I am a HUGE Cheerleader for President Obama - if you disagree then please tell me why....

[Tx4obama]

Obama’s 2008 Campaign Promises Kept:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Long partial LIST (with citation links) of what Obama has done: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Short List of Progressive Achievements by The Obama Administration
http://shoqvalue.com/short-list-of-progressive-achievements-by-the-obama-administration

Obama Administration’s Achievements (Thus Far)
http://obamaachievements.org/list

Obama’s LGBT Chart LIST
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x777350

Accomplishments by the Obama Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

100 Accomplishments of President Barack Obama
http://simplifythepositive.blogspot.com/2010/03/100-accomplishments-of-president-barack.html

Lists and graphs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=751914

List: 2.8 Years in Pictures....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x772937

We All Have a Choice in the 2012 Election
http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/09/03/we-all-have-a-choice-in-the-2012-election/

So That Ignorance Won't Be The Reason Why "Progressives" Are Throwing The President Under The Bus
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html

80 Reasons Why It’s Time To Take These Republican/Tea Party ‘Sons Of Bitches’ Down
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/06/80-reasons-why-its-time-to-take-these-republicantea-party-sons-of-bitches-down/

Bikini Jobs Graph
http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4478

Rachel Maddow On President Obama & Democrats Accomplishments (November 2010)
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ-OKa6OZQ

Legislation signed by President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

Executive Orders signed by President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

The REAL Reason Barack Obama Won That Nobel Peace Prize
http://wrightandleftreport.com/news/the-real-reason-barack-obama-won-that-nobel-peace-prize/

---


Despite the many negative things that I've read all over the internet,
that have been posted about President Obama over the past THREE YEARS,
I have NOT lost my excitement and JOY for The Obama Presidency.

I was four years old when President John F. Kennedy was killed and buried.
I remember the extreme sadness at the loss of President Kennedy the day his memorial service was televised on TV,
while I was sitting on the floor in front of the TV in my grandmother's home.

I never had a feeling of patriotism and HOPE in America UNTIL Obama ran for the presidency of The United States.

Obama is NOT a GOD.
Obama does NOT have the ability to walk on water.
Obama does NOT have a magic wand.
Obama does NOT have rainbows shooting out of his ass.
Obama does NOT ride a unicorn.
Obama is NOT a dictator.
Obama is NOT a perfect 'man'.

But HE is MY president and I am very PROUD of him and PROUD of the things that he has accomplished so far.

When I get into my car and go to vote in November 2012,
I will NOT be only voting for Barack Obama - I will be voting to elect more U.S. House members, U.S. Senate members, and for the opportunity to elect a DEMOCRATIC president that will be appointing additional 'liberal/moderate' Supreme Court Justices - NOT conservative judges!

If WE (progressives) want President Obama to be able to sign MORE bills that will move forward a more progressive agenda the WE must work hard to ensure that a SUPER-MAJORITY is elected into the U.S. Senate and that WE must work hard to TAKE BACK the U.S. House of Representatives!

Come on America - if I (a Texan) can have this much passion regarding our Democratic President, Barack Obama, - then YOU also can do everything within your power to help to get President Obama re-elected!!!

[RichGirl]

1. All I can say is...I'm with you!!

Give me an O...and so on....

Seriously...I think in 2008 people lost sight of the fact that they were electing a man, a mere mortal, to do a job. I think after Bush they were looking for a hero...a super hero!! I think that's why the others (Clinton, Edwards, etc) didn't get the nom. It's easier to project hero status on someone you don't know that well.

Obama continuously said "yes WE can"...yet we forgot the "WE" part and expected him to change everything with the wave of a hand. Not only did WE not help him, when he didn't fullfill our every dream...many stayed home at mid-terms and instead of helping we hurt him by giving him more republicans to work with even though they had shown their hand by then...which was to say NO to everything.

Anyway...now we can move forward realistically with a president who we know is human, who can't walk on water and who, in my opinion is the best man for the job. Being the best doesn't mean perfect.

And...I hear a lot of criticism about...he should have done this, that, the other thing, should have said this, should have said it differently, should show more emotion, less emotion, be stronger...blah, blah, blah. I think we can all see now that it WOULDN'T HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE! The repubs have only ONE goal...get rid of the black president!!! They don't care about people and don't care if they sink the country into the ground to get what they want.

[Skittles]

2. he's looking like God compared with these GOP clowns

it's a fucking sad state of affairs

[pnwmom]

3. I think it's easy to forget how extreme the other side is

when people here are criticizing Obama for not being progressive enough.

Those other people are scary. The more I see, the worse they look.

[Skittles]

4. I just.....want better

I don't think we're gonna get that :(

[pnwmom]

15. Me, neither. Although there is a possibility of Obama moving somewhat left if we can improve

our standing in Congress.

But even as a moderate, he is far preferable to anyone they're going to nominate. I don't even what to think about what could happen if they get 60 votes in the Senate.

[Skittles]

18. he didn't move left when he had the chance

what incentive would he have this time? :(

[pnwmom]

79. Why perpetuate the myth that he had 60 in the Senate when Joe Lieberman was an Independent then?

And even that period lasted only a few months.

Plus, Bill Clinton was more liberal in his second term, and other Dem Presidents have been, too. I think Obama will be, if he has a Congress that's supporting him.

[Tx4obama]

29. We only had a filibuster proof Congress for a very short period of time

Al Franken was sworn in July 2009
Teddy Kennedy died in August 200d9

If in 2012 we give Obama a Democratic House and a filibuster proof Senate then President Obama could bring GREAT THINGS to America!

[Pirate Smile]

54. and our short-term filibuster proof Senate was only as progressive as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln,

Mary Landreiu and Joe Lieberman.

Every single one of them had veto power over everything moving through the Senate.

Plus - add people like Rockefeller who would block anything dealing with coal, etc.

We didn't have 60 Sherrod Browns or Bernie Sanders. People need to remember who we actually had.

Lieberman killed off Medicare for all over 55. Landreiu kills of any attempts to rein in oil subsidies - and on and on.

Dozens of Dems joined with Republicans to go all NIMBY and kill off closing Gitmo - and huge numbers of Dems make it impossible for any President to attempt to pressure Israel to stop settlement expansion and push for a peace deal.

Truly - Congress is the root of almost all of the problems - and the Supreme Court has made it exponentially worse.

[bvar22]

65. How do you explain the active White House support...

...for the election of Conservative Blue Dogs in 2010?
...and their cold shoulder to Liberal Democrats who needed help? :shrug:

The White House enthusiastically endorsed and supported Conservative Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primnary 2010.
Conservative Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln had actually crowed about derailing the Public Option and obstructing the "Obama Agenda".
She was opposed by a very popular Democrat, Lt Gov. Bill Halter, who was Pro-HealthCare/Pro-LABOR and had the support of Organized LABOR and the Grassroots.
Halter was also polling better than Lincoln in the General.

..and, yet, the White House gave Anti-LABOR, Anti-HealthCare Lincoln full support and directed funds from the DSCC to her support.
The White House even sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas to rescue her failing campaign.
Adding insult to injury, a "White House Spokesperson" ridiculed LABOR for "wasting 10 Million Dollars"
supporting a Pro-LABOR challenger.

I'm a Pro-LABOR Grassroots LBJ/FDR "Democrat" who lives in Arkansas,
and worked in 2010 to give Obama more Liberal democrats to work with.
Imagine how I felt when I realized I was having to fight the White House to do so.


This Anti-Liberal White House behavior was repeated across the board in 2010.
How do you explain this if "All we have to do is give him more Liberals"? :shrug:



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pnwmom]

81. Because in those RED states, those Democrats were better than

the alternative -- the Rethugs who replaced them.

Progressives won't beat a moderate Dem in a red state. That's a liberal pipe dream.

[bvar22]

83. Go back and read again.

My post is about the Democratic Primary in Arkansas, 2010.
The challenger, Lt Gov. Bill Halter, was polling BETTER than Lincoln against the Republican in the General Election.

[flamingdem]

86. [phone] that is so true

nt

[Tx4obama]

11. I agree. At the least - Obama looks like the most sane adult in the room. n/t

[lamp_shade]

5. I'm neither an idealist nor a single-issue voter. I voted for Obama the Man and am therefore

amazed at what he has been able to accomplish so far in spite of agonizing obstructionism.
I'm proud to say that he IS the man I voted for.

[Tx4obama]

14. I am proud too. And he IS the man I voted for and he has done well considering the GOP obstruction.

If it wasn't for The GOP obstruction America would be in much better shape then it is at the moment!

[Marazinia]

6. On the issues that matter most to me he's just like Bush

Human rights: Obama has never called for the prosecution of CIA members and others involved in extraordinary rendition and other acts of torture. Instead of closing Guantanamo, he has allowed it to remain a law free zone http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055265/Guantanamo-Bay-law-free-zone-claims-fromer-chief-prosecutor-camp.html. Now the Alien Tort Claims Act may be eradicated as a means for those harmed by serious corporate crimes such as murder, torture, and genocide to seek some small manner of justice.

Civil rights: Has Obama stepped forward and ordered States to respect peaceful protesters' rights? Why not an hour long address to the nation on this serious situation?

Privacy rights: Continue to be violated. Too many examples to list.

The right to know what your government is doing and the right to know what information your government has on you (One thing Clinton did do during is terms in office is make it easier for citizens to obtain FOIA documents).

Immigrant rights: Obama ran on the promise of immigration reform that would allow illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years and who have committed no crimes to pay fines, go through a long and arduous process, and in the end have an opportunity to become citizens. He broke his promise. If anything, La Migra is deporting more people than it did under Bush, breaking up families and sending people into desperate situations in countries the United States has a decades long history of using for cheap labor and goods.

[JTFrog]

52. Of course he is.

The socks may change, but your message stays the same.

:eyes:

[Sheepshank]

55. Maybe you could explain

How Obama, without becoming a dictator of epic proportions, would be able to close Gitmo by himself, and change immigration law. Thanks.

[TheKentuckian]

61. He could have just done so (with Gitmo) within his Constitutional authority

anytime between taking office and on or about May 20th of 2009 when he signed his own handcuffs on this matter into law.

There was absolutely nothing preventing him from ordering those Federal prisoners to be relocated but he wanted to thread the political needle and open a new facility which would require an appropriation and that is where this fell apart. Hell, he could have the threaded the needle another way and relocated every soul in Gitmo and THEN signed his handcuffs into law or vetoed the bill and forced Congress to come back with a clean appropriations bill because they'd have a hell of a time overriding a veto.

Obama failed because the only plan he was willing to risk politically was relocating Gitmo to US soil, defenders fail on this point because they insist on the same flawed argument and double down by finger pointing at restrictions placed on him five months after taking office that he, himself signed into law.

It is inarguable that if the President wanted that prison camp closed he could have done so, he sure as hell could relocate those prisoners to any Federal facility and he and Holder could have initiated proceedings in Federal courts just as his predecessor did on literally hundreds of occasions. Just as he could have released anyone he couldn't put on trial, just as his predecessor did on many occasions.

Clearly, the President cannot dictate immigration policy by decree (though he does have tremendous latitude on enforcement and how policies are implemented and interpreted) but to say he could not have, on his own authority moved those detainees and initiated proceedings is epic bunk which cannot be supported in fact because it just isn't true.

If one is inclined, they could argue the difficulty of the politics in acting as I lay out but there is no legal argument at all. Before about five months to the day after his inauguration this President had the same ability to dictate on this as the last one and even then only because he rolled over and signed the damned bill into law.

[Marazinia]

78. He had a majority in Congress for two years

Did he not?

Therefore he and many other Democrat politicians failed us all.

Democrats ever since I can remember have been the bend over party, always talking compromise and middle ground and crying that they can't do anything because of those darn Republicans. Well, being a minority in Congress or out of power in the White House never seems to stop the Republicans from doing what they want. Why is that?

Who was that fake leftist they used to have on Fox? The foil for some right wing nut or other who always came off so weak? That's who Democrat politicians remind me of. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, as I already stated, whose voting record is impressive. The rest? Useless.

[Sheepshank]

87. What was needed, was a fillibuster proof Congress

Majority in US Congress can still get derailed. And you forget not all Dems vote with the rest of the Dems, so Obama really had a majority vote on all the big issues anyway.

Again, without a dictatorship, Obama could not pull off many of the things many here rail on him about.

Obama had a fillibuster proof Congress for what 26 days or so?

[Marazinia]

89. Again, when the Republicans are in the minority

They always seem to get their way on the vast majority of issues regardless. Why can't the Democrats do the same when they're a majority, with a Democrat in the White House, no less? I'm not trying to be abrasive, but can you see why this doesn't smell right to me?

[Sheepshank]

90. you don't seem to understand...a minority in Congress can bung up the works.

I'm really tempted to use the term "duh" But I get the impression you are misunderstanding this political concept on purpose.

Look it up deary. A 51% agreement on any bill in Congress means jack shit in the passage of that bill, if there is a fillibuster.

[Marazinia]

92. I do understand that

But when the Democrats are a minority, they seem much worse at bunging. In fact, I'd say they're far more often the bungee than the bunger.

I'd like the politicians who represent me to be bungers, not bendover bungees, dearie.

[Sheepshank]

112. good lord...you want the Dems to act like Reps?

so you can complain about that too? You are stating that Dems would sell off their soul to the same black hole the Reps have done. Your moving goal posts are diggin you in deeper. Your slip is showing. I think the reason you will never see Dems do this en masse the way the Reps have, is because they actually care about what happens to the nation and won't use the economic viability of a nation to damage a party or one man.

You talking points fail.

[JTFrog]

126. Good Riddance.

Surely only for a matter of minutes before you change socks, but good riddance anyway.

:shrug:

[MH1]

69. So, women's rights and GLBT rights don't make your list? Environment?

He may not be as great as we want but if you do care about either of those, you will be very sad if republicans control the presidency and/or the senate.

Environment and women's rights are my 2 biggest issues by far. I'm not happy with Obama (especially on environment) but next to the republicons he is a freakin' saint. I might be looking for another country to live in if the republicans get any more control over this one.

[Marazinia]

88. I sympathize with wanting anyone but a Republican in because of those issues

No candidate I would vote for would be hostile to anyone based on their gender preference or sexual preference. That's just part of human rights. However, just as you have the issues that are most dear to your heart, I have the ones most dear to mine. I 'radicalized' mainly because of human rights violations carried out by our government and corporations in other countries.

Furthermore, if we can't trust President Obama and the Democrats in Congress on other human and civil rights matters, how do we trust them when it comes to GLBT rights?

[Tx4obama]

7. Quotes.....

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. Change will take time. There will be setbacks and false starts and sometimes we’ll make mistakes. - Quote taken from Barack Obama’s Yes We Can Speech

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

"If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress." - Barack Obama

"There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America — there is the United States of America" - Barack Obama

"If we aren’t willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices in order to realize them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all." - Barack Obama

"We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can." - Barack Obama

"Change doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." - Barack Obama


More/other Obama quotes here: http://www.notable-quotes.com/o/obama_barack.html

and here: http://www.barackobamaquotations.com/

[Skittles]

8. yeah, we know he talks a good game

[Tx4obama]

9. It is NOT just talk. Obama has DONE many good things for America and Amercians.

Do you want to go back to the days like it was under Bush?
I do not think so!

[Skittles]

12. gawd

you're like a broken record...HERE'S THE LIST!....followed by REPUKES WOULD BE WORSE! ENOUGH ALREADY.

[Tx4obama]

17. Please explain to me/us why you have a fear/dislike of 'lists'

all a list is a compilation of data.

It really is not anything to be afraid of ;)

[EffieBlack]

43. Lists contain information

The aversion to information seems much more suited to the knowledge-is-evil crowd on the other side.

[Number23]

107. Yep and Yep. Like I say all of the time, "Teh List" is DU's kyrptonite

Folks can't STAND 'em. Lord, the WAILING whenever a list is presented...

And it's always the folks trying to create a laundry list of his failures that scream the loudest when presented with a list of his successes.

[pmorlan1]

37. Go back to the days under Bush?

On civil liberties issues and the war on terror we are the same and in some respects worse than with Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

76. With the Obama admin, there is no such thing as "the War on Terror"......

so no, it isn't the same at all.

As for it being worse, only in your wildest dream is that true....
in the real world, it isn't and those who say it is are making a gross error...
either due to sheer ignorance or a willful agenda.

[rug]

10. If you make a pyramid I'll send him money.

[FrenchieCat]

80. You will never send any money to his campaign, even if you were threatened

that you nails would be removed if you didn't.

You are always making snark comments without substance....
and I don't think that will ever change.

You are one of several who has never forgiven Obama for winning the primaries over Clinton;
and your posting history documents that fact.

[bowens43]

13. He's an empty suit.

He is loved by those who like his pretty talk.

But he's probably a better choice then most of the current cons trying to get the nomination.

[Tx4obama]

16. Bullshit !!!

It has NOTHING to do with 'his pretty talk'.
It has to do with WHAT HE HAS DONE.

[RC]

24. Out weighed by what he has done.

He has continued way too many of bu$h's policies. His cabinet is Right wing Republican.
He has bailed out the financial sector, but where is his help for Main Street?
Obstructionism in Congress is the excuse for not doing the correct thing? Where is his bully pulpit?
( A little factoid: Byron Dorgan(D) North Dakota, resigned because he could not stand Obama, could not work with him.)
Need I remind you he put Social Security and Medicare on the table, UP FRONT, as a bargaining chip!
He flopped on the so-called Public Option. first for it, then against it. He has done NOTHING to steer this country toward a Single Payer Health Care system, such as the rest of the industrialized world has had for decades.
Check out his campaign contributions from the insurance companies. Obama is bought.
If Obama is the best we have to offer, we're toast. Just being better than the opposition is not good enough. We need a man of the people, not the financial/insurance sector.

[Enthusiast]

34. PLUS ONE.

[Marazinia]

46. Well said

[immoderate]

58. Obama does nothing to rankle the ruling class.

Obama will never to anything to bring down the Gini Index (a measure of wealth disparity.) He is a tool of the ruling class. All his big moves benefit corporations, not people.

I can't imagine that Mitt Romney would be any different, except he doesn't dance as good.


--imm

[FrenchieCat]

84. Your list is incorrect.....

grossly so!

His cabinet is not Right Wing Republican...and if you don't know what Right Wing Republican is by now, then I feel sorry for you.

He didn't bail out the financial Sector....that was Bush's doing. And he did attempt to help Main street, and saying he hasn't is a plain outright lie.

Obstructionism is a fact of life, not an excuse. Be a grown up and see it for what it is, or get out of politics, as you have chosen to see things as you wish them to be, not as they are.

You would ignore his bully pulpit if it hit you in the face, cause then you'd say he only has pretty words.....that's the type of critic you are.

You are also incorrect in your statement that Byron Dorgan(D) resigned, as he did not. Dorgan isn't seeking reelection....not because he "can't stand Obama" as you have decided, but because he doesn't believe that he can win re-election in his state of North Dakota.....most likely due to weak ass Democrats who don't know how to do anything but vomit on whatever Obama says or does.

Pres. Obama didn't put Social Security on any table. He advocates Medicare provider cuts, not cuts in the benefits of those on Medicare. But you've got misinformation to run with, so I guess that is what you do. Doesn't matter what was rumored.....because what was rumored here for days was not factual, and you actually know this.

He didn't flip flop on the Public Option....as he never felt that this one issue was the make or break of Health care. That's what you and some of yours decided.....and you haven't let go since. The Public Option wasn't going to pass in the Senate although it passed in the house. That's due to 49 days of having 60 votes (which included blue dogs and Lieberman) wasn't enough, and you know this, but choose to ignore it, as it doesn't jive with your labels for Obama. He never ran on single payer, and you know that too. So to attempt to make it appear that he promised you something that he didn't is intellectually dishonest, which is what you are being.

Obama isn't bought. You know that too, although you will reject anything questioning your mind-already-made-up agenda.

Obama is the best that we have, and you advocating that we don't, will only help the opposition provide you with the real nightmare that you apparently deserve big time.

[RC]

113. I have lived in North Dakota for 45 years.

I am families with ND politics and still follow it.
This quote from your post is a Right Wing talking point.
Dorgan did not run because of the fact I stated. If Dorgan had run he would have most likely won again. He was well liked in the state be both sides. What is you source?

"You are also incorrect in your statement that Byron Dorgan(D) resigned, as he did not. Dorgan isn't seeking reelection....not because he "can't stand Obama" as you have decided, but because he doesn't believe that he can win re-election in his state of North Dakota.....most likely due to weak ass Democrats who don't know how to do anything but vomit on whatever Obama says or does."

The rest of your post is spin also. If Obama is the best we have, heaven help us.

[FrenchieCat]

117. You were wrong in that Dorgan did not resign, he chose not to run....

and you are telling that none of this had anything to do with who was going to be
running against him?

Dorgan's decision stunned members of his party, who control the Senate but are facing spirited challenges from Republicans in several states. Democrats were confident heading into the new year that Dorgan would run for re-election even as rumors intensified that Republican Gov. John Hoeven would challenge him in November.

Early polling showed Dorgan trailing Hoeven in a hypothetical contest, and Democrats expected a competitive race if the matchup materialized.

Hoeven has not announced a candidacy but national Republicans expect he will.
Hoeven told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he was "looking at (a Senate race) very seriously."

"I expect we'll announce our intentions here within a couple of weeks," Hoeven said.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20100105/NEWS/1055046


Hoeven served as the 31st Governor of North Dakota, serving from December 15, 2000 to December 7, 2010. He was the longest-serving current Governor in the United States at the time of his resignation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(United_States)


Dorgan is not a liberal's wet dream. He is a good, moderate Democrat who liberals agree with on some issues but disagree with on little things like immigration and deficit spending. As the NY Times article about this mentions,

Mr. Dorgan has grown increasingly pessimistic about his prospects for re-election in recent weeks as he traveled around the state and met with constituents and he did not hide his sentiment that the Congress and the Obama administration erred in putting too much emphasis on the health care overhaul and not enough on job-creating economic programs.

And did I mention that he's a "budget scold"?:

"We need to reform our financial system to make sure that which happened to cause this deep recession will not happen again. And we need to get our fiscal and budget policies under control. The federal budget deficits are not sustainable."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/05/822250/-Dorgan:-When-you-screw-over-your-friends-they-go-home


Hoeven is now North Dakota's junior Senator.

[RC]

120. Hoeven announced his candidacy After Dorgan said he would not run

It was well known in ND that Hoeven would only run if Dorgan didn't. Hoeven is an empty suit in any case.
My information came from the local papers at the time and people in the know that you had no access to.
ND is a red state, so of course a (D) would trail in early polling. Early polling? You should know that means nothing.

I was paying attention to this as it was happening because I was living there at the time, you were not. Your link to the Ledger is a simple AP boiler plate press release printed in all the 'major' ND newspapers as the official announcement. You can't read much into it.

Enough of this. I told you I lived in North Dakota for 45 years. I know more about what is going on there than you can possibly know.
All you have is Internet links and not everything makes the internet.

[Carolina]

127. Excellent rebuttal, RC

to the I love Obama lists of links folks.

I ask anyone: how has your life, your situation, improved since January 2009? Oh, maybe you can cover your adult children (up to each 26) on your health insurnace. Whoopee... if YOU have/can afford insurance. But insurance AIN'T health care.

He's proven to be a disappointing, empty suit. Talks okay, though I can no longer stand to listen to the campaign season populist BS. And sure he's better than the repukes running againat him, but hell that sure is damning, isn't it?!

[OnyxCollie]

62. Here's a few things he has done.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE & and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading & Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Part I

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
...

President Obama protected the high-level officials who ordered this.

[Cigar11]

67. Well it all depends on what you categorize as pretty talk;

If you’re a Presidential Candidate, who openly calls anyone who you’ve have never met personally, lazy, alien, and all the flattery statements coming from the GOP and it’s candidates … don’t be surprised if their Fan Base shrinks and they don’t Vote for you.

Yep; I guess anyone who doesn’t openly disrespect American Citizens, can be called a Pretty Talker. Maybe the GOP should try it, before their world completely shrinks to nothing?

[Ian David]

19. He still hasn't given me my unicorn that farts glitter!

[Marazinia]

42. If that unicorn doesn't lose some weight

they're going to drop its health coverage!

[SkyDaddy7]

20. I too am a cheerleader!!

Thanks for posting...But you do know none of this matters because Obama did not throw away his entire Presidency on trying to prosecute a former POTUS & VPOTUS.

[hulka38]

116. All he had to do was get out of Spain's way.

How risky is that? How much presidential power would have to be diverted for that?

[pnorman]

21. Thanks for that list!

n/t

[Tx4obama]

26. You're welcome! :)

Spread it around to everyone you know :)

[Vattel]

22. I could list what I regard as his many failures,

but what's the point? Militarism, killing innocent bystanders in war, the war in Afghanistan, usurpation of Congress's war powers to go to war in Libya, underming the rule of law, the prosecution of Drake, excessive border enforcement, attacking civil liberties, opposing marriage equality, postponing ozone standards, inadequate funding for PEPFAR--each of these deserves serious discussion of a sort that a thread like this will not generate. So let me just note that in almost all of the areas listed, Obama has not failed because he had to deal with Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress. He failed because his own agenda, IMHO, sucks.

[the other one]

23. Never was excited in the first place

He was my last choice among Democratic candidates.
I think President Obama is not candidate Obama, but I saw through that anyway.
Change you have to believe in, because it's not going to happen in real life.

I admit he has gotten some stuff done, but most of it doesn't affect me.

He has consistently re-nominated Bush holdovers to federal agencies. Explain that one.
He likes to pre-emptively bargain away his position, arguing for what he thinks is reasonable instead of what we know is right.

Call me greedy but I wanted a president who would address the drug war like a grown up, and who would fight for Universal Health care. I got zero on both counts.

He is better than a Republican. Hooray.

[Tx4obama]

28. Oh really?

If you are female, or gay, or a member of the military, or a senior citizen, or a person with heath issues, or a student, or a consumer, etc ...
then much of what President Obama has done will affect you.

Perhaps it would be in your best interest to delve deeper into the FACTS of what President Obama has accomplished to SEE exactly what he HAS done that will benefit you.

Have a nice week.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Did we ever have a "viable" candidate who embraced Universal Health Care?

:shrug:

[jeff47]

100. Yes. Candidate Obama.

He strongly supported universal health care via a public option.

President Obama, not so much.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. "Strongly"? Define "strongly". Obviously, the public option wasn't a deal breaker.

So, I take your "opinion" with a HUGE grain of salt. I'm sure the 40 million who will be insured after 2013, really give a crap what you think. :hi:

[jeff47]

121. According to Candidate Obama, it was critical. President Obama? Not so much.

Is the idea that someone would say one thing in a campaign in order to get elected then do something else so foreign to you? Happens all the time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. So does hyperbole. Talk to Max Baucus, and get back to me.

:hi:

[jeff47]

130. Ah yes. More buck-passing.

It can't possibly be Obama's fault. After all, he's only President. And had just won by a large margin. He had no way to influence his party at all, so it was brilliant to let Congress dither for a year.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. Apparently, he didn't have "influence" on the blue dogs. Who does?

They're basically Republicans. They can't be kicked out of the party for not rubberstamping their president, so what to do? If the president could kick out members who disagree with him, wouldn't that apply to Dennis Kucinich as well? :shrug:

[jeff47]

132. Funny thing. After turning health care reform over to the blue dogs for a year,

they didn't feel like they had to listen to him. Odd huh?

It's too bad there was no other possible way to handle the situation. Like bringing (most) of the stakeholders together and hashing something out in about 6 weeks.

Oh wait! That's what the White House finally did! After first giving plenty of time for blue dogs to become 'concerned' about 'death panels' and all the other BS that greatly weakened the bill.

But we can't talk about that. It wouldn't be entirely Congress's fault anymore.

With less snark: The blue dogs were a problem, but the White House strategy maximized that problem. And the massive stall from Rham's fear of getting "Clintoned" on health care ended the White House's chance for major policy changes.

[Tarheel_Dem]

135. And if my Aunt Mary had a penis, she'd be my Uncle.

In hindsight, everything is 20/20. The president is constitutionally responsible for one branch of government. He is the leader of the Democratic party, not the Congress. Also, while we're placing blame for the lack of a public option, why don't we blame Congressional loudmouths like Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders in the Senate, for having absolutely no "influence" over the chambers in which they serve.

Funny how you have no problem laying all the blame at the steps of the WH, but are reluctant to acknowledge that forces on our own team were scared shitless of the Tea Party, whom the media gave free 24/7 advertising just because they opposed healthcare reform.

What I find odd is that the talking points from Obama's critics, on both the left & the right, seem strikingly similar. Why is that? :shrug:

[mahina]

25. Love you brother.

Thanks for that, you made me smile.

I heard a good chant the other day:

"What do we want? Incremental change made with the understanding that the Presidency is a co-equal branch of government and we have to work with the system that we have!"

"When do we want it? Pretty soon!"

I keed, I keed. I wish a million things had gone differently but am grateful for our President and ask Akua to protect him and the family every day.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. I love the chant

I think I'll use that at the next centrist rally I attend. ;)

[Kolesar]

27. Climate protection policy through the EPA

including higher fuel economy standards for automobiles

[lbrtbell]

30. Here's why I'm not a cheerleader

1. When progressive Dems finally developed a spine and began to fight the blue dogs on the subject of health care reform, Obama sided with the blue dogs. Health care would not have been nearly so watered down, had Obama himself not seen to it that it was done.

2. He has always sought advice from DINOs like Rahm "Liberals are retards" Emmanuel, and actual Republicans.

3. He is not a progressive. He is not even a moderate. He is a neo-liberal. BIG difference. Read about neo-liberalism and learn.

4. He never talks about, let alone tries to help, people who are unable to work (seniors, the disabled). His attitude was summed up quite neatly early in his term, when he compared his bowling skills to the Special Olympics.

5. On a daily basis, many more reasons are posted, as to how Obama has thrown the center-left and left under the bus. If you need me, or anyone else to re-list these reasons for you, may I respectfully suggest a remedial reading teacher.

6. Every single link you posted is biased toward Obama, not giving fair and equal time to the many things he has failed to do...not because of obstructionism, but because of holding back the Dems who wanted to do the right thing.


Yes, another Obama term is better than a Republican president. But that's not reason for cheerleading. If you can afford to be a cheerleader, congratulations--you have clearly not been hit by the realities of his policies.

However, that doesn't give you the right to mock those of us who have been adversely affected. We are hurting. Stop kicking us while we're down.

[Tx4obama]

32. Regarding your comment ...

1) Obama got what he knew he could get passed in Congress.
2) That is NOT true. And 'you lied' Rahm did NOT say that. Rahm said the 'STRATEGY' the dems was proposing was 'retarded' he NEVER called anyone 'retarded'.
3) False - you didn't state any evidence for your argument.
4) President Obama HAS signed several bill and executive orders that HELP the unemployed, seniors, the disabled, and veterans.

as for the rest of what you said ... bullshit.............


If you want to disregard all the GOOD things that President Obama has done - that is your choice to do so ... but you are dismissing the FACTS and FACTS are FACTS and FACTS will stand the test of time and in the end Obama will be judged by history and history will judge President Obama as one of the BEST Presidents in the History of The United States of America :)

Have a nice week ;)

[pecwae]

33. ++ and amen. nt

[Kolesar]

49. "may I respectfully suggest a remedial reading teacher."

Snotty

[sunwyn]

31. He is continuing the Bush admins policy on rendition and torture as well

as the renewal of the Patriot Act give me pause. I pounded the pavement for this guy, made phone calls, gave most of my last paycheck( been unemployed for 4 years and spent ALL my time on getting President Obama elected). The continuing war on marijuana, while minor compared to the previous reasons,also give me pause.

[Cigar11]

35. You do have choices ...

pick one and support your choice.

[sunwyn]

41. What choices are you suggesting? Voting rethug will never happen with me.

[Cigar11]

47. That’s why we have one voter, one vote.

I suggest you vote for the individual who best suits your particular needs and concerns … and stand by that vote.

After every Election, there’s a Winner and a Loser, always has been, always will be.

[pmorlan1]

36. Cheerleader?

cheer·lead·er (chîrldr)
n.
1. One who leads the cheering of spectators, as at a sports contest.
2. One who expresses or promotes thoughtless praise; an adulator.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheerleader

cheer·lead (chîrld)
intr.v. cheer·led (-ld), cheer·lead·ing, cheer·leads
1. To lead organized cheering, as at sports events.
2. To express or promote automatic or servile praise: We want someone not just to cheerlead but to help us revamp our organization.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheerleading

cheer·lead·er< chr ldər >To hear the pronunciation, install Silverlight
cheer·lead·ers Plural
NOUN
1.
performer who makes crowd cheer: a member of a group of uniformed performers who encourage the crowd to support a team at sports events
2.
uncritical enthusiast: an uncritically enthusiastic supporter ( informal disapproving )

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/Search?q=define+cheerleader

[LWolf]

38. Is your question sincere? Do you really want to know?

Do you really care?

[jeff47]

97. If you look at the OP's replies throughout this thread, the answer is clearly no.

It's just another list, intended to shout down anyone with complaints.

[LWolf]

115. I thought that might be it. :( nt

[alc]

39. transparency

"Proposed Change to FOIA Would Allow Federal Government to Lie to the Public"
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9080043/proposed_change_to_foia_would_allow.html

For me, "trust" the they most important attribute. Once that's gone, I don't care what they tell me they have done, are doing, or plan to do.

[Cigar11]

40. You’ll never make everyone happy,

and that is NOT the primary responsibility of a Leader. The fact that President Obama got anything done with the Do-Nothing Support from both sides is a complete surprise and victory in my eyes. I say, screw the effort for reelection and just Lead as the Current President, and if the electorate prefers to fall back to the alternative, then so be it. Presidents are covered for life.

[Township75]

44. I don't disagree. You likely are a huge cheerleader for Obama.

.

[Enrique]

45. because the unemployment rate is still a disaster

and Obamas deficit reduction focus will make it worse.

[ejbr]

48. I'll give you two reasons:

Geitner and Sumner.

[Puglover]

50. Thanks for your OP.

It made me realize something. It's not so much Obama I have a huge problem with. He's a politician. A thousand times better then Bush. Realistically the US is never going to elect a progressive. Sadly we are too divided. He has done some great things and frankly he also does things that suck.

You see back in HS I was never very fond of the Cheerleading Squad. As someone defined upthread "uncritical praise" simply isn't my style. I don't expect it nor do I hand it out. And when folks expect me to engage I really kick back. As do many others on his website. I guess I respect your right to "cheerlead" Please however, do not infer or tell me that I am a lesser Democrat then yourself because I do not.

On edit:

I LOVED Paul Wellstone. I told him to his face that his vote on DOMA sucked and he really sold out. And he agreed. My point? I loved the man but he wasn't above criticism.

[Enrique]

56. "we are never going to elect a progressive"

where did that rule come from? This is possibly the most damaging thing about the Obama presidency, it's that it makes people think Obama is the most progressive president we can possibly have. Huge mistake.

[Puglover]

59. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I would LOVE to have a progressive for a president and would happily work for one. However, I don't have alot of faith in the voters. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[jeff47]

98. It's not putting words in your mouth when you are being quoted. (nt)

[Puglover]

110. I was referring to the poster using the word

"rule" referring to my post. Nowhere did I say it was a rule. But that blew right past you didn't it?

[jeff47]

122. What exactly does this mean then, if you are not stating a rule?

"Realistically the US is never going to elect a progressive."

Sounds an awful lot like a rule.

[Puglover]

125. Yeah Jeff

Buh bye Jeff

<ignore>

[mstinamotorcity]

51. Can you hear me cheering

one, two, three, four, who are we for, President Obama. Why? Because its the Right thing to Do.

[Sheepshank]

53. I asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago,

I was serious in that I wondered if maybe I was missing something. I was asking if there was a convincing arguement to abandon the Obama camp. Basically, there was nothing that was convincing enough. There was nothing posted that would lead me to believe he would be the wrong choice for the USA in 2012.

I stand with and cheer for Obama.

[Enrique]

57. there's a middle ground, you know

between cheerleading and abandoning. Like being a normal voter with a brain, and using it.

[Sheepshank]

64. Are you saying I'm without a brain?

Does cheerleader imply to you mindless following?

Interesting. It's not how I see cheerleader. Glass 1/2 full is where I'm at. A focus on the positive.

[Vattel]

103. Of course he's not the wrong chocie.

The lesser of two evils never is.

[Pisces]

60. I'm with you +1000!!!!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

66. I'll let this guy speak for my disappointment:

EFCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU


NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1


Transparency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU


Cadillac Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded


Support for Striking Workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o


Raise the Payroll Tax Cap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pw0cFRTLE


Labeling GMO Foods & Country of Origin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaaB6NE1TI&feature=player_embedded


Social Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3O_ZoCyCbQ


Public Option & Mandates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk


Restore America’s Honor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah


Entering the Civil War in Libya
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007



Please direct negative comments to the man in these video clips.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Safetykitten]

68. I had no idea.

[vi5]

70. He has entrenched far too many right wing narratives...

By buying into them, paying lip service to them, acting as though they are true, he has now given bipartisan cover to far too many right wing tropes on defense, the military, government secrets, executive power, tax cuts, government regulation, social security, etc. So much so that we will literally spend decades trying to reverse the rightward direction of discourse that he has enabled (he's not the first, Clinton didn't really help the case either but he had nothing on what Obama has done).

I'm not going to go into each one or the ways in which he has done this since if you are a "huge cheerleader" then nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. You asked what others thought if we disagreed and we're telling you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. I'm right there with you, because I'm an adult. And I understand that I can't have everything I....

want right now. But, given another four years, where the president doesn't have the constraints of seeking reelection, I expect many more things to be added to the already unbelievable list of accomplishments. :hi:

[Johnny2X2X]

73. Favorite

One fact that is completely being ignored in the media, especially the right wing media. Obama is a fairly strong favorite to win reelection in 2012.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

75. Ask a question, and see links provided by OP to get some answers.....

I don't believe that the OP is blindly doing anything....
that's simply a convenient interpretation in order not
to have to click on the links to see why he/she supports
this President.

[great white snark]

77. I too cheer for his success and am grateful for his successes.

4 more years!

:bounce: :kick: :bounce:

[kjackson227]

82. I used to be called one of the main cheerleaders here...

I am still a President Barack Obama cheerleader, and I wear the label proudly. :)

[CakeGrrl]

85. I'm with you. Rec!

It's unfortunate to hear some people say that maybe he does need to be defeated so that others who think they're just in another GOP presidency will finally grasp the vast differences, but to hell with that.

Obama 2012!

[great white snark]

93. Hear hear! Any extended Democratic down time would do us all in.

There's a reason we are the longest running political organization in the world, and it's not because we listen to the scorched earth advocates.

[JoePhilly]

91. Most Presidents have been known for doing either something

domestic, or something important on foreign policy.

Obama prevented a total economic collapse, AND has had huge foreign policy successes.

Very few Presidents have done as much in both categories.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. And in such a short time, to boot.

:thumbsup:

[victoryparty]

95. Policy on Medical Cannabis in CA

Obama has not kept his word on allowing medical cannabis without federal interference in California.

He needs to take the logical step and move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II. Long overdue, and Obama should be the man to do it. ASAP.

Why he doesn't do the right thing on medical cannabis is inexplicable. Of the GOP hopefuls, at least Ron Paul and Gary Johnson would take a sane approach to cannabis/marijuana in the USA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. I may not be the cheerleader that you are, but I'm right there with you!!! n/t

[SomethingFishy]

99. Well, I'll be voting for Obama but holding my nose while I do it

Why?

Wars.
Drone Attacks.
Constitutional Violations.
Horrible foolish appointments.
Capitulation to Republicans.
Bailouts
Marijuana Policy.
Attacks on Unions.
Attacks on Education
Attacks on Medicare and Social Security, and don't tell me they aren't going to happen, the only question is how bad is it going to be.

There are many other policy decisions I don't agree with but the biggest thing is the attitude. The attitude of the Obama administration and it's "cheerleaders" as you call yourself, who seem to think that anyone's legitimate grievances are just the product of whiners. If I wanted to be berated because I disagree with something the party does I would have been a Republican.

Food on the table, a roof over our heads, health care for my family, Social Security, Medicare, these are not "ponies" they are legitimate issues that need to be dealt with on a reasonable level with people who don't live in some Washington Bubble. I get tired of being called a racist and a hater because I don't like it when Democrats promote policies that hurt me and my family.

[CakeGrrl]

104. "Constitutional Violations?"

So, do you think the GOP is lax in identifying these?

Because to my mind, if they had the flimsiest of excuses to impeach this President in their single-minded quest to make him a one-termer, they'd seize it.

Otherwise, how do you propose that a Dem President deal with Congress on a "reasonable level" comprised as it is of a significant number of Tea Party-driven Republicans?

[SomethingFishy]

106. Excuse me? Ok, first of all I said I would vote for Obama.

That's number one so get off your high horse.

Number two. Constitutional Violations. Obama had an American citizen killed without presenting any evidence, without a trial, without the basic right to face his accusers in a court of law. One of the most basic rights given to an American citizen. And he did it out in the open flaunting his distain for the rights given to each citizen in the Constitution. Was he a bad guy? Did he deserve to die? I don't fucking know, all I have is the word of the government that they did the right thing. And their word isn't worth shit.

Now this was the last question you asked me:

Otherwise, how do you propose that a Dem President deal with Congress on a "reasonable level" comprised as it is of a significant number of Tea Party-driven Republicans?

My answer would be they can't because most of them are really Republicans themselves.

[slackmaster]

102. I couldn't have any rational reason to disagree with your self-assessment

That would be metaphysically absurd.

[Sherman A1]

105. You are certainly entitled to your opinion

I do not share your enthusiasm or your viewpoint, however please do not let me in any way interfere with your line of thinking.

[GSLevel9]

108. yeh, whatever... nt

[Number23]

109. Rec'd. That's a damn good set of "Teh Lists" you've got there

Between your politifact and Obama achievement lists alone, you've highlighted over 100 different areas where the president has succeeded or done exceptionally well.

Contrast that to the couple of people in this thread who are determined to negate your 100+ items of achievement with their 6 or 7 items of underachievement (by their standards at least) and it's not too hard to see why your OP (and this president) are doing as well as they are.

[slipslidingaway]

111. See post # 66 - maybe the original poster will reply to those who have taken the time to respond...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=809210&mesg_id=809437

And from March 2009 ...

As Obama Hosts Summit on Healthcare, Marginalized Advocates Ask Why Single Payer Is Ignored
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/6/as_obama_hosts_summit_on_health

"President Obama hosted a White House summit Thursday on reforming healthcare. While President Obama said every idea must be considered, the idea of creating a single-payer national health insurance program appears to have already been rejected. We speak to Harper’s senior editor Luke Mitchell, author of the article "Sick in the Head: Why America Won’t Get the Health-Care System It Needs."

[jeff47]

123. Did you read any of the OP's replies? The OP isn't interested in any sort of discussion. (nt)

[slipslidingaway]

133. Only a few, but asked the OP in another thread last night about responding ...

to people on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2226537&mesg_id=2226631

[love0bama-4ever]

114. Count me In! I absolutely ADORE this President of ours!

he will come down in history as something great, something AWESOM! Our First Black President, wE lOVE u oBAMAAA, oH yES, WE dOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZombieHorde]

118. I disagree.

I think you are only a moderate cheerleader for President Obama.

Reason #1 Your user name: Tx4obama. The Tx is before the obama, so this places the emphasis on Tx. Your user name is definitely supportive, but not HUGE support.

Reason #2 You didn't create any cool Obama art. HUGE Obama cheerleaders create art to attract people, such as that cool "HOPE" poster.

Reason #3 You don't create threads in the Barack Obama Group. HUGE cheerleaders for President Obama create occasional threads in that group.

I await your rebuttal.

[donheld]

124. I too agree, you are a huge cheerleader.

Kind of like a Broncos cheerleader.

[MNBrewer]

128. Definitely, a HUGE cheerleader. No doubt about it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

134. My main gripe

He should have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. He could have nabbed Osama Bin Ladin straight after the inauguration which would have been more significant. The capturing of UBL was like a damp squib. He shouldn't have been a pal of the Republicans.

[Norrin Radd]

136. I've seen lots of paintings of President Obama riding unicorns on the web:

http://rjart.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-and-unicorns.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS410US410&q=obama+unicorn&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1198l1905l0l2778l5l5l0l0l0l2l223l881l0.2.3l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1067&bih=471&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi