Serious question about Obama and liberals...

[leftofthedial]

According to a current DU poll, 61% of DU GD-P respondents indicate that they love Obama and the job he's doing. That leaves 39% (Nearly 4 out of 10 DUers!) who have mixed or negative feelings about him and the job he's doing.

Do you think Obama has a problem with liberals? He has been receiving more and more criticism from the left on issues across the spectrum--from health care to Iraq to Afghanistan to the Wall Street bailout to civil liberties to holding the bush cabal accountable for their crimes.

Now, there is also a significant group of radically conservative Democrats in the Senate who threaten to oppose Obama's agenda.

Does President Obama need to move to the left and propose more liberal policies or risk losing support from both the left and the far right of his own party?







(All of you who want to ignore the question and call me names, I'll start a call-leftofthedial-stupid names subthread for your responses.)

[leftofthedial]

1. call leftofthedial names HERE!

[cali]

4. sure, shit stirrer.

beyond that, your poll is wholly unscientific and it's foolish to base anything whatsoever on it. not that you mind being foolish.

[leftofthedial]

8. Thank you for ignoring the question and calling me names.

Here's your sugar cube.

[ecstatic]

10. Chuck Todd clone!!! nt

[leftofthedial]

14. Thank you for ignoring the question and calling me names.

No sugar cube for you. You went too far.

[ZombieHorde]

74. leftofthedial has always been poor at the game Donkey Kong,

which makes us question his Democratic Credentials.

[tekisui]

2. It's the nature of politics and coalitions. Sometimes you give,

sometimes you take. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

[Solomon]

19. Obama has problems with every group. So what?

That's the point of him, isn't it. Which group should just have it's way? What bird can fly with only one wing?

[leftofthedial]

20. So you think alienating liberals will not be a problem for Obama?

[Solomon]

24. It's not a question of alienating liberals. Do you think

he's purposely alienating liberals? Why would he do that? I can see him maneuvering and seizing ground whereever he can instead of provoking paralysis. Putting liberals in a better position even as they moan about not going fast enough.

Nobody is going to be perfectly satisfied. When liberals all decide to stick together, which they have trouble with because of the nature of being such a big tent, then the President will have the power to "not alienate liberals."

As you can clearly see from tis board, we have not reached that point yet.

[Runcible Spoon]

39. " Do you think he's purposely alienating liberals? Why would he do that?"

Because he doesn't need us anymore now that he's elected and with a few notable exceptions elected Dem officials at the national level, including Obama, are all center-right.

[Solomon]

45. That is such bullshit and so counter to the way he

operates. He needs everyone he can get.

You tell me, what dog does he have in the fight? Unlike the rest of them, what dog does he have in it? Do you think that now that he's rich, he doesn't want to help working people, that he's working to restore republicanism?

Does he own any oil companies? Electric companies? Defenses companies? Is he working to make them rich?

I don't get it. All I hear him saying is "I don't think that's fair" and each time he has said it, it has always been in the context of the rich exploiting the not rich.

I really don't get where you all think he is trying to go. Do you really believe you will ever have this kind of chance again, that is to say, a president with no dog in the fight, free to work for fairness? Keep dreaming.

And this after all he's already done. I can only conclude from your reluctance to recognize your opportunity through him that, well, ... I just won't say it.

[TBF]

3. The thing is that if you try to be everything to everyone you can end up being

nothing to nobody. I'd like to see him move left and stand strong. Just my opinion.

[leftofthedial]

9. I think so too.

When he galvanized liberal support during the campaign, it appeared we could move mountains and that change WAS something to believe in.

As soon as he started naming supply-siders and republican monetarists to his economic team, it became apparent that the campaign rhetoric was just so much sloganeering.

[laugle]

42. I don't see anything unusual about the

criticism. People forget that half of the dems did not vote for him in the primary. When he has a solid record of accomplishments, all the dems will get behind him in the next election.

He knows he can't please everyone, so he needs to just do what he thinks is right!

It's just the nature of the beast. POLITICS is a brutal, dirty business..........

[namahage]

51. Primaries are over. This ain't helping.

[bigwillq]

5. A DU poll

should have nothing to do with Obama's policies.

Obama should continue to do what he is doing, what he believes in, and not compromise for any one specific group.


I am more liberal than Obama, I feel, and I don't have a problem with Obama on 97 percent of the issues.

I can only speak for myself.

[panader0]

6. Those who disagree with Obama on DU do so because

he isn't progressive enough. The Dems in the House and Senate that disagree do so because he is too progressive.

[leftofthedial]

11. The Conservadems fear the electorate

We need to make the centrist dems fear theirs.

[avaistheone1]

50. The Dems in the House and Senate who disagree with Obama

are Democrats in name only. The vote with the Republicans almost if not as much as with the Democrats.

Americans are shifting to the progressive wing all across the country. The Blue Dogs are really republicans and they need to be replaced.

[JTFrog]

7. How about Lefty McCain.

If you're gonna run around calling the President "That One", we should give props to the one that inspired you.

[leftofthedial]

12. You need to read more.

[geek tragedy]

You need to read his budget, Homeowner affordability plan,

the SCHIP legislation and the provisions of the stimulus package.

And then you need to publicly retract this rancid piece of idiocy:

His economic policies, "national security" (authoritarian) policies, and military policies so far are fundamentally continuations of bush policies, with little more than superficial tweaks.

[leftofthedial]

18. About a third of the stimulus package, the homeowner plan are good.

The other 80% of what he's done on the economy is not.

The SCHIP program is good. The health care proposals he's made and his opposition to a single-payer system are not.

His budget is also a mix of good and not so good.

If you care to discuss issues instead of running around flapping your arms and making fart noises, I'd be glad to do that.

[geek tragedy]

21. Is his budget a mere extension of Bush's policies?

What parts of his budget do you like and which do you dislike?

What part of his health care plan do you oppose?

[leftofthedial]

22. Let's begin with health care.

I think it is a mistake to try to "fix" the current privatized, insurance-company-controlled system and extend it to everyone. I think (and studies show) that a single-payer system, more like Canada and several European countries, will be cheaper, fairer and more sustainable.

[geek tragedy]

33. Taking away people's current insurance and replacing it

with a brand new system is not politically viable.

[leftofthedial]

34. says you.

[obiwan]

64. Stop being so idealistic and impatient and look at the big picture.

He has only been in office for a little more than 2 months and he is trying to fix 8 years of f*ck-ups.

In the real world, there is more than one opinion that's right on how to get things done.

There are two worlds- the world that is, and the world as you wish it would be.

Patience!

[leftofthedial]

69. I'm not impatient.

I comment only on what he's done or said so far.

[geek tragedy]

67. Says just about everyone. n/t

[JTFrog]

17. It was worthy of it's own subthread.

Shame your rules don't mean shit around here, eh?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

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

[geek tragedy]

16. Are the S-CHIP legislation, his budget, and the stimulus

bill extensions of Bush's policies?

He has trouble with the morons who think so. Others are keeping an open mind.

[Cant trust em]

23. I think the question is almost too simplistic

He's more liberal on some issues and more conservative on others.

While I'm not too thrilled about the bank rescue plan, I really like the stimulus and the to a slightly lesser degree, the budget.

In terms of foreign policy it has been a mixed bag of plusses and minuses, more plusses though.

I don't thik it's as simple as merely moving left.

[Cant trust em]

25. Does 40% constitute a problem?

I'd say that this would be a pretty good number with this group.

[OHdem10]

26. GreiderJ(Rolling Stone Mag) has an informative article posted at

Ourfuture.org. if anyone is interested.

He says Obama has to make a choice between the American People
and Elites(Wall Street).

Greider is an excellent writer and commentator. Liberal who enthusiastically supported Obama.

[ArchieStone1]

27. My only complaint is his attempt to toss lawsuits with the pretext of state secrets

Other than that I don't think he should change much.

[LWolf]

28. My thoughts:

DU has grown a great deal in the last several years, and I don't consider it to be all that liberal. As the site has grown, it has become more mainstream. More centrist.

I don't think Obama should ever have been considered a liberal. I think he was clearly a centrist from the beginning. It makes sense that centrist DUers would approve.

Then there are the DUers that, while nominally "liberal," are more partisan than they are liberal. If a democrat does it, they'll be more forgiving. When they finally get a democratic president, they'll support him, even if he's doing things they were "against" a year ago. And he is.

Obama has always had a problem with the left. He CLEARLY worked hard to distance himself from us very early on.

His primary campaign benefited greatly from a couple of factors:

First of all, the patently loaded primary schedule which left only 2 candidates standing after 2 primaries and 2 caucuses. 44 states had only Obama or Clinton to choose from.

Secondly, HRC's strong identification with the DLC, leaving Obama as the "not dlc" choice for liberals. Despite the fact that he is not just more centrist, but center-right, than Clinton.

Then there is the undeniable, if puzzling, fact that many people actually thought, since he's "not dlc," that he is somewhat liberal. Thinking that, it's understandable, if regrettable, that they didn't take a closer look at his policy positions, which SCREAMED "center-right" to this leftist all along.

Campaigning on the ambiguous "hope" and "change" themes meant that some voters, and some DUers, projected their own hopes for change onto Obama, when they weren't really there.

It's understandable that there would be some backlash when those hopes are dashed. It's also understandable that many who consider themselves "liberal" are relieved to have a democrat in the WH, a democrat who at least offers the nation an opportunity to regain some dignity after the national humiliations of the last 8 years. Obama may SEEM liberal when he's compared with the fascist far-right regime he's replacing, even at a position right-of-center.

Obama doesn't have strong support from the left. Some guarded support, some conditional support, and quite a bit of opposition.

He needs to move far enough left to station himself at LEAST in the center; better to be slightly left-of-center.

In this leftist's opinion. ;)

[NavyDavy]

30. I guess you get to decide whos a liberal and whos not? calling

everyone that doesn't agree with what you consider to be on the left is pure BS......and thats my opinion...

[LWolf]

32. Opinions are like....

insert whatever fits. Everybody's got one.

Here's some evidence for mine. Not measured from a U.S. pov, of course, but I think a global perspective is more accurate, anyway:



http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And another source:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7979543

[Jennicut]

35. In the United States Obama and Biden are considered liberals.

In the rest of the world maybe not. But here they are near socialists or something according to the far right! Wonder what that makes old Dennis K.?

[LWolf]

59. The U.S. has a very narrow

somewhat egocentric view, lol. I prefer to take the broader, more global perspective. ;)

DK? Since, in the U.S., "moderate" is now the "looney left," he might just fall off the chart where their flat world ends.

[Odin2005]

43. I've always considered PoliticalCompass's analysis flawed.

I put in Obama's positions on the issues into their test once and I got -2 on the economic axis and +1.66 on the Libertarian-Authoritarian, putting him in the center corner of the red quadrant.

[LWolf]

58. I've always considered it the most accurate I could find.

Not just because it accurately reflects the distance between where I stand on issues and where the vast majority of U.S. politicians stand, Democrats included. Or because the two major parties appear in the same quadrant, closer to each other than to many Democratic voters, who appear in the opposite quadrant.

The difference might lie in how you are interpreting Obama's positions. By his speeches, or his actions.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Odin2005]

41. Uh, no. DU is not representative of Democrats or liberals as a whole.

Most of us, myself included, very far to the left compared to the average Democrat, and even the average person who self-describes as a liberal. This whole BS notion you are pushing that Obama is "center-right" is simply delusion based on forgetting how far left we are here.

[LWolf]

60. I don't find DU to be "far left" at all.

I live in a conservative region. More republicans than democrats, and the democrats who ARE here tend to be centrist and center-right. Obama won handily in this area.

I hear them spouting the same centrist and center-right talking points I read on DU.

I'm "far left," at least in the U.S.. Which is funny, since I started out a moderate and haven't changed my positions much over my lifetime.

The U.S. as a whole has moved so far to the right that, apparently, many of her citizens are disoriented about where the center actually is.

And that center point is global, not determined solely by the U.S..

[patrice]

29. I fear we will never leave Iraq and Afghanistan. nt

[Jennicut]

31. I don't know. No matter what he pisses someone somewhere off. I would not want to be President.

What a sucky thankless job. Now VP, that is where it is at! :)

[countingbluecars]

36. Way to spin your own poll results. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

37. leftofthedails a witch!@#

burn him!


;)

[Clio the Leo]

38. I think people on the Internet just like to whine more....

... or perhaps people are more apt to whine on the Internet than they would elsewhere.

This is evidenced by my now whining about Internet whiners. :)

[Odin2005]

40. He has a "problem" with Naderites who never liked him and never will like him

Fortunately the Naderite ideological purists are a tiny part of the electorate (anyone who thinks DU is representative of the Democratic party at large is delusional), nearly all the criticism of Obama is coming from right-wing morons.

The Ideological Purists seem to forget the greater political context. There is a lot of things he can't do because we won't be able to get enough Blue Dogs on board to push it through. It's that simple.

[Raineyb]

53. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that perhaps if the Democratic Party

actually governed as a party of the people the way they claim they are there wouldn't be so many Naderites in the first place? What would they expect when they come sniffing around the progressive wing of the party around election time like some mangy tomcat then as soon as the election is over they go back to being Republican-lite. Progressives get treated the way the Republicans treat the religious right which is a damn shame since progressive policies are a hell of a lot better than anything the Repukes could spew out.

Regards

[leftofthedial]

57. You really need to get back on your meds.

You mean "Naderites" like Olbermann, Krugman, Sirota, Maddow and Thom Hartman? (All of whom have criticized him in recent days, and all of whom have observed that he "has a problem" with liberals in his own party)

Everyone who disagrees with you is not an "ideological purist."

[Odin2005]

65. Yiu are missing a distinction between constructive criticism and bashing.

When people start calling Obama a "center-right corporatist" or "little different than Bush" it's bashing.

[leftofthedial]

71. Sorry, but "center-right corporatist" is accurate.

"Free market" true believer is also accurate.

Saying this or that particular policy is "little different than Bush" may also be accurate, depending on the policy and is not the same as saying that Obama is himself little different from Bush.

Of course, you are free to distort any position you wish, and to call anything you want by any label you choose, rather than addressing the actual underlying issue.

[ohheckyeah]

44. The option

of mixed feelings was worded in such a way that if you disagreed with some of his policies you had mixed feelings about HIM. I don't think that is entirely accurate. Just because I may have different ideas on some of his policies doesn't mean I think he's doing a bad job or that I have mixed feelings about him.

Does anyone agree with every single one of his policies or his appointments?

Maybe a better wording of the options would give you a different result.

[Irrational]

46. RE: Serious question about Obama and liberals...

Considering he claims to be "bi-partisin", he should be in the exact middle of the spectrum, but what does that provide?

[Kaleva]

47. "radically conservative Democrats in the Senate"

The further one is out on the fringe, either left or right, the more extreme everyone else appears to be.

[MadLabrador]

48. It's really quite simple

He should legalize pot, give us universal health care, and bring the troops home.

[MadBadger]

49. According to a recent GD poll, 74% of respondents indicate they approve of Obama as Prez

Another 13% somewhat approve.

[Hutzpa]

52. With a name like

yours, I'm not surprise you're manufacturing fucked up polls to get your motive/agenda on a democratic President. You might as well come clean and say you don't appreciate what President Obama is doing.

[leftofthedial]

56. The "fucked up poll" with responses like:

"Excellent!"

and "greatest President ever"?

I have no agenda except to speak out when I disagree and speak up when I agree.

[Hutzpa]

63. You guys are being so quick

to find something wrong on a new President, why not give this man a chance
and allow him to failed on his promises before taking him to task, he has
called on us to hold him accountable, but what you folks are doing is to
systematically generate faux outrage along with anything that these groups
deems news worthy.

[vaberella]

54. I'll respond. I think you're interpretation is a bit skewed.

President Obama doesn't have a problem with liberals. The problem is that liberals are an anxious breed of people. I admit I have problems finding the proper word to describe the exact reaction.

There are people who wanted someone else to be president, some wanted HRC some wanted Edwards. In the end, President Obama can't meet all the areas the other respective candidates met. Keeping in mind Edwards was different from O and HRC. And HRC on many points was very different from O and Edwards. I personally preferred O's Health care plan than HRC and what pushed me to O after Edwards left.

That being said, there are some here who have issues with O mainly due to resentment that their candidate didn't win. This was going to happen and people are like that. So that issue is mainly personal. But then you have another faction of people who are these liberals that are extremely idealistic and after being snuffed out by Bush for 8 years are seeing O as the plan to enact all their changes.

This faction however, are not understanding or choose to ignore the political process. Others here choose to run at the mouth without gathering all the information or nit pick on things that are not true. I'll give you examples. There are many people who claim O ran on a single payer platform and use a video as evidence. I have seen the video and he said that ultimately single payer would be best and he likes it, actually he even said in one video if the world was perfect and he was starting the plan universal health care would have been his choice. However, he also said that because there is so many problems in the health care system currently that it's not feasible to enact single payer and he's right. I'm currently studying Public Finance and Health Economics, single payer is almost a pipe dream if we don't take on the low hanging fruit initiative firsts and fix that area and definitely have an IT system BEFORE we can get universal health care. He runs on the Massachusetts health care model which is trying to get as many people within the system as possible. This is realistic. Liberals however don't give a flying fuck, or many liberals here don't, about pragmatic approaches and realistic initiatives that need to be done so that the transfer to the system would be less painful over all and not problematic. O sees the problems...even at the health summitt he mentioned again his stance and that he respects the issues such as crowding out which result and the issues crowding out proposes to the economy.

Many Liberals choose to ignore that. They choose to ignore his words and pick and choose and then you have others with an agenda who use some aspects of his words to get a him. Then to touch on those who choose to run at the mouth---you see this a lot with people in the case of Krugman. Krugman clearly said he had not read Geithner's plan but from the leaked information he heard which is pittance to the full information. Krugman said if it's true that G's plan is wrong and he should nationalize. Low and behold more information is leaked and G's plan does have nationalization and massive regulation plans that target different spheres....it makes all the idiots here who were pushing Krugman and bashing O and G as fools because then bit by bit more information was put out that says that G knows what he's doing.

The whole thing is a reactionist tendency before gathering the information and knowing what's going on. Plus one too many live and breath everything the MSM says. So Progressives here always like to say these are all corporatist and what not, but then don't realize that they listen avidly and believe the corportatists when the WH is working to do the best job they can. I get the feeling many, as I stated, are doing this because Bush snuffed them. They don't realize that 8 years of damage doesn't take 60 days to fix. It can take years.

Other's of us who understand and care and realize that O cares about the people geniuinely and doing the best thing, are giving him the time that he needs. Rather than unite against us we have people with hang ups and projecting that on O.

You ask does President O have a problem with Liberals? No. Liberals have a problem with O, because they have no patience and obviously don't care that much of O's issues are coming from State officials who are obstructing his movements. Politics are being played and Liberals are contributing by not realizing that they have to put political pressure on their officials so that O's agenda can be pushed through or an agenda they believe in. People want single payer so bad and it's now out there...well push all the idiots, call districts in other states and put pressure there. This is why Repubs are ahead of us, they know to use their local officials. We need to mobilize and do the same and then things will be done. O can't do much on his own, but with no one backing but whining and not working to propose a path that works...he's stuck by himself out there and people expect him to go unilateral. Liberals need to realize the problems they had with Bush unilateral approach is what we don't want our President to have hanging over his head or do which goes against everything we believe. So Liberals have the problem and they need to work on that. Not O.

As for the Bush crime. He has more things to worry about than Bush. Many senators are proposing a plan and they should be the ones doing it...not the President in my eyes. We're still in a damn war, we have Mexico causing trouble and we have an economy shot to hell. Let's just say I'm more concerned with the now. We need to get our Senators to not sit around and get the whatever comittee they need to address this. O and his admin continuously leak info...people should take that run with it and then we can take on the legislation and court powers that were used by the Pres. They all come hand in hand.

As for the last questions....honestly I find that to be crap. Why? Because majority of people in the US are not liberals. Majority of them are centered ie center left or center right. Some people are liberal on some things and conservative on others. People on this board are a perfect example. There are people here who hate the amount of deficit spending we're doing and want us to horde the money. While there are liberals here who are like spend as much as we can to get us out. So no one is liberal and if the liberal group are so angered by O then they should leave. Because they won't get things done by acting like pricks. O has made a lot of moves and done a lot of progressive changes. If they can't respect that and know that he'll be making more changes when and how he can....then their not worth the time, because they will always want something. Always demand something, and never really be satisfied.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. So in short, you are saying

that he has no need for liberal votes or support. Somehow I think that come 2011, those votes will look pretty juicy to you conservatives. And you will have shown those voters the door, while calling them names. Now, that is some political savy!

[SunsetDreams]

73. No, Blue, that is not what was said.

Liberals should be working on their local, state, and federal officials, so that it is easier for Obama to get the things they want done. The fire is being lit in the wrong place, it would be more beneficial to go from the ground up.

[SunsetDreams]

72. K&R this response

Vaberella, this really should be an OP IMO.

[Norrin Radd]

55. I don't see him moving to the left any time soon, though he may

do unexpected things and happily surprise us, I expect that at least. My main hope is that his getting elected and his term in office has the potential benefit of causing the republic party to wither on the vine, opening up space for a new left, such as the Greens, or a new Progressive Party.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Welll Obama was the Party's choice

And the Republicans had to go. That was why I voted for him in spite of his very outdated and conservative prejudices against my family. I knew from McClurkin on that he was not a liberal or even an empathetic person. He's a religionist conservative, and has been all along.
For me, considering his anti-equality positions, it is difficult to see any of his postiions as well thought out or rational. He believes in discrimination against minorities religions decide to hate. That is far, far from a liberal position.

[lunatica]

66. I'm used to it. I'm a Progressive

But I realize he needs to govern the entire country from the middle. At least that's what everyone thinks. But I also think that the times will force more Progressive action on everyone, whether they like it or not. The good news is that some other countries are already doing the heavy lifting in Progressive issues and leading so we really need to be a little more humble and stop thinking we're such great world leaders. Universal Health care and national alternate energy policies are just two things we should be emulating.

[Danger Mouse]

68. I don't see how you can make a general statement about liberals based on a single DU poll.

[leftofthedial]

70. It's a question, not a statement.

I'm not the only one asking it.