President Obama's impressive record

[ProSense]

Rachel Madow

MADDOW: If the Senate ratifies the START Treaty tomorrow, it caps an astonishing period in American political history.

For the last two years, Democrats have held the White House as well as big majorities in both the House and the Senate. Their record of achievement in that time, even in the face of unified, at times totally random Republican opposition, Republican opposition even do things Republicans had proposed in the first place, unified Republican opposition even to their own ideas—their track record even in the face of that is historic.

Whether you agree or disagree with what Democrats have done in the first two years of President Obama‘s presidency, they have freaking done it. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women, expanding children‘s health insurance, new hate crimes legislation that they said could not be done, tobacco regulation, credit card reform, student loan reform, the stimulus - which in addition to helping pull this country back from the brink of a Great Depression was also the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever.

There was also a little thing you may have heard of called health reform. Also, Wall Street reform, the improvements to the new G.I. bill, the most expansive food safety bill since the 1930s.

more

One of the most accomplished Presidents at this point in his Presidency, and the most pro-regulation President in last 40 years:

• Obama signs bill putting tobacco products under FDA oversight
  
  
• Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
  
  
• Banning antibiotics in livestock production
  
  
• Food Safety bill
  
  
• Appointed Elizabeth Warren to establish the consumer bureau
  
  
• Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States
  
  
• Enacted shareholder rules on executive pay
  
  
• Fed's massive data release offers new insight into financial crisis
  
  
• Panel Begins to Set Rules to Govern Financial System (Volcker Rule)

Other Achievements:

• Saving the auto industry
  
  
• Nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS
  
  
• Hospital Visitation Rights for Gay, Lesbian Partners Take Effect
  
  
• Sustainability partnerships
  
  
• Grants for renewable energy
  
  
• New regulations on debit card fees and credit cards
  
  
• Scientific Integrity Directive (America COMPETES Act)

The package of major legislative accomplishments:

• January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
  
  
• February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
  
  
• February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
  
  
• March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
  
  
• March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
  
  
• April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
  
  
• May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
  
  
• May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
  
  
• May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
  
  
• May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
  
  
• June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
  
  
• June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
  
  
• October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
  
  
• November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
  
  
• December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
  
  
• February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
  
  
• March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
  
  
• March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
  
  
• March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
  
  
• March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
  
  
• May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
  
  
• July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
  
  
• July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
  
  
• August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
  
  
• August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
  
  
• September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
  
  
• December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291, H.R. 4783
  
  
• December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296, S. 3307
  
  
• December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
  
  
• December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
  
  
• January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
  
  
• January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
  
  
• January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

I understand why his approval rating in going up.

[still_one]

1. Then why was the midterm a blowout? Why is Tim Kaine still in his position, and most important why

does no one really defend or talk about those accomplishments?

In the midterms, very few Democrats touted the HCR or the other issues you mention

If there is a great disconnect, then that is because the administration and its surrogates are not doing their job exposing it

[ProSense]

2. "Then why was the midterm a blowout? "

Because Americans love Republicans?

"In the midterms, very few Democrats touted the HCR or the other issues you mention"

Alan Grayson has a wonderful post up.

[still_one]

12. Grayson is only one person in a pretty messed up state. Do Americans really love

republicans?

I am not so sure, and I am not being facetious, but to try an understand what is or was happening

[mikekohr]

46. We are the primary reason we lost in November

Turnout nationally was 42%. Brutal. Brutal. Brutal. Brutal.

Democrats and Democratic leaning Independants who outnumber Republicans, get out hustled in off year elections. They are motivated and consistant. We are not.

In 2012 the electorate will be 22-26% more numerous. The electorate will be 20% younger. The electorate will be 14% browner. 63 Republican Representatives now serve in districts won by Prtesident Obama in 2008. They are all on thin ice in 2012.

[JoePhilly]

62. +1 .. we were (are) too busy fighting us, to fight them.

The GOP rarely has that problem. They see us as evil, and that keeps them focused.

[mikekohr]

64. Bingo!

I just got done with an extended FaceBook discussion with a couple of Tea Baggers. My posts were fact based, sourced, linked and civil. I was compared to Hitler, called a communist, a Nazi, a socialist, identified as an enemy of America, critcised for using facts and statistics, among other things.

In the end I wore them down and they gave up and logged off. But I suspect it was my repeated challenge to place a bet on the re-election of President Obama that caused them to run for cover and not facts.

[impik]

17. People are stupid.

[JamesA1102]

21. Because the Media wanted a blow out and

started reporting the story a year before the midterms.

[derby378]

3. Maddow and Olbermann panned the health insurance reform bill...

...for discriminating against women, for not including a public option of any kind, and for basically selling out you and I to the insurance companies.

On the official list of "Promises Kept," this seems like one promise not worth keeping.

[ProSense]

5. Here:

Planned Parenthood Statement Condemning House Repeal of the Affordable Care Act

Statement by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act:

“As a health care provider whose doctors and nurses serve three million women and families every year through its more than 820 affiliate health centers across the country, Planned Parenthood is committed to expanding access to affordable quality care to all Americans. That is why Planned Parenthood condemns the passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 2, a bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“Given the enormous health benefits of the new health law for women, the House’s vote to repeal it would have a devastating impact on American women and their access to affordable, quality health care.

“The new health care law represents the greatest single advance for women’s access to health care in 45 years. Among its numerous benefits, it will expand access to health insurance for millions of women; make primary health care, including annual exams, preventive care, and reproductive care, more affordable; promote the health of women by guaranteeing coverage of preventive care, such as lifesaving breast cancer screenings and immunizations with no co-pays; increase access to contraception for women, and potentially allow for all FDA-approved prescription contraception to be available without co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs; and put an end to discriminatory practices such as routinely charging women higher premiums than men and denying coverage for so-called ‘pre-existing’ conditions such as breast cancer or even pregnancy.

“Moreover, the House leadership’s repeal plan would also impose unprecedented restrictions on women’s health because it includes passing an abortion coverage ban, which would effectively end private health insurance coverage for abortion — guaranteeing that the majority of women with private health insurance would lose benefits they have today.

“Simply put, repealing the new health law would be a huge step backwards for American women, many of whom have already begun to benefit from health care reform. More women will be uninsured, medical discrimination against women will be legal again, and women will once again be forced to pay more for health care and get less for their health care dollars than do men. That’s why Planned Parenthood is committed to ensuring that H.R. 2 does not become law.”

[jenmito]

8. K&R your thread and this post which provides even MORE facts. n/t

[politicasista]

4. Kick

:kick: :patriot:

[craigmatic]

6. That's an impressive list.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Very.

:fistbump:

[ProSense]

13. Thanks. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Most Americans are worse off then when Obama took office

And it ain't getting much better. The economy is a catastrophe, unless you're one of the bankers saved by $12+ trillion in taxpayer loans and guarantees.

Some of the listed accomplishments are very good, but they pale in comparison to the horrific suffering in our country that is yet unrelieved.

And the attack on Social Security... well, it is what it is.

[FrenchieCat]

14. The only attack on Social Security thus far are from folks like you.....

making shit up as apparent as when folks were saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Problem is that there was more circumstantial evidence backing what was said about Saddam then there ever has been about what is being said about Obama Social Security's Stance. You, yourself are one of those who keeps repeating the lie....in hopes that it dents Obama's supports before he actually does or says anything. It's one thing to activate folks to make sure that they do what they can to support actions that ensures that Social Security Benefits are not cut. It is quite another to make shit up, and keep repeating it, as you actively work to support the opponents of this Democratic Administration; which would be the Republicans. But yet, that's what you do.

[polmaven]

19. It has gone way beyond tiresome now,

don't you think? For some there is absolutely nothing this president can do that will please them. And you are right. The president has said absolutely nothing that even resembles a "attack" on Social Security.

SIGH!!!

[AtomicKitten]

10. Great post. K&R

[girl gone mad]

18. Downright anemic.

[pnorman]

11. K & R the entire thread, for careful study later!

n/t

[rhett o rick]

15. That is good but why are we torturing Bradley Manning? nm

[impik]

16. Do you have any proof? And by proof i don't mean some blogger post

[rhett o rick]

23. Nothing from Fox if that's what you mean. nm

[ProSense]

20. Proof? n/t

[rhett o rick]

22. What would constitute proof to you? A statement from the DoD?

It concerns me that you are so defensive of the DoD. Just exactly how do you think he has been treated for the last six months?

People that have visited him say he is being abused. I havent seen anything from the DoD otherwise, have you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/21/wikileaks-bradley-manning-lawyer-unfairly

[ProSense]

24. That's proof?

"It concerns me that you are so defensive of the DoD. Just exactly how do you think he has been treated for the last six months? "

What concerns me is accusing people of torture without any evidence. How do you know how he has been treated?

[rhett o rick]

25. How do you know how he is being treated? Is our government being transparent about this?

I dont trust the so-called mainstream media or the DoD to tell the truth. I think we need to know how he is being treated. He is only accused you know. But why are you so determined to believe the best of our government? When we have been shown time and again they lie to us. In fact that's why they are punishing Bradley Manning pre-trial. They dont like whistle-blowers showing us how our government lies, and they want to use him as an example.

Do you think we in a Democracy deserve to know about his treatment?

Again I wonder why you are defending our government's secrecy.

[ProSense]

26. So you don't know?

This isn't a thread to speculate about the treatment of Bradley Manning.

"Do you think we in a Democracy deserve to know about his treatment?"

Yes, especially before accusing anyone of torture.

Now, back to the OP. Feel free to start a thread asking that question.

[rhett o rick]

27. Centrists apparently dont like transparency in government. They dont care if Manning is tortured. nm

[trayNTP]

29. Today's "centrist" is well to the right of Republicans like John Paul Stevens and Dwight Eisenhower.

Therefore, proud "centrists" in 2011 are buffoons.

Unless the media point out that they have been led by the nose down a path to where extreme right-wing Republican positions are now made to appear "centrist", they'll never know it; and of course the media won't.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[trayNTP]

28. Reagan transformed the country for the worse. Has Obama changed the country? Ideologically? What

issue did Obama champion and bring the public along with him against the powers that be to significantly change the direction of this country?

Which one?

Answer. None of them...unless you count the tax deal that the millionaires in establishment media wanted, and did all they could to convince the people that it was what they should also want.

There's an "activist" element to impressive Presidential legacies. Obama doesn't have anything like that he can boast about thus far, therefore there's nothing really impressive about his record. Him signing bills passed by Congress does not an "impressive record" make.

I suppose he could "veto" them, like Bush would have done, but why would he? All he's done is what any other Democrat would have done. I'm not so sure any other Democrat would have championed the "New Deal" the way that FDR did in response to the Great Depression, or the Great Society and Civil Rights like LBJ.

How has Obama "changed" the country? How good is he at helping the people understand what's actually causing their problems?

Or is he simply going with the flow, and getting what he can, without significantly changing much, challenging the order? Nothing too impressive about the latter.

[ProSense]

30. "Answer. None of them" Wrong answer.

It may not be readily apparent, but here and must see TV (related)

Also, the repeal of DADT wasn't simply the repeal of a law and return to the way things were. It was about getting rid of the ban on gays in the military for good, a significant civil rights moment.

Oh, and he saved the country from a depression.

That enough in two years?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[trayNTP]

49. Nothing impressive about either of those. They're the equivalent of signing a bill in my opinion

Impressive to me, would be walking around hearing the majority of people I meet saying, "we need to elect more Democrats, so that we can get single payer...we need single payer because that's the most cost effective way for every citizen to have health care, and it will make the United States more competitive economically."

Something they would have learned from hearing a President championing the ideal, even if it couldn't be done, to plant the seed for the country to work towards in the future. Not a chicken-hearted wimp never once mentioning that during the debate, and instead allowing Republicans and insurance companies to set the terms of the debate. I don't even hear "OBAMA VOTERS" saying that crap, especially black ones, many of which are only in it for him anyway. Instead, they're repeating all the watered down crap that he says and adopting positions like increasing offshore oil-drilling whenever he comes out in favor of something, at the time. If he changes his mind, they change theirs.

Transformation, convincing people what's right even if it is currently impossible to get it, that's what impressive Presidential records are about.

Obama is a is content with the common folk getting a crumb here and there so long as the establishment media can promote it like it's a big deal. Nothing that you posted is "impressive", in the least.

I don't see any of the 2008 Democrats not getting at least as much as Obama did in health care or anything else. The Democratic Party had a platform, and most of this was going to happen regardless, therefore, most of what got done is not about "Obama" to begin with.

FDR calling out the economic royalists...impressive.

Dwight D. Eisenhower calling out the military industrial complex...impressive. Subsequent Presidents have further solidified the war economy, but Ike's words still hover over our heads waiting for some other President to address it.

Who's Obama going to call out..."progressive purists"? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

[ProSense]

50. That's funny

"I don't see any of the 2008 Democrats not getting at least as much as Obama did in health care or anything else. The Democratic Party had a platform, and most of this was going to happen regardless, therefore, most of what got done is not about 'Obama' to begin with."

So you're not impressed because Obama did what any Democrat would have done?

Speculating about what anyone else would have done is useless. Obama is the President and these are his achievements.

[trayNTP]

52. I don't need to speculate over a platform. Democrats in Congress passed things, Obama signed them.

Not much else to think about.

He didn't champion squat or change minds about anything. Where have the people been educated? On what issue do they now "get it"?

The country was already moving in the direction of DADT repeal, as the military generals (many of whom are Republicans) and soldiers themselves proved whenever they were asked about it. They didn't say what they did because Obama moved the thinking. Healthcare reform was happening, either way...with any Democrat. Too bad it wasn't "reformed", though.

Anything that was a part of the platform, that didn't require anything from the President other than his signature, is not "impressive" for the President, especially when the country was there anyway.

[ProSense]

54. "Democrats in Congress passed things, Obama signed them."

That's the way it works with every President.

Congress had to pass the Social Security Act.

[trayNTP]

55. Of course they did. Difference is, Presidents like FDR & LBJ were out front, not being pushed around

#53 says all I need to say about "Obama's record".

[ProSense]

56. So he's

just coasting and building an impressive record despite being a slacker compared to other Presidents?

Which is it: Is the record the same as any other Democrat would have amassed or is it Congress leading and the President getting credit?

If you're not impressed fine, but you seem to want to claim that the impressive record simply fell into his lap.

[trayNTP]

57. Read #53. I'm done after that.

[ProSense]

58. I read it.

It's more of the same, including insults.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[jeanpalmer]

32. Formaldehyde standards are listed

but not the war escalation, or failure to bring jobs back?

That list has no credibility.

Unrec.

[ProSense]

33. The list should have included

withdrawing 100,000 troops from Iraq and these:

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

...He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle.

link

[jeanpalmer]

34. Again no mention of escalation

no ability to face up to the facts.

Record spending in the Pentagon. Wasting of our money. No spine to really cut defense spending beyond the cosmetic.

Unrec again, if I could.

[ProSense]

35. Likely because

the OP is titled "President Obama's impressive record"

Do you think the escalation was impressive?

"Unrec again, if I could."

For that, I'm grateful.

[jeanpalmer]

37. The record is incomplete

without mention of it. If you propose to present a record, present the complete record -- the bad with the good. That way, it has a chance of having some credibility.

The major things people are worried about are the wars, unemployment and job creation, and the coverting of people into debt peons. He has done little to address those concerns. Being president is not like being a community organizer. There are basic issues people want him to address, and he's not doing it. Lists of obscure accomplishments won't change that. Until he focuses in on the important, with more than lip service, he's going to keep failing.

[ProSense]

38. The

impressive record is also incomplete. It would be a much more lengthy OP. Does that bother you?

Again: Do you believe that the ongoing Afghanistan war should be listed among "impressive" accomplisments?

[barbiegeek]

36. We are Ingrates

[brentspeak]

43. Most of that "impressive record" is, in truth, colossal bull$hit

Tarted-up to make completely http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101215/BIZ/12150321/-1/BIZ06">ineffectual and http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/20/here-comes-4-gas-5-cups-of-coffee.html">useless and lobbyist-weakened policy appear much better than it actually is.

[ProSense]

44. Most, not all?

What the hell does the future price of a cup of coffee have to do with the OP?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

47. FYI

Gas prices are being driven up by speculation. There is no underlying economic reason for them to go up.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[trayNTP]

53. Perspective. Obama's getting what he wants, not trying to get any more than he is. Accept that.

If some are purists, then he's a pacifist, placater, and a pushover. Incrementalism, not transformation is his motto.

If the latter was important, he'd be interested in laying the foundation for more than just a re-election campaign. He would champion the "ideal" programs as President instead of never mentioning a single-payer health care system or the fact that this country is going broke because we are blowing up all of the people's money in bombs. Why are states forced to cut so much...because billions of their dollars are wasted funding misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, so some corporate contributors can make a buck...or a billion.

He's chosen his "comfortable" spot within the DC cesspool, and he's not about to do anything to hurt "HIS" chances at keeping it.

Why aren't some of these bastards in the Bush administration being prosecuted? Why aren't some of these contractors in Iraq being investigated for billions of dollars just disappearing? All the things they were hysterical about leading up to the 2008 election...not much of a peep out of the Obama White House, but Democrats are still being targeted by some of Bush's crony prosecutors, I see. Because it's not important to him.

To him...it's all about him, and his stupid legacy. Consequently, his record is impressive to HIM, his bubble, Obamabots, and the political establishment that considers tweaks for the little people to be significant achievements.

The "what" of what his signature is on, or what people want to say he's responsible for really matters less than where the country is heading philosophically. After Bush, after 30 years of Conservatism dominating the way Washington thinks thanks to Reagan, the ONLY THING that was going to be impressive to me for the next Democratic President, which was expected to be elected in 2008, was to see the country understanding that Conservatism had caused it's problems, and Bush with his GOP Congress were just doing what Conservatism does, which isn't good for the average person. To see the country moving away from that destructive mindset of Republicanism and laying an ideological foundation to be built upon now and move toward a progressive future, which is what people at their core, really want...they just have been convinced that they don't by propagandists posing as journalists, that's what the next Democratic President's "REAL JOB" was. To preach that message until it caught hold. And don't give me that "actually getting something done" nonsense, as if both can't be done at the same time. He's not in Congress for crying out loud.

Instead, Obama from DAY ONE came in trying his best to revive the Republicans, by begging them for support. They were the walking dead, he breathed on their dry bones and gave them life, increasing their profile by begging them to support him on the stimulus, and instead laid the foundation for their 2010 rebirth.

That's where he took the country.

I am unimpressed.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[woo me with science]

60. He continues to defend lining up Americans not accused of any crime for crotch searches

in our airports (TSA).

He just installed Republican contributor and GE corporate CEO to head the Economic Advisor Panel.

He just approved the merger of Comcast and NBC.

I am not "impressed" by these particular decisions. In fact, these particular decisions are appalling assaults on the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

[ProSense]

61. "crotch searches"?

Classy.

[woo me with science]

65. Yes, crotch searches are about as far from classy as you can get.

It is outrageous that this President supports this intrusive violation of American citizens accused of no crime.

[ProSense]

66. The

President isn't in that photo.

Did he hand-pick the guy with the blue-gloves on?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

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

[woo me with science]

69. Ooh! A real cornfield!

:wow:

[JoePhilly]

63. Those who want to hate Obama, left or right, only need ONE reason ..

There is a reason that the right throws every name in the book at Obama ... communist, socislist, facist, etc etc etc. They don't care WHICH scary term sticks with a given individual, just so long as ONE does. That's all it takes.

And you see the same tactic here on DU. All it takes is ONE. "What is your bridge too far with Obama?" ... did you see that thread.

No matter what Obama does "in total" will be insignificant so long as the person has at least ONE reason to hate him firmly locked in place.

Some wanted Hillary, some will use "crotch searches", doesn't really matter. The GOAL is to increase the number on the left and the right who hate him.

[Armstead]

68. Uhnhhhhh, that's BS

You may be correct regarding the right wing.

But you are way off base regarding criticisms from people here. The goal is not to whip people into "hating" him.

Most of us want him to succeed as president. But we also want him to succeed for good reasons.

Frankly Obama is much less important than larger issues -- Like: How can the very legitimate concerns and goals of liberals and progressives be represented in government and politics and translated into action that actually makes a difference?

There are many who support Obama or WANT to support him, but also get really frustrated by some of his actions. It's not a matter whether we "like" him or not. The real question is whether he is helping or hindering in that larger issue of actually bringing back at least a balance of liberal/progressive counterweight to the conservative GOP/Corporate Elite.

[JoePhilly]

70. When you see OPs that ask questions like ....

"What is your bridge too far with Obama?" ... the point is to to shake loose as many "issues" as possible, so that individuals who are predisposed against Obama have more options to pick from.

As for your point about the "larger issues" and how to address them. That's actually not tough to answer. If we want greater liberal representation in government, then you need to get MORE liberals in office. It really is that simple.

The reality is that we don't have very many. And those we do have, are generally offset by moderate Dems who represent more conservative states and districts. Add to that a GOP who will block any vote, and you either have to (a) accept NO PROGRESS OF ANY KIND, or (b) some progress that is far less than you would like, including some compromises that you hate.

Do nothing ... or ... make as much ground as you can with what you have to work with.

For some, this will not be enough. And the media will take the dissent from the right, and from the left, and ADD IT TOGETHER to claim that Obama is going TO FAR TO THE LEFT.

As a simple example, let's take the public option. Either, we can cheer the victories that we did get in HCR, while also planning our next steps to get the public option ADDED ... OR ... we can endlessly whine that the public option didn't get in this time. One of these approaches moves us forward, the other does not.

[Still a Democrat]

71. K&R