It is painful to face the reality that we have a center-right President with only a far right altern

[Douglas Carpenter]

alternative.

In fact far right are very mild words to describe the only available alternative. Most likely the Republican nominee will be an apocalyptic extremist that would make George W. Bush look like a liberal. Most likely the alternative is someone who is determined to completely undo what little remains of the New Deal. Most likely the only actual alternative will be someone who subscribes to a foreign policy that would put America into a level of permanent war and conflict never before seen in our history leading to genuinely chilling consequences and further breaking the budget and making future progressive initiatives completely out of reach and perhaps even impossible for at least a generation to come.

It is also painful to face that reality that not only is Obama no progressive - the political situation is configured in such a way that it is not even plausible to see any progressive elected now or at any time in the near future. Yes it probably is true that Obama is about as good as it gets - at least for now and in the foreseeable future. This is why I'm certainly not someone to advocate primarying the President. Because I'm reasonably certain that the results of such an effort will not produce a more progressive alternative and may very likely only set the stage for a Rick Perry presidency or some other tea-party, right-wing fundamentalist approved reactionary. This is something with perhaps even more dire consequences that how a Ted Kennedy primary campaign weakened President Carter and set the stage for the dark and sinister forces of Reaganism to not only win the Presidency but to dominate the political scene for at least a generation – even pushing the Democratic Party way to the right. I would not want to risk repeating any error of judgment that might have even more desperate long term consequences.

I'm not terribly disappointed in President Obama because it is pretty much what I expected. Wall Street interest and the corporate-controlled mainstream media would never, never, never have talked Obama up so much if they were not certain that he would have their backs. Then again, Wall Street interest and the corporate-controlled mainstream media would never, never, never have refrained from marginalizing any candidate or potential candidate even a shade more economically progressive than Obama. But I knew this at the time and feel sorry for all of those who actually believed all this "Hope and Change" nonsense.

Yes I know the Obama Administration has done this and that and this and that progressive sounding actions that are things that no Republican President of these days would do. But this does not a progressive make. This is not the New Deal or the Great Society nor is it in any way shape or form a step in that direction. On economic matters these are positions that pre-Reagan Republicans would have simply viewed as being reasonable and responsible. To represent this as proof of a progressive administration simply demonstrates just how far to the right the paradigm has shifted.

Yes it is true that there are no progressive alternatives to Obama. Yes it is true that the only actual alternative capable of winning and running a government are forces so reactionary that they are truly chilling to the bone. I absolutely agree without the slightest reservation that we must all do everything we can to block these dark forces from having any chance of gaining control of the White House. No one has to convince me that the alternative to Obama is worse – much, much worse. The stakes are simply too high.

But President Obama DID have the opportunity in the wake of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown and in the wake of an overwhelming election mandate for change to move the country in a genuinely more progressive direction and shift the paradigm and broaden the range of alternatives rather than simply to accept a less reactionary direction. Ronald Reagan didn’t even need a Republican controlled Congress to redefine the political directions of the country for a whole generation to come. He seized the moment for the forces of reaction and did so boldly and without apologies. Got to give it to Reagan, even with a Democratic controlled Congress he went on the limb for his agenda attacking the Democrats for causing the economic problems and openly accused them of thwarting the will of the people. But that was a President who actually believed in something. Even if what he believed in was terribly wrong. President Obama had an opportunity not too differently that the opportunity Ronald Reagan had on the other end of the spectrum – an opportunity that may not come again for another thirty years. Here it was - a chance to seize the day and change the course of history offered to him on a silver platter. He could have done it. But he didn't do it. He didn't even try to do it. He didn't want to do it.


.

[rdking647]

1. anyone that thinks Obama is center right is fooling themselves

[B Calm]

3. You got that right, he's a full fledged republican!

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Obama's to the right of most Republicans on many major issues

Social Security, Medicare, ending the wars, etc.

[rdking647]

13. bullshit

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Which part do you dispute?

That Obama is in favor of slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and of promptly ending our wars, or that Republicans generally hold the opposite position?

[rdking647]

25. show me where he is to the right on the GOP

on social security or medicare or medicaid to start

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Can we agree that he's in favor of cutting all three programs? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Correction, he is to the right of most Americans

not that the citizens realize how right the system, as in the political system, has moved...

[BzaDem]

88. Oh yeah, Obama wants to privatize Social Security (Bush 2005), privatize Medicare (Ryan 2011), block

grant Medicaid (Ryan 2011), and then appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will rule all three unconstitutional for the next generation (Perry 2011).

:sarcasm:

I thought we were supposed to be in favor of facts and accuracy. So much for that.

[rdking647]

7. just because someone isnt far left

that doesnt make him a righty..
The FACT is Obama is slightly left of center... maybe even more than slightly

the center is what the avaerage american is... and the average american is not a progressive no matter how much you hope

[B Calm]

16. Then why is he creating more FREE TRADE DEALS, supporting NUCLEAR POWER

plants,etc etc.??

[rdking647]

27. being pro nukes doesnt make one a righty

Im pro nukes. and im not a righty... Im just not far left

[B Calm]

34. So you also support free trade deals too?? and what about tariffs?

tax cuts to wealthy tax invaders?

[me b zola]

87. The hole in Japan's floor hasn't reached China yet

...so yeah, nuke power can't be that bad. /sarc

BTW, when will Fukishima be contained? It doesn't get a lot of media coverage cause of all the lobbyists, but it is still un-contained. Unless of course you believe that burning its way to China is a containment policy.

[trud]

61. supporting nuclear power is our only hope against global warming

and no one is more left than me. The difference between me and most of the left on this issue is that I'm a retired physicist and don't get my information about nuclear power from Grade B 1950s movies and run around in hysterics.

[StarsInHerHair]

63. REALLY? so when France had that heatwave & had to shut down its' reactors...

how is that NOT a general preview of what is to come? I mean Climate Change in general, which seems to indicate only seasonal use of nuke reactors-during the winter. Summer temps may too often be too high-like it was in that heatwave that killed some 15,000 people in France. So HOW do you suppose nuke reactors would function in heatwaves?

[yardwork]

17. Actually, survey after survey proves that a large majority of Americans are socialists

We just don't hear about this because the corporations own the media and the message. Many Americans themselves don't realize how progressive their views are - large majorities of Americans want to see higher taxes on the wealthy, more protections for workers, more environmental protections, etc.

The average American is quite far to the left of the Democratic Party's policies. You'll never hear that, though.

[Selatius]

18. I believe a number of posters are using the universal political spectrum, not just the US one.

By that, I mean they're looking at the whole range of options in terms of viewpoints and political parties. In most democratic republics, Obama probably would come across as a center-right kind of person. In contrast, someone like Dennis Kucinich would fit in well with center-leftists found among the Social Democrats. Another example would be Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. Of course, he'd fit in well with, say, France's Socialist Party or Spain's Socialist Party.

Given the whole spectrum of political thought out there, it's fairly understandable that one would call Obama a center-rightist when trying to describe his economic policies to an international audience, such as our European expatriates who post on DU or our Canadian neighbors to the north, some of whom also post here on DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Define left... truly define left

your caricature of far left I am guessing is not.

And trust me... I have known some real breathing commies in my lifetime...

[MissDeeds]

29. +1000

And yet we're supposed to jump on board and support his nomination so we can have more of this. "The Republican alternative would be worse" defense isn't working. They are two sides of the same coin.

:grr:

[Harmony Blue]

5. I am not sure what you mean?

Could you clarify please?

[RC]

35. So where is he then?

He sure is not Left of center and most assuredly he not a Liberal.

[Odin2005]

37. Anyone who thinks he is NOT is fooling themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. And anybody who does not get it

that the Dems are a center right party and the Republicans are crazee right has not been paying attention.

Of course you need to step outside the US to understand this... sadly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. well exactly,..perhaps if I had not lived abroad I might not get it myself, I don't know

But words have to have a meaning other than just relativity or else someone could argue that Franco was center-left by fascist standards.

Of course today's Democratic Party is center-right not only by international standards - but particularly on economics it is center-right by mid 20th Century American standards. Those who deny this just don't know very much about the world or perhaps are too young remember America before Ronald Reagan.

But I will be the first to agree that even today's corporate-controlled center-right Democratic Party lead by President Obama and previously lead by President Clinton is far, far less dangerous and irresponsible than the lunatic extreme right that now completely dominates today's Republican Party. That is the frustration. A morally responsible progressive of today has no choice but to back this center-right President and this center-right Democratic Party when the choice is an apocalyptic-lunatic cult masquerading as the Republican Party. The stakes are simply too high. The world is simply too dangerous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Exactly, that does not mean that I will give money

to this President for this run. He can raise it from the corporate structure. We have been here before... the gilded, age, where BOTH parties were bidness friendly. Of course the modern Republican party is pre civil war in some aspects, and i mean Calhoun pre civil war... but I do not expect a lot of people to get that either

[krabigirl]

59. he is pretty much a neoconservative.

[Puglover]

2. This was a great post.

And an even better OP. Happy to recommend!

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. The last center-leftist president was....?

21% of the country self-identifies as liberals.

There aren't enough of us. It's coalition government or permanent minority.

There is no tertium quid.

[rdking647]

8. bill clinton

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Financial deregulation...and the end of Glass Steagal.

Telcom deregulation -- and media consolidation.
Welfare reform.
DOMA
DADT

I'll think of more...

Health care reform based on employers, not single-payer. No public option. And pulled from the Senate floor before even coming to a vote, because it was going to fail.

Undeclared war in the Balkans

Somehow forgot NAFTA....

[rdking647]

21. abortions on overseas bases

reversed gag order on family planning
DADT as opposed to no gays allowed
1st president to appoint openly gay people
in favor of cap and trade and signed kyoto protocol
debt relief to african countries

[Davis_X_Machina]

32. Half-measures...

...gestures, tokenism -- the very thing we excoriate Obama for.

If Clinton had not been impeached, his stock among the left would be the lowest of any Democratic president in the 20th century, Wilson possibly excepted.

He was fortunate in his enemies.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. But most Americans hold the Liberal position on most all major issues

Minimum wage, war, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, world-class healthcare financing, etc.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Right up until they vote...

...and then they vote the other way.

Politics is about policies for people who post on the internet. Not actual voters.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. If Medicare for All had been implemented instead of ObamaRomneyCare, how

do you think Democrats would be faring in the polls?

[Davis_X_Machina]

28. If water boiled at 350º, I'd need different, better anti-freeze.

But it doesn't. So I don't.

Medicare for all had, according to Ted Kennedy, who knew how to do a whip count, no chance of passage through the Senate.

[Fumesucker]

54. The purpose of anti-freeze is also to raise the boiling point of water..

So no, if water boiled at 350F the job of your antifreeze would be easier..

If you're going to make an analogy it's a good idea to use one that makes sense.

[rdking647]

31. medicare for all

had no chance of passage...

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Actually, Medicare buy-in for 55-64 had more than 50 Senate votes

enough for passage through reconciliation.

Then suddenly it was off the table.

[Davis_X_Machina]

38. More than 50...

...but less than 60. If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our nets.

And water still freezes at 32º.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Umm... how many votes did ObamaRomneyCare pass with?

Look up "reconciliation".

[Davis_X_Machina]

42. Three stakeholders...

...the doctors (AMA), the insurance industry (AHIP), and the hospitals (AHA) were all opposed to the expansion. All groups who were behind what eventually passed.

If it hadn't been killed out of spite by Joe Lieberman, Medicare expansion -- not even Medicare for all -- would have died a natural death -- like Clinton's 1994 plan, withdrawn without even coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. It wasn't killed by Lieberman.

Why is it that "we need 60 votes" only counts for plans that Obama bargained away in secret back rooom deals, and not to ObamaRomneyCare?

[dionysus]

46. you're being dishonest if you're claiming medicare for all could have gotten out of comittee.

you're not entitled to make up facts manny.

[laundry_queen]

66. Because they are brainwashed ffs!

The american populace is brainwashed. They fundamentally hold liberal positions on the issues. Yet they refuse to self identify as a liberal. And they consistently vote the other way. Why? Because someone is telling them it's in their best interest. Who would that be? Media.

Here's an interesting quote I heard today on some program about psychopaths and cult leaders and how they get their followers to discount everything they know to be true and then accept a falsehood as the truth. I couldn't help but note how it relates to media and government today. This is how some researchers determined that cult leaders are able to 'trick' the brain into turning their 'truth' switch off:

"Start a false argument or statement. Then produce a tremendous distraction - something that is totally off the wall so that the person does not have a chance to refute it - and they are likely to take that falsehood and accept it as truth." It was proven over and over again in experiments.

They KNOW how to manipulate your thought patterns. Tell me that isn't what has been happening over and over again for the last 30 years? Jesus, I see it here at DU where 3 years ago there's no fucking way I thought I'd see people defending anyone who even so much as *thought* about messing with Medicare and Social Security. You've been had.

[joshcryer]

74. No, the American population doesn't get candidates that they want.

So they are forced for vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Harmony Blue]

22. Correct

This is what baffles me the most.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. When the Civil War is finally over...

..this will eventually change. I'd say give it another 150 years, and check back with me.

[B Calm]

52. Richard Nixon

[dkf]

9. Government payments as a percent of national income hit a record high...18.3 %

Wages as percentage of income at low
Published: April 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM
WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI) -- Financial analysis conducted by USA Today found that U.S. wages as a percentage of personal income fell to the lowest point in 82 years in 2010.

Wages made up 51 percent of personal income last year, while government payments hit a record 18.3 percent, as unemployment benefits, rising healthcare costs and a sluggish economy pushed the figure higher, the newspaper said.

In February 2011, wages fell to a record 50.5 percent of personal income, but government payments have leveled off at an annual rate of $2.3 trillion.

Government aid came out to an average of $7,427 per citizen last year, more than double the $3,686 average from 1990 with figures adjusted for inflation.

http://m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-88881303845601/

Why don't you give him some credit for expanding the safety net as far as the repubs would let him.

[Selatius]

10. I hate to say, but you really can't enact anything but center-right policies with this Congress.

Even when Obama had majorities in the Senate and House, quite a few of those Democrats were worthless. They were right-wingers with Ds behind their names. A good example is that they did not want to have a health insurance bill passed with a Public Option in it. It was deleted, so the only thing left was a private insurance mandate with subsidies for poor people, basically a plan that broadly resembled Nixon's proposal and Bob Dole's.

Obama did not have FDR's New Deal Coalition in Congress. That Coalition died in the 1960s.

[BeFree]

14. Change the course of America? Hah

So you too are a dreamer, eh?

If Obama ever was a dreamer he was shocked awake when they sat him down and told him all the bad shit they could actually do if they were told to make changes that were not profitable.

Than, too, is the FACT that Obama looked around and saw he was way out on a limb and the Left was handing the repuglycans a saw they would use to cut off said limb.

And they do own the voting machines.

I don't blame Obama at all for being as under the radar as he is.

But then the country is still going over the cliff, so like, whatever, dude.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I guess he lied to us. Big surprise.

[Honeycombe8]

24. If he were center right, he'd be leading in the polls. He's center left.

To far lefters, the left of center people seem like Republicans. But to Republicans, the left of center people seem like loony liberals. Which is how Obama is viewed by Republicans.

I think he's clearly left of center, but has followed some existing rightwing policies because of the economy (it's a once in a lifetime dire economy...we've been on the brink of a Great Recession for two or three years), because he's not strong and he's been pushed that way, and because he unfortunately thought that giving in to those policies would mean he'd have leverage to get his more liberal policies passed (he was wrong, which I hope he sees, now).

[B Calm]

51. This country has been taken so far right over the past 30 yrs

you actually think Obama is center left, LOL

[Honeycombe8]

68. Obama has been in office only 3 1/2 years. So the other 27 yrs you speak of...

those changes to the right were from Republicans and Clinton (Clinton is clearly a centrist, maybe right of center).

Obama is clearly left of center. Right of center people saw no need for health care reform, or a fair wage act for women, or protection for gays being admitted to the military ranks, or no protection for "man-woman" marriage act, or increasing the mpg for cars more than any President in history, or naming millions of acreage into national protection program, and on and on and on.

Those things are far left programs. So far left people and activists automatically group anyone who is not like them, as Republicans or to the right of the center. The far right people do the same thing, only in reverse.

But the truth is...Republicans see him as a far left liberal (which he's not), and far left Democrats see him as a Republican (which he's not). That in and of itself is proof that he is neither. He is a centrist, like Clinton, only he's left of center, while Clinton was right of center.

[orpupilofnature57]

73. F-ck what repukers see ,it's what did we send him there for ,not to be an ..

Agent for the NWO !

[Honeycombe8]

76. Facts are pesky things, aren't they? It's so much easier to cuss like a 16 year old.

That'll really win people over!

[orpupilofnature57]

80. Your right , Sorry

Clinton achieved many democratic agendas ,Family leave, the rich coming up with money the middle class joining the ranks of the rich, because of us being solvent in the world, the first discussion lame as it was about Gay rights, those are not the act of a man right of center.

[krabigirl]

60. it's left of center to be a warmonger now? really?

[Honeycombe8]

69. History will show that I am right. First, he's only a warmonger to far lefters....

To the far right, he's a wuss, letting Israel down and letting terrorists get over on Israel.

That in and of itself shows that he is neither far right nor far left.

The general consensus about Afghanistan, when Obama was campaigning, was that it was a legitimate war; it was Iraq that wasn't. That was Obama's position, that was my position, t hat was most Americans' position. That was one reason that Hillary Clinton lost...her view that Iraq was a just war.

Obama's position on that hasn't changed. But for most of American citizens, it has.

He has cont'd the plans for Iraq that he campaigned on. He has done re Afghanistan what he said he'd do, while campaigning.

The warmonger position is that the Iraq War was just.

[EFerrari]

64. That's backward. His polls are low because he ignored the left

on jobs for nearly three years.

[Honeycombe8]

70. The far left is a minority in the country. It is the middle that controls the polls...

that's where most Americans are...in the middle. Some to the left of middle, some to the right. But they're in the middle range.

He's low in the polls because of jobs. Not to the far left because of jobs. To EVERYONE because of jobs.

If you look at the posts in this forum, many are not angry because of jobs. It's a multitude of things...from "warmongering," to not prosecuting Cheney for war crimes, to not passing a single payer healthcare bill, to being weak, to you name it. But jobs is just one of many things the posters are angry about.

But for most Americans (independents, moderate Dems, moderate Repubs), it's jobs, jobs, jobs. If unemployment were lower, he'd be higher in the polls...because EVERYONE would be happier and more secure. As for far rightwingnuts, NOTHING Obama does or doesn't do will suffice; he will always be portrayed as evil and a far left loony liberal who's gotten hold of the country for his evil plans.

[EFerrari]

71. What I said was, he's low in the polls because he ignored the warnings

that the left (there is no far left in this country) tried to give him very early on. Not because the left controls anything.

[Honeycombe8]

75. Oh, sorry. But I don't recall any dire warnings about focusing on jobs from the left.

They were very much on board w/Obama's healthcare plans...focusing on that, I mean. Then the weak stimulus bill full of pork; the left was crazy about it.

No, it was the middle who warned him early on....now everyone, incl. the left, calls his healthcare plan "Obamacare." And the stimulus plan he passed...to this day few people think it did any good (I do, but it could've done much more, if it had been different, and didn't have the pork).

No, the left was focused on...healthcare reform, gay rights, raising taxes on the wealthy, education...and I think that's pretty much it. Not that those things aren't worthy. But we had a critical economic situation going on, with millions out of work.

Even now...read the posts in this forum. Complaints about Obama not authorizing this or that, or paying for this or that...because some people don't get the problem: millions of people suffering, out of work, which should be our top priority. We can't, right now, fully function like we have a healthy economy. Jobs are secondary to some people. Their pet programs/issues are more important (I have my own pet programs, too, I must admit).

[EFerrari]

79. Jobs was the focus of the State of the Black Union.

And, remember, there was another conference that deliberated how to best use the stimulus and Van Jones' was hyped for days because of his green jobs idea? With Biden and other government officials? And the left kept referring to the jobs program Obama had promised on the stump but of course that turned out to be hot air.

The next crisis was the foreclosure crisis and all the solutions offered by the left to keep people in their homes (and avoid the decimation of entire communities) were ignored then, too. That was a mistake and it will take us decades to rebuild from that.

Of course the left paid attention to the insurance industry bail out bill. They'd been working for health care reform for decades and weren't going to ignore that.

I agree that this should be the top priority. It should have been from "go".

[Honeycombe8]

85. I didn't know that. But I must say, I'm not surprised. It has turned out...

over time that the black members of Congress...and particularly the women...have turned out to be the bravest leaders we have. Saying what must be said at times when it's not popular. A big shout out for them.

I didn't even know there WAS a State of the Black Union speech. Was it aired on TV?

[treestar]

33. Those are the voters

I've talked to a few who consider Obama to be a "socialist."

[RC]

40. Of course, he is a far left wing extremist because he has a (D) by his name.

We still have way too many people, even here on DU, that think the (R) or (D) still means something.

The Borg have pretty much taken over. Resistance is mandatory, even in their mantra of resistance being futile.

[HughBeaumont]

39. K & R, sadly . . .

. . . yes, he's disappointing. I really really REALLY hate the fact that this President believes the faith-based Chi-School Bullshit-flavored Kool-Aid. I really, really, REALLY despise the fact that these MIC occupations aren't ending. This nation has long-standing problems that were made even wretchedly worse by the Failure Fuhrer, his rubberstamp congress and his corporate handlers.

But at the same time, and this is the bottom line of it all . . . is that I do not want this nation to become The United States of ChurchMerica. The thought of any single ONE of those fucked-up, hate-filled, insane whackjob-a-thons from the Regressive Party being addressed as "President" is enough to make me suck this whole Friedmanite mess up . . . and sadly . . . vote for this center-rightist shit-heap again.

America's menu (Republican, Fascist Loon, File 13) sucks, and America's Cancerous Wealthy are almost completely at fault for it sucking.

We don't stand up to them. No one does. They're running roughshod over this nation and it's workers and nobody goddamned cares even one BIT to stop them.

I don't really want to talk like this, but for this country to change, it's pretty much going to take someone who's truly fearless to be elected president and that person will have to go everywhere in a bullet-proof Popemobile. There's going to have to be millions of people in the streets, NOT protesting politicians, but protesting the predatory wealthy and corporations. America, the PEOPLE, have GOT to start making these greedmongers AFRAID OF THEM. The only thing the wealthy act skeert of now is their taxes going back to Clinton levels. That simply isn't going to be enough to break their stranglehold.

Greed isn't dying. Selfishness isn't ever going to die. Anyone looking for a wealthy/greedy/selfish/scorch-em-all die-off as the cure-all for this Plutocrat garbage . . . is going to be waiting a long, LONG time. The values of the wealthy are passed down from generation to generation. Every business major is indoctrinated, economically, not to care about anything except Number ONE. Number ONE (and when you get to be CEO, your fellow #1s) is all that matters. Econ 101 on, you're learning FRIEDMAN.

The path this nation has taken sickens me. I was never once fooled into thinking President Obama would be this liberal savior. But right now it's a choice between Offal and dogshit. And not even an Iron Chef can make dogshit taste good.

[amborin]

43. very painful; and many of Obama's policies are far right

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

47. and the fillibustering, teabagging GOP gets yet another free pass.

[B Calm]

49. When we have a republican president why wouldn't they?

[deacon]

78. No doubt they are still the party of "NO!" - but there is no fire in Obama's belly. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. try one

[Rex]

50. Well he did say he idolizes Ronald Reagan and thought Bush Sr.

was a great man...barf...

[blkmusclmachine]

53. Obama is to the right of the center. To. The. Right. Of. The. Center.

We just don't know HOW MUCH to the right of the center Obama really is. Yet. He has 1 year and 4 months to go. I suspect he'll use the post-9/11 laws somehow.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. I suspect people who were born or came of age during or after Reagan's tenure have trouble grasping

just how much the paradigm has shifted to the right. On economic matters what was once considered fairly mainstream even among Republicans is now viewed as left-wing - if not far left.

[EFerrari]

65. Yes, exactly.

[orpupilofnature57]

82. Bonzo's buddy brought us back to the future .

[orpupilofnature57]

72. Dropping Hillary was Radical if you think about it .

[deacon]

77. My sum? Decent leader. Lacks courage. BAD democrat. n/t

[Pisces]

81. What we have is a center right Congress, give Obama a left Congress and maybe we can talk.

[leftyladyfrommo]

83. That's how I see it, too.

I think Obama is just in a terrible position. He is trying to actually get stuff done so he compromises. Then he gets critisized for it.

I don't think he to the right at all.

[Pisces]

90. agreed. Something is better than nothing idea.

[leftyladyfrommo]

92. Unfortunately we have people in Congress right now

that could care less about compromise or getting important things done.

They just want to destroy Obama.

I don't know how he stands it. I would buckle in about ten minutes.

[ibegurpard]

95. yeah, right

he'll fight them like he did when they were against his healthcare proposals that didn't include a public option

[LWolf]

84. It's painful, but there is more than one alternative.

"Far right" is not the ONLY alternative.

The opportunity to replace Obama with a primary is quickly disappearing. It's still there, though. If Democrats don't have the fortitude to do so, whose fault is it when choices are limited?

There are ALWAYS other choices in the GE, as well. I won't list them at DU; rule compliance. But there are still alternatives.

Not good alternatives, but they are there. They at least offer me the chance to know that I didn't help put a bad president, of any political denomination, in the WH.

"Lesser" evil is still evil.

[BzaDem]

89. If you vote for any of the alternatives, you by definition helped put the next Republican President

in the Whitehouse. You by definition enabled any policy the next Republican enacted that wouldn't have been enacted under Obama (any denying of this by you notwithstanding). If you decide to do everything you can to enable the greater evil, you are accountable for that decision.

[LWolf]

94. Your definition is faulty.

Votes are earned.

Instead of trying to bully people into voting for lesser evils, or blame people for not voting the way you think they should, you might try backing candidates who can earn the votes, or convincing poor representatives that you would like to re-elect to do a better job so that they CAN earn votes.

The juvenile blame game is ubiquitous. It's always easier to blame others than to blame the source of dysfunction.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. backing an unelectable third-party in a swing state is helping put a greater evil in the WH

No matter how one tries to spin it - those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 DID help put George W. Bush in office. I would never say it was all their fault. That would not be fair and things are more complicated than that. But it is undeniable that it was partly their fault.

If an alternative it is not electable - then it is not an alternative. It is only ventilating. And in the worse cases such as Florida 2000 - very harmful and destructive ventilating. If 97,421 Floridians had followed their heads a bit more than their hearts in 2000 - the world would be a far less dangerous place and America would be in a much better place today.

[LWolf]

93. Actually, I don't think I mentioned 3rd parties.

Since you brought them up, I'll have to simply register your opinion and disagree, at least with some.

I disagree on the grounds that "lesser evil" is still evil. I acknowledge that I usually can't help prevent an evil in the WH, but I don't want evil at all, lesser or greater. At least when it shows up, I didn't vote to put it there.

Votes are earned. Anyone worried about voters defecting ought to be working hard to convince the candidate to earn the votes, instead of trying to convince citizens to vote for lesser evils. In my opinion, that's convincing them to allow their voice to be trampled on by bullies.

As for 2,000...

without election fraud, Gore is president regardless of Nader or other 3rd party votes.

And THAT I agree with. The nation would be better for it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. if even half of the 97,000+ Nader voters in Florida had voted strategically

for Gore in in spite of him being the the lesser evil - they would not have been able to steal the election.

Hay I used to back third party candidates - I did in 1980 and saw Ronald Reagan elected.

Life itself itself is frequently full of choices between the tolerable and the unbearable and rarely a choice between the good and the evil. Sometimes it is, but that is a rarity. Most of us are not working in the job that truly fulfills us with the manager who truly supports us and living in the relationship that truly understands us. So we do the best we can and choose the bearable over the intolerable especially when the truly fulfilling, supportive and understanding is not an available option. So it is with the current unfortunate political culture of the United States.

[LWolf]

97. I'm not here to argue Nader. I've never voted for him.

I'm just not going to put the blame on Nader voters for voting the way their conscience led them, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, when in the end it was electoral fraud leading to an obviously flawed Supreme Court selection that put GWB instead of Gore in the WH.

Your choice of terminology is interesting, though. I HAVE, often, had to vote for the tolerable instead of the good.

"Tolerable" isn't a "lesser" evil. If it's tolerable, it's not an evil.

Neo-liberalism is an evil, and it is WORSE when it resides in our own party. I will not ever vote for a neo-liberal, regardless of party designation.

My conscience tells me that enabling neo-liberals to take over the Democratic Party is not tolerable; it's an evil. My conscience tells me that the only way to reverse this trend is to refuse to vote for neo-liberals. I'm doing my civic duty, both as a citizen and a party member, by doing so.

If the party wants to be sure they've earned the votes of those they've disenfranchised with neo-liberal policies, they need to abandon neo-liberalism and embrace liberal-left policy.

THAT'S where the responsibility for lost votes lies; with those who lost them. Anyone concerned with earning them back needs to be loud and relentless in the effort to put GOOD, and if not good, then tolerable, candidates on the ballot.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. and if the end result of your strategy is President Rick Perry, so be it??

[LWolf]

99. It that's the result,

at least I can count on some Democratic opposition to policies that are bad for the nation.

I can't count on that when a Democrat does it.

Frankly, from my perspective, the right wing has advanced a hell of a lot faster under Obama than GWB, and that is horrifying.

[Claudia Jones]

86. painful?

You could also see it as liberating.