Let's face the truth...Obama has divided us.

[zeemike]

One side feels they can criticize him and the other side not.

And thinking back on it it seem to start when we were told by his administration that the professional left should STFU.
And then came the process of getting us to accept what we used to hate...namely torture at Gitmo, a state of permanent war and fear, and the righteousness of Wall Street bankers and the dirtiness of Occupy Wall Street.

And now the big divide...you are ether with Obama or against him...odd don't you think that a Bush saying has taken root among us and is flowering within our midst?
And even gotten some of us to accept a surveillance state out of fear of being on the against side.

If we lose the next election it will be because we divided ourselves and made the less political people just through up their hands and walk away from all of us.
And those people may have a point.

[Skittles]

1. no, he has not

his fanbois have

[cthulu2016]

13. So true!

[Skittles]

17. Obama is extremely intelligent

he would be absolutely disgusted by them

[RainDog]

24. agreed n/t

[kelliekat44]

215. WQe have divided ourselves, refusing to deal with facts and information that we don't like. nt

[duffyduff]

92. Sure, he's "smart."

Sure.

Ivy League credentials mean absolutely nothing.

[Skittles]

107. well, Dubya proves that education does not equal intelligence

but I know intelligence when I see it and Obama has it in droves

[FreakinDJ]

121. So he "Chooses" to use his intelligence Against the Middle Class

Ya - were divided

[Skittles]

122. how he "chooses" to use his intelligence is an entirely different matter

[FreakinDJ]

125. Deception is a choice

As in His comfortable shoes walking a picket line with the American working Class compared to reality of he was "Wall St. Bought and Paid for" from before the 2008 election.

As convincing as he is - I would agree he is a very intelligent man

Its just the reality that sucks

[Skittles]

143. go back to the freak republic

[uppityperson]

161. He's gone.

[Skittles]

162. I hate it when they aren't even entertaining

ya know?

[Mojorabbit]

142. + a gazillion. nt

[RainDog]

241. you know what's funny about all this?

both sides in this Snowden bullshit attack me.

those who do, it seems fairly obvious, are simply about the person and not the issue (i.e. the person is Obama and whether they "love" or "hate" him.)

I have no use for people on either side of that extremist divide.

[Skittles]

273. well you like me then

I am square in the middle of that issue; Mr. Snowden is neither hero nor villian to me

[Kolesar]

2. Here come the nondonors to supply you with affirmation, Mike...eom

[mick063]

8. Non donors

I recently wrote Organizing For Action and told them to shove it where the sun don't shine.

That freed up some money.

I'll sign up after submitting this to remove your lame justification for disqualifying me.

[loudsue]

33. I'm a donor...and I totally agree with him.

I don't like ANYONE on the DLC and NDN dance card. Obama is one by his own admission. Are you forgetting who his mentor is? Joe Lieberman??

[sabrina 1]

158. Donor here, but with a correction. Obama POLICIES especially on some issues, not all

Offshore Drilling eg, have divided us.

[pecwae]

171. Gee,

I didn't realize that my donation didn't go through.

[NCTraveler]

228. Does having enough discretionary income...

laying around to be able to donate to a blog make your opinion more valid than your neighbor who is struggling to feed her children.

Kolesar

2. Here come the nondonors to supply you with affirmation, Mike...eom

[LanternWaste]

256. We certainly do pretend relevance when none exists.

We certainly do pretend relevance when none exists.

[bigwillq]

271. What does not donating have to do with this?

Some do not donate for several reasons. You don't know why people don't donate. Stop judging everyone.

[Egalitarian Thug]

306. That's all you got?

Very sad.

[mick063]

3. They call it "separating the wheat from the chaffe"

You can be attached to a kingdom or you can be attached to an ideology, but rarely, in modern times, does the opportunity arise where you can be attached to both.

There was a time, not long ago, when we thought that opportunity had presented itself.

[zeemike]

9. Well I knew I believed.

Up until right after the last election when he showed us who he really was for...I fell for it for 4 years.

[ucrdem]

16. Who showed you? A RW troll who thinks Ron Paul is "dreamy" and a serial Obama basher?

[mick063]

30. Ron Paul is an ass

Ron Paul means to "fix" government by rendering it powerless.

You have just unequivocally shown that you don't know shit about me.

Except you are correct that I am a basher.

A basher of:

"too big to prosecute"
Chained CPI
Blanket data collection and storage of social media and phones
Drone targeting based on profiling
Romney clone appointed to run Commerce
Bernanke (ie. Goldman Sachs) piloting the economic ship
Busting pot dispensaries that are otherwise 100% compliant with State Law.
Allowing corporations to negotiate trade deals in to law without disclosure.
The conspicuous coincidence of multiple cities "cracking down" on Occupy on the same weekend.
The recent political alienation of the Southern Hemisphere based on humiliation instead of sound policy.
Political prisoners held without due process


People are fuming because I do not "show" respect for the man.

Respect is earned.

[loudsue]

41. There is an army of apologists that show up every time someone criticizes Obama.

They are getting as scary to me as the wingnuts. Their ideas are anything but liberal, and their tactics are ganging-up style bullying. If you ask me, their tactics are way over the top. Why this is even allowed on this board, I'll never know. My anti-Obama posts keep getting deleted by "juries" ..... Certainly NOT a jury of MY peers.

[mick063]

50. And this thread proves the OP is correct.

When the GOP wins a majority the next cycle, it will be because the apologists have devoted great effort salvaging a legacy.

Time and effort not constructively used, unless the intention is to replace with more of the same. It is the only viable reason to exert such energy other than possibly devout loyalty to a man despite his policies. Or perhaps they are ideologically aligned with those policies.

Whether the reasons are fealty to a man or ideological alignment, such people are not of the same political persuasion as I.

[Marr]

96. I think they've driven a lot of people away from Obama with their tactics.

I'm not exactly Ms. Manners on the internet myself, but I do *try* to have a point at least most of the time. The great majority of what I get from the apologist crowd is plain old third-grade name calling. Much like the Bushbots of yesteryear, they rarely make an actual argument, and instead just sprinkle the days talking points on top of "emoprog" and "reactionary screamer" word salad.

[Bobbie Jo]

133. Not just when "someone" criticizes

It's when the "same someone" criticizes (read that dumps) to the exclusion of absolutely nothing else.

It's like an obsession with these folks.

[Demo_Chris]

167. Good point, they should discuss what a nice smile/family/doggie he has...

While he is fucking over the people who voted for him with austerity, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, insurance mandates, his crusade to destroy social security, drone strikes, TPP, Keystone, extra-judicial murder of Americans, and domestic spying that would make Big Brother jealous. Forget all that, he's positively DREAMY! And he has a D after his name.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Thanks for the example, "Demo" Chris

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Speaking of "someone."

This is exactly the type of twisted regurgitation I'm talking about.

[Demit]

178. Good post.

You list exactly the kind of things there can be no defense of. Except maybe his crusade to destroy Social Security. That's not totally overt yet. He just wants to chip away at it for now. The defense of that lies in the ever-popular "But it hasn't happened yet, has it?!"

[bigtree]

253. maybe we should just dehumanize him and his family. That'll get us what we want

Hell, if we had just torn him and that family of his down enough, we could be posting pics of Mitt and the boys.

[Demo_Chris]

268. Maybe we should concern ourselves with the job he is doing, the principles he follows....

And the people he actually represents, rather than wasting our time concerning ourselves with whether or not we are treating him nicely enough.

I'll be blunt. I will never meet President Obama or any member of his family. I'll never meet his dog. So as far as that goes he is already as dehumanized as it gets. He's a member of the monied elite, the American Royalty class, and that's who's interests he serves. I don't really care how charming he is or how wonderfully gifted he might be when he pretends to care about the issues that concern me as a liberal.

Had we elected Mitt we would be standing UNITED in our opposition to the insane policies coming out of Washington. I wouldn't have to read BS arguments explaining why Obama's expanded spying program or his permanent tax cuts for the wealthy are actually wonderful. I wouldn't see posts here justifying the extra-judicial murder of Americans at the President's whim. I wouldn't see Democrats rationalizing the destruction of social security or insurance mandantes or austerity. But that's not what happened.

[bigtree]

270. I was determined that you not have your way in electing Mitt

. . . just so you could feel satisfied you were 'standing united' with someone; just so you wouldn't have to 'read BS arguments'; wouldn't have to 'see posts here'; 'see Democrats rationalizing'; etc . . .

Glad that's not what happened.

[Demo_Chris]

274. Weak argument accusing me of supporting a Republican, but I guess it's all you have. nt

[bigtree]

278. waste of time trying to deconstruct such an ignorant premise

[zeemike]

34. Again, it is kin to with us or against us.

If you disagree with us you must be a Ron Paul supporter....always the dichotomy.

[ucrdem]

42. It's even simpler. Snowden and Greenwald lied.

They lied every which way. And when I heard, read, or saw Snowden and Greenwald in action, I knew they were lying. Greenwald was spinning like a top and Snowden was reciting talking points which, though carefully worded, were lies.

Obama by contrast spoke candidly and provided detailed answers which turned out to be true, twice, in a press conference on June 7 and in a televised interview on June 16. Both videos are in my journal and I can dig them up if you'd like to watch them.

So here's what it comes down to: Snowden and Greenwald lied, and Obama didn't. I didn't expect him to, and I wasn't disappointed. And it's been over for a month.

[zeemike]

57. And I am sure you know a lie when you see it,

And the rest of us don't...Case closed...in your mind.

[ucrdem]

59. It's not all that hard. Snowden was slicing baloney all the way

and Greenwald's switcheroos are like blinking neon signs. It does take a little practice I suppose but you get the hang of it fast.

[zeemike]

68. Well don't give your secrets away

It could be valuable, and people from all over might seek you out for your tremendous powers.

[Marr]

98. How about Clapper? Do you condemn him for lying?

I mean, unlike you, I don't have to use a crystal ball and a handy book on body language to tell if he lied. It's undisputed.

Do you want to see Clapper in prison, too? I mean, misleading Congress *is* a felony, after all.

[Divernan]

117. A "misleading response" from Clapper is a lie from Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/partner-zone-infosecurity/worldwide-reaction-to-nsa-prism-surveillance-overview?INTCMP=SRCH

The EFF, however, warned that people should consider the precise words used over PRISM and surveillance.

The issue is whether the director of national intelligence lied. Asked by Senator Ron Wyden last year: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper replied: "No, sir … not wittingly." But according to NSA definitions, data is not collected until it is read. On this basis, warns the EFF, a fully stocked library is not a collection of books unless they are read. Thus, with a careful choice and 'proprietary' use of words, the government and NSA is able to provide what the public would call a misleading response without actually lying.

EFF stands for Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.cso.com.au/article/466181/schneier_joins_eff_board_wake_nsa_scandal/

Schneier joins EFF board in wake of NSA scandal
When a cryptologist with strong ties to the US military wants the NSA's "unconstitutional spying" shut down, you know something's up.

Renown cryptologist and security specialist Bruce Schneier has joined the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), one of the United States' longest-running and most influential digital rights and civil liberties lobby groups. It's a move that will boost the EFF's intellectual heft in policy debates about online surveillance and privacy issues, as well as their influence in Washington.

The EFF sees Schenier's appointment as particularly important as the organisation learns "more and more" about what they call "the unconstitutional surveillance programs" by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the "depth and breadth" of data the NSA is collecting on the public.

"Bruce is one of America's premiere technologists – the person both experts and the general public turn to when they need answers to tough security questions," said EFF executive director Shari Steele in a statement. "We are very proud to have him join our Board of Directors to help EFF meet the challenges of the years ahead."

Schneier, with his background in the US Department of Defense and strong ties to US military and government information security organisations, will also help dispel the perception in some quarters that the EFF only represents fringe far-libertarian interests. Indeed, Schneier's candid, plain-speaking style moves EFF very much to the centre of the digital debates.

[okaawhatever]

104. Exactly. Just more rabble rousing. I don't believe his crap for a second. Anyone paying attention

knows Obama has done a hell of a job and fulfilled most of his campaign promises. When will the admin get these trolls off this site?

[Walk away]

233. +1000!!!

[busterbrown]

111. Thank you...Rep. Grayson.

[GeorgeGist]

4. I'm reminded of ...

[randome]

5. No one is saying 'You are either with Obama or against him.'

Although I understand why you get that impression from time to time.

I think we would all have preferred that Obama display more of a 'take-no-prisoners' attitude but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

We don't know all the inside information that would enable us to make a firm decision.

He seems to be an intelligent man and a passionate one. I'm more inclined to believe that GOP obstructionism in the House has more to do with his inability to give us what we wanted.

On the other hand, he has done some remarkable things, too.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[loudsue]

44. Yes, remarkable: Like PROPOSING Chained CPI to throw millions of seniors into poverty.

I was pretty impressed, for sure.

[ucrdem]

6. zeemike, how hard would it be for posters here to at least pretend to respect the guy?

Even if they're absolutely convinced he's a stealth 99% Manchurian Trojan horse? Which, it turns out, he most certainly is not?

[zeemike]

21. I have seen no one here disrespect him

But many apologies for giving away most ever progressive thing we used to support.
I have nothing against him personally and don't know why he said something when he was ruining and then did the opposite when he no longer needed us...I could not possibly know that....I only see the results...and it is ot pretty, and spells trouble ahead in a big way.

[Hissyspit]

53. Why should you demand pretense of respect for President Obama while constantly lying about or

slandering Greenwald, even if you think he's a tool or plant, which it turns out, he most certainly is not?

Double standards much?

[ucrdem]

55. Because I didn't vote for Greenwald and I wouldn't in a million years.

Oh and welcome back.

[Hissyspit]

95. Nobody votes for journalists.

But they are in the Constitution, too.

I didn't go anywhere.

[brush]

7. So just say you're not voting in 2014 . . .

and you want everyone else to do the same.

Guess we should look on the bright side of it. At least you're not advocating voting repug.

You're not are you?

[zeemike]

26. I have voted in every election and have no plans to change that.

And my suggestion to people would be to primary every democrat that has abandoned democratic principles...
And what you said is kin to ether with us or against us...ether you accept democrats like they are or you are saying we should not vote....same dichotomy.

[brush]

32. I'm saying vote and vote for democrats

Good to hear you feel the same.

But understand that all the anti-Obama negativity will drive some to vote for the other party.

[zeemike]

40. Well if it will drive them to vote for the GOP

They were not democrats in the first place....no, where we lose votes is by bing right light and making democrats think there is no difference and so they stay home...and right now I would bet there are many like that after this NSA scandal where Obama is being Bush (not so) light....and putting Social Security on the chopping block.

[HooptieWagon]

71. Its difficult to tell the difference at times now.

Right here on DU we have "Democrats" who advocate for a surveillence state, for abuse of govt power, for violating laws and treaties, for state-sponsored terrorism. Shit that we opposed when Bush was in office because it was against our principles, not because he had an R after his name. The country voted to change, not continue the status quo. Looks like about half of Democrats have sold out. I haven't. I have voted solidly Democratic for almost 40 years. Whether I vote Democratic in the future depends entirely on whether there remains any Democrats my peinciples allow me to vote for.

[zeemike]

77. I know what you mean.

It is funny how they can move us so far to the right and still call themselves democrats....perhaps Grover Norquest dragged the party into the bathroom and is now drowning it in the tub.

[LWolf]

116. Criticism of Obama will not drive me to vote for Republicans.

I never vote for Republicans.

Obama's actions, the actions of his administration, might drive me away from the Democratic Party, but it sure as hell wouldn't be towards Republicans.

Those things, though, aren't enough to drive me away. What is most likely to drive me away, or at least greatly lessen any value that I hold for the party, are those Democrats who are so desperate to support and defend an elected D or a D administration that they excuse ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that administration does, and attack those who still stand on issues as traitors, as "the professional left," etc., etc., etc..

If anybody is going to drive me away, it will be those that cannot acknowledge the truth when it hurts, and have to attack the messengers. I've already lost all respect for them here.

[Bradical79]

206. So?

There's not much you can do about people stupid enough to vote Republican when they're mad about Obama following some policies of his Republican predecessor. Odds are those people aren't spending time reading this forum anyway while staying so completely uninformed. Now demanding people be dishonest about what they see or simply shut up so as to not give Republicans any momentum is what really causes divisiveness. The reality is liberals are much less authoritarian and less likely to be party loyalists. Otherwise they wouldn't be liberals. Anyone demanding otherwise is making a pretty severe mis-step if they're hoping to help the party win in 2014 and 2016.

[Tarheel_Dem]

266. Don't give them that much credit. The party in the WH almost always loses seats in the midterms.

It's been that way forever, but they'd like you to think that Obama's performance in office will be the cause. The opposition is always more focused and determined in the midterms, and let's face it, Democratic constituencies tune out between presidential elections.

Our goal just has to be ignoring the noise coming from the Greenwald Assanganistas, and convincing family & friends who ALWAYS sit these things out, to make the attempt. The sad part is, while people like the o.p. want to keep you focused like a laser on Obama, these GOP controlled state legislatures are redrawing lines, closing down women's clinics, and thanks to the USSC, they are moving with lightening speed to disenfranchise minority voters and college students. But you should only be watching Obama cuz he knows you like porn.

Don't give them the power to discourage you.

[polichick]

10. imo it's just becoming more and more clear that...

there really is only one party - no matter who's in the WH.

[jazzimov]

11. No, it wasn't Obama.

We divided ourselves. Any attempts to pass blame is only self-denial.

[hughee99]

52. We were always divided. In ANY group of followers,

there are those that put the ideology first and the organization second, and those who put the organization first and the ideology second (there are completely valid reasons for doing both). Everything is fine until the organization is asked to compromise something in hopes of advancing a larger cause. When that happens, the division becomes visible and anything from a serious, thoughtful discussion to childish name-calling begins.

[KittyWampus]

12. criticize him all you want. But please #1. also criticize Republicans. #2. criticize him for things

that are remedied by the executive and not Congress or SCOTUS.

[treestar]

22. Amen, when on DU there is more (and stupid) criticism of the Dem President

than there is of Republicans, we know we are troll infested.

[KharmaTrain]

85. Or Do Something Positive...

...suggest how we can change the laws, concrete plans of action to put pressure on politicians or the administration or both to get laws passed, changed or investigated. It's real easy to sit on a message board and rant all day about how awful Obama or Democrats or certain DU members are, it takes a bit more to offer a positive and doable idea or solution to a problem. Methinks there's a bunch of people around here who need times out...

Cheers...

[Bradical79]

208. That's exactly what's been happening.

It's mostly been the extreme Obama loyalists who have been misattributing things to the other branches of government. It's as if Obama suddenly has no power despite the consistant increases in executive power over the past 3 decades.

[uponit7771]

219. This is false on its face, MANY complaints of GITMO go against this.

[bluestate10]

14. NO. DU members that can't fucking accept the reality that the world is not a perfect place and

they won't EVER get 100% of what they demand have divided us. The NSA dustup is just the latest attempt by them to de-legitimatize President Obama. I for one am fed up with their bullshit.

[loudsue]

47. I said on a post the other day that I was fed up with Obama's bullshit, and it was deleted.

But you can say it about other DUers and it's just dandy.

DUers, of ALL people, know that the world isn't a perfect place....many of us lived through all the bush years enough to know how totally friggin' imperfect the world is. But when both parties are being supported by the VERY SAME DONORS, you are hiding your head in the sand if you don't start getting REALLY worried about it.

[bluestate10]

69. You claim on donor bases is dead wrong. The republican and democratic donor bases

couldn't be more different. One clear images from the last election with detailed summaries of who contributed to republicans and Romney and who contributed to democrats and President Obama. Sorry, but you either don't know what you are talking about when you claim the donor bases are the same, or you are pointedly choosing to ignore a fact. But your attempt to justify what works out to a disconnected summary of a well known fact is typical of what I see from some posters and when I see that, bullshit is the only description of it that apply.

[loudsue]

89. Whew!! You are SERIOUSLY misinformed.

I'm obviously not referring to the piddly donors (donor "bases&quot who are mere citizens of this fine country. The MAJOR donors, from the corporate PACs, the AT&T, the oil industry, the electrical/utility industries, construction, the military donors....I'm talking about the big boys that OWN our elected officials...

THOSE are the people who own politicians, lock stock & barrel.

they INDEED ARE buying both sides. Just go read about the fund raisers for the DLC.... who no longer use that term so much because most real democrats got wise to their shit. I personally know some of the largest benefactors for Bill & Hill Clinton. They are corporatists to the bone, and fully intend to drive the democratic party further and further to the right.

[LWolf]

118. You said it, loudsue. nt

[MNBrewer]

87. The world isn't perfect so shut up and learn to love Big Brother!

[whatchamacallit]

188. +1

[Bradical79]

211. Might as well have voted for Romney

if "the world is not perfect" were a legitimate response to criticism of a president's actions (or inaction). You would have fit right in. You want to drive people away from voting Democrat? Just tell the people "the world is not a perfect place" when they are upset about an authoritarian policy. Talk about a complete bullshit response.

[Demo_Chris]

15. Or perhaps he revealed who some of us always were. nt

[Warpy]

18. Why, because the ship of state is constructed like the Titanic,

over powered and with too small a rudder to make turns quickly to avoid disaster?

He inherited a lot of very bad policies. With a dysfunctional Congress, there is no way to get rid of many of them.

No one in his or her right mind think McGramps and Bible Barbie would have been an improvement, nor would the money grubbing political chameleon Romney.

He inherited the problems. He didn't inherit the ability to fix them alone.

[bemildred]

19. We aren't divided. nt

[treestar]

20. No one says he can't be criticized

He should be defended from ludicrous criticism of the kind that does not admit there is a Congress or that the Presidency does not mean the entire government apparatus goes away with every new President.

[zeemike]

31. No one says it

But if you do you are called a hater or a racist...actions speak louder than words....and actions that intend to intimidate speak the loudest, and are revealing.

[treestar]

38. until I quit being call a fangirl for not agreeing with every stupid and irrational criticism

my sympathy for people being called haters will not be invoked.

[hollysmom]

23. no, it is the lack of respect for differing opinions that has divided us.

accepting people may see differently and you can learn from discussion

[struggle4progress]

25. Huh? The country has been bitterly divided since the Vietnam War

The 2000 election might have gone to the House of Representatives, had not the Supreme Court unconscionably intervened

[zeemike]

28. Yes it has.

And now the Democratic party...at least here at DU...is divided...so now it is quartered.

[struggle4progress]

37. pfft! The Democratic Party has been divided since long before Will Rogers' time

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat

You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one

[hfojvt]

27. except we were so divided

even two months into his term as evidenced by what I wrote in March 2009 http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/104

I think it is tougher because of Obama
Posted by hfojvt in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Mar 25th 2009, 10:31 AM
with Bush in charge we always knew what to do, and what to think. What to think was "Bush sucks!!!" and what to do was to rail at the M$M for enabling him and to rail at Congress for not standing up to him and to rail at the FReepers for being ignorant sheeple.

Now we do not have that kneejerk option anymore. We used to know what we were against - the Bush administration. We were never sure what we were for (except the negative of stopping the Bush administration).

Some progressives though, are still in attack mode. The Naderites still believe there is not a dime's worth of difference and are determined to expose the President's lack of clothing and lies and prevarications. So it's tough for an honest progressive. You don't want to kneejerk defend the President, right or wrong, but you don't want to get played by the RWNM either.

The Naderites have it easy though, because they can stay in attack mode and tell themselves they are superior to the PINO (progressive in name only) sheeple who blindly support their President or their party. Even if the glass is 75% full, there is always a 25% to rail about and claim it is terrible, awful, no good, very bad policy.

Probably we should all move to Australia.*


* Note for those who may not know. The "move to Australia line is a reference to the children's book "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day" where the narrator keeps dreaming about Australia as the answer to all life's problems.

[MelungeonWoman]

183. So, 2 months in you were calling people who didn't agree with PBO "Naderites"?

I don't think that's helping anything.

Yesterday I almost alerted to a post that used the term "emoprog" in a derogatory way towards another Dem. Then I googled and found emoprog 7,260 times on this forum. I don't understand why we are so rude to each other all the time. What does it accomplish?

[hfojvt]

235. there needs to be a name for a group

what else would you suggest?

And it was not so much about "not agreeing with Obama" as it was about hating Obama. And there is a fair amount of 3rd partyism here, both open and hidden.

The point about people being divided about Obama because of NSA is that we were divided about Obama pretty much from Day 1.

[Progressive dog]

29. No he hasn't.

And then came the process of getting us to accept what we used to hate...namely torture at Gitmo, a state of permanent war and fear, and the righteousness of Wall Street bankers and the dirtiness of Occupy Wall Street.

No torture at Gitmo after Obama became president. It ended. The torture memos were repudiated.
The Iraq war is over. The Afghanistan war was escalated, as candidate Obama said it would be, and now has an end date set. The president can't do anything about the fear you may have, I missed his fear mongering.

[zeemike]

46. Is sticking a tube down someones thought to feed them just being kind?

And they have been there 4 years now under Obama, even thought they were cleared for release.

And don't give us the lame excuse that congress would not let him....he had both houses for the first two years....and besides he could have given an order as CIC of the military to close it and they would have to comply....dispite anything congress had to say about it.,,,they do not control the military..that is the job and responsibility of POTUS.

The fucking real truth is they still might be using torture and we would never know because it is a secret.

[Divernan]

132. Released prisoners would reveal horrendous US practices to the world.

The hell of Guantanamo is one of the darkest chapters of US history. One closely guarded aspect of Guantanamo is the participation of US Army physicians in designing and monitoring torture - a clear violation of their professional oath and the Geneva Convention.

Despite this, information that has become available indicates that the behavior of medical personnel at the US military prison facilities constitutes another war crime committed in the US “global war on terror.” Bloche and Marks write: “Not only did caregivers pass health information to military intelligence personnel; physicians assisted in the design of interrogation strategies, including sleep deprivation and other coercive methods tailored to detainees’ medical conditions. Medical personnel also coached interrogators on questioning technique.”

While the authors stop short of charging that doctors have directly participated in torture, they write that “there is probable cause for suspecting it.” They do argue, however, that any doctors or other medical personnel who helped devise and “execute aggressive counter-resistance plans...breached the laws of war.”

Such practices are in clear violation of the Third Geneva Convention, which states: “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.”

Medical journal urges military physicians not to cooperate with Guantanamo force-feedings
Claire Schaeffer-Duffy | Jun. 26, 2013 NCR Today


A recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine urges military physicians at Guantanamo not to cooperate with the force-feeding of prisoners currently on a hunger strike. Calling the military prison a "medical ethics-free zone," the authors of the article say they believe military doctors should "refuse to participate in any act that unambiguously violates medical ethics."

"Physicians at Guantanamo cannot permit the military to use them and their medical skills for military purposes and still comply with their ethical obligations. Force-feeding a competent person is not the practice of medicine; it is aggravated assault. Using a physician to assault prisoners no more changes the nature of the act than using physicians to 'monitor' torture makes torture a medical procedure. Military physicians are no more entitled to betray medical ethics than military lawyers are to betray the Constitution or military chaplains are to betray their religion," they write.

The prisoners' hunger strike has been going on at the military detention facility in Cuba for almost five months. According to The Washington Post, more than 100 detainees are refusing food to protest their indefinite detention and the conditions of their confinement. Of these, the Post reports, 41 are subjected daily to force-feedings, a procedure that entails strapping a detainee to a chair, inserting a tube in his nose and flooding his stomach with liquid protein.

In April (2010) President Barack Obama said he did not want any hunger-striker to die. In May, he promised to begin releasing the 86 men his interagency task force cleared to leave the prison in 2010. Weeks have passed, and no detainee has exited Guantanamo.
In fact, the situation there deteriorates.

Shaker Aamer, a British resident twice cleared for release from Guantanamo, recently told the head of the British legal charity Reprieve that prison authorities are using increasingly brutal tactics in an attempt to break the strike, making the cells "freezing cold" and employing metal-tipped tubes that cause prisoners to vomit during the twice-daily force-feedings.

In the interview, excerpts of which were published in the The Guardian, Aamer also said nurses are discarding their name tags before entering the camp so prisoners cannot identify and file complaints against them.

The article in The New England Journal of Medicine denounced the co-opting of medical professionals for political purposes.

"It's hardly revolutionary to state that physicians should act only in the best interests of their patients," the authors wrote.

They pointed out that "hunger striking is a peaceful political activity to protest terms of detention or prison conditions" and is not a medical condition that warrants force-feeding to prevent self-harm or save lives, as Guantanamo officials claim.

"Unlike individual medical and psychiatric assessments made in the context of doctor patient-relationship, the decision to force-feed prisoners is made by the base commander," they wrote. "It is a penological decision about how best to run the prison. Physicians who participate in this nonmedical process become weapons for maintaining prison order."


July 5-18, 2013


http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/medical-journal-urges-military-physicians-not-cooperate-guantanamo-force-feedings
and
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1306065

US Doctors 'Hid Signs of Torture' at Guantanamo
by Steve Connor

US government doctors who cared for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay deliberately concealed or ignored evidence that their patients were being tortured, the first official study of its kind has found.

A detailed review of the medical records and case files of nine Guantanamo inmates has concluded that medical personnel at the US detention centre were complicit in suppressing evidence that would demonstrate systematic torture of the inmates. (Image Credit: United States Department of Defense) A detailed review of the medical records and case files of nine Guantanamo inmates has concluded that medical personnel at the US detention centre were complicit in suppressing evidence that would demonstrate systematic torture of the inmates.

The review is published in an online scientific journal, PLoS Medicine, and is the first peer-reviewed study analysing the behaviour of the doctors in charge of Guantanamo inmates who were subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques that a decade ago had been classed by the US government as torture. All of the nine detainees investigated in the study claimed to their own legal teams that they were also subjected over many months – and in some cases years – to additional, unauthorised episodes of ill-treatment, such as severe beatings, threats of rape, or forced nudity.

"The abuses reported in this case series could not be practised without the interrogators and medical monitors being aware of the severe and prolonged physical and mental pain that they caused," the study found. Dr Iacopino said that if individual doctors are found to have breached professional ethics by ignoring the evidence of torture, they should have their medical licence removed at the very least. "In the case of individuals who aided or abetted torture, or knowingly neglected to document torture, then at the minimum they should have their licence removed, but they should also be subject to adjudication under the rule of law," Dr Iacopino said.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/27-3

[zeemike]

144. That would be disturbing to all but a sociopath.

And these men must continue to suffer at our hands to keep our crimes under wraps
Thanks for posting this information...we need to know this.

[markpkessinger]

160. I am very critical of President Obama on this point and on several others, BUT . . .

. . . the claim that he "had both houses for the first two years" is grossly ignorant of the reality of the matter. At NO time during the first two years did Democrats hold the 60 seats necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster. There was a period of a couple of months when one could count to 60 IF one counted the votes of Sanders and Lieberman, both Independents. And often as not at that point, Lieberman, embittered by Connecticut Democrats' rejection of him as their nominee for the Senate race, was caucusing with Republicans.

There are many and ample reasons to criticize the President, and I have voiced criticisms of him on many occasions. But the argument that he "had both houses for the first two years" is a Republican talking point which no Democrat, how ever critical they may be of the President, should buy into.

[zeemike]

164. On Gitmo, he did not need the congress to close it.

That could have been done with a simple order to the military which he is the comanand chief of...no permission from congress is needed.
The congress could have cut off funds to Gitmo but that would have had the same effect.

And I have yet to hear someone explain how Bush got everything he wanted from congress and yet Obama could not even when he had a clear mandate from the election and a democratic controlled house and senate...who by the way could have used the so called nuclear option that the GOP threatened to use when Bush was in there if they wanted to.

But everything got taken off the table.
And those are not GOP talking points they are facts.

[markpkessinger]

165. Fair enough . . .

. . . All I am saying is don't resort to the GOP distortion that the President "had both houses for the first two years." I'm not taking issue with the substance of your criticism, only this one false point you used to buttress it.

[Demit]

189. And Lieberman suffered no consequences from the Democratic party. None.

And the president is the head of his party.

It's bad enough that Obama's support for the winner of the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut, Ned Lamont, was visibly lukewarm. But he watches Lieberman campaign for McCain in 2008 and afterwards lets him keep his powerful Senate committee chairmanships anyway?

There's just no fight in him. No will to fight back. Yes, I know that having 60 Senate votes was iffy, and the period of time brief. But I always wonder what might have been, if he had roared up & threatened the execrable Joe Lieberman with justifiable retribution. But he didn't. Whatever his motives for backing off were, he didn't use the power he had, as head of the Democratic party.

[graham4anything]

201. Did you forget it was 5 or 6 or 7 months til Al Franken was seated? One of the biggest liberals?

And did you forget, being that you blame Obama for Lieberman, then credit him for his getting Elizabeth Warren the senate seat.
You can't have it both ways.

[Demit]

224. Uh, that's what made it the possible 60 votes. I remember it well.

What does Franken have to do with my remarks on Lieberman?

I blame Obama for 'forgiving' Lieberman. The man who thought Senate Dems should NOT have supported, in the CT general election, the legitimate winner of the Dem primary—they should've supported HIM! The man who, in addition to campaigning against Obama, also campaigned against Al Franken! You want undivided loyalty to the party from rank-and-file Democrats? How about a little loyalty to the party from the *head* of the party!


I don't understand what Elizabeth Warren has to do with the period of time we had a possible supermajority in the Senate in 2009.

[Progressive dog]

272. Letting them starve would also be torture

This is a moral dilemma with no right answer, but most civilized nations choose to force feed hunger striking prisoners.
................................................................................................................................................................
Because some people claim that Congress didn't have to act to close GITMO doesn't make it so.

And don't give us the lame excuse that congress would not let him....he had both houses for the first two years..

.......................................................................................................................................................................
If you want to believe this or any thing else without evidence of any kind other than THEY MIGHT BE DOING IT,
no one can stop you.(unless THEY are going to)

The fucking real truth is they still might be using torture and we would never know because it is a secret.

[zeemike]

275. No it would not be torture

Torture is when one inflicts pain and suffering on another against their will.

Well a judge ruled that Obama was the only one who had that authority....but that don't make it so ether does it?...bad cop is there for a reason...to give good cop a reason to claim there is nothing he can do.

[Progressive dog]

279. That is your opinion but historically most governments

have disagreed with you, as do I.
BTW What authority did a judge rule only Obama had?

[zeemike]

281. It is nor an opinion it is the definition of the word

tor·ture (tôrchr)
n.
1.
a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Only Obama can stop Gitmo force-feeding - US judge

A US district judge has ruled that she would be overstepping her authority by issuing an injunction against force-feeding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, saying that only President Obama has the necessary authority to stop the practice.

Judge Gladys Kessler issued the ruling in response to an injunction request made on behalf of inmate Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Syrian national who was cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo by the Obama administration in 2009 but who has been held at the detention center for over a decade without charge or trial; he remains at the camp.
http://rt.com/usa/obama-guantanamo-force-feeding-805/

[Progressive dog]

282. Legal definitions are sometimes different than dictionary definitions

"The torture of waiting in suspense" is one dictionary definition. What legal standard would that define?

2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

Multiple court rulings in the USA have allowed the use of force feedings in prisons. Prisons are required to keep order, which includes preventing suicides. Tube feeding is used all the time in hospitals, they don't consider it torture.
Do prisoners have the right to commit suicide by starvation and refuse medical intervention is the right question? It isn't torture.

[zeemike]

283. The torture of waiting in suspense is not what we are talking about now is it?

That is an obvious red hering...

On many occasions in the past prisoners have been force-fed by feeding tube when they went on hunger strike. It has been prohibited since 1975 by the Declaration of Tokyo of the World Medical Association, provided that the prisoner is "capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment".

[Progressive dog]

286. No it isn't, you gave the dictionary definition and

want to pretend that you didn't. Now you use a World Medical Association statement to claim that force feeding prisoners is torture.They have no legal authority to prohibit anything. They have no authority to legally define what is and is not torture. They are a voluntary association, they don't even write their own dictionary.

[zeemike]

290. I gave the dictionary definition

Which included that one not related to actual torture...but that is not the one we are talking about....so you picked the red hearing to through out.
there is more than one way to use words...and I guess I should have left that one out so you would not be able to use it to distract from the point.

No legal authority....just a moral one...but then that is the point...morality is out the window now.

[Progressive dog]

295. Your definition of torture is whatever you'd like it to be

and you give dictionary definitions that you don't agree with to prove it. I understand, so asking you to look up logic or fact would be meaningless since you have a moral authority. LOL

[zeemike]

296. I cut and pasted the entire definition from the dictionary

And you seized on the fact that there is other ways to use the word to distract...and then claim I am illogical and so you don't have to explain....got it
This conversation can have no end if I let you run me around in circles chasing your ever changing target...
Goodbye.

[Progressive dog]

297. So thinking is not necessary, cut and paste

Somehow you have already convinced me that you do that.

[zeemike]

298. And you have convinced me you can weasel out of anything.n/t

[Progressive dog]

299. Written like a true non-thinker

[silvershadow]

35. The status of reality on the ground dictates all, inho. How people feel and react is wholly a

product of that, I would think. Well, that and "nudging" by propagandists. People have right to feel how they feel. If it happens to be unpleasant, maybe we should examine why.

[Gman]

36. Here we go again.

Obama... The "base" (whatever that is)... Democrats... Teach a lesson...

Worked out great in 2010, didn't it?

[99Forever]

43. As did that browbeating people for...

... for expressing their disappointment in the policies and actions of not just Obama, but also most of the Democratic "leaders."

But that won't stop the Rah Rah Brigade from trying it again, will it?

Heaven forbid that they actually start working for OUR votes.

[ProSense]

49. The President

As did that browbeating people for... for expressing their disappointment in the policies and actions of not just Obama, but also most of the Democratic 'leaders.'"

...just won re-election in a landslide.

"But that won't stop the Rah Rah Brigade from trying it again, will it? "

I'm fairly certain it was with the help of those "expressing their disappointment" and the "Rah Rah Brigade."

[ProSense]

61. The

"Which part of 2010 don't you understand. If you must insist on sticking your nose in, at least try to understand what is being discussed."

...OP is about Obama having "divided us."

The comment you responded to was about using Obama as an excuse to "teach" Democrats a "lesson."

It's not Obama dividing us. Your "browbeating" claim and the "Rah Rah Brigade" label isn't a call for unity.

[Gman]

60. Yup, that election worked out great

GOP gerrymandering, losing closed shop in MI, losing getting any unemployment in NC, outlawing abortion in Texas, losing preclearance in the VRA and unable to do anything about it do to GOP gerrymandering....

I agree your issues are important and they are good ones. But we have to have control first. But when we had control, rather than reach any consensus among Dems like on health care, we tore ourselves apart much worse than now. We lost the House. The cycle starts over.

[Sheepshank]

39. And this is Obama's fault too?

ooohhhh weeeeee, but he knows how to pack 458 hours into 8.

[CakeGrrl]

45. Another overly simplified, binary-thinking OP

Inferring that:

1) Those who "feel they can criticize" are in the right and are only doing so with the noblest intentions (of course, the OP counts themselves in this number, otherwise why post?)
2) Those who "feel you can't criticize" are in the wrong and are adopting the "with us or against us" mentality.

As always, you have NOTHING to back up assertion number 2. Why? Because it isn't true.

Ironically, one can currently witness the "with us or against us" attitude in those who dare challenge the motives of what Snowden did. If you're not with him, you are the worst type of "Surveillance State" sympathizer - some binary thinking you should recognize. And it's quite clear that those who adopt that attitude are the most long-standing, vocal "critics" of the Obama administration.

And then there's the "professional left" fallacy that got perpetrated the way "Al Gore invented the Internet" did.

There are so many people thinking that the Obama administration personally called them stupid it's boggling.

"Professional" means one is getting PAID for one's opinion, as in a blogger collecting donations or a TV pundit. They were never referring to the DU posting community, who do not get paid to post here.

If "we" (And who gets to belong to that exclusive "we" club these days? One can never tell if they're considered a "true" Democrat) lose the next election, it'll be because people don't get off their asses and cast their votes.

If you're helping discourage that effort, you're part of the problem. Simple.

[zeemike]

51. "As always, you have NOTHING to back up assertion "

As soon as I read that I dismissed all that you have to say...that is yet another false dicotomy...
It is not enough to say you have little or not much it must be NOTHING because if it is something then you have nothing.

[CakeGrrl]

72. People criticize POTUS here daily

and repeatedly. Have you missed all of that? Do you believe it's suppressed?

And some people flat-out lob shitbombs. "Fuck Obama" is not an invitation to reasoned discussion.

So yes, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees with those viewpoints.

Effectively, you're complaining that critics are disagreed with - meaning, you don't like opposition to your viewpoint.

As long as people have their own minds and thought processes, this is going to be the case.

The bottom line is whether people who thumb their nose up at "marching in lockstep" can separate that distaste from being able to band together from the GOP, who WILL take power in 2016 if the Dems don't counter it.

If you think a viable third party has a shot between now and then, good luck.

[loudsue]

97. People who are criticizing Obama here daily are getting their posts deleted.

Welcome to the new USA.

[Skraxx]

112. OBAMA'S DELETING MY POSTS!!!

DAMN YOU OBAMA!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

153. .

Okay, that was funny.

[JoePhilly]

203. LOL!!!!

[vdogg]

134. Oh please

90% of the posts I've seen this week have been criticizing Obama. If you haven't seen them then you must have some pretty crazy settings on your ignore filter. As a matter of fact, just take a look up thread. Plenty of criticizing, no deleting...

[zeemike]

195. And the dems will not counter it by recycling third way dems.

We need candidates that reflect the interest of ordinary people because that is where the votes are, not by giving the 1% everything they want.
And by us doing that, we give evidence to the meme that there is no difference between the GOP and Dems...and ordinary people just stay home.

[Demit]

192. Haha, I dismissed it after she misused 'inferring'.

People who use words they don't understand the meaning of are very likely to have cloudy thinking otherwise. If you are careless about what words mean, you are disposed to be careless about concepts too.

[Bobbie Jo]

234. Just like I'm dismissing you for this pathetic "gotcha" attempt.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

CakeGrrl was referencing the OP's inferences. (conclusions)

Duh.

You still have time to delete that stroke of brilliance.


Edited to correct DU'ers username. Sorry, CakeGrrl. .

[Demit]

255. Nope. She clearly means to refer to what the OP was implying.

CakeGirl refers to the OP's "assertion number 2." CakeGirl's opinion is that the OP is asserting something without actually saying it: That people who don't feel they can criticize Obama are wrong. That is known as implying.

CakeGirl, with her so-certain interpretation of what the OP actually meant, even though he didn't say that, is the party doing the inferring.

You might not like grammar gotchas and I don't usually make them, but the rest of her post was so full of garbled and airy accusations and projection I thought the grammar mistake was a good stand-in for it all.

[CakeGrrl]

289. Really?

in·fer [in-fur] Show IPA verb, in·ferred, in·fer·ring.
verb (used with object)
1.to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.to hint; imply; suggest.


One might say these words are SYNONYMOUS.


It's "CakeGrrl", but you know, you brought this all up.


Maybe if you kept reading instead of tripping up over a synonym, you might have gotten to my point. But I think it may have been lost on you anyway, since things are all garbled to you.

[Demit]

294. May I imply from your response that you think the words are interchangeable?

[CakeGrrl]

305. Go right ahead.

[great white snark]

67. +1

So true the "we" part. Democrats? Left? Far Left? Green? Libs?

3 out of 5 were never with Obama to begin with.

[baldguy]

48. Correction: some people have removed themselves

Thinking to all of a sudden be hysterically offended & to blame Obama for things which have been going on since at least the end of WWII.

[PDJane]

56. WE have divided us.

The catalyst is opinion. The fact is that we don't seem to have any tolerance for differing opinions on anything, and we're busy sniping at one another while the world burns and the corporatocracy takes over.

[zeemike]

63. And it has been over Obama.

Whether or not Obama is a good guy or not...It is over whether you support him unconditionally or not.

And yes it is a great distraction while the power of the 1% is consolidated and enhanced and our liberties are taken away little by little.

[PDJane]

66. Obama is a great guy, but not perfect. And no-one has unconditional support.

Obama is an excuse. Get over it. Get with it. Get together to fix what needs to be fixed.

[zeemike]

70. Sure as hell looks unconditional to me.

I mean, if you are willing to give him a pass on a succulence state then just what conditions would you NOT support him?

[Summer Hathaway]

109. What is a "succulence state"? n/t

[zeemike]

115. Ooops....thank you

I changed it to surveillance

[bigtree]

267. the state of this thread

'suckulence'

[Summer Hathaway]

269. Perfect!

[HooptieWagon]

80. Obama has been the best Republican president in my lifetime.

Problem is, I voted for a Democratic president.

[Number23]

110. Thread winner. Beautifully said. And some have been sowing this division since very early in the

man's tenure.

[CakeGrrl]

137. Bingo

That's what this comes down to: Some people REALLY, REALLY have a problem when others disagree with their opinions.

Meanwhile, the GOP and GOP-majority SCOTUS press on with their extremism.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

58. It is those that have either fallen for the hype or just need to hate a leader that has divided us.

Many as of late just cannot stand NOT to criticize President Obama. A majority have spent so much time with the scandal hype that they have let the Congress get away with unthinkable things. Due to that number in the Nation right now, the news has covered little on what is going to come back and bite us.

Why? Because there is a nasty number of people that have allowed themselves to just hate. They want us to fail. They want others to suffer. They can’t have President Obama be seen for what he has done for this country.

Their hate is even blocking debate on what really is private. Let us face it, we have never really took a look and had a national debate on this. It is not all that black and white. Thanks to new technology, we need to go and really think what that is.

Can we have that debate and discussion? Not if this angry, hate filled group that call themselves "Democrats" has their way. They rather help the Republicans block it.

And they also block us from calling Congress on such things as that disgusting vote on guns or that horrid cut on SNAP.

How? By jumping on the scandal wagon. Let's look at the Farm Bill that got voted on with those cuts that will hurt many Americans.They fill many a board with scandal stuff that when a call for action before the votes to call and get our voices heard, was silenced.

The other side made sure they got heard while we were quiet. When Democrats go silent, the American people pays the price.

And that is what the other side wants. They also want to cripple President Obama, which this hate filled group that has sprung up all over has help do. They are on far to many boards. They are out to make those that do not have a party choose anything but Democrat by their actions and talk.

So yes we are divided, but not by the President. We are divided because some just can not stop hating and many of us STILL remember that we need to stand up and back the President and the ideas of the Party.

EOM!

[freshwest]

79. Well said. Also, the 'Obama dividing meme' is out of Rush and FNN's mouths.

But all that you said, is spot-on about the results of ratfucking and not issues. There are many issues on the ground.

This OP details the oppression of MILLIONS of fellow citizens NOW. Not just in one state, but nationally. It should have HUNDREDS of Rec's, so it shows what are not priorities at DU:

If you want to know what actual tyranny looks like, ask poor women in Texas

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023188714

[TransitJohn]

62. I agree.

The writing was on the wall when the Top 10 went away.

[spanone]

65. more b.s.

[AsahinaKimi]

73. Kami sama help us, if we lose the next Election..

[Art_from_Ark]

191. Unfortunately, that is the trend

Amerika no seiji seido dewa, seiken wo motteiru seitou (daitouryou no seitou) wa chuukan senkyou ni makeru keikou ga tsuyoi.

In the American political system, there is a strong tendency for the party in power (the president's party) to lose the midterm elections.

Only 2 of the last 25 midterm elections have resulted in a net gain of House/Senate seats for the party in the White House.

[AsahinaKimi]

223. sou desu

I hope we can win.

[Art_from_Ark]

265. The trend is definitely against us

The only times the party in the White House has had a net gain of seats in mid-terms since 1910 were in 1934 and 1998 for the Democrats, and in 2002 for the Republicans (George bu$h-- WTF?). It's a pretty tough trend to buck, and I think the Democrats are going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to buck it. Even if the Republicans are crazy as loons, there is unfortunately a large segment of the population that is comfortable with that

[bhikkhu]

74. We don't all agree, and its Obama's fault?

pffft.

I suppose it doesn't matter much, as when some of my fired-up RW co-workers were after me the other day, on the whole scandal-gate nonsense, and I just smiled and said, "well, that's the last time I vote for Obama!"

I'm for good government. As long as we get that from our party, or at least the potential for it, then there'll be no historic soul-searching on this side of the computer screen. People come and go, principles and issues remain the same.

[pnwmom]

75. People here were divided before Obama ever came along.

There has always been a group that identified more with the "Democratic" part of the name, and people who identified more as the "underground." When Bush was in office, the group was more united. With a Democrat in office, we're not.

What I see new is the number and level of personal attacks, and I think they're coming more from the Underground side -- name calling as "authoritarian," etc. But maybe that's more from my perspective, I don't know. I just wish people would realize the nasty attacks are counter-effective. They just alienate people instead of helping people understand each other. They certainly never change anyone's opinions.

[Botany]

76. the man has done an outstanding job

end of story

[DCBob]

78. Most Democrats are not divided.

Obama has a huge approval rating among D voters. The problem is with the lefty left wing of the party... though small in numbers can be extremely vocal.

[magellan]

124. If we're so small in numbers does that mean you don't need our votes?

Because that what the dismissive tone of your post and others is telling me.

[DCBob]

135. Its none of my business how you vote.. but I would think a real Democrat would vote for Democrats.

Hard to imagine any benefit coming from the alternative.

[magellan]

140. I'm an independent

Always have been. I've voted Dem since Clinton. I don't miss midterms. Evidently the New Dems expect me to hold my nose and vote against my interests and then stfu. Ain't happening. Luckily my rep is Grayson. Him I'll vote for happily. But I won't hold my nose anymore. And I won't shut up.

[liberal_at_heart]

157. I'm a new independent magellan. I've always considered myself and democrat and have always voted

democrat. I will not hold my nose anymore either. I'm glad you have at least one liberal you can vote for.

[magellan]

226. I feel very fortunate to have Grayson as a rep

And it's all because the Repubs changed the district lines. So I guess I finally have something to thank them for. lol

I hope you can find a true liberal or progressive to support. I know they're hard to find, and when they do run the national party often snubs them for a more centrist candidate. That's not a suitable alternative to me now.

[DCBob]

170. I was an Independent in the 90's but then Bush came along...

and I realized it was too dangerous to ride the fence.

[magellan]

222. Ride the fence?

What part of "I've voted Dem since Clinton" did you misunderstand?

Not all independents are on the fence. I doubt you would be if you were an independent. Or do you think no party affiliation automatically confers confusion about who to vote for?

[liberal_at_heart]

155. I'm not a real democrat, not a democrat at all. You know the whole a real Democrat would vote

democrat argument reminds me of the first time I told my father I was no longer a Christian. My father told me a Christian had to believe in the Resurrection. If you didn't believe in the Resurrection then you weren't a real Christian. I told him, "Well, then it's a good thing I'm not a Christian anymore." People don't like being told how they must think, act, or vote. In fact, many times doing so will ensure they will do the exact opposite.

[DCBob]

169. Actually..

its more like saying your a Christian and not believing in Christ.

[Live and Learn]

81. Ridiculous. It is the issues which are dividing people.

Some are just intent on throwing Obamba in to the mix.

[zeemike]

84. And it is being done OVER Obama.

Because if you say anything about his policies you hate him or are a racist of something like that...that makes him the football in this game.

[Bobbie Jo]

212. Exaggerate much?

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

This overblown characterization is one of the reasons some posters cannot be taken seriously when it comes to Obama.

Because the same overblown bullshit is used by the same posters to characterize Obama and his polices.

Sorry folks, your reputation precedes you.

Perhaps you were aiming at folks who haven't been reading this board for the past 5+ years.

[zeemike]

214. Just what did I exaggerate about?

Are you saying that no one called DUers racist because they criticized Obama?...if so you have not been reading this board in the last month.
Perhaps you were aiming at posters that have not been paying attention lately.

[Bobbie Jo]

216. Your post:

Because if you say anything about his policies you hate him or are a racist of something like that...that makes him the football in this game.

This is an exaggeration. You're implying all-inclusiveness. Ain't happening. You're exaggerating your claim.

This method of "proclaiming truth" is done here daily and repeatedly.

[zeemike]

218. "all-inclusiveness"

Where in that statement did you read that?
I expressed my opinion and explained my anology....never did I proclaim it as truth.

And you are using the method of interpreting what I say as other than how I said it...and that is done here too....it is like saying that Al Gore said he invented the internet, when that is not what he said.

[Bobbie Jo]

225. Seems your opinion

implies all-inclusiveness, and this kind of binary thinking translates to chest-thumping "truth telling" screeds, and all manner of self-righteous, exaggerated nonsense.

I think CakeGirl has an excellent post here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3193897 and you should really consider a reread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

247. Whether or not you actually believe that crap, it would appear that you're engaging in a little....

division sowing of your own. Some people have very selective memories, when it comes to Prez Obama, and you seem to be one of them. Go back and re-read DU2. Race became an issue early in the process for Pres. Obama. I was shocked to hear some of the comments coming from very high profile white supporters of Hillary, you know the ones I mean. They made race an issue, and they usually did it out of anger, and on Fox News.

There were very nasty comments directed at the president & his minority supporters by folks who "claimed" to be supporters of Hillary. We were called "thugs". In the past couple of days I've just had a reference to "love & hip hop" desparagingly directed at me, because I support the president. Thankfully, many longtime DU'ers were shown the door, after they showed their racist underbelly. Some of us haven't forgotten the tone and tenor of those debates, and if some sensitivity remains, then sobeit.

If you're not a racist, I don't see why being called one would be such a sensitive issue for you. I've been called everything in the book on this board, and I don't feel the need to start a divisive thread over the misapplied labels. Think about that. One might even say we became divided circa 2000, when the more liberal activists among us thought Gore wasn't pure enough, and it's been a fight ever since.

I realize that some of you are here to spread disinformation, disillusion and disaffection for the Democratic Party. I get it. It's your job. Afterall, those midterms aren't gonna depress themselves.

[zeemike]

248. Link to it please.

I remember it well, and I don't remember one single poster that used race against Obama
And I take offense at the suggestion that I just might be a closet racist because I object to being called one.
And that "some of you people" are hear to spread disinformation disillusion and disaffection is just as offensive.
If you want to charge me with any of that then make the charge in the open with evedence to back such a thing up....because if any of that is true I need to be banned...and if not you need to stop saying it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

261. Your claim was a broadbrushed one, so was mine! "Division" didn't start with Obama.

Your selective outrage is duly noted. If anyone thinks your o.p. was intended to foster a healthy debate, I've got a bridge. And just for the record, your "offense" is of absolutely no concern to me. People like Gerry Ferraro and Harriet Christian were poster children for the priveleged racist sentiment that was heralded by many during those days. Feel free to dig through DU2 at your leisure.

And again, if you weren't/aren't one of them, then why the feigned outrage?

[zeemike]

263. You made the claim and the burden of proof is on you.

My OP had no intent other than to point out that our division is created by a dichotomy of with us or against us...with Obama being the object of it.
If you find it divisive and offensive to see that sort of thing then don't look...and find yourself a place where everyone agrees and no one utters any disagreement.
But I don't see DU as being that sort of place.

[liberal N proud]

82. I call bullshit

The problem here is that we have a group that have adopted right wing tactics of attacking anyone who does not agree with them.

And then other, maybe from the same group, tell us that we are fighting among ourselves. Another right wing tactic of projection.

[CakeGrrl]

113. Exactly. And no one wants to admit to co-opting those tactics.

[graywarrior]

83. We're dividing ourselves

and the right is eating it up.

Just my opinion; I'm a complete idiot.

[krawhitham]

101. +1

[LadyHawkAZ]

119. You seem pretty smart

for someone who thinks they're a "complete idiot".

[graywarrior]

123. I'm smart to 50% here

The rest don't know me or disagree with me.

[JoePhilly]

204. YUP ... and the right will be even happier when ...

... the left hates the government so much that it gives up on allowing the government to run a universal health care system and other safety net programs.

After all, if the government is so evil, why would you want it in charge of such things?

[graywarrior]

258. It all comes down to this for me

[JoePhilly]

259. lol

[Kahuna]

86. Sigh. I think one side trusts him and the other side does not.

I trust him. I think as a president goes, he has let me down the least. So, I'm good.

[Live and Learn]

88. Wrong. It has nothing to do with him.

Glad you trust him. So do I. But guess what? He won't always be President and these policies will continue to escalate and will be used against us when the wrong person gets a hold of them. It isn't even the President that uses this information for the most part. Stop making it about Obama!

[Kahuna]

93. I'm glad you think you need to go off topic and give me a lecture.

Get over yourself.

[Live and Learn]

129. Umm, I don't think i will be taking advice about arrogance from someone

with a user name of Kahuna.

[Kahuna]

172. That's kahuna with a small K. So much for your power

of observation.

[Rex]

90. No he has not, some here like to try that tactic.

And it has worked for some, but it is not Obama's fault.

[creon]

91. Divisions were preexisting.

The Democratic Party is an uneasy coalition between idealists and practical ( for want of a better word) sorts.
The world view is quite different.

[KoKo]

94. My worry is that it's not Obama....but, our Dem Party who Chose to Ignore Us...

Starting out with Rahm Emmanuel who started the ball rolling to trash the Left (FDR Dems) of the Party and the Dem Ops who told him who to pick for his Cabinet.

I think we need to dig deeper than Obama. There's A LOT of BLAME to go 'round. I trusted "Center for American Progress" and the "New Democracy Foundation" pluis our Unions (who are still there) and our Environmental and Human and Civil Rights Groups who are Dems to support our views to Obama.

I feel let down .....because THEY let us down along with many of the Act Blue Dems we worked so hard to get into Congress with our small donations and spirit.

Dems did a lot of work building Grass Roots and even the Netroots sites of "Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Move On" and all the Blogs that were vibrant with Activism.

I think there is much blame to go around. And don't forget the Triangulation of the DLC...Emannuel/Clintons and Others.

[zeemike]

100. As I said up thread Obama is the football

not the game.
It is the "ether you are against him of with him" that plays us and divides us into two camps...and a house divided cannot stand.
Which may or may not be deliberate, but surly works against us. And seems imposable to stop with any kind of reason of pleadings.

[Skidmore]

106. It seems to me that the goal of this thread is to divide people and

not foster any reconciliation or discussion. Also, I believe you first cast the President as the game and shifted him to football status when people started pointing out to you that opinion/issues/whatever else was offered was the source of division.

[zeemike]

126. The OP was ABOUT being divided.

And it is divided OVER Obama....Obama being the ball in the metaphor.
And about how it is being done, with creating a dichotomy of one or the other, with him or against him.
And it is being done by one side insisting that everyone must not say anything against him or they are on the other side and hate him.

Referring to the metaphor, the ball is not the game...the game is moving the ball.
I hope that is more clear now.

[pecwae]

173. Agree.

I've never seen as much rancor between Democrats as I've seen under this administration and perhaps that's what the OP alludes to rather than the president directly. I think it's fair to say that there is unprecedented personal investment in the president by many posters which is puzzling to me. Yes, he's a Democrat...he's also a politician.

There's a lot of blame to be shared, but none of us are policy makers here. If we feel let down and critical we have a right to those feelings and to voice our opinions. Even during the primary it was the presidents supporters vs. everyone else who were termed 'haters'. That has festered and is brought up ad naseum.

[rug]

99. I would say it's principle that is dividing us.

[zeemike]

102. And I would say that principles is what team we are on.

And Obama the game ball.

[rug]

103. I don't think anything can be discerned about his principles.

[zeemike]

105. I was talking about our principles.

we are the ones playing the game and Obama is the game ball...to continue the metaphor

[rug]

108. That's the problem. Obama is irrelevant to the rightward drift.

Certainly as irrelevant as Snowden is.

Those who support these policies have much to gain by making it about him. The ensuing clusterfuck allows the rightward drift to continue unabated.

I don't care who is occupying the White House. It has to stop. The fact that the current President is not stopping it is unsurprising.

[azbillyboy]

114. I know this will p*ss a lot of people off....

But if "we" lose the next election (assuming we are talking about 2016), it will be due to the fact that a lot of us (myself included) are stone cold about the prospect of voting for another faux liberal like HRC.

[Major Hogwash]

128. The mid-term elections are only 16 months away.

That's the next election.

[azbillyboy]

302. Sorry about that

I already see upcoming low turnout on the (D) side. Apathy is an infectious disease that is very hard to cure. Then again, here in AZ I can't count the times I have gone to vote only to see an (R) and a (I) on the ticket for far too many offices.

Don't overlook the gross, wanton ignorance of the American public.

As for my initial comment, I still completely stand by it.

[LittleBlue]

120. You speak the truth

It's a sad thing.

The man behind the curtain is becoming visible to a lot of people on the left.

[Zen Democrat]

127. The truth is ...I don't agree with your premise.

I don't agree with you, and Obama had nothing to do with it.

[Lil Missy]

130. DU is not representative of reality. n/t

[Yavin4]

131. I support Obama because he's been the most progressive president since LBJ

And there are some who on DU love to shit on him no matter the issue, whether it was the public option or suing Wall Street banks.

[longship]

136. Blaming the victim again?

We elected him, for Christ sakes!! We also took away any power he might have had in the Congress in 2010. We partially corrected it in 2012, but he is still fighting the same fucking battles that he started with in 2009. He's won some, spectacularly (LGBT rights, for instance); others not so much. The guy is human and I have long since expected miracles in federal government, at least since JFK and LBJ (and both those were flawed presidencies).

But I will never forget the Cuban Missile Crisis or the signing of the Civil Rights Act until my dying day. The Apollo program's success, completed under Nixon, was another JFK feather in his cap.

Every presidency has both successes and flaws. I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in my lifetime. Some I can call great. But none recently, in spite of hopes.

That doesn't mean I won't support my party's president. Obama has many flaws, but fuck if I am going to help today's lunatic Republicans gain back the White House, or the Senate, or build a stronger majority in the House.

Obama has many flaws, but try out a Republican majority and executive for a counter example. We see this happening in the states, like LA, TX, KS, WI, NC, SC, OH, TN, OK, etc., even my home state of MI!! That's where the city of Detroit had to crush the idea of selling the city's art treasures to pay off a debt which came to be from racism -- it was called "white flight" -- and corporate greed.

So you don't like your Democratic Party candidates? Fine! Become part of the process then. Run for delegate and put action where your flapping gums are. Do what the Religious Right and Christian coalition did; take the Democratic Party over one precinct at a time, from the bottom up. It only took them about a couple decades, and they were organized -- all those churches were well funded and had captive audiences.

So wring your hands that President Obama isn't the bastion of a liberal icon. But you only have yourself to blame for that.

I will support him as long as he is in office. I will do my best to give him the best damned Congress I could want him to have. Where I think he's wrong, I will fight that, too.

But get this straight right now. The only alternative to the Democratic Party leads down a path towards theocracy. If you hate what the Democrats are doing now, consider the only alternative for a minute or two.

Then, get off your damned feet and run for precinct delegate/committee person and help take back the party for progressive/liberal causes. We can do what the Christians did for the GOP. Change a party's direction.

But I suppose that it's better to carp and whine and post competing "shout outs" on DU. Eh?

Yup! That'll really get things done.

[Amonester]

146. +1000

Nailed it fair and square.

Perfect work for what you want message.

[zeemike]

147. He had nothing to do with gay rights.

It was the supreme court that did that...so on that Roberts should get the credit.
And this is not about Obama...it is about us...and how some here divide us by insisting that any criticizer of Obama is doing something wrong and we must ignore it for the sake of party loyalty....or that bad cop in the GOP will win.

So pardon me if I don't fall for that one...if you don'r stand for something you will fall for anything.

[longship]

148. Yes, I know. Biden started it in the Executive.

But Obama came on pretty damned quickly. He's used the power of the Oval Office to speak affirmatively for LGBT rights, something no other POTUS has ever done.

And DADT is dead. And military LBGT have equal rights in the military along with spouses, or is well on its way.

This one big corner that this country has turned under Obama's presidency. To insure that the country does not turn back, we have to continue to fight for Democrats in office, the more progressives, the better.

Pretty simple solution, actually.

[handmade34]

196. thank you!!

[Zen Democrat]

252. + another 1,000

[tridim]

138. Damn you Obama!!!!11111one

[gulliver]

145. Let's first tell the fake super-uber-pseudo-Progressive trolls...

...to go back to their imbecilic Freeper site. You idiots may stop reading this post now. I will assume you have.


...

The sad thing is that some Progressives truly do think they might have an excuse not to vote Dem in the next election. We need to tell them one thing, in my opinion: Snap out of it or Buh-Bye! You aren't needed. Progressive, liberal politics is better off without you.

Anyone who doesn't understand that voting Dem enthusiastically is fully justified is too far gone to help. Put them on a political ice floe with a couple of fish and a blanket, wish them all the best, and shove them out to sea. Their numbers are miniscule, anyway, so we won't lose anything important by tossing them.

The Progressive mission is what matters, and it is the non-whiners who are crucial to its success. For every one of the tiny, irrational whiners we rid ourselves of, we make room for ten critical thinking, contributing, constructive people. Trying to placate fools isn't good for them, and it isn't good for Progressivism.

[zeemike]

149. So your suggestion then is to divide us

Up into us and them...say to them we don't need you goodbye...Which is something the GOP would never do.

And then to have a purity test that all the rest must pass before they can be with us...
Well if it comes to that then I am gone too, because I will not abandon my principles to party loyalist because that is what the GOP is...they all believe the same and they follow the Reagan eleventh commandment...Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

And what some seem to be saying is that we should be like them and not like what the Democrat party used to be....we should adopt the third way.

[Bonobo]

152. Remove the mindless derp from that post and there is little left.

Get rid of Progressives so that we only have Progressives left who will vote unquestionably for whatever candidate no matter what...so that "the Progressive mission can continue"?

WTF!?!?

It's like you used Madlibs to write that.

[Demit]

197. LOL exactly what I thought after reading it. As if the Dem party apparatus is

progressive & liberal now.

We are told we have to unquestioningly support the Democratic Party. Even as it moves ever rightward; even as conservative Democrats in conservative districts vote with Republicans; even as Obama and Reid compromise Democratic principles to make concessions to those conservative Democrats in order to—what? Keep the party strong in order to do—what?

More moving rightward, more voting with Republicans, more compromising Democratic principles. That's what we get. And there's nothing progressive or liberal about that.

[liberal_at_heart]

150. Those people have a very good point. Most people want to address the ISSUES. Some people

only care about getting their party elected. It is this love of winning at any cost that makes some so frustrated that they see no sense in participating at all.

[MrMickeysMom]

181. I think you express it WELL...

The "division" is a mentality that "our team" must win (yay for our "team&quot , when the problems created by Reagan or Bush I and II are exacerbated, notably by Clinton and then, God forbid, by Obama.

Issues of equality that are meant to satisfy the people like bread and circus acts are supposed to make us feel that other, more pressing issues have never been addressed?

I think this administration is experiencing what it feels like when the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is vocalizing it's utter contempt for Obama never having addressed the more pressing issues.

Those issues have a few names, and acronyms... Homeland Security (from the latest LIHOP, 9/11) and no locus of control (from weaken laws on voting, Citizen's United, and the final push back from whistle blowers)

We're mad as hell and we don't have to take it anymore.

[Harmony Blue]

205. This is what it comes down to

if winning is defined by losing my rights as a citizen of the United States, not only do I lose so does everyone else, and the future generations to be.

[Bonobo]

151. Yes, people are disappointed.

And those that are not tend to scold the ones who are feeling, perhaps, that it is a lack of party loyalty that may lead to the Republicans winning.... or something.

Those of us who supported him and sacrificed much doing so feel we have a right to A) Remain consistent with our own view of the world and politics and B) Criticize him as much as we like. We don't appreciate the lectures and we don't have much patience for the rationalizations and hypocritical support of policies that were considered repugnant under Bush.

[nyquil_man]

154. You got it right in your last paragraph. "We divided ourselves." nt

[bobduca]

156. revised: Feels they could never, should never, and would never

beatlemania has nothing on these swooners

[Coyotl]

159. Yes, it most certainly is Obama's Fault === NOT!

[zeemike]

163. Yep crank it up to absurdity lever 11

that makes the truth so much less attractive.
But this is not about Obama it is about us....and the levels we will go to to protect him and our own ego....and some will take it to level 11.

[LostOne4Ever]

166. Thanks for playing!

Let's face the truth...Obama has divided us

/BUZZER

Sorry that is the incorrect answer.

we divided ourselves

Ding Ding Ding!!!

We have a winner!!!

[Summer Hathaway]

168. Ah, cheer up, little grasshopper ...

There is a Big Divide between the Obama-supporters and the anti-Obamans on DU.

Now, go back and read that ... "a Big Divide on DU". Get that?

Being as DU lost contact with the real world a long time ago, I wouldn't concern myself with this - or any of the other bullshit that gets posted here.

[quaker bill]

174. The division existed before Obama

and the contours have changed little. Obama at most has given us a premise around which to argue about our divisions.

[Democracyinkind]

176. As any D-Pres would - being the opposition has its comforts. nt

[geek tragedy]

177. Oh Jesus, mean old Obama has caused people to argue on the Internet.

Is there anything the antis won't whine about?

[graham4anything]

179. 95% of the democratic party strongly supports President Obama and Hillary Clinton. 50-50 is faux

It's nationwide going to be 80-20.

70-30 would also be acceptable.
Think LBJ passed the voting rights acts with 73-27.

Can't wait for the day all legislation is again enacted with margains like that.

The 50-50 is a faux meme.as was Ralph Nader's lie about both parties being one and the same
as the voting rights setback showed, SCOTUS makes a difference.
For every voter the voting rights setback by the Ralph Nader/Bush court took away, we need to have 10 or 100 or 1000 new voters
registered.

The house can easily be won, and one only needs to win about 18 seat turnaround to accomplish it.

[zeemike]

180. Well the patriot act past with that kind of margin

And so did most of what Bush wanted....what does that tell us?
But you should supply some links to those numbers so we won't think you are just making it up.

And Ralph nader had nothing to do with the SCOTUS.

[graham4anything]

182. I don't see any poll that suggests any CORE Obama or Hillary supporter has gone away

Rush Limbo in his Operation Chaos/Rush the vote attempted to say the same thing, and Sarah Palin was the attempt for them
to think Hillary supporters would flock to Sarah.
Didn't work then, won't work now.

Rush's biggest nightmare is coming 1/17/2017 when Hillary is inaugurated to continue the agenda of President Obama for another 8 years.

Al Gore wouldn't have picked Alito and Roberts
Jimmy Carter wouldn't have picked Thomas or Scalia

Anyone who didn't vote for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter (in 1980) indeed can like an adult, take responsibility for their actions

I do thank Ralph Nader for one thing- because of him, singlehandedly, never again will a 3rd party person ever get many democratic votes

as it should be.

and people should concentrate on getting the republican seats blue, and later on worry about primaries in years to come.

First one has to win the house.

The house is where the money comes from.

[zeemike]

184. So those numbers were just off the top of your head.

We had the house...and it did us no good...so now you say we need the house again?
Why will things be any different this time?
As long as we blindly elect dems even if they are as red as the GOP nothing will change...and the reason they can run and win is because they can and do win the primary elections...and money calls the shots there...and money loves the red.

[graham4anything]

187. Voting rights and abortion and immigration are democratic issues-MORE motivated now than ever

In fact, MORE democratic supporters of Obama and Hillary are now motivated than ever before after the voting rights rulings
and all the abortion rulings and the immigaration issue.

Those are issues I hear people on the street talking about.
And those motivate the base.

No core supporter of the President is going to vote for Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or Rubio or Chritie or anyone.

If they didn't want Bush, why would they vote for Jeb???

[zeemike]

190. Well we agree on that then

No democrat will vote GOP because they are disappointed with Obama.
So all of the worry about criticizing him is wrong.

But no, I will not vote for Hillory...I am though with third way democrats...I will support someone else in the primary...Like Warren I hope...we need real change, and candidates that are not bought and paid for by the 1%...and I will hope we don't get fooled again.

[Demit]

198. "The house can easily be won"??

Oh do tell us. Which 'only 18' Congressional districts will be so easily turned around?

[graham4anything]

199. women and minorities are changing the world. 52% of voting public are women

Matters little if states are red now, women will change things

with the proper candidates running against incumbent republicans, and with Hillary known as being the next president,
people will come out in droves.

[Demit]

230. Was kind of hoping to hear a strategy on how to combat district gerrymandering,

which is a reality, and voter suppression, which is actively becoming one, so that Dems would "easily" take 18 Congressional districts.

I'm afraid the fact of states being red now matters quite a lot. Vague expectations about proper candidates and women changing things (snap, just like that!) are not a prescription for the easy changeover you posit.

[graham4anything]

232. Doesn't matter because Republican women can vote for the democratic candidate to achieve the 80-20

and in 2020, with a new census, and repubs voted OUT of office, we gerrymander it back.

If Dr. King listened when said he can't, then he and President Johnson, working together, wouldn't have achieved what they did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

185. "One side feels they can criticize him and the other side not"

Oh for fuck's sake.

When you start out with outright bullshit, why should anyone proceed into the rest of the mud?

[zeemike]

221. "outright bullshit"?

I think that statement is outright bullshit...it ignores what has been going on sense the NSA surveillance was leaked.

[ananda]

186. I think there are a lot of trolls here.

It makes us appear divided when we're really not.

[bigtree]

193. how stupid

. . . did you miss the last two elections?

Democrats are as united as ever and most Americans voted for him with eyes wide open. This is revisionist bull, at best - at its worse, it's just made up nonsense.

[zeemike]

217. And I was one that voted for him twice.

And he went into his first term with a big mandate from the people and a democratic house and senate....and still got shit done...
Now explain how that happened....after 4 years of the same shit and him giving all those offices to Wall Street and even Republicans and doing nothing for us, and once elected to a second term, through the Seniors under the buss with chained CPI and now an expanded surveillance state I don't think we just made it all up and revised history at all.

And that is not the change that Americans voted for.

[bigtree]

238. democratic government 101

. . . Congress doesn't work most major issues off of a simple majority and there wasn't a uncompromising progressive who could manage to get themselves elected president and defeat the obvious threat, Romney. Now we are stuck trying to manage the government the people actually elected, not the one you claim they wanted.

[zeemike]

239. He ran on hope and change

So you think that is not what they wanted?
And now you tell us a majority doesn't rule....but the minority gets what they want?
Oh well we knew that....Harry Reid told us he was going to change the filibuster rule so that the majority did rule...but once the election was over off the table it went....just like protecting Social Security went off the table.
How many times do you think people can be fooled and still keep loyal to the party?
The excuses must stop.

[bigtree]

240. those are just cliches

. . . his actual policy positions have never been uncompromisingly progressive. He campaigned on a type of liberal 'pragmatism' which clearly didn't promise that he was going to be the panacea to the majority of voters' reluctance to advance someone who actually held the ideals and determination to see those through that you believe Obama represented in that campaign.

I just don't think his policy positions ever matched with the left of DU, for instance. That reality, coupled with his promise to 'work across the aisle,' clearly signaled that an uncompromising fight to advance many progressive initiatives and principles was not going to come from an Obama WH.

[zeemike]

243. So you say he fooled us with meaningless cliches.

And now we need to STFU about it and support him as he dismantles SS and our social programs because that is how you reach across the aisle?

Well OK then...now we know...we have been fooled again, and thank you for telling us...

[bigtree]

244. you fooled youself

. . . probably because you were busy projecting things on Obama; much like what you just wrote about me and SS.

[zeemike]

245. Well sure it is our fault.

The victim of a lie is always at fault because they believed it. The deceiver is blameless.
I will try to remember that in the future.

[bigtree]

249. ridiculous conclusion

The presidential election is not the only function of our democratic system of government. In that election, we were faced with the usual compromise choice of candidate - faced-off against the republican choice.

Our Democratic nominee reflected the choice of the majority of our Democratic coalition in that primary which comprises a more diverse and disparate collection of interests and concerns than DU, for instance. That's where your interests (and many of mine) were given short shrift.

You get a majority of voters to support an uncompromising Democratic nominee - and that nominee manages to prevail against the republican candidate - THEN you get the progressive fight from the WH that you say you want.

What voters ultimately did was very different. They chose the 'pragmatic' candidate in that primary, over the more progressive choices. That candidate prevailed in the general with a record number of Democratic votes; in many ways, compelled by the utter dangerousness of electing ANY republican - not just Romney.

We, as voters, bring our ideals and concerns to the voting booth, and our aspirations are left at the will and whim of the rest of the electorate when the tally is taken. However, that one act; that one election is not the beat-all in our Democratic system of government. We are still challenged to influence that WH and our legislature to advance our will into action or law.

What our party and president provide is an elevated platform in which to present and debate our ideals; even when we don't prevail, entirely, in elections. That's the system that we have, We have to work EVERY instigation of democracy, because we aren't alone in expecting things from government and we are challenged to manage our ideals and aspirations along with the WH and legislature that Americans ultimately elect.

So, yes, we are still responsible for seeing our ideals and aspirations through; notwithstanding the reality of our electoral process and the compromising nature of our democracy.

[zeemike]

251. Rediculous rationalization....IMO

But I am impressed with how you could rattle off a long post like that is such short order....you must have had lots of practice rationalizing things away in the past.

[bigtree]

257. heh

. . . impressed, huh?

I'm sorry if you believed that the presidential election was the full extent of your responsibility to advancing the concerns you've expressed here. I realize it's easier to pretend the fight to advance, protect, or defend those kinds of initiatives resides solely in the presidency -or, in a hyperventilated thread on DU.

The reality is that there are folks who care just as much about the concerns you expressed; who understand the realities of government; are not so stymied by their politics that they spend their time grousing about the last election; and can explain just as patiently as I have, the realities of elections, political parties, and divided government.

So sorry to find you so perplexed by someone who understands, can explain those realities to you, and is willing to take the time (despite working all night stocking shelves).

[zeemike]

262. Not perplexed at all by it

Have been around long enough to see most everything...
Even the characterizations you have expressed here are not new to me...it has a rhythm and style I have seen many times...it is like they teach it in some school somewhere.
And it is valuable because it allows you to escape any argument that can be made and appear to be the victor, at least in your own mind..

[bigtree]

264. right. Hyperbole trumps rational discussion

. . . 'in your own mind.'

Got it. Carry on!

[BlueMTexpat]

194. I am WITH the Prez ...

There are no two ways about that.

Certainly one can criticize but I see a lot of truly gleeful criticism without a context as if the whole f@@king s##tload of problems Obama inherited from DimSon never happened and if he had never been faced with the most blatant obstructionism since the 1930s.

I am horrified at what our nation has become under the Patriot Act and I was horrified when such legislation was passed. There have been some improvements since their ouster - certainly too few.

But the Bush-Cheney coup was so thorough in placing zealots throughout the civil service that it could take generations to get them out. The Prez is fighting wildfires on all fronts. I would like to see at least some recognition of what he can and can't do, which is exactly what I nave not seen from many of his most rabid critics here.

[Demit]

202. Here's one thing he could have done: supported unions.

He could have "put on his comfortable shoes" in Wisconsin. Here are his thrilling words when he was running for reelection:

"And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

Then he didn't.

[JoePhilly]

207. +1

Some of the folks posting here recently hate Obama more than the Tea Party does. Its reached a point where the anti-Obama, and the anti-Democrat posts in the GD out number the posts that are anti-GOP.

[zeemike]

213. "the most blatant obstructionism since the 1930s. "

Then we should look at how FDR handled that...history can be a great teacher.
FDR created the CCC in the first 100 days despite a hostel congress, and it made a hugh difference in millions of families lives...
And he used the bully pulped with his weekly address on the radio...he took his message to the people and they supported him because of it....

[1StrongBlackMan]

287. You do realize that …

FDR had this: http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/04/22/a-quick-note-on-one-reason-why-fdr-was-effective-in-ways-obama-is-not/
To work with … Right?

[uponit7771]

220. +1

[andthesheepgoesbleet]

200. The divide is between those who support Corporatism and those who support People

The President is caught in the middle as the whipping boy so to speak and is the easy target even though he is a corporatist as evidenced by what he signs into law. Hence President Obama is not very popular with many in the party now and as should be expected mainly because of the slap in the face the traditional liberals in the party have been getting for the last 5+ years.

What do we want as a party do we want support corporatism and what has been going on for over 30 years or do we as the members of the Democratic Party want a Party that represents the people first.

I know I pick people first others I cannot nor will not speak for them.

There is no middle ground on this either. One cannot support both corporations and people at the same time it does not work.

[zeemike]

209. And I agree with that.

Obama is the object over which they divide us...but in the end it does come down to who is your master....the corporation or the people...and you cannot serve both.

[andthesheepgoesbleet]

210. The discussion of Corporations vs People is long over due and

is a good way to identify those who share your values and thses who do not.

The lines have been drawn and sides are being picked now it will be interesting to see who, in Congress and on DU, is on what side.

[liberal_at_heart]

284. corporatism within the democratic party seems to be something some don't want to

acknowledge or maybe they are just okay with it. I know I'm not okay with it. I don't know how you can begin to address issues like wages without acknowledging it.

[xiamiam]

227. i think if someone is still supporting obama on a democratic site

its ok, but they are asleep at the wheel and either not paying attention or in denial. flame away, I don't care. I voted for him once and for a democrat for president for the last 4 decades until 2012. I haven't changed but Obama certainly helped me to wake up. I'm pissed and more and more pissed everyday at the opportunity he squandered. Drones, kill list, run amok surveillance, snatch program, financial terrorism..give me a break.

[appleannie1]

229. Obama has not divided us. The extreme right's constant lies has. If you fall into the category of

'If you hear a lie told enough times you believe it' that is. Obama can only do what Congress will allow him to do and if they refuse to co-operate, it pretty much ties his hands. That is the way our Constitution was written. It was meant to prevent a dictatorship but it being totally misused. I for one never thought for a minute he would do everything I hoped he would do. No president would be able to.

[patrice]

231. We divide ourselves. nt

[AtomicKitten]

237. I tend to agree.

This board should stick to arguing policy and leave the toxic histrionics aside.

[LibAsHell]

236. I've criticized him plenty, but I wouldn't say I'm against him.

Once I came to terms with the fact that he is not a liberal, I tempered my expectations.

[felix_numinous]

242. The Republican Party drove

anyone out who wasn't a theocratic authoritarian, racist, homophobic, true believer type.

I know it's not a popular or common thing to say here, but after GWBush's reign ended, McCain and Romney were just pathetic. Republicans switched parties and backed Obama because of the alternative was insane.

This explains why some people here are A-OK with the Democratic Party's move to the right. And I am sure there are paid disrupters too.

[grahamhgreen]

246. Divide and conqer, such is the rule of the hoarding class.

[nolabels]

250. If we lose the next election?

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

We live under the thumb of corporate hegemony that is complicit and helping of the erecting of total information state. And somehow you want to tell me that it is more important to worry about what will be happening 15 months from now in the next election. Let me just tell you at this present time that this is not going to be the time for such a thing. I am not going to worrying about what the neighbors think at any rate.

On edit: had two opposing thumbs

[MineralMan]

254. Interesting. However, we have divided ourselves, I think.

And not evenly, either. On DU, the division is pretty obvious, at least among those who regularly post here. Outside of DU, however, it is less a division and more an adjustment.

When I get a haircut, part of myself is cut off from the rest. The hair falls on the floor and I pay the barber and walk out of the barbershop. Part of me is left behind, but it has no real effect on me. I remain as I am, and am still a whole person.

Out in the real world, the number of people who have declared that Obama has failed them utterly is small, in comparison with the entire Democratic party. Very small. The body of Democrats may lose a bit of themselves, but they'll walk on and continue to support Democratic candidates. If some members drop off and are left behind, there will be a small change in the party's appearance, but not in its substance.

How many people, faced with another election where the battle is between a Democratic or Republican candidate, will choose to either not vote at all or cast their voted for a candidate with no chance of victory? Not many, frankly, and their numbers can be overcome with nothing more than a strong GOTV effort designed to get Democrats to the polls.

On DU, the numbers are deceptive, and DU does not actually represent the makeup of the Democratic Party. Not even closely. DU and the Democratic party are not similar in makeup.

The bottom line is that almost every race will be decided between a Democrat and a Republican candidate, selected in the same way they have been selected for a long time. That will be the choice. I'll be voting for Democrats. I'll be campaigning for Democrats. I'll be walking my home precinct asking Democrats to come to the polls, and trying to convince Republicans whose minds can be changed to vote for Democrats as well. That's what I do for every election, and I'll be doing that again in 2014 and 2016.

I hope many will join me. The hair on the floor is not my concern.

[zeemike]

280. I talk to people outside of DU too.

and do you know the most common comment they make is?....Fuck them all, they are all the same.
And those are the ones that don't vote because they see that no matter who is elected nothing changes for the better for them.
And so how are you going to convince these people to vote when we have elected a democrat and nothing has changed except now this democrat is going to gut the social programs that the Bush could not do?

Well you have to just write those people off then...and now we must write off the left wing too because they wanted change and did not get it and are unhappy and complaining, and it makes the party loyalist so upset they want to write them off as well....don't you see where this will lead?...a house divided cannot stand.

But the 1% who rule this country don't care at all which party wins because it all works for them, and keeps us busy while they make things that they want to happen happen.

[michigandem58]

260. That division is between your ears

Liberals and Democrats strongly support Obama

[MjolnirTime]

276. let's face the truth...You were never on our team to begin with.

You rode the bandwagon and fell off at the first bump.

Obama didn't divide anything.

You guys abandoned ship like weak-minded fools.
You think you can burn everything down and build an ivory tower.
All that you're actually doing is handing votes to Republicans.
Which is exactly what they wanted when they started Scandalmania.

[OregonBlue]

277. Just another Freeper having fun at our expense.

[Drew Richards]

285. Correction..the Koch bros are dividing this nation

[zeemike]

292. Oh for sure

But DU and democrats are being divided over Obama...by you ether love him or you hate him dichotomy...And I would not be surprised if the Koch brothers were not financing that too...it does serve their internist after all.

[OmahaBlueDog]

288. Let's face a more obvious truth - we were almost always divided on Obama

Go back to the halcyon days of DU 2 in the Spring & Summer of 2008; it was Hillary v. Barack with a leavening of Edwards and (to a lesser extent) Gore supporters. It was ugly, and many were TS'd. Barack Obama was never the uniting factor. We united in opposition to a continuance of (McSame) or a return to (Rmoney) junior Bush's policies.

The NSA has been monitoring (at a minimum) our long distance phone traffic since the 70s. I despise Gitmo, but FDR put Americans in concentration camps, tortured select prisoners of war, and had some folks sent to mental institutions during WW II as an end-run around Habeas Corpus.

I never looked for perfection. I looked for improvement over Bush. GM is alive; Bin Laden is dead; combat has ended in Iraq; and the ACA is the law of the land. I hope, before it is all over, that Barack gets to put Diane Wood on the SCOTUS to replace Antonin Scalia.

If we lose the next election it will be most likely because Presidential politics is cyclical, because our best candidates are either old or unknown outside their regions, and because Chris Christie has become popular in both parties and is Governor of a usually-blue state. Having said that, the GOP is working hard to lose the Latino vote for 5 generations.

[zeemike]

291. And in 2009 we were united

And all happy that we had hope and change...
And now after electing him again, we are divided because of his policies and the appointment of Wall Street to run things, not to mention a survalence state that is more intrusive than at any time in history...not to mention that that single payer was never considered at all but the ACA was a gift to the insurance company...

But we forgave all of that and elected him again, and the election was barely over before he through Social Security under the buss and purposed chained CPI
And now the division is over whether we should criticize him or not...and one side argues that we should not, and claimed that if we do we will ruin the party, or we must not have loved him at all....and the bad cop is just waiting to get us.

The other side says bullshit...and that we have had enough of this third way crap that has did nothing but move the party to the right and reconditioned the Bush administrations crimes.
Well I am of the latter...and I predict that by the end of Obama's presidency Bush will be rehabilitated and even the third way democrats will tell us he was not so bad....and that process is underway now...and the Dems will become the Repubs and the Repubs will become the Bad cop party to keep us to the right.
I think it is fucking sad that we allow it to happen...but here it is.

[lonestarnot]

293. Maybe there is a divide, but no, I don't believe you.

[GoldenOldie]

300. Divided Long before Obama

Started with Ronnie Reagan. Shutting down the Air Traffic Controller's.....beginning of the Union busting. Closing down and the opening the doors of the Mental Hospitals thus throwing severely mental cases unto the streets and denying the rights of their families to monitor their well being......thus we have allowed the mentally challenged ill such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, etc., etc., etc., become the voices in the brains of the uneducated and/or simply the lazy American who does not think for themselves. The beginning of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.......Ronnie Reagan, had many billionaire friends who bought his Presidents seat and this was their payback and the onset to bankrupting the country and it's people by corporate America.

Ronnie Reagan was a 2-bit actor, yet he went on to the greatest performance of his life, all the while dealing with on-set alzheimers. With the propping and voice of his wife Nancy, their team began the destruction of a once great Democracy.

Although I voted and supported Clinton, I was not in support of "HIS," NAFTA, nor of learning of his signing off and the scrapping of the with the Glass/Steagall Bill which allowed the Housing and Banking scams, thus lack of audits of our entire financial systems which allowed Corporate America to take over our Democracy.

Obama is walking a mine-field that former Presidents left him and that includes both Republican and Democrat. Of those still living such as Clinton, who still has a mighty voice along with his wife Hillary, how does he tread these mines while still keeping faith with the American people.

I well remember "Give em Hell," Harry S. Truman and wish some of it would rub off on Obama, but realize not in my life-time, so I just pray that my children and my children's, children and all the progressive young can maintain their strength and resolve to fight and endure what is to still come.

[zeemike]

301. I could not agree more.

For me it is a great sadness that our generation did not solve this and now leave it to the young people to deal with...
All I can say to the young folks is I am sorry that we have left you a world much worse than the one I grew up in.

[liberal_at_heart]

303. this does go way back.

[loyalsister]

304. Impossible

The responsibility falls on people who think their beliefs are absolutely true.

Some have responded to Obama's performance with anger and belief that they know what a true progressive is and how he is not one.

Others have responded defensively with their own thoughts.

Both have presented evidence.

Anger has built on both side, and the accusations and name calling has reached ridiculous levels.

Authoritarian, Obamabot etc.... I can't remember all of them.

But, I know the White House did not encourage it.

[zeemike]

307. No Obama had nothing to do with it.

If anyone encouraged it it would be Karl Rove or the Koch brothers...they are the ones that benefit from it, not the White House...Obama would have nothing to gain from that..
The divide is OVER Obama not caused by him as I tried to make clear in the OP.

[loyalsister]

308. Just wanted to help clarify

I'm tired of the he's not FDR cries and childish name calling.