quick to jump ship

Stanley Crouch
Monday, September 27th 2010, 4:00 AM

snip//

Obama has two problems: The first is that he has to battle an opposition that has sold out to the extremes of its base in order to gain power, integrity be damned. No matter how mentally unbalanced the charges, the GOP will buy in if those charges draw enough followers. Responsible Republicans like Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks have not been able to hold back the devil dogs foaming at the mouth.

No matter how bigoted complaints about the President have been, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will lift their pitchforks and torches in agreement. They are confident that their so-called facts will not be seriously questioned - but if they are, Fox News will give them plenty of screen time to make a defense.

The second problem is naiveté and cowardice on the other side of the aisle. The far left feels betrayed because Obama has not turned America into Eden in less than two years. They do not believe that Obama has put up a good fight against those opponents who find the truth less important than gaining legislative power that will make it easier to serve their masters: the wealthy, the big corporations and the lobbyists who serve them most faithfully.

Then there are the people whom Velma Hart represents - the black middle class that works hard, hasn't served time in prison and does its best to rear its children well. None of what they've already achieved stops these striving Americans from believing in a black superhero sent to right all of the wrongs against black people and remove remaining obstacles - of which there are still too many - from their path.

Hart admits that this is a simplistic belief, but it is common to Americans at large. It has been bred into us through Greek mythology, the Old Testament and Hollywood. Those all have good stories that should inspire when there is inspiration to be had.

But magical heroes like Hercules who create the illusion of morale that is necessary to stay the path in a tough fight are no replacement for sensible leaders who step down into the mess and get the job done. This is what Hart failed to understand.

It is time for all of us to grow up and face the fact that we just might be "the people we have been waiting for," as the President has said. If we thought we were electing a superhero, we were wrong. Obama never promised that.

But whether the change Obama did promise is possible can only be learned if we decide to stay the course and refuse to give in to fatigue and paralytic cynicism. There has never been a better time to fight than now. The opposition does not expect integrity or anything more than cowardice and bitchiness.

While acknowledging the frustration of people like Hart, we must keep at it and prove those loons on the right absolutely wrong. Republicans might then have the resolve to clean their house of spiritual vermin.

[rug]

1. Considering Krypton is about to explode, that is not irrational.

[zipplewrath]

2. One huge strawman

"The far left feels betrayed because Obama has not turned America into Eden in less than two years. "

Give me a stinking break. If any of us wrote this and posted it, the mods would lock the thread. This is one huge stickin' strawman, not to mention I can't think of a single major columnist, blogger, or activist that has suggested any such thing,

[racaulk]

3. +1

[babylonsister]

5. That's rich coming from you; you are one of the chief complainers

of most things Obama, and I haven't seen you give him much of a chance. Less than two years in office, with massive obstructionism from the gop and some of his own party members, yet he has accomplished a lot. Still the whiners whine constantly.

I sometimes think for DU it would be better to have a rethug in office; there'd be less bitching on this board.

And no, I'm not saying constructive criticism is wrong. I think it's great and is necessary. But there is a lot that isn't constructive, people who go out of their way to find sources that put down this admin. Makes me wonder about their motives.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. We HAVE blamed the pukes, and we HAVE blamed the

obstructive Dems. I don't see too many people on DU singing the praises of Boehner and McConnell or Ben Nelson.

We do praise and encourage and support Dems who aren't walk-off mats, like Grayson and Weiner and Feingold.

But y'know, I for one get tired of being labelled an Obama hater just because a.) I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries; and/or b.) I've dared to criticize the Obama administration's policies of compromise compromise compromise and move closer closer closer to the right.

None of us who have complained from the far left have ever said we wanted A Garden of Eden as of 1/21/09. None of us. Not one.

What we did want, and expected based on the campaign we had listened to and participated in, was something that more resembled a true Democratic Party administration than a George W. Bush administration.

I could probably pull out the posts I and others were making here on DU in the early weeks and months of the Obama administration where we talked about the "middle class tax cuts" that had been so touted during the campaign. And as I recall, we were all told that it was too much of a legislative nightmare to try to actually PASS new TAX CUTS, and the Obama strategy was just to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Well, folks, how's that going now? Where's the bully pulpit on tax cuts for the middle class?

I think it's telling that people like Todd Henderson, the U of C law prof dared to whine on his blog about how poor he and his pediatric oncologist wife are. with their $100,000 tax burden, kids in private schools, $500,000 mortgage, school loans, etc. It's here on DU somewhere for those of you who want to look it up. The point is, someone like Prof. Henderson actually feels put upon, actually feels entitled to the mantle of poverty, and if the Obama White House hasn't effected enough change in 20 months to change Henderson's perspective, then the Obama White House hasn't done enough.

There's a huge difference between "building a leftist/progressive Garden of Eden" and doing nothing. and it seems that every time someone on the left criticizes the Administration, they're accused of demanding ponies and Utopia. That's bullshit. But it's especially bullshit because so much of Obama's campaign was built on promises -- maybe subtle, maybe nuanced, maybe protectively parsed -- of moving in the direction of that Utopia.

Back in November '08, when I raised my criticisms of the appointment of Geithner and Summers, I was jumped on because I hadn't given Obama a chance. He wasn't even sworn in yet, for cryin' out loud, and I had dared to complain! I was a hater, I was a PUMA, I was all kinds of things.

Well, goddess damn it, I wasn't. And we see how well liked Geithner and Summers and Rubin have been. We've seen how well their policies and strategies have worked. They've fucked things up. The stock market is bubbling like mad, the rich are getting richer, the recession is over and recovery is upon us, but the jobs keep disappearing, the working classes are still suffering.

I didn't expect miracles. I expected hard work. I expected standing on principles. I expected honesty and integrity and not whining and excuse making.

Did Obama -- and Biden -- not expect that the pukes would be lined up against them like this was some game of Red Rover? I knew it. You knew it, too, didn't you? We knew there would be no compromising from the Party of Palin and Profits. We expected that Obama and his administration would be the champions of the working classes, not of the wealthy. Oh, to be sure, we understood his connections to the DLC and the corporate funders and all that. But didn't he speak differently in the campaign? Didn't he offer us hope for something better than what we had in 2008?

But if we were swayed by his campaign rhetoric to believe what he said, that he truly stood for hope and change, and then we dared to hold him to that promise -- are we somehow wrong? Are we somehow less honest with ourselves and with our fellow humans than those who persist in viewing the administration as perfect and struggling against insurmountable odds? Are they to be judged by the rhetoric or by the results?

How long are we expected to wait for results? I believe there were posts in my 11/24/08 thread about how different my song would be in six months, when Obama had fixed all the problems. Funny thing is, I never expected them to be fixed in six months. In fact, I didn't expect everything to be fixed in six years. I fucking know how long it's taken this country to go down the shitter. I've been here, been voting long enough to know what it was like in the 60s and the 70s and the 80s. I know it's not ever going to be perfect, and I know one man (or woman) can't do it alone.

But far too often in the last 22 and a half months, I've seen the Obama administration moving in what I think of as the "wrong" direction. Less progressive, not more. Less supportive of the working classes, not more. Less supportive of peace, more funding for war. Less supportive of education, more supportive of corporations. Less supportive of the environment, more supportive of corporations. Less supportive of justice, more supportive of inequality.

And while, as my subject line suggests, we supporters HAVE blamed the pukes and HAVE blamed the obstructionist Dems, we've watched as the Obama administration appeases those we know to be the enemy of the progress we expected. Were we supposed to blindly support the man regardless what policies his adminsitration followed? Was that the rule we were supposed to follow? Or were we supposed to stand up for Democratic principles and hold EVERYONE's feet to the fire if they strayed from the path?

Sometimes I think some people just wandered down a different path and got lost. Maybe they were following the wrong leader.


Tansy Gold

(edited to fix faulty syntax but I'm not going to proof read this any more. Off the top of my head, here it is.)

[vi5]

37. Well said, thank you...with one exception..

I was an Obama suppoert not a Hillary supporter. So that whole line of attack which people like to throw out on here at critics doesn't apply. Not that it matters, logic and consistency isn't the strong suit of those types of folks.

[CrispyQ]

87. "I didn't expect miracles. I expected hard work. I expected standing on principles."

I expected a fight, damnit! Not an immediate capitulation of some of our most important issues, to a group of immature assholes who made it clear from the beginning that they were not going to compromise.

I was less than luke warm about Obama & Clinton, but when I heard she was in favor of mandated insurance & he wasn't, that sealed it for me. I was livid when I found out that Obama silenced the single payer voice from the very beginning. I didn't actually expect to get single payer, but I did expect that they would be invited to the table & listened to! I absolutely did not expect mandated insurance.

And the 'looking forward' garbage, in reference to war criminals, is just that - a load of stinky garbage.

[jannyk]

109. Great Response!!! Please post it as an OP - please......

[laughingliberal]

119. +1,000,000 nt

[muffin1]

127. Brilliant. Thank you.

:applause:

[paulk]

128. thank you

and very well said

[LWolf]

12. +2

[COLGATE4]

17. +2

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. It's true, ain't it? We gave Clinton 8 years. But Obama? Nah!

He doesn't even deserve one full term to turn around 8+ years of destruction!

[zipplewrath]

35. You can't turn it around by continuing it

The biggest complaints have come from where he hasn't "turned it around" but instead has continued it.

[Tippy]

52. True enough ,,call it the Clinton influrnce myself......

If it weren't for the DLC we would not be in this mess....

[avaistheone1]

114. Did Clinton usurp the power to kill Americans without trial?

No! But Obama has, and on that point alone (and there are other reasons) Obama does not deserve another four years.

[freebrew]

85. + more

"The far left feels betrayed because Obama has not turned America into Eden in less than two years. "

No, the left feels betrayed because we were told to take a hike.

F'ing retards?

[Hawkowl]

92. +100 .nt

[Pab Sungenis]

93. True if anything

it's because Obama has DONE NOTHING TO turn America into Eden. Just a little bit would help.

[MadHound]

4. The left wasn't wanting a superhero, just somebody who would give our ideas a fair hearing

Instead we have a president continuing down the corporate path, continuing to destroy civil liberties, continuing two illegal, immoral wars, continuing trickle down economics, continuing the war on public education, continuing to stymie the LGBT community's efforts for full equality.

We weren't expecting a superhero, but we weren't expecting the assault to continue on us either.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. For a year and a half, the president

Seemed far more willing to blame us than the DINOs who played games, or even the oath of NO.

Why? Because we are convenient, an easy target, and we have no place else to go.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. I do agree with this. In all fairness, I have no response. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I recall the week in which he chided my Democratic Rep

who had endorsed him early, and then turned around and called Grasseley an honest broker with good ideas. The next day, Grassley called Obama a socialist and a few other things. Obama just smiled and waved at Chuck.

[Tansy_Gold]

41. Exactly. It's as if we're in some Kafka-esque nightmare where

we're told who the enemy is by a leader who cozies up to that very same enemy and then blames us for opposing that enemy!


TG, NTY

[vi5]

7. +1

This strawman of "The left isn't happy that Obama hasn't made the US a liberal Utopia already" is just such a ridiculous line of argument it's pathetic.

I didn't expect him to do anything alone, and I didn't expect everything to change. I just expected something more than the hair splitting, threading the needle approach to every single subject. Countering republican aggression with compromise and capitulation is not something I wanted, expected, or will actively support, even if I have no choice but to vote for it.

[Lost4words]

11. very well stated! K&R 2u!

:kick:

[dennis4868]

16. Well

This means you never heard of the fillubuster which has forced Obama to do things he never wanted to do....I am sure if you were president you would be able to overcome a fillubuster by a bunch of people who don't want Obama to succeed.

[zipplewrath]

27. What fillubuster caused these decisions?

Rick Warren
Tripling the troops in Afghanistan.
Executing Bush's SOFA
Classifying the torture photos.
"Having the backs" of the torturers.
Paying 100% on the dollar for toxic assets.
Moving Gitmo to Illinois.
Arne Duncan
Keeping Robert Gates and his staff.
Prosecuting whistle blowers.

[dennis4868]

45. If you want a prez....

Who agrees with you on everything issue, that candidate is probably you and yourself.....this is why we are going to lose in November.....

[zipplewrath]

50. There's no presidential race in November

Now, back to the original question. Which of those was driven by Congress?

[dennis4868]

69. Unfortunately, you did not get my point....

even if there are decisions that were not effected by congress (although some of them you listed are or you have made misrepresentations about Obama's position), it's never going to be the case that a person is going to agree with a president 100% of the time.....I disagree with Obama os some issues but I am not going to bash the guy for it.....have to look at the bigger picture and what Obama and we progressives are up against - A PARTY OF NO, DINOs, FOX News, etc.....

[zipplewrath]

74. But it undermines the point

One can't make the claim that progressives complaints are ignorant of the fact of congressional obstructionism, when their complaints are about issues upon which congress isn't the cause, nor obstacle. Obama is driving the war in Afghanistan, and forcing congress to cooperate. The congress is more than willing to end that war, as soon as Obama is ready to go along. They are more than willing to get out of Iraq quickly, as soon as Obama is willing to go along. They were pushing for a quicker repeal of DADT, but Obama asked themm to go slower. There were serious question about Geitner, but Obama insisted to the Senate that he had to have him. Likewise for Summers. Bernakie had one of the lowest total vote counts in the history of the office. He was only re-appointed because Obama wanted him, not congress. Gitmo is much more complicated, but it isn't congress that's asking him to move it to Illinois. Congress didn't insist that the torture photos be classified, Obama did. Senator Obama voted for telecom immunity.

It isn't about superheros, or agreeing "100% of the time". And it also isn't about an obstructionist congress. It is about a president that frequently and consistently opposes the wishes and desires of the progressives. I'm not sure why they are suppose to remain silent about that.

[dennis4868]

76. Who says that you get to define....

and state the positions of progressives.....I am a progressive and agree just about all the time with Obama....just because Obama may do things you don't like does not mean he is not taking "progressive" positions....

[zipplewrath]

78. Okay, let's not get hung up on the labels

There are a group of people, label them as you like, that are being assailed for complaining about the policies of the administrations. They are regularly accused of wanting supermen, not getting their pony, and of not recongnizing that there is an obstructionist congress. My point is that just doesn't wash when your look at the record. It isn't congress that is forcing his hand on many of the issues that his population is complaining. HE is making these decisions. Should they not complain?

[frylock]

89. you're not a progressive..

you may think you are based upon the new improved definition as provided by our centrist and right-of-center politicians, but if you agree with obama most of the time, then you aren't even in the ball park.

[Tansy_Gold]

100. My sig line

El ojo que ves no es ojo porque tú lo veas; es ojo porque te ve.


The eye that you see is not an eye because you see it; it is an eye because it sees you.


Calling a horse a dog won't make it bark; you can't make applesauce from a turnip. Things are what they are, and that includes progressives.



Tansy Gold, who can call herself a millionaire but that won't pay the bills

[Demeter]

91. Continuing Torture, Authorizing Extra-judicial Murder

not closing Gitmo, still running military tribunals and warrantless searches, violating all kinds of treaties by NOT prosecuting war crimes, Habeas corpus, Bill of ?Rights, Constitution!

The list is exhausting, but not exhaustive.

[vi5]

29. So if it weren't for the fillibuster

Obama wouldn't have continued Bush policies on state secrets, executive privelige and other DOJ and foreign policy decisions? If it weren't for the fillibuster he wouldn't have kept Ben Bernake on? If it weren't for the fillibuster he would have included a more liberal economic voice in his cabinet instead of allowing Geithner and Summers to run the show?

I'm not laying everything at his doorstep but he definitely sets the tone and definitely sets the limits and the parameters for the direction of the party.

I'm sorry we just can't go from 8 years of blaming the president and vice president for everything and reacting to both offices as though they were this all powerful monolith, to blaming them for nothing and shrugging our shoulders and blaming them for nothing since they're just these poor little positions with no control over anybody or anything.

It can't be both ways.

[zipplewrath]

33. Bingo

What's good for the goose so to speak. He's made alot of decisions that weren't forced upon him that have bothered the progressives.

[izquierdista]

31. So scared of it you can't even spell it right?

The 'filibuster' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster) is the biggest straw man out there. Dems run around building up their straw man of how they can't even chance a filibuster, and if Mitch the Tobacco Company's Bitch even starts to mouth a "fi-", the Dems fold their hand and beat the shit out of their straw man.

[saltpoint]

15. With respect, MadHound, the Left does appear to

want a superhero. Rather, they speak as if superheroes generously dot the landscape.

I don't see any, though. We could say, as progressives, that we prefer a Russ Feingold to an Evan Bayh. But if we lived in Indiana and volunteered for the Democratic Party, our preferred ideology would be far less electable. Feingold himself is under the gun from a far-Right Bagger-type in Wisconsin. Bernie Sanders is in Vermont, and Vermont ain't West Texas.

What would the Left recommend for Nebraska's Ben Nelson? Do you run a Green candidate, or a socialist party candidate? Do you rage in the streets? Tell me what would work. Many of us supported Ned Lamont against Lieberman owing to Lieberman's flip-noodling with Dubya. Lamont ousted Joe in the primary but of course Joe ran as "an independent," slurping up Republican largesse and retaining the seat.

What Obama wants out of government is likely far more progressive than what the current national landscape will allow. Would that it were different. Until minds open in the heartland, government is likely to be regionally satisfying, or regionally frustrating, depending on whether you live in Jackson, Mississippi or Burlington, Vermont, and the notion of public service is likely to reflect the greater mosaic. I don't like people voting for a horse's ass like John Cornyn but they do, and their vote is no less vital to the process than yours or mine is.

[vi5]

21. I can't speak for anyone else, but my needs are simple...

All I ask of a democratic president or anyone in any position of power int he democratic party is:

1) Don't insult or belittle any of your important voting blocks. I don't care what they say about you or how much they hurt your feelings, it's bad form. Especially if you expect those people to not only vote for you but get out there and actively support you. I don't know of any human, interpersonal relationship, outside of abusive ones where it's good advice or policy to do this. This is more than just politics it's basic decency.

2) Ask for everything. Fight for everything. I'm o.k. with getting half a loaf as long as it was clear that a whole loaf was asked for, fought for, and that everything in that person's power was done to try and get a whole loaf. But please don't put Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernake in charge of economic policy and then try and convince me you did everything you could to move the economy away from corporate abuse and towards a fairer shake for the middle class. And that's just one example.

So no, personally I'm not looking for a superman. Just 2 basic, simple tenets of anyone who is going to supposedly speak for me, supposedly shares my values, and I voted for to be a proxy for our mutual wants and needs: Fight as hard as you can against your enemies, and don't insult your allies. I don't think either of those things are asking for too much.

[saltpoint]

28. I doubt if any of us believes there is a superman figure

out there, vi5.

There is a kind of instability in the notion that a mass movement could form around a charismatic figure. It certainly happened in Europe in the last century and in many other places at several other times. It has some very red-alert built-in problems.

I think the Left's criticism of Obama has been less than helpful and far less than fair. Strategically, there is no constructive alternative for addressing the landscape in which he is trying to pass legislation. There are people on this site alone who are more virulently opposed to Obama than they seemed to be against Bush and Cheney, and that suggests the instability in the Left. They know very well what they would like to have happen and they are unwilling to compromise. If the Left were influential in U.S. politics, the U.S. Green Party would be thriving and its candidates winning state-wide ballots from coast to coast.

That is not the case. The Left, so far as anybody can tell, hardly even exists in the United States. If it does exist, where is it?

[vi5]

34. But it's not "the left" who are discouraged and disgusted...

I'm not some radical leftist. Neither of the members of my family or my friends. None of us were sitting around expecting some radical redistribution of wealth or single payer healthcare over night. But nonetheless we are all dissapointed in the battles this president has chosen or not chosen to fight, in the people he has chosen to listen to and to stock his cabinet with, and in the tone and tenor he has set for the democratic party in general. Dont' tell me someone who has his choice of anyone to put in charge of things and chooses people like Arne Duncan, Ben Bernake, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and on and on, is someone who is really interested in changing things.

This doesn't just go for me this goes for a lot of people, none of whom are "leftists". Just strong progressives advocating for strong progressive policies that a lot of people in this country support. Look at the poll that shows that a majority of people's problem with the health care bill is that it doesn't go far enough. Look at the polls that show a majority of people are not in favor of extending the tax cuts to the rich. Look at the number of people that support a repeal of DADT. I know not all of these are solely his responsible but he is ostensibly the leader and I dont' think it's whining radical leftism to expect him to lead on those issues and take stronger, unequivical stances on them rather than trying to thread the needle and split hairs and be more worried about seeming too liberal.

[saltpoint]

44. I think we would likely agree on an enormous number

of issues and questions, vi5. The quarrel is not personal.

But again, the polling does indicate more progressive support than current legislation reflects, but results are significantly owed to the "mosaic" problem: There aren't enough Boxers and Feiongolds and Sheldon Whitehouses and Bernie Sanders in the upper chamber, and there are far too many Saxby Chamblisses and John Cornyns.

I haven't loved every member of a Democratic cabinet ever. If a Democratic president asks me to offer a list of replacements for key Cabinet officials, I'd be delighted to send one.

Pressure can and should be brought to bear on any elected official, but once more, he has to be the representative of everyone and not just progressives. How one navigates that is a matter of hot debate. And it isn't likely to be resolved any time soon. A lot of the Left's anger directed at Obama is, IMO, unfair.

The recent news hints that some of that money team of appointments is on the way out the door.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. The President is oppsed to equal rights for my people

As is his chosen Party Chair. They say that their sort of person is 'Sanctified by God' and that the minority they oppress is not. How is that about the Congress? It is about the man himself.

[saltpoint]

55. The Congress? So far as I know, they still generate

legislation. They still make laws.

As for who is "sanctified by God" and who isn't, I'll leave to the theologians to duke it out over that one. I'm not terribly religious myself.

"Your people" notwithstanding, the president serves all the people. That necessarily includes people who agree with you that all citizens deserve equal rights under the law, and it includes people who disagree with us. That makes the president's job a bit more difficult and the Congressional role even more important.

[zipplewrath]

58. So when he asked congress

NOT to pass a DADT bill this year. Then, when they insisted anyway, he negotiated with the congressional leadership to only pass a bill authorizing the repeal, but only under the determination of the president and the DoD, that was congress holding him back?

[Tansy_Gold]

72. the president may "serve all the people," but it is not possible for him

to agree with all of them.

And that's the tricky territory any president has to negotiate.

There is a faction in this country, a faction which is "served" by the president, that is vigorously opposed to any kind of support, recognition, or equality for GLBQT people. There is another faction, also "served" by the president, that is vigorously pushing for equality for GLBQT people. The president cannot agree with both factions, yet he must "serve" both factions.

On this particular issue, *I* would argue, were I president, that granting equal rights to GLBQT people, including the repeal of DADT, does not infringe upon the rights of those opposed to such rights. Homophobic people are still permitted to marry, divorce, adopt, serve in the military, etc. None of their rights are being diminished. Their feelings and sensibilities may be hurt, but that's too bad. The president's job isn't to make them feel good. It's to serve the people, serve them equally and fairly.

What's happened in this administration, however, is that there has been little movement toward the progressive notion of equal rights for ALL PEOPLE, and that's what has the progressive community grumbling and complaining.

The Obama administration has taken a policy of NOT serving all the people as robustly as we feel they should have. It is difficult for us to refrain from criticizing when we see policies and actions that run counter to our platform.


TG, NTY

(correcting one very stupid typo and hoping there are no others)

[zipplewrath]

54. Replacements?

The recent news hints that some of that money team of appointments is on the way out the door.

But what would lead one to think that the next team will be any different from the current team? You saw Bernie Sanders already explaining he couldn't support one of Obama's nominees.

[saltpoint]

57. I did catch Bernie's comment, but I hope you're not

asking for a clairvoyancy here. I don't know who their replacements will be anymore than I know what the weather will be like in Missouri three weeks from now.

I don't think anybody else does either.

[zipplewrath]

59. Past performance

What would lead you to believe that the guy that picked Larry, Timmy, and Ortzag not to mention renominating Bernakie, would suddenly change his stripes now?

[saltpoint]

106. I would repeat what seems obvious to me, namely

that we don't know who the replacement appointments are going to be.

I would expect that the rumors have already begun over lunch in swank DC cocktail bars and restaurants, but I'm not anywhere near DC these days and couldn't afford those places if I were.

Zipplewrath, you may be right that all of us will be disappointed in the replacement choices, but you could be wrong on an equal basis. The point of our not knowing does not mean we can draw reliably from past patterns. Politics can be unforgivably dull-witted a lot of the time, but there are moments when it brings out the naked punk band on angel dust to paint the Sistine Chapel pink.

I say we wait and see what happens and go from there.

[zipplewrath]

121. Fool me once

We don't know, but one can make the case that we "don't know" what a GOP majority will do either. Technically true, but at this point, one should be able to estimate pretty easily. The same with Obama. We technically "don't know" whom he will pick. But we have a real good indication of what kind of person he will pick. As I say, right now we have someone appointed that is already a major disappointment to Bernie Sanders. And we have 2 years of disappointing appointments, with no real indication that anything will change.

[saltpoint]

123. I like some of any Democratic president's appointments,

and would not expect to like them all.

It's the president's call in the first place, and so while I might like Ramsey Clark as Attorney General in the Carter administration, for example, Jimmy didn't ring me up for my input.

Sanders is a class act, but remember, he was a class act before 2000, and remains so today. On virtually all other of Obama's initiatives and appointments, Sanders is a steadfast supporter. In a radio interview last week, Sanders reiterated his very strong hope that Democratic voters will turn out in large numbers to support Democratic candidates across the country.

[zipplewrath]

125. In the economic area

He has had alot of people in and around treasury, and I don't really expect his tendencies there to change. We practically had to bribe him with Warren. His appointments on the Deficit commission haven't been all that encouraging either. This isn't about one or two appointments, or even several unrelated appointments. His economic team had a definite "bias" and there isn't much to indicate that's going to change, which is where Bernie's concerns become indicative.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Now, *this* is a reasoned argument! Thanks for this!! +1,000,000,000!!

:toast:

[zipplewrath]

30. Prove it

"What Obama wants out of government is likely far more progressive than what the current national landscape will allow."

I don't really mean that in the hostile sense it sounds. But over the last two years, I've really come to question that. Based upon alot of choices that he has made, choices that were not dictated by congress, I really do question the assumption of that statement. I've read both of his books. I don't find alot of support for the assertion that he would like to be more progressive than he has been. Again, quite the opposite, if you look at areas where he is relatively free to act independently of congress, he isn't all that progressive.

Again, in a friendly way, can you point to what you see/hear/read that would lead you to such a conclusion? And what really begins to occur to me is that it is insulting in a way. It suggests he is unable to accomplish his own agenda, and instead is force to impliment an agenda with which he doesn't agree. I think it is probably a more reasonable conclusion that he is accomplishing the agenda he wants to pursue. It's not that he would be particularly hostile to a more progressive agenda. But I suspect he would seek to moderate one.

[saltpoint]

38. If the Republicans hold an ideological lock on

legislation by way of filibuster (their own votes, plus recalcitrant blue dog Dems), and they do, then the intent of a more progressive series of bills on key issues is under assault by arithmetic alone.

I don't care much for the "Prove it" command, zipplewrath. I read a few papers and a few articles each week and remain reasonably current on the issues. I assume you do the same.

[zipplewrath]

40. I tried to explain

It wasn't a "command", it was a real question. We can all make assertions, but what I'm getting at is that I can't find alot of support for that point of view. When you start to look through the history of both his personal background, and his political career at the federal level, I don't find alot of support for that assertion. Look at some of his votes in the Senate. They weren't particularly progressive. He has a relatively moderate to right leaning cabinet. When you look at the choices he's made, that didn't involve a congressional obstacle, they weren't particularly progressive. So as I say, I'm not sure where the point of view comes in that he'd like to be more progressive but can't. He may not be particularly hostile to a more progressive approach. It's just not clear that he thinks it is particularly necessary, or even desireable.

[saltpoint]

53. Most of us took a good look at Obama's legislative

record and drew conclusions about his temperament during the campaign, usually during the primaries.

Enough other Americans did the same, or in any case, felt inspired to support him and Joe Biden.

There were in fact very considerable obstacles to the president's legislative agenda.

When the Left argues that this president is not sufficiently progressive, they ignore the historical reality that the nation is governed from the middle. There have never been any truly progressive administrations. FDR's might be the closest for the sake of argument, but absent the Depression, we have no idea what legislation would have been advanced. Lyndon Johnson, picking up the torch from John Kennedy, did advance the cause of civil rights, but there was very significant resistance to that as well. And I certainly would not call Jimmy Carter a progressive. He was a moderate.

Changes are in the works for Obama's working Cabinet. We'll have to see what happens.

[zipplewrath]

56. Great Society

"Lyndon Johnson, picking up the torch from John Kennedy, did advance the cause of civil rights, but there was very significant resistance to that as well."

The Great Society programs weren't Kennedy's, they were LBJ's. And they were some of the most progressive legislation in history. Amongst other things, they created an actual foundation of institutions and programs for the nation to build upon for the next 50 years. If he hadn't gotten bogged down in Vietnam, he'd been re-elected (and probably died in office) and would be considered one of the greatest presidents of all time. Something Obama might want to consider as he continues to fight in Afghanistan. If Bobby hadn't been killed, we may have seen an entirely different future for this country.

[saltpoint]

105. Not entirely true. They were Kennedy's first. I am sure you

have heard the audio tapes of John and Robert Kennedy, the president and the attorney general, speaking on the phone with governors (Democratic) of Southern states regarding those states' resistance to clearing the path for black Americans to attend schools and to otherwise participate in their own citizenry.

It is by far the most telling record of the Kennedys' commitment to public service, although a case can be made that their legacy is not limited to that one issue. They did view it as overriding and spoke accordingly to recalcitrant old-South Democratic Governors south of the Mason-Dixon line. A good number -- maybe all -- of those governors were decidedly disinclined to listen to an assessment of American liberties from two New England liberals.

We were at least a generation away from Bill Clinton, who despite my not voting for him in the primary, was quite a bit more evolved as a Southern Democratic governor than the previous generation's predecessor governors. And Jimmy Carter all but single-handedly vanquished George Wallace, or rather, what was left of George Wallace. Sometimes the sound of a final nail in the coffin is a very sweet pounding.

We agree strongly on the fatefulness represented by Robert F. Kennedy, and I'd like to add that an entire generation of Americans was cheated of that fatefulness. He was a merciful man with some serious white in the knuckles. No wonder Nixon feared him.

[zipplewrath]

120. Civil rights is not the "great society"

The Kennedy's did start to get on the Civil Rights train, albeit a bit timidly and late in the game. LBJ is the one that is usually credited with pushing through the legislation (at the very least by Ralpy David Abernathy). However, the Great Society programs post date the Kennedy's by a bit, although I don't think they were, or would have been, particularly opposed to the ideas. The implimentation may have given them pause.

And I'm always a tad uncomfortable with this whole discussion of separating the Kennedy and LBJ legacies. Because Bobby was still around and in fact was poised to do so much more than LBJ did.

[saltpoint]

122. Agree that there is a continuum to service but

what was quite a strong focus under JFK and Johnson did not gain much purchase under Eisenhower.

Citizens who would have defined themselves as being left of LBJ more than likely would not have worn "I Like Ike" buttons in the 50s.

[zipplewrath]

126. Okay, but you're now changing the basis of comparison

The original assertion here was that we hadn't had a progressive president since FDR. I'd suggest that LBJ was easily as progressive. JFK may not have been, but LBJ and JFK weren't the same guy, by any stretch. And the Great Society was NOT a JFK initiative by any stretch.

[MadHound]

42. Care to back up that opinion with some facts?

Let me give you an example, Health Care Reform. Going into the debate, the left knew that we wouldn't get our Holy Grail, single payer UHC type of reform. The public option was a good compromise, it would be a step along the path of where we wanted to go.

The public option wasn't pie in the sky, 76% of the American public wanted it included. Obama even promised that he wouldn't sign an HCR bill without the public option in it.

Instead, what we got was the worst of all outcomes, a mandated monopoly, with little if any price controls, and no public option. I mean really now, WTF? That wasn't wanting a superhero, that was simply wanting the administration to follow the will of the people.

The same can be said of the repeal of DADT, getting out of these illegal, immoral wars, and many other issues. People don't want superheroes, they simply want our leaders to do what the majority of Americans want done. Is that so difficult?

[saltpoint]

47. My analysis is fact-driven already, MadHound.

I suggested the "mosaic" landscape of electoral politics, and if you want hard arithmetic, the point will be painfully displayedin Cynthia McKinney's vote totals.

She was arguably the most Left-leaning candidate to ever appear on a presidential ballot. In overwhelming numbers -- crushing numbers, actually -- voters, including progressives of all stripes, resoundingly rejected her candidacy.

Obama, as his campaign literature and text of campaign speeches indicates, did not run to her Left. She ran to HIS left, and she lost in a huge landslide. Informed progressives knew Obama was not Ralph Nader, or Cyunthia McKinney, or Barry Commoner. They knew he was not offering a Smash-the-State agenda. They voted FOR him.

I'm familiar with the etiology of the health reform legislation. I think a good number of us are.

[zipplewrath]

63. But where is the desire for a superhero in all of that?

The Hounds outline demonstrates that no one was looking for a superhero in anysense. And what does McKinney have to do with superheros? If anything is demonstrates that progressives are willing to be realistic and support something less than "pure" candidates. But there are limits.

[saltpoint]

107. McKinney, IMO, doesn't have much at all to do with

superheros.

The Irish folk lore has some dandy superheroes -- bigger-than-life characters who spring from archetypal mythic thinking and dreaming. I love to read those, and I love the pantheon goddesses and gods of many cultures. It's more than a hobby for me although perhaps less than an obsession.

Most great art springs from it though, and I do pay it true homage.

I did not disagree with MadHound's analysis except to say that the Left does express itself from a landscape dotted with superheroes. It was my contention that there are no such figures out there. In the history books certain figures are more glorified than others. We can say that Lincoln was great, and a good number of scholars would nod their heads our way. Lincoln has his detractors but for the most part he held the stage at a critical hinge of events and managed nicely, horrendously difficult though it was. I am drawn to him but would not consider him 'super' or transhuman in any way. I am drawn to him more because he is human and prevailed against long odds.

McKinney's nomination did not surprise me as much as it disappointed me. If the USA Greens are to advance a progressive agenda, they are going to have to summon other myths to reframe issues of common interest and concern and investment. McKinney has never been able to do that, whether as a Democrat or in her role as head of the Green ticket.

[displacedvermoter]

84. But his street cred as a "Community Organizer"

that he talked up at every opportunity, led a lot of folks to believe -- including me -- that he was at the very least
familiar with and sympathetic to progressive ideas, and was more in common with Barry Commoner, than Dwight Eisenhower. And he has disappointed many in this regard, again me included.

[saltpoint]

108. Current polling shows Obama's approval running at

around 45 percent. Though not all of that, still some of that reflects support he is perceived to have earned by 'progressives,' by which I mean anything from pro-Union pro-choice Democrats to many post-Commoner activists. A lot of progressives, no matter their stripe, honor Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" address but would not sign on to the way he coasted over increasingly dangerous societal rifts, the right of black Americans to full citizenship not least among them.

I don't think that voters inclined to support Obama now (and who know of and honor his work as a community organizer out of college) would agree that the ethical construct that motivated him toward that community organizing is suddenly gone. I believe it is indirectly true that they think he "gets it," and that the actual approval rate is likely to rise correspondent to the focus on issues which divide the two major parties as the 2012 GOP primaries get under way. By early December of 2011, after a dozen or more Pukes rip the flesh off each other's bones in Iowa, Obama's "street cred" is likely to go up steadily, perhaps sharply, and stay there.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[ChairmanAgnostic]

90. the real issue: Cape or no cape.

[saltpoint]

103. Capes in literature and art hint at a broader and

deeper fatefulness, a trait seldom seen in U.S. politics.

But it is there, faint though it be.

It's just more present in some than in others. I would say it's a dead circuit in John Boehner, for example, but quite vivid in Barbara Boxer or Sheldon Whitehouse or the late Barbara Jordan.

[dennis4868]

70. some of the things on your list is a misrepresentation of what...

Obama has done or the positions he holds....for example, he is not for trickle down economics and you know it....he is putting his ass on the line to raise taxes for the wealthy....NOTHING OABAMA CAN DO WILL SATISFY SOME ON THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE.......

[MadHound]

113. Umm, it is a well known fact that tax cuts, any tax cuts, are the worst form of economic stimulus,

Bar none. In this time of economic catastrophe don't you think it would be wise to use the most effective form of economic stimulus going? After all, it is our money, our debt, and frankly I would like to see this country get the most bang out of our bucks.

We could simply let all the tax cuts expire, which would save around five trillion dollars. Take a trillion of that and apply it to a WPA style jobs creation program. Such a program is, outside of increasing food stamps, the most effective form of stimulus going.

This is not arcane economics, this is well known economic fact. Frankly, I wouldn't much miss the few hundred bucks that I would get back (like much of the middle class) and the uptick in the economy would more than makeup for the money individuals lost. Oh, and since a lot of these jobs could, and should be rebuilding and installing new infrastructure for the country, it would be putting us on the path towards future sustained growth. A lot of our infrastructure hasn't been updated since the last time there was a major jobs creation program, back under FDR.

Tax cuts are the essence of trickle down economics, it is straight out of the Reagan playbook (a man that Obama says he admires by the way).

He doesn't have to put his ass on the line, he and the Democrats can just let the cuts, all of them, expire.

[Sinistrous]

8. But, but, but,but, but

my priority isn't in place, yet, so Obama must be a total, utter, failure. Not only that but he does some stuff I don't like. What does he think this game is? Politics or something? How dare he not manifest the absolute purity I have assumed for myself?

On the other hand, thank you for trying to interject some sanity in the debate.

[saltpoint]

9. Recommended.

The folks who feel Obama is insufficiently Left have not persuaded his majority constituencies in the Democratic Party that they have a better plan.

They are extremely capable of insisting on their ideological terms. But they have not offered any plan, no blueprint, no persuasive strategies, for bringing those terms to fruition in a Constitutional republic.

Ya say ya wanna revolution, well ya know, we'd all love to see the plan. Whip it out.

[bvar22]

19. YES!!!

"The folks who feel Obama is insufficiently Left have not persuaded his majority constituencies in the Democratic Party that they have a better plan."

Like expanding Medicare....
Oh wait.
Some of us were put in jail for trying to point that out.

Or the Public Option.
Only 70% of America agreed with that.

[saltpoint]

24. One moves toward the light.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Does one move toward the light, arresting people as one goes?

I tell you, on a basic level, the President claims his Christianity is why he is against equality, but I do not see him or his practicing any form of Christianity at all in their own lives. They are like people eating a pork and cheese sandwich, lecturing me to eat kosher. You call that 'the light' I call it dogma based discriminatory policy.

[saltpoint]

102. Policies you and I would certainly prefer to see manifest

toward the far left end of the progressive spectrum continue to play out, Bluenorthwest.

Pressure can be brought to bear toward that worthy end without trashing a sitting Democratic president.

[Lost4words]

10. thats what I said when smarter folks were pointing out clintons failures

and betrayal of democratic principles, they were correct in a big way, I was wrong with my blind faith in Clinton and the democratic party.

[young but wise]

13. I don't understand people that call themselves

progessives, but quick to give up when shit gets hard.
I mean, you get nowhere like that. Your suppose to keep going to you get where you want to be.

It takes over a decade to become a doctor, and it's going to take over a decade to turn this shitstorm
of a country to what we want it to be.

[bvar22]

49. Who is quitting?

I'm still fighting FOR the things I've always fought for.

*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*Strong protections for the Environment

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

These are values I strongly believe in. I have fought for these values long before I ever heard the name "Obama", "triangulation", or "Centrist" Democrats. I will keep fighting for these values no matter who is in the White House.

It is an "Issues" thing, not a matter of Political Personalities.
When politicians move toward the above, I will support them.
When they move away, I will oppose them.
I don't expect to get everything, but I DO expect some respect for these values, and a voice in the Party that is asking for my money and support.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone



"By their works you will know them."

[Tansy_Gold]

80. +bunches

There are occasional posts that, usually because of their intrinsic passion, bring tears to my eyes.

Yours did.

:yourock:


TG, NTY

[bvar22]

83. Thanks, TG.

Unfortunately,
fighting FOR the above issues is too frequently perceived as an attack on Obama by many here at DU.
That says a lot.

[Norrin Radd]

115. + perfect post.

[dennis4868]

14. Great article

This article is right on point.....repubs are assholes who put party over country and many progressives don't understand the reality of what Obama has to deal with plus they want everything done ASAP even though it took 10-15 for the problems to be created.

[freebrew]

88. When someone says the left doesn't undestand..

it tells me someone else doesn't.

For as long as I've been political, and that's quite a few years, the left has been ahead of the curve more often than any other group out there. The left fuuly understands that most in this country just really don't get it.
That everyone has their foibles, desires and fears about real progress. Fear instilled in them from the rich, the military, the energy industry, et al.

Fear of progress is the enemy as much as those standing in the way. The only problem with the left is that they are too disorganized and too many claim their positions and that ultimately hurts the left's 'reputation' in the public light.

For instance, PETA may be a left-wing group, but doesn't stand with the 'LEFT'. Same goes for Greenpeace, Black Panthers, RKBA, whatever.

The real leftists know what we're up against, and it's mostly those that want to appease the PTB in hopes of not rocking the boat.
But it's also the rich, the powerful, those in control.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. The Left is like kryptonite!! Anything to kill progress.

Thanks for this.

Note: I am a proud member of the Left, but I do agree that we can be our own worst enemy at times.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

22. I think his critics have to ask themselves could they repair the US in 2 years and reshape the...

political environment to pass progressive policy. There is fight there to keep going we saw it in Bush years, if everyone kept going for 8 years we can do it for another 8.

[Clio the Leo]

23. Sometimes I think people were screaming for joy so loudly...

..... they didn't listen to what he said.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Hyperbole and trash talk worthy of McClurkin or Eddie Long

The dog whistle crowd will love this, of course. A huge steaming pile of hate speech. All characterization of others, lacking in facts, and of course, equating liberals with the Tea Party. The adjective addicted, divisive lexicon is the message here.

[old mark]

46. If he would repudiate the unconstitutional Bush era Homeland Security Act,

and just move generally a bit to the left, he would pick up 85% of those of us who are not happy with him...Instead, he plays to the right, spits on the left, when the left got him his job.

The right never did like him and never will - we at least would like to like him again if he gave us good reason to...

mark

[JamesA1102]

51. Don't confuse the demagogues with the truth. nt

[Nancy Waterman]

60. Totally agree with article + 1000

We would have had a repeal of DADT without the filibuster. We would have had the public option without the filibuster, etc., etc.
And Obama has done a great deal in being more effective in dealing with terrorism than Bush, which takes it away from the Right as much of an issue.

The only good thing about the endless carping from the Left is that it makes Obama seem very centrist which helps with Independents. Otherwise, it is extremely tiresome.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. The President is oppsed to equal rights for my people

I find that extremely tiresome.

[Cha]

98. Thank you, Nancy Waterman!

"The only good thing about the endless carping from the Left is that it makes Obama seem very centrist which helps with Independents. Otherwise, it is extremely tiresome."

[dflprincess]

112. Some people are independents because the Democratic party has moved too far to the right

and they don't need what remains of the Democratic wing of the party to tell them Obama is a "new Democrat".

Why is it always assumed that independents are "centrists" or to the right of them?

[woo me with science]

62. ...

[hayu_lol]

66. The 'ship' sank under the weight of...

Arnie Duncan and fellow travelers...really poor to horrible choices.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. I never thought of Obama as a superhero of the left, or...

as a reliable ally of the far left. What I did wonder about him was whether or not he had the killer instinct and the skills to deal with the most mindless and vicious opposition any President in my lifetime has seen. I suspect that was Rahm's job, but the President still has to have the chops to back it all up.

Even LBJ, as badass as he was, needed Republican help in getting much of anything passed, and I doubt he could do much in a climate like today's. And it took Republicans bailing on Nixon to make the impeachment threat real-- a laughable thought regarding Bush the Lesser.

There are number of policy issues I have with him, but that's to be expected and I'm not going to stamp my little feet and go home in a huff because of a few positions I don't like. I don't fear the consequences of Obama selling out quite as much as I fear the consequences of the far left getting enough power to get our own nutcases winning primaries like the teabaggers have done to the Republicans. We don't need more battling of the windbags as much as we need some stability to meet the real challenges we face. The US is changing in many ways, some of which nobody likes but which must still be faced if we are to have a decent future.

The Republicans are self-destructing now, and with any luck at all the next election cycle or two will bring back some sanity on their side. We can't allow ourselves to go the same route they are or perhaps then all is lost.

[unblock]

67. sorry, he IS a superhero:

[jaxx]

68. K&R and thanks.

As I read through the thread what I've seen is the same 'but he didn't' stuff we see everyday. No, the President isn't going to be given a fair shake, he was targeted from the go with personal interest issues that can't be solved in anything but legislative bills. He looks at the long term, not the instant gratification, which can be meaningless without the clout of the law behind it. Change takes time, to think an immediate 180 is in the cards doesn't look at the time and corners taken to get to where we were. Change is happening, it's slow and precise.

Thanks again. :hi:

[impik]

71. Truer words never told. The spineless from the left will get what they deserve in November

[frylock]

94. the spineless from the left?!

fucking rich. it would've taken someone with a spine to at least get a public option through. a spine would also be helpful to insure that LGBT peeps weren't being kicked out of the military. but do go on about the spineless left, please.

[reggie the dog]

73. we on the left did not jump ship,

we were thrown overboard

[ProSense]

75. "we were thrown overboard"

The result is the same: you're not on board.

[reggie the dog]

77. i am

i keep climbing back up the rope ladders offered by the other people standing in line to be thrown off the ship

[ProSense]

79. Yeah,

the President is doing everything in his power to throw you overboard again.

My question is: Why exactly are you so focused the negative things you believe the President, the leader of the entire Democratic Party and President of all the people, is doing and that he is targeting you? Even if you think that he should be President of Democrats only, there are differing views within the party in terms of approach.

You say you're on board, but with the elections now five weeks away, people are still acting like this is about the President and focusing on how he supposedly hurt their feelings.

The Democratic Party is a huge organization. The President has a whopping mess on his hands, and this sniping has been ongoing since the stimulus debate.

"i keep climbing back up the rope ladders offered by the other people standing in line to be thrown off the ship"

That doesn't sound too committed.

[Enrique]

81. we know he's not a superhero

the Shirley Sherrod episode showed that.

[ProSense]

82. "the Shirley Sherrod episode showed that"

President Obama is Tom Vilsack?

[frylock]

95. he's tom vilsack's boss

[txaslftist]

86. Maybe he should remember he's no superhero when he's

deciding he has the power to issue assassination orders..

[avaistheone1]

116. + 1,000,000,000

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Honeyporter735]

96. maybe he shouldn't have fostered the idea that he was

He should quickly squashed the "messiah" thing and he NEVER should have given that Berlin speech where he said "from this moment, the tides will begin to recede and the earth will begin to heal".
He himself is to blame for the nonsense. I saw this coming from the get go.

[babylonsister]

99. You didn't like the Berlin speech after all the ridicule the US

got because of Obama's idiotic predecessor?

I welcomed the embrace Obama got from people in other countries who were celebrating his arrival coming on the heels of such a big, dangerous failure.

[Cha]

97. I don't know who this "left" is? None of my family or friends who

are Pres Obama's base have jumped any ship..quite the contrary..we've been doing what we can to help this Admin with their goals.

He's doing an amazing job in spite of all the hate and lies swirling around him.

[andym]

101. We don't need a superhero, just a Prime Minister and a parliamentary system

The government then stand or falls on whether the party in power, which in many parliamentary systems has power through a simple majority, can pass its program....

However, Madison and friends rejected this idea, in favor of our current government, in part perhaps to weaken government as an agent of change.


Our current system tends to block change, and it is only in rare moments, when one party holds overwhelming power (greater than 66% of the senate for example) that big changes can occur.

[ibegurpard]

104. he could've saved himself some time and just said "pony"

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[WorseBeforeBetter]

111. What pap.

--"Responsible Republicans like Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks"... good one.

--I don't feel betrayed. I voted for Obama because he was the last Democrat standing. And no one on the "far left" expected Eden, no matter how many times the anti-"far left" says so. Obama deserves some praise, but also legitimate criticism. If the cheerleaders can't comprehend that, too fucking bad.

--Obama hasn't put up a good fight against Republicans; in fact, he embraces bi-partisanship (e.g., Catfood Commission appointments). Alan Simpson and Tom Coburn are our friends!

--No one expected a "black superhero" -- what a stupid thing to say. "Simplistic," even.

--"Grow up," "stay the course," "never been a better time to fight than now"... could he have thrown in any more platitudes?

--"Republicans might then have the resolve to clean their house of spiritual vermin." Yeah, the "far left" is naive and out-of-touch.

[jeanpalmer]

117. Crouch is out of touch

He refers to battles that haven't been waged. Where the surrender sign was raised before battle commenced.

And Crouch doesn't grasp the biggest problem facing the country -- the budget problem. The problem of spending ~$trillion a year on war by a country that has a $trillion deficit and is having trouble funding programs to help people. This is where the battle needed to be waged. Not only has Obama not waged it, he has gone in the opposite direction, spending more of our declining income on war. Excessive defense spending is creating a fiscal crisis for the country, similar to the financial crisis. The country needs a President who will turn the country away from war, and especially one who is willing to make the case for doing so to the people. Obama hasn't done that, and it's hard to imagine his ever doing it, since he doesn't seem to have any strong feelings against war or against wasting huge amounts of money on it.

[laughingliberal]

118. Please tell me I didn't just read, "stay the course." nt

[racaulk]

124. Eh, why not?

It appears that "you're either with us, or against us" is making a recent DU comeback too.

I never thought I would see the day that Bush's platitudes would be so embraced here.

:puke: