When a president is far ahead of the country.

[NJmaverick]

Hello

I use to think that it'll take at least one term to clean George Bush' mess, but now i suspect that the damage may just be irreversible. That it's beyond tangible things, that it's just too deep...

(More after the jump).

blackwaterdog's diary :: ::
...So Barack Obama goes from minus 700,000 jobs a month to plus 162,000 a month in a year, effectively preventing a second great depression; He passes health care reform that will provide health insurance to tens of millions; A revolutionary student loans reform; Investing in the middle class more than any president since LBJ; Cut taxes to 95% of all Americans; Saving the financial system and bring the Dow from 6000 to 11000; Saving the entire Auto Industry; Passes a whole bunch of laws protecting ordinary citizens, including the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Hate Crimes Bill; Investing in clean and renewable energy more than all the previous administrations combined; Ends the ban on Stem Cell Research; Stabilizing America's stance in the world and is about to sign arms control agreement with Russia - all this in 14 months and after receiving the country at the worst shape since FDR days.

And yet:

The new CBS poll have him at 44%. It's like the better the job he's doing, the lower his poll numbers goes.

I always suspected that Barack Obama's biggest problem is simply being decades ahead of the country he leads - But i never thought the gap was that big. He's a 21th century president trying to pull a country stuck in the 20th.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/2/853492/-When-a-president-is-far-ahead-of-the-country.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. We are not worthy of him

[NJmaverick]

2. More like we are damn lucky to have him as our President

[barbiegeek]

139. Yes we are, and all we do is bitch

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

3. Unfortunately, we are a people who rewards shit and hates on others who try for us.

We knew he would bring something for us and yet, at the same time---it's too much for us to appreciate.

[political_Dem]

40. +1

We are also a nation that hates intellectualism and ideas. Instead, we punish our thinkers and make them persona non grata unless they serve the corporate masters.

If Mr. Obama has to do anything during his years in the White House, he must take away the suspicion some citizens have for education and the educated.

[graywarrior]

4. We are a nation of stupid, that's for damn sure

[NJmaverick]

20. Yes and sadly it shows through in the places you would least expect it

[old mark]

5. I think some of our people are wishing for the return of th 19th century....

When I see him talking to people and patiently answering questions, I feel he is at his best. He reassures me that we did right electing him.


mark

[Hekate]

131. God knows Bushco tried hard enough. They got rid of a century of consumer protections...

Even while I was campaigning for Barack Obama to become president, I suspected that Bushco's damage might never be ABLE to be undone. I still trust Obama's character and judgment, but he's only human and he still needs us at his back and Congress in a minimally compliant mood.

Hekate

[old mark]

132. I believe Bush's regime damaged us in ways we don't even realize, and maybe never will.

There was so much negative stuff going on at once, Obama had to prioritize to try to stave off even more disaster.
Yet people seem to want more of the GOP and fear the Democrats, which I believe is mainly due to the media.
They are bought and paid for, and not by us.

mark

[Jennicut]

6. Eh, it is one poll from CBS. Gallup has him at 50% today.

If you add up all the last few polls and average them it is closer to 48%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
I guess it depends on the methodology they use.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

8. People are wigging out and trolling the CBS poll. Gallup shows him at 50 and holding.

IMO, given the shitstorm he's inherited, and the agenda he's pushing through his numbers are holding up pretty damn well.

[Jennicut]

9. Not to mention the undecided on this poll is 15%.

That seems really strange. On the recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll it was 5% undecided.

[jenmito]

10. I love how realclearpolitics uses Rasmussen but not Research 2000/dKos.

Seems a LITTLE biased to me.

[NJmaverick]

22. I did some internet digging and found it was not the best polling method

totally random calling

[depakid]

7. Yep- Obama's a "new" Democrats- and enabling & legitimizing Republican policy is visionary

and never been done before!

Sweet Jesus, the things some people will say....

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

13. Obama has never chosen to be a member of the DLC.

"Sweet Jesus, the things some people will say..."

Indeed. :eyes:

[depakid]

15. Did I say that?

You can at least try to post a counter argument without a mischaracterization of what's been said.

[ClarkUSA]

16. You implied it with your 'Obama's a "new" Democrats' claim.

I prefer to state facts clearly rather than suffer through innuendo.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Obama referred to himself as a 'New Democrat,' lingo for DLC

Obama: 'I am a New Democrat'

By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE | 3/10/09 7:04 PM EST
Updated: 3/11/09 9:55 AM EST

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html#ixzz0k09oOMBU

And Obama has given us a DLC Administration, while throwing under the bus all those people the DLC loaths: pro-choice women, antiwar Democrats, LGBTs, and progressives.

[ClarkUSA]

32. A dubious quote from unnamed sources by a Politico media whore is no substitute for the truth.

I repeat, he never ever chose to be a member of the DLC -- unlike Hillary and Bill "Welfare Reform/Media Deregulation/Financial Deregulation/NAFTA/ DADT/DOMA" Clinton, who both figure prominently as rock stars in the organization (Bill was a beloved DLC chairman, as you no doubt know).

[IndianaGreen]

38. DLC's Bruce Reed said the same thing about Obama: 'New Democrat'

DLC is the warmongering and corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. There isn't a war the DLC doesn't like, much as the DLC's spiritual father: Scoop Jackson.

Yes He Is

Obama calls himself a New Democrat and shows what it means.

By Bruce Reed
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 3:06 PM ET

Full disclosure: I've always loved the term New Democrat and in the early '90s launched a magazine by that name for the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization I now head. The label and the philosophy behind it were an attempt to think anew and move past the ideological logjams of that era.

<snip>

The tectonic plates on which the 20th century was built are shifting in the 21st. In the 1930s, New Dealers like FDR had to save capitalism from itself. In the 1990s, New Democrats like Bill Clinton had to modernize progressive government. Over the next few years, Barack Obama has to do both at the same time. For that, as Obama made clear again yesterday, a new president with a new approach is exactly what we need.

http://www.slate.com/id/2213474/

[ClarkUSA]

42. Wishful thinking on Reed's part. Obama publicly rejected DLC membership in 2003.

A June 26, 2003 Black Commentator cover story noted that the DLC included Barack Obama in their “New Democrat” directory “without my knowledge. . . . Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[IndianaGreen]

43. In2003, Obama was a lot of things to make us think he was one of us

This is the same Obama that spoke about a public option, and chided Hillary and McCain for suggesting having a federal mandate to force people to get insurance.

[ClarkUSA]

46. The truth stands: Obama publicly rejected DLC membership way back in 2003. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

48. The truth stands: Obama has given us a DLC Administration

and he governs as an Al From protege.

[ClarkUSA]

51. That's an opinion, not a fact. The truth is that he publicly rejected DLC membership in 2003. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

140. oh for christ's sake...

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

59. Obama was featured on the DLC website

before he announced his intention to run for president. He was called a 'rising star' by them. Something they certainly wouldn't call a more progressive Democrat. When the bio was discovered early in the campaign and it looked like it would adversely affect his candidacy, it was removed. But I saw it along with many others. The spin was that they just featured him and it didn't mean he was one of them, whatever. He is, his cabinet and COS are DLC, his dislike for progressives is apparent, his admiration for Ronald Reagan (and don't bother with the spin, we have plenty of 'transformational democratic presidents he could have mentioned) and his insistence on bringing religion into politics, all these and many other things, make him a DLCer.

The only reason he tries to keep it quiet is because he knows he will need progressives in 2012.

[ClarkUSA]

64. They did it w/o Obama's permission and he made them remove it.

As Barack Obama said in 2003, he does not endorse DLC policies. Nor has he ever been a member. These facts have never changed.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Like you said, Obama 'does not endorse DLC policies,' he merely implements them

How many millions has he given to failed faith-based abstinence programs? That's DLC and GOP policy ideas!

[ClarkUSA]

99. He personally did that? I guess Congress had nothing to do with creating the HCR bill, eh?

Oh, I see. You wanted him to veto HCR to assuage one of your legislative pet peeves.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

107. Yep, that's what he said. He also said he was opposed

to mandated insurance and gave excellent reasons why. He said he opposed the new FISA law too in a very moving speech about Constitutional rights. That didn't mean much either when it came to acting on what he claimed to believe. He also said he opposed offshore drilling because it would 'damage our coastline' and the rewards 'would be minimal and not worth the sacrifice'. Now he's saying something else.

He's a politician. While I once thought he might be different, I realize now he's just another politician who will lie when it benefits their own interests, or flip flop on issues or pretend to be for something when they want votes, or whatever. And if they're really good, as Obama is, will find ways to explain away their sudden change of mind until people realize that maybe they are being lied to.

So I do not believe he is not a DCLer. His choices of cabinet members leaves no doubt about the question anymore and his attitude towards the progressive wing of the party. No big deal we were lied to, it's not like it's new, just disappointing as we were expecting to change the old way Washington does business.

Better to face reality than to keep trying to explain away each new position on important issues. That way you will not be disappointed.

[ClarkUSA]

119. Unless you have evidence that proves otherwise, the truth is Barack Obama rejected DLC membership.

Your opinions do not change that fact.

Unlike so many here who criticize President Obama 24/7, I understand legislative realities of how Congress works and how being President means you can't wave magic wands to get what you want nor do I expect him not to be flexible when confronted with intransigent members of the Democratic caucus. Just ask Dennis Kucinich how that works.

[sabrina 1]

120. Obama fought for the PO?

I recall him saying it was not that important, AFTER he was elected that is. Dennis Kucinich would have had more success if his president had backed him, rather than help kill the amendment for which he had bi-partisan support.

As for him stating publicly that he is not a member of the DLC, his actions speak far louder than his words as I pointed out.

As for presidents not being able to get things done, or doing things because of pressure, we could say the same thing about Bush. No one in Congress twisted his arm to lift the ban on off-shore drilling eg.

I do not bash politicians, I comment on their actions. If the facts are not favorable to their image, that is not my fault.

No magic wand was needed for this president to stand up for a PO. But he chose not to, instead, as he said himself he included many Republican ideas in the bill while rejecting progressive ideas, such as Dorgan's and Kucinich's amendments. Those are facts and if stating facts is bashing, then so be it.

[ClarkUSA]

122. LEGISLATIVE REALITY CHECK: The PO didn't have the votes, period.

Get over it.

Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Dennis Kucinich did.

[sabrina 1]

123. Eh, no they didn't get over it.

They were pushed into an untenable position and decided not to be pushed OUT in the end. The PO was never put on the table and the excuse that it 'didn't have the votes' is just that, an excuse. It had the support of the American people and Democrats had a majority and the WH. If Democrats had fought for it, we have had the votes. Republicans, even in the minority seem to more successful at getting their agenda passed than Democrats in the majority.

What you're saying is that Democrats were ineffective, even with a majority. It used to be they were ineffective because they didn't have a majority. They are not ineffective, this WH didn't want a PO, that's why there is none.

[ClarkUSA]

124. They did because they voted for it with good grace and complimented President Obama's efforts.

They are also on the same page as the President because all three men have said that HCR is just a first step and can be improved upon in years to come, just like Social Security and Medicare have been.

[sabrina 1]

125. No, they did not. If you read Kucinich's statement you would

know that. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He wanted a Single Payer system. He chose in the end to reluctantly choose the lesser of two evils. Of course they were gracious. McCain was gracious when he conceded the race to Obama. If you think these men are happy with this corporate friendly health care bill, I don't know what to say. They are hoping that by cooperating in the end, they can continue to push this party away from this predatory, for-profit health insurance system, which will not change much as a result of this bill. There are a few concessions to the people, but the bill is a windfall for a business that should have been allowed to die a well deserved death, the same way they have allowed so many Americans to die. And are still trying to profit by not covering sick people. As expected.

[ClarkUSA]

126. Prove it. I've seen & read everything Kucinich has said since his pro-HCR vote.

Your opinions are not to be confused with facts, of which you offer none.

[sabrina 1]

128. The burden of proof is on you. You claimed that Kucinich

and Sanders are happy with this bill. Prove it.

[ClarkUSA]

134. You're making another false claim. I never said that. Guess you can't back up your claims, eh?

Pssst! Here's what proof looks like:

From "What President Obama Didn't Say" by Dennis Kucinich:

"When I arrived home that evening — March 4 — I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill... I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something... at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation... If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill — the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted — all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.

Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that."

Source: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210#ixzz0k9mdZmG8

[Forkboy]

33. Does he have to?

"Sweet Jesus, the things some people don't have to say..."

[ClarkUSA]

36. Yes. Your insinuation is subjective but the truth is not. n/t

[Forkboy]

37. We all bow before your lock on the truth.

I'm sure DUers are set straight now.

“What you perceive, your observations, feelings, interpretations, are all your truth. Your truth is important. Yet it is not The Truth.”

[ClarkUSA]

39. Then prove me wrong with evidence that Obama is a DLC member in good standing. You can't. n/t

[Forkboy]

41. Like I said, does he have to?

Reread my first post. If his policies aren't 80% in line with the DLC than you're Betty White, and half as cool.

I give you credit for getting two exchanges into a conversation and not falling back on the stalker charge though! :toast:

[ClarkUSA]

44. Yes, he does. Just ask the Clintons. BTW, Obama himself rejected membership in the DLC in 2003.

A June 26, 2003 Black Commentator cover story noted that the DLC included Barack Obama in their “New Democrat” directory “without my knowledge. . . . Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

Source: http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[Forkboy]

56. You're right...that what's he said.....in 2003.

Lets' take a look at Obama circa 2010....

From your linked article, which I bet you grabbed for the one line it contained that your were looking for....

BC was shocked to find Obama’s name associated with the New Democratic Movement, an affiliate of what Bruce Dixon calls the “Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery” – the DLC. In a June 19 Cover Story that included a letter from Obama, posed three “bright line” questions to the candidate, “that should determine whether you belong in the DLC, or not.”

1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?

asserted that a “Yes” answer to all three questions would be “anathema” to the DLC, whose leadership “has been unequivocal in their support of NAFTA, opposition to anything resembling national health insurance, and fervently in support of the Iraq war – basic issues of war and peace, life and death, and livelihood.”

Aware of Obama’s consistently progressive legislative record, suggested that the only “honorable option” was that he “publicly withdraw from the DLC.”

Your link: http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html






Let's take a deeper look at these 3 questions....

1: Nafta:

"For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA."

http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/

2: Single Payer:

LOL...are links really needed? Nevermind, it's you...of course they are.


"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=player_embedded

to this...

"I have not said that I was a single payer supporter...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-F8Z6sSpA&feature=player_embedded

3: Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?

Well....tell us Clark. You're an outspoken type o dude....which way does Obama go on unilateral force? Don't forget the Dutch!




Now, all done answering all three to yourself? Cool....tell us which answers go against DLC thinking. To quote someone you almost always agree with, our dear friend wyldwolf.....

"To those who are "surprised" at Obama's cabinet picks and actions since the election...

...don't say you weren't warned. Some of us applaud most of what he's done (the Warren thing is a bit icky), some us applaud very little. But the information was out there and, during the summer of 2007 specifically, was posted here quite often.

His thoughts on domestic and foreign policy try to hew to this consensus-building line... (echoing) Bill Clinton’s “third way,” methodically triangulating between traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal ideas. New York Times - October 17, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html

It can be characterized as “radical middle.” His book fits easily into the recent lineage of radical middle books by U.S. policy analysts, stretching from Ted Halstead and Michael Lind’s The Radical Center to Matt Miller’s The Two Percent Solution to my own Radical Middle to John Avlon’s Independent Nation (see reviews HERE and HERE). Basically, “radical middle” means that you take ideas from everywhere, and use those ideas to construct public policies that are at once pragmatic and imaginative. Radical Miller - Nov. 1, 2006 http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_obama.htm

There's a Clinton in the presidential race. The surprise: It may not be Hillary. The truly Clintonian figure running for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois, it's struck me lately, seems in many ways more like Bill Clinton than does the senator from New York.In fact, Obama fits himself explicitly into the Clinton mold. "In his platform -- if not always in his day-to-day politics -- Clinton's Third Way went beyond splitting the difference," Obama writes. "It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of the majority of Americans." Washington Post - January 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001653.html

The Audacity of Hope places Obama squarely in the DLC camp, even if he never applies for a membership card. Black Agenda Report - Feb. 2007 http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68

The similarities with Clinton do not stop there. He writes approvingly about Clinton's adoption of the "third way", with its hostility to the shibboleths of left and right and its mantra that "what matters is what works." David Lammy - May 2007 http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/54400

It is noticeable that the most aggressive and heartfelt (almost zestful) portions of The Audacity of Hope are those in which he solidarizes himself with attacks on traditional liberalism and the supposed sacred cows of the Democratic Party. Here one feels he is most sincere and most comfortable with himself... This is merely a further repackaging of the Clinton-Blair “Third Way,” a supposed alternative to liberal and conservative policies. World Socialist Website - Feb. 2007 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f14.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8020932

I look forward to you and wyldwolf hashing this out.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Splitting hairs still does not change the truth: Obama has rejected DLC membership since 2003. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

85. Like he rejected Rev Wright's church once it became politically necessary

There is a pattern here.

[ClarkUSA]

100. That's yet another opinion, not a fact. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

45. Obama is most definitely a DLC fellow traveller

He even triangulates like Bill Clinton used to do.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Your opinion is no substitute for the truth which is Obama rejected DLC membership way back in 2003.

Obama doesn't do anything "like Bill Clinton used to do." Thank goodness.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Obama rejected mandates for health care in 2007 and 2008

Obama's deeds speak louder than his words.

[ClarkUSA]

52. He got HCR passed in 2010, something past presidents have failed miserably at achieving. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

55. He passed an industry-written bill that will give us a massive BOHICA

Obama did the bidding of PhRMA!

[ClarkUSA]

66. That is another opinion, not a fact. n/t

[NJmaverick]

18. Do you honestly think any of the listed accomplishments are something

a Republican would want?:wow:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

14. I read a story that the most trustworthy poll, according to pollsters, is the one by WaPo/ABC.

He did fairly well in the one taken right after HCR was past. I am waiting for the next one.

<<I always suspected that Barack Obama's biggest problem is simply being decades ahead of the country he leads - But i never thought the gap was that big. He's a 21th century president trying to pull a country stuck in the 20th.>>

But I agree with the DKos diarist. One evening at DU is evidence enough.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

19. .

.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. k and r

[IndianaGreen]

23. When a President loses touch with the country

it will show up in his declining poll numbers.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Which part of the country are you talking about? Faux News territory?

Because every poll I've seen recently shows overwhelming support and renewed levels of enthusiasm from liberal Democrats and left-leaning indies.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Come down to the Midwest, the heart of America

You know, that part of the country that remains untouched by the Beltway's self-induced optimism that everything is fine.

[ClarkUSA]

31. So you speak for the entire Midwest now? Color me impressed!

Of course, everyone believes in what polls tell us about Democrats. Hillary Clinton told me so.

[Forkboy]

34. What part of the country are you speaking for?

[ruggerson]

114. Lamelandia

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

118. I speak WITH the large majority of liberal Dems who approve of Pres. Obama in poll after poll. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. AHEAD?

On the path to legitimizing Republican Lite policies, perhaps.

[NJmaverick]

26. Yeah the republicans are ecstatic at what the President has accomplished

:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. That's because they're Republican Heavy and Obama's only Republican Lite

:-)

[vaberella]

70. Absolutely ridiculous statements.

Why don't you say what is Obama's real problem?! We don't have a lot of progressive Dems in Congress. Many Dems laughed in his face over most of the policies, but he takes the brunt of accusations.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Well, I'll revise my statement:

The entire Democratic Party leadership is Republican Lite, and Obama has done nothing but pander to them.

We who are left of center no longer have ANY representation in Washington, not unless "left" has been redefined as "policies that would have been either agreeable to or right of Nixon."

Instead of mobilizing the Progressive Caucus, he strong-armed them into accepting Romneycare for the nation.

What a fucking wasted opportunity, and all your relentless attempts to paper it over obviously aren't convincing a lot of people.

The DLC is clearly getting worried. Its advocates are a minority on this board, but they are some of the most relentless posters, and they start vacuous "I love Obama" threads, which the usual suspects immediately chime in on.

Just yesterday there were a bunch of threads urging people to vote Democratic anyway.

Well, I most likely will. My Rep is Keith Ellison, who has been a single-payer advocate but is too much of a new guy in Washington to stand up to pressure from the entire party about accepting a monstrosity of a health care bill.

But you know, if I had a DINO representing my district, I might consider voting third party. If the choice is between a Republican and a quasi-Republican, why shouldn't someone who thinks all Republican policies are disastrous vote for third party in protest? What other choices are there? Just holding one's nose and voting for the DINO does nothing but reinforce the tiresome DLC meme that says that only DINOs can get elected.

The DLC is very right to be concerned. There are a lot of angry people on this board, and they represent only a fraction of the angry people in this nation.

Talking to people here in Minneapolis, I find widespread disappointment with the health care bill among people who actually know what's in it. The only reason they support it is because it's from "our team," but the people in the health care field in particular see all sorts of potential problems.

[IndianaGreen]

86. K&R

Excellent liberal points!

:kick:

[HughMoran]

27. .

[Forkboy]

35. Your message to gays....

[whatchamacallit]

50. Where are my hip boots?

Embarrassing...

[TheKentuckian]

53. A visionary path to a corporate state!

I grant you that he's way ahead of the radical regressives but most folks with any sense born after 1700 would be.

Look the kat is pretty damn smart but his policies are almost strictly modifications to the status quo rather than ground breaking in any way.

Post-partisanship is senseless drivel.

I had hoped it was just marketing but he seems to actually believe his own horse pucky.
The reason post-partisan is stupid should be obvious the right is completely wrong on about everything ever and their limited ideas and philosophies have failed and failed again.

These people should be sat in the corner and ignored for a generation or two at least and possibly for eternity unless they can pull their heads out of their asses and give a shit about humanity and the world after some rather serious soul searching.
Reaganisim should be discredited at every plausible turn and the entire modern "conservative" philosophy should be indicted as criminally stupid and evil and sent to the waste bin of history rather than coddled and legitimized.

Greed cannot be bargained with. Greed comes for the full loaf every time. Obama is pretty haughty to think he can overcome thousands of years of fucked up mentality with a sweet deal and a series of good chats. The Reich wing is the ultimate bully and bullies need asswhippings not olive branches.

It's called being too cleaver by half. The radical regressives will not see the light and are far from honest brokers. Playing with them will only get you snake bit in the end.

Seriously, Baby Jesus weeps every time he includes one of their failed/bogus/ineffective ideas without extracting a heavy toll.

What is the conceivable benefit???? Don't even pretend "the middle" will call them on their bullshit because they'll buy almost whatever spin the corporate media lays out. It took eight years of damn near Armageddon and one of the worst campaigns in history to get them off of the GOP tip.

[Smashcut]

57. Far ahead of you, perhaps.

Gimme a fuckin break.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Kltpzyxm]

60. Look he's doing some good things

but this talking point about improving from -700k jobs a month is just BS.

Of course it was going to get better than -700k jobs per month. If it kept at that pace we would have something like 50% unemployment in 5 years.

Stop with the ridiculously low bar.

[NJmaverick]

63. I am not following your point, are you suggesting no matter what was done the economy was going to

improve and jobs would start being added?

[vaberella]

71. Which is ludicrous in and of itself. n/t

[NJmaverick]

75. Which stands to reason, since the is how the majority of attacks on President Obama

could be described:hi:

[spoony]

61. Ah, contempt for the people. Gotta love the New Democrats. nt

[NJmaverick]

62. The new liberals are all about putting ideology ahead of people

that's why they can't have problems with our President that puts people first.

[kiva]

88. Thank goodness that the Supremes have reinforced the

notion that corporations are people so that you can make that statement.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Are you talking about New Democrats like Hillary & Bill Clinton? That explains DADT, DOMA, NAFTA...

... media deregulation, financial deregulation aka. repeal of Glass-Steagall, welfare reform, etc.

Bill Clinton was a founder and DLC chairman, along with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh. Hillary was a member in good standing all through her Senate career, as her votes showed.

[spoony]

77. Yeah, they weren't very good were they? nt

[IndianaGreen]

89. New Democrats are as bad as New Labour

Tony Blair got a lot of people killed for nothing!

[Jakes Progress]

67. Thank you for the hilarious headline.

You guys just get funnier and funnier.

[NJmaverick]

69. By guys it appears you mean liberals and Democrats

:thumbsdown:

[Jakes Progress]

72. Yeah, Right.

Such flaming liberals.

Hadn't you heard that that was a term of derision on the GD:P forum.

You can't deride the polls when they don't go your way and then cheer them when they do. Poll numbers go up and down and are manipulated at the will of the people who pay for them. A liberal is as a liberal does.

[IndianaGreen]

79. Liberals are under Obama's bus

together with women and LGBTs.

[ClarkUSA]

80. No, Bill Clinton threw liberals and LGBTs under the bus via Dick Morris, DADT and DOMA.

As for women, ask Lily Ledbetter if she agrees with you.

[freddie mertz]

103. This time it's environmentalists, first amendment activists,

And supporters of genuine HCR.

As well as liberals and GLBT, as per usual.

[ClarkUSA]

105. Your polemic indicates that you haven't been reading the news lately.

"EPA Sharply Limits Mountaintop Mining"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x257998

"Obama administration has issued tough gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks hitting dealerships in the future...
President Obama suckered the GOP into showing that they are so obstructionist they would oppose their own agenda, if only it were proposed by the President. They were all watching one hand, which he was waving around to attract all the attention. Meanwhile, his other hand was doing something else entirely.

"This is the biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8067959

[freddie mertz]

110. You conveniently left out a few things.

And of course, the tactic is well known.

Triangulation.

[ClarkUSA]

112. I offered a couple of examples of how your polemic was demonstrably false.

And of course, the tactic of such polemic is well known.

Demonization.

[freddie mertz]

116. You were selective.

And we all know what you left out.

Which makes the whole exchange rather predictable and boring.

USA!

[ClarkUSA]

117. No, I was taking the first point in your polemic and proving it false.

It follows that your other points are in the same category. And since you offered zero proof of your claims, this whole exchange is rather predictable and boring.

[freddie mertz]

73. Unrec'd back to zero.nt.

Some of us are way ahead of you, NJM.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

81. Not anymore. n/t

[freddie mertz]

90. I tried.

Sorry I missed the deleted subthread.

Was someone being mean?

[ClarkUSA]

93. And failed. n/t

[freddie mertz]

94. 4 recs is hardly a triumph.

But then, some folks live for this stuff.

Besides, I thought you were off fighting for our freedoms.

[ClarkUSA]

95. "some folks live for this stuff" Yes, they do... your original reply proves that.

freddie mertz (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-03-10 09:52 AM

Response to Original message

73. Unrec'd back to zero.nt.

Some of us are way ahead of you, NJM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=258622&mesg_id=259116

[freddie mertz]

96. And you responded to it in kind.

Where were you the last few months?

I assumed you enlisted or were otherwise engaged.:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

97. Back to 5 recs and the Greatest page now. n/t

[freddie mertz]

98. We shall see.

The OP is certainly in keeping with your line of "thinking."

[freddie mertz]

136. Ain't gonna make it.

There is hope for America yet.

[Bobbie Jo]

111. Rec.

Did that unrec declaration make you feel better?

Thought I'd try it....no still not feeling it.

[ruggerson]

78. Yes, he is decades ahead on marriage equality

Of course, you have to weigh which Obama to believe: his stance in the 1990's (when he was for equality) or his position now (when he is not.)

[Lindsey]

82. You know, I'm a gay women but the top of my agenda IS NOT

marriage equality. In fact, I think a lot of my gay friends who feel same sex marriage should be front and center are incredibly selfish. Uhh....I think the President has quite a bit on his plate.

With that said, I've often thought that the masses in this country are too uneducated, unintelligent, backwards, etc. to appreciate all he's done and all he plans to do. I'm hoping that the 2012 mystery means that a major awakening will occur and we'll finally have a planet that even those of us with the most hope can't even imagine.

[ruggerson]

83. Right, gay Americans are selfish for wanting equality under the law

Gotcha.

[freddie mertz]

91. You gotta realize: Personality trumps principle every time.

For some, anyway.

[ruggerson]

101. Sad, isn't it?

And usually this kind of thing gives the homophobes permission to come crawling out of the gutter to agree with her.

[freddie mertz]

102. No matter what the issue, or how extreme the move to the right.

Someone will start proclaiming the new policy as 1. brilliant 2. a strategic and tactical triumph 3. something that was promised all along.

You can bank on it.

No fundamental Democratic or progressive principle, or even basic tenet of human dignity, is safe from this process.

[ClarkUSA]

106. And no matter what the issue, or how much is accomplished legislatively by this President...

Someone will start proclaiming the new policy as 1. Republican/a corporate sell-out 2. a strategic and tactical failure 3. something that was a broken promise.

"You can bank on it" indeed.

No fundamentally Democratic or progressive legislation, or even basic health reform policy that offers dignity to millions of Americans, is safe from this response.

[freddie mertz]

108. Nonsense.

And you know it.

[ClarkUSA]

113. Not at all. I see it happening here at DU 24/7 and always by the same critics. n/t

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

137. Ain't it awful? nt.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Thank you for speaking up.

24/7 Obama critics will latch onto any issue in an effort to find fault rather than look at all this President has accomplished.

[ruggerson]

104. Which red herring are you applauding?

The one where she claims her "friends" are "selfish" for wanting "same sex marriage" to be "front and center?"

Because no one said that. Or anything remotely like that.

My post merely refuted the OP's broadbrush statement that the current occupant of the WH is decades ahead of the country.

On marriage equality, he is firmly in the minority of his own party - decades behind where most of us are.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. Saddens me deeply because Jimmy Carter was one of those. Way ahead of the country

and I hear even liberals/Democrats bash him. Turns out he was right about everything, just about. Very sad. :(

[wackywaggin]

109. Absolutely correct!!

[NJmaverick]

127. Very true

[thelordofhell]

121. You either lead......or get out of the way

And I guarantee you that all the "get out of the way" people will complain the loudest. President Obama has done a tremendous job so far, and it will only get better. Bank on it or get out of the way.

[Umbral]

130. We're not worthy, we're not worthy. nt

[ProgressOnTheMove]

133. As long as he keeps doing the right thing that's all anyone can ask for, poll figures are ...

inconsequential after that as the achievements will show in time.

[tomas no mas]

135. Obama is on pace to win a second term as President

He's ahead of every republican out there. And he won in 2008.

[Romulox]

138. What a bizarre excuse. Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the *people*, remember?

This is how cognitive dissonance works, I guess. When an elected official refuses to do what he was elected to do, it is simply because he is "far ahead of the country"? :silly: