Honest question for Obama's staunch defenders here

[Tom Rinaldo]

I start out by assuming we all can agree that it is possible to remain positive toward what Obama is overall attempting and achieving and still disappointed, even highly disappointed, in his efforts on one or another specific fronts. As for myself I still am grateful that we elected this man President and I can not realistically foresee not voting for and supporting him at least on some level in the next presidential election.

Though my recent posts have stressed my strong support for inclusion of a robust Public Option in any health care legislation that goes into law, and warnings about what I fear the consequences of failing to include that would be, I am not now nor ever have been "Anti-Obama". I can point to at least two threads that I started at DU in the not distant past that attest to that if anyone cares to check. For the record they are:

Memo to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8652593

The Left Needs to Support Obama Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8540907

OK, so here's my question to those who are defending Obama against criticism during the current health care debate in Congress. How many of you feel criticism of Obama now is simply unwarranted because it prematurely seems to assume that Obama will fail to ultimately deliver the type of health care reform that you believe in? In other words is your defense of Obama now primarily against skeptics who underestimate his ability to deliver the goods, or instead are you confident that you will be appreciative of and feel positively about whatever health care reform legislation he ultimately signs into law? Even reform, say, without a significant Public Option included?

How many strong Obama defenders here would still speak highly of his efforts on the issue of health care reform if there is no meaningful Public Option that comes out of it, even if you personally feel that the public option is important? In that case, would you put the blame for a failure to win that completely elsewhere, or would you assign Obama some responsibility?

I know I haven't covered all the bases but I think you get the gist of what I'm asking.

[phleshdef]

1. My problem is too many are putting too much on Obama and not nearly enough on Harry Reid and Dems.

[olegramps]

57. I am going to wait and see what happens before making an judgment.

This is one tremendous undertaking that wasn't solved by numerous administrations dating from before FDR. Perhaps reform will come in stages, however, I applaud President Obama for encouraging Congress to tackle this issue against strong opposition.

It is unfortunate that we have allowed the situation to become so complicated that resolving it is no easy task when it appears that single payer appears to not be possible at this time. I am not in the least displeased with President Obama and fully support his efforts. The reform of doing away with caps, existing conditions, high deductibles, etc. are not insignificant accomplishments. The one aspect that I am critical of is the possibility of forcing people to buy insurance from for profit health insurance companies. If people are to be mandated to buy insurance it should be from non-profit companies. I feel the same way about car insurance. At least it seem to be better regulated than the health insurance industry that is a total rip off.

Well thats my two cents worth.

[rudy23]

2. This assumes most are posting their own personal opinions, and not talking points.

Truly, for $9 an hour (about 20 hours a week), you can get a blogger to say pretty much anything you want them to.

[GreenArrow]

5. that could work both ways

just as easily in favor of Obama as otherwise.

[Engineer4Obama]

53. Because the best use of white house funds

is to go post on a Pro-Democratic web site to try and influence it to be ... pro-democratic? Do you understand the disconnect here?

[rudy23]

68. Why wouldn't a White House want to control resistance from their own party?

Especially since their agenda so often runs contrary to the direction most bloggers want the Democratic Party to take?

To put it more bluntly, yes I believe the DLC wants to get liberal Democrats off their back. Where's the disconnect?

[quiller4]

3. A strong public option is not a litmus test for me. I could be

very happy with a reform package that included imposition of anti-trust regulations, restrictions on discrimination regarding pre-existing conditions and cost differentials for gender.

A triggered public option of a state opt-out would also satisfy me and most of those I know. Away from this board, I am never in a Democratic group who considered public option a deal-breaker and that includes district Democratic Club meetings and meetings at my union hall.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. This is true-- I've rarely met anyone insisting on...

single payer or public option, either. Nor have I seen so much hatred for insurance companies.

The points I hear most in the real world are affordable and accessable healthcare that actually treats and heals things. Where it comes from is secondary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I suspect that the fall out might be delayed but coming none the less

if Americans are mandated to buy private insurance without any public recourse offered, and if large numbers remain or become dissatisfied with their private insurance policies.

That's just my opinion and I thank you for sharing yours.

[truedelphi]

16. Yep, if we put in the Anti Trust regs, perhaps I would be less concerned about the

Public Option.

But overall, I see no real defense for a President whose campaign promises were these:

Government business would operate differently. And one would assume by that, that Candidate Obama had meant free of Corporate Interests, and also for the betterment of the average person. Obama has operated differently - but that has been in his nonsensical insistence on being "Conciliatory,"
"Bipartisan" and all that. That is not what most of us voting for him believed would be the case.

We would have change we could believe in. Instead we have expansion of the War in Afghanistan, probably a health care bill that will really suck, and the economic policies of Paulson and Greenspan continued on by Geithner and Bernanke. Almost every red cent owned by Main Street has gone to Wall Street, and when this new stock market bubble implodes, it will probably take down Social Security.

[opihimoimoi]

4. Too many Witless NitPickers who are clueless with real solutions/answers..they sour our SOUP

Bumper Crop of Nit Nuts foisted upon us by the Pubs and their Nit Avatars...

Birthers? Deniers? Nitters?

The Pubs wish to keep the discussions for their Base to unnerstan....never with Top Quality Questions but with slanted ones...they reveal their intent with empty questions...

[joeycola]

6. Critiqueing his policies is equated with being antiObama by so

many here on DU and this leads to being called a freeper, asking what kind of pizza one wants and worse. It is seldom a place to discuss policies.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Well this thread got at least 2 Unrec's so far

I guess wanting to know what others think is politically incorrect to some.

[joeycola]

17. yes, sad, but that is so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I've counted 7 Unrecs on this so far but there may have been more

There is nothing in the rules to prevent anyone unreccing anything they want, but I prefer discussion of disagreements. I didn't even profess a view point with this OP, I just want to hear what others think about it.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the Unrec feature with plural fingers remaining, but that's a different discussion...

edited to add the 2 additional unrecs that came in while I was typing this post.

[rhett o rick]

24. How does one count unrec's? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. You can't make an exact tally, but if you start a thread and are bored enough

or obsessive enough to be refreshing the front page of the forum that your thread is posted in when you aren't posting again yourself, you can see if your thread loses recs, like going from 5 recs to 3 recs for example after a refresh or after returning to the front page from another thread. That equals two unrecs. Later if your thread Rec count bounces back to 4 recs before slipping down to 3 recs, you know at least one other unrec came in, which would put the unrec count minimally up to a total of 3. It could always be more than that because you could miss a thread going up one Rec then down one Rec while you weren't paying attention. That would just look like nothing happened.

[rudy23]

32. See post # 2

Money talks.

[ampad]

43. Wait a minute, hold up

Did you really want to hear what other people had to say? Or did you want a reason to complain because folks had the nerve to state their opinion via the unrec function? And no I did not rec or unrec this thread. This is what gets me about some people on this board. At one side you have those who will always support Obama no matter what. On the other hand, you will have those who never supported him, will never support him, and even when he does what they want they will find a reason to complain. It is what it is. As far as the rec function I think some of you give that damn thing way too much power. Your post speaks for itself. So someone came in and unrec the thread, who give a damn. Those who want to have this conversation are not going to give a damn. They are going to have the conversation regardless.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. I was mostly just urging more people to actually hold the conversation

And not just limit their participation to Recs and Unrecs. I have not been upset about any of the actual discussion on this thread whether or not I agreed with it or people agreed with me.

Your point is taken. The use and or abuse of the unrec feature is a side issue to this discussion at most

[Banana_Phone]

10. Sorry for being clueless but,

what does that pizza thing mean?

[dionysus]

11. when you get banned your profile shows a tombstone. like the pizza.

like this;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=212497

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. When someone gets kicked off DU by the Mods & Administration here...

Which is what happens if someone repeatedly breaks the rules or is believed to be here intentionally to disrupt or worse, then if you click on there name in a thread that he or she posted on you will be led to an ID page dominated by a "Rest in Peace" for poorly disrupting Tombstone. "Tombstone Pizza", get it? lol

[bigwillq]

19. It refers to when a poster gets "tombstoned"

or banned from this site. Tombstone is a brand of pizza, hence the reference.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Baltoman991]

12. Wrong!!!

You may critique all you want. Not you, but others here post outright lies about Obama when they claim he's sold out or done nothing. Those are the ones compared to freepers.

[tridim]

14. Yep, and also the ones who critique his future policies..

even though they haven't been posed, debated or implemented yet.

It's a super-straw-man argument, similar to what Limbaugh does every day.

[bigwillq]

20. I got called a freeper

because I didn't agree with the Nobel Prize committee on its selection of Barack Obama as the Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Just my opinion. I didn't think he deserved it, yet. There are some here that will call you a freeper even when you disagree with something the Obama administration does. How progressive. :eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. "sold out" and "done nothing" are rhetorical expressions of concepts

"sold out" and "done nothing" are standard rhetorical expressions of concepts meaning, respectively, showed undue deference to monied interests and disappointed or under-performed in what he has accomplished.

They are arguable points, not falsifiable statements of fact.

"Kept the faith" and "accomplished a lot" are also value judgments, not rigorous factual statements.

Since you characterize some such opinions as "outright lies" you seem to have have a problem with thinking that your own opinions are facts.

They are not. They are opinions.

[Baltoman991]

41. You see it

the way you want to see it, I'll see it for what it is.

Anyone who says Obama has sold out or has done nothing are flat out, right wing talking point spewing liars.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. Repeating that you have a mental illness does not validate your delusions

Only an intellectual pervert of the highest order and/or someone with at least a severe personality disorder thinks that way.

Again, your subjective impressions are not "facts" and disagreeing with your subjective emotional sense of reality is not a lie.

[Baltoman991]

59. Because my opinion

differs from you, you decided to tell me I have mental problems?

Again, theres nothing to dispute here. Someone who claims Obama sold out or has done nothing is a liar. Period, end of story.

Your choosing to defend them speaks volumes.

[rhett o rick]

21. It is a great place to discuss policies. You are free to ignore disrupters. nt

[mkultra]

35. yes, many wingnuts critique his policies

and they are quite clearly anti-obama. Can you show a distinct difference between them and the majority of those here that are vocally opposed to Obama? bear in mind that the difference must be in substance rather than in some kind of assumed liberal street cred.

[dionysus]

9. i don't think anyone here would be delighted if there is no public option.

that said, you can blame congress for that.

[HamdenRice]

15. 90% of the criticism I read her of Obama is false, non-reality based, insane, etc.

I'm not saying all of it, but most of it, eg:

Obama bailed out the banks (no, it happened under Bush);

Obama is continuing the war in Iraq (actually it's the biggest withdrawal since Vietnam);

Obama is continuing torture (no, it's banned);

Obama is continuing extraordinary rendition (no, criminal procedure is back);

Obama is continuing warrantless wiretapping (actually the program ended, and a Justice Dept investigation of a rogue wiretapping was somehow converted into Obama continuing warrantless wiretapping even worse than Bush).

I could go on and on, but 90% of the so called criticism here is pure bullshit.

The result is a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome: if I read "criticism" of Obama here, I generally assume the exact opposite is true in the reality based world.

[rhett o rick]

23. I agree sor. Some by distrupters and some by those looking for attention.

It is too early to judge the President on health care. And who are we to challenge his tactics?

[ampad]

45. I agree with the looking for attention aspect

I notice that quite a bit of the criticism comes from grandstanding and a inflated sense of self righteousness. For instance (not this OP) but some trying to shut down the argument by claiming they have so many recs in one thread (normally anti-obama post). How does that keep the conversation going? Also, counting unrecs in a thread (sorry OP but I find this practice to be silly). Or my personal favorite: Once the poster has worn out an issue to the point that they look like a bold faced liar they go on to another fake outrage. Then they have the nerve to claim they have always supported this president; or that they are not holding a primary grudge.Obama has done (or not done) quite a bit for me to be concern about.Hell I think we all should be concern about what is going on in Afghanistan. I think he needs to bring all those troops home yesterday. History has shown us that Afghanistan is a lost cause and the Obama awesomeness is not going to magically change that. Bring them home today.I completely understand the frustration with these wars and healthcare. However, I think there are some here that will never be happy with this president. Even if he were to give us single payer and wave a magic wand to stop all the wars and end world hunger. They would find something to bitch about because Obama is not Kuchinich, Edwards, Hillary or whoever.

[RetroLounge]

48. I see you chose to ignore DADT and DOMA

makes you go hmmmm.

RL

[HamdenRice]

50. I wasn't aware he passed either of those laws.

Oh wait a minute, he didn't.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[RetroLounge]

56. Nor did he end them yet.

Latin makes you look even dumber.

RL

[CTyankee]

25. My response.

To your first question: Yes, I do support Obama and his efforts now and think many of us here are being premature in our judgment. It ain't over yet, folks.

But no, I do not support a plan that emerges without a public option. That foot needs to be in the door. We need to fight like hell for it. No, no, no to any hcr without the public option. And that would be on Obama's head, IMO.

[mkultra]

26. I am critical of those who undermine his political authority through "constructive" rhetoric

Obama has stated that he wants a strong public option but ultimately he has to work with congress to get that to happen. If he goes to war with congress, the results will be that his ability to pass reforms will be diminished. Thus, short of going nuclear, his power lies primarily in his popularity and approval rating. When congress sees that he has the support of his constituents, they are far more likely to be receptive to his wishes.

Simply put, by undermining his position with false rhetoric about single payer, his bully pulpit has been reduced. That was a stupid move on the part of the so called base. The end result was that those beyond the bluedogs have now left to do their own things and Obama may be left only with the nuclear option, which he probably will not use.

In politics, support equals power. Criticizing him for not backing single payer was the dumbest move any liberal could have done considering that he never campaigned on it and was clearly not going to take that route. Instead, you should have grabbed a mop and helped out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Just a quick observation

Some progressives have attacked Obama for not pushing for single payer, but many others stuck with him for pragmatic reasons in his push for a public option instead. I think it is the uncertainty over the P.O.'s prospects now that is at the root of most of the current concern being expressed over health care reform efforts in general, and in some case over Obama's role today in promoting it.

[mkultra]

33. I agree

I think it has become a self fulfilling proficiency. Considering congress' attitude now, i would be surprised if we achieved a meaningful public option. I think the best we can hope for NOW is some regulation. I personally think there are many here that just don't like Obama and seriously want him to fail. I think there are varied reasons for this hatred.

[ProSense]

28. Feeling defensive?

How many strong Obama defenders here would still speak highly of his efforts on the issue of health care reform if there is no meaningful Public Option that comes out of it, even if you personally feel that the public option is important? In that case, would you put the blame for a failure to win that completely elsewhere, or would you assign Obama some responsibility?

Do you really expect an answer to what amounts to a accusation?

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I don't characterize it that way at all

And there have already been solid but varied responses here to that question. Like I said above, for one thing I do not see any automatic contradiction in defending Obama for his overall conduct in office while still expressing some criticism of his conduct in one or another specific area. Why should anyone feel accused by that question, especially when it was only one of several I asked knowing that one question would not fit all?

How can you call my question an accusation when the harshest option I articualted in it was whether someone who supported Obama AND wanted a public option would assign "some responsibility" for failing to win it to Obama? People are free to say yes no or maybe to that question; 0%, 1%, 99% or 100%. It wasn't a loaded question. I also recognized that someone could support health care reform but not believe that a public option was an essential element of that. People who think the latter were not asked to answer that question. And I certainly have not jumped over anyone or made accusations about them if that was their opinion, have I?

[ProSense]

37. "when the harshest option I articualted .."

"...was whether someone who supported Obama AND wanted a public option would assign "some responsibility" for failing to win it to Obama?"

Are you assuming that people who are defending Obama put the onus on him to deliver a public option?
Why does this even matter? It will be after the fact and will depend on how the whole thing plays out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I am not assuming that at all.

For one thing if I did I wouldn't have been curious about the answer to my question. Secondly, I made a real point out of acknowledging that someone who defends Obama AND believes in the Public Option might in good faith put NONE of the onus for failure in that regard (if it ends up that way) on Obama for not securing it for us.

As to why it even matters, besides plain curiosity which I never thought was frowned on here, I think it useful for Democratic leaders to have a good grasp on the degree of and depth of activist support for a public option BEFORE whatever emerges is a done deal. It has been my observation, yours may differ, that support for a public option and support for Obama get entwined in different ways, and that tends to muddy the waters over who does and does not feel strongly about the necessity of a public option being in the final legislation.

[uponit7771]

39. Right, the way the question is framed is accusatory at the least

[emulatorloo]

29. I will blame the Senate if there is no significant Public Option. However I am optimistic there

will be one. Senator Harkin is being very positive about it.

I do believe there could be a pretty strong bill without it if worst comes to worst.

I would rather have strong insurance reform & regulation rather than the status quo.



However the best thing would be to have both.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

30. Public option's important, but Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman aren't really Dems.

Just make the Republicans filibuster isn't a strategy. Keeping Snowe on board to preclude betrayal from conservative Democrats is a strategy. If there is no public option I will blame Obama and the Democrats for not convincing Snowe to support one.

[TheKentuckian]

38. I criticize too but I hate the lies and the excessive hyperbole put on display by many

Too much of the hubbub is bogus bullshit, paranoia, and often irrational.

If you have to make crap up then I assume you have nothing legitimate to offer.

[uponit7771]

40. HERE'S YOUR ANSWER...

[geek tragedy]

44. I think he should be criticized fairly.

Of course, that's a big question--what is fair?

Lots of stuff here is knee-jerk bashing. I mean, he's now a bad guy because he treats Fox News like a propaganda outlet?

On HCR, it's certainly fair to argue that he hasn't been bold enough. But, the "he's an evil sellout who doesn't want good reform to pass" is just petulant whining.

[polichick]

47. There's a lot of simplistic "for him or against him" thinking here - don't take it personally. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I guess I should comment on my own question

I consider myself an Obama supporter in general who feels strongly that real health care reform needs to include at least a viable public option in it. I have not been critical of Obama regarding the progress of that aspect of reform to date, I have reserved judgement. I acknowledge that he supports the public option without commenting on the quality of his leadership for it, because I am not privy to what goes on hehind the scene. I also accept the fact that for the time being moving directly to a single payer plan is not politically viable.

Having said that I consider President Obama to be one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the Democratic Party. Should we fail to get a viable public option in the final health care reform package that passes I will hold the Democratic Party in general, and it's leaders specifically, at least partly responsible for that failure. How much responsibility I give to the Democrats and to their leaders and to their different elected representatives I will ponder in the aftermath of what I would consider a failure. I imagine more details will start emerging about the role that different individuals played in the drama after the fact, and I will take those into consideration. But I agree with Truman's statement that "The Buck stops here" when it comes to the President. IF we fail to get a real public option from this reform effort I will, at least to some extent, include Obama in the responsibility for that failure.

edited to correct some typos

[vaberella]

51. Ahh see this is where I differ.

The litmus test for me on this is not the PO as you seem to have made it in your post. I am a big supporter of Obama---and been called his cheerleader in the past, however my priorities are set a bit differently. I take a lot into consideration before I make a decision. Let me say first that I want a PO, I personally need the PO in my case. However, Healthcare reform is not 100% the PO! This is what Obama has stressed in the past and I have to agree with. He says the Left makes the entire issue the PO as does the Right (and other things). My concern varies from different issues because no one really talks about Big Pharma, they glaze over it...but don't really attack it as an issue. It surprises me that people go after the care (which I don't blame them for) but wholly affect the manipulation, fraud, and abuse done by Big Pharma throughout the years. The PO doesn't protect people from that issue. It gives people basic care yes----but then the definition comes in as to what is basic care?! I seriously speaking there has not been talk about Dentistry which is actually eliminated from Dentist plans, or in my case (another issue) is the fact I need to see an Opthamologist---which is another thing omitted. The PO addresses one part of my problems but there are a whole slew that I need to see the bill address. If the PO is not included I want to see how far the bill goes to address some of these other issues. The Left thing everything is the PO, well quite honestly no it's not and through all the yelling and threatening on both sides (you seem to be included in this) everything is almost completely overlooked. It limits the dialogue. Again these issues are not dependent on the PO because if basic care is looked at in most cases these things are not included---their add-ons. However for the millions of us this does affect I'd like to know some information.

2 out of 5 if fine and I have been a staunch supporter of the PO and will always hope that someting amazing comes through. However, if we get 2 out of 5...I have to say it's a win and a massive change and it shows we can hope for more change. Secondly, Obama doesn't own the laws, he's not a Monarchy. I think people tend to forget that. If this fails I don't hold Obama responsible...I want the names and numbers of ALL Dems who opposed it, when it comes to legislation---the buck stops with them. Obama has the power to veto and if he doesn't veto a weak bill--then I'll have issues with his role in this. However, from what I can see Obama has pushed and definitely stood his ground on the issue of the PO and various others---which is NOT the only issue at hand when it comes to Health care. However a crummy weak bill passes or one that appeases the "Conservadems" and the lone Repub, then it's not worth my bloody time and I want Congress to be held accountable. Obama has done his duty in not twisting the arm of Congress---this is one of the issues people felt Clinton did which ruined his bill. He's using the division of powers well and telling them what he wants. 4 out of 5 legislation has a bill and it's unlikely one will pass without a PO. NowI'd like the other provisions met which I think should join the dialogue more...not just the PO.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Thanks for a thoughtful post

Of course I can't argue that there aren't other important aspects of real health care reform beyond the P.O. Some I don't comment on because they seem to be on their way toward being addressed, like an end to the pre-existing condition block for attaining insurance. Some I don't comment on because the chances of them being resoloved at this stage of the process are slim or zilch; my desire for a single payer system is an example of something that falls into this category. Many I don't comment on because I know that we can't get everything we want now under the best of circumstances, and I understand some aspects of reform will inevitably get side tracked for now during the deal making negotiation process.

I may well put a higher priority on the importance of attaining a real public option in this health care reform process than you do, and that of course is potentially good grist for discussion and debate. I think the creation of a viable public plan alternative to private insurance provides us with the maximum attainable leverage in dealing with the private insurance industry, and I think the private insurance industry is the highest priority player that must be dealt with now. Even if we never move on to single payer, if private insurers have real competition in the insurance industry consumers will benefit, and overall costs for the nation will be less than they otherwise would have been, IMO.

There is no competition the private insurance industry fears more than a government run plan. If we can get a public option that is robust enough to demonstrate what the public sector is capable of delivering to consumers at a cost equal to or less than the private sector charges, the private sector will either be replaced eventually by single payer or it will do what the advocates of private enterprise always claim that it does so well; it will rise to the occaision and deliver a product that consumers will find superior to anything that government can offer. In my mind that's called win/win.

As to Obama's power and Obamna's role in this or any political initiative, that is always subject to debate and differing opinions. You cite Bill Clinton's approach to compare Obama's to, others could cite LBJ or FDR or Ike for that matter. The Presidency is a very powerful office and an administration has a nearly countless number of strings that it can attempt to pull to influence the course of legislation; ranging from the bully pulpit to the Presidential woodshed. There can be very real and significant negative consequences for a legislator, from either pary actually but especially from the President's own Party, who thwarts the Presidential will. And there can also be very real and significant rewards to one who facilitates a President's agenda. None of this guarentees success on any given issue of importance to a President, but Presidents are judged both by history and by contemporary peers by how successful they are at achieving their agenda, and by how effective the agenda that they achieve is at advancing the interests of the American people.

At every junction Barack Obama, like every President before him, has had choices to make as he charted the exact course by which he pursued his agenda for America. What he ultimately achieves or does not can never be completely divorced from his own efforts in that regard.

[Jakes Progress]

60. Well put.

I want more than 2 of 5, but that's just me.

I agree that the deal with Pharma stunk to the heavens. Now even that is coming back to bite the admin.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

54. Dean, Harkin and a few other reliable Democrats say it will have a stong public option...

I simply believe them. Also the amount of good fortune Pres. Obama has had I'm positive a lot of things will turn out for the good in the end with a lot of activism. The process is confusting and worrying but I find Howard Dean never is, and trust him on that.

[ginnyinWI]

55. I want people to not jump the gun here.

During the election season, I was repeatedly surprised by Barack Obama--pleasantly surprised at the way he fought opposition and got the better of them. I think there are too many Nervous Nellies around here. The rightwing loves for forcast doom and worry about what Obama is going to do that will bring about the End of America As We Know It--and I see similar worrying around here about how Obama isn't going to bring the Utopia the left dreams of.

I say to both sides: wait and see, then complain if you want to. I think the man is doing the best damned job he can and we need to give him a chance to work. Bush had the chance to let the country deteriorate for eight years and there's a lot of cleaning up to do.

[BREMPRO]

58. ++1

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. Me too.

Note that one of my OP questions started out with: "How many of you feel criticism of Obama now is simply unwarranted because it prematurely seems to assume that Obama will fail..."

I also stated above and will repeat again that I am completely reserving judgement over how effective Obama will ultimately be shown to have been on this matter. It is simply too soon to say in my opinion, but I'm definately supportive of his overall Presidency to date.

[YvonneCa]

69. Great comment, ginnyinWI. I will support Obama's efforts...

...because he has integrity and a really difficult job to do. I may not agree with his position on every issue (education is a sticking point for me) but I think he is the right person to make the best decisions for this time in our history. I am glad I voted for him, and have no doubt I'll vote for him again in 2012.

[SpartanDem]

63. I think people are seriously underestimating the President

it seems to me like a replay of the same criticisms that many had over and over with Obama's campaign during the primary and general election that he wasn't being "tough enough". We see how that worked out, so personally I don't put much stock in the armchair quarterbacking going on either by MSM or anyone else. That doesn't mean I agree with how every things been done, I would've liked him to put and end to gang of six non sense earlier, but I think this president has earned a little benefit of the doubt. Some would say that is dangerous attitude to take, but I think the constant defeatism by some people is far more dangerous. No legislative effort of this scale is perfect, yet at every bump in the road you have a chorus people willing to declare failure and that just creates a self fulling prophecy IMO.

[CTLawGuy]

64. There's some irony involved in this whole thing.

The people who supposedly worship Obama as a "messiah" realize that he is just one person and can't do everything himself right away, whereas the people who accuse OTHERS of worshipping him as a messiah are the ones who are mad he hasn't fixed everything himself immediately.

People fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the presidency and congress. Congress is the legislative branch. Its job is to MAKE THE LAW. The president is the head of the executive branch whose job is to ENFORCE THE LAW. The president has the veto as a means to reject laws he does not want to enforce. The legislative branch and the executive branch, by mandate of the US constitution, are co-equal branches that are not subordinate to each other.

I crack up when I hear whining from the punditry about how Obama let Congress write the health care bills. I want to scream "that's their job, idiots." You let congress write the bills because the alternative is the Clintonesque executive branch-written bill that gets shredded in congress ANYWAY, with the added byproduct that the president gets humiliated in the process. Congress will write its own bill(s) whther you like it or not so save yourself the humiliation. A second advantage of letting congress write the bills is that they have to pass the bills, and they have a better idea of the mood of their members on complex issues than the executive branch does.

The only reason a PO would not pass would be the refusal of a few conservative dems to support cloture on the conference report containing the PO. The Dem PTB in the Senate, the House and the White House SUPPORT the PO. If it fails due to this reason, the blame should fall squarely on the dems who refuse to support cloture.

I imagine the expected rejoinder: well if OBAMA had DEMANDED a PO, Congress would have complied--so he should get blame. First, a demand would be ineffective. As I said before, The legislative branch is co-equal to the executive branch. Any congresspeople that might oppose cloture are more concerned about the reaction of their conservative constituency than about what Obama thinks (and they know, in a global sense, that he needs them more than they need him). They don't want some Repub a couple years down the road to call them a "socialist!" in front of their Fox Noise watching RW constituency for supporting the bill. Second, a demand would have the added burden that, if only a bill without a PO could pass, the president would be boxed in to vetoing it, or risk having future "demands" not taken seriously. That might force Obama to forego a bill with positive developments, like (1) banning rejection for preexisting conditions, (2) banning or regulating rescission, (3) capping yearly out of pocket expenses, which he probably does NOT want to do.

[FlaGranny]

66. I have to say something -

Great post!

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Yes, nicely stated. My simple response is that Obama is part of the Democratic Party leadership

I won't assign any blame to anyone for a failure that hasn't happened, and I'll give credit freely to many if a victory I can believe in results. The 3 branches of government are indeed seperate and equal as proscribed in the Constitution, but they are not exactly hermetically sealed off from each other either. And the rise of political parties was never covered in the Constitution. In some ways they represent an unofficial additional branch of government.

[Bonobo]

70. Make sure to touch them all!

'Cause you hit a home run with that post!

Well done!

[Dinger]

65. K & R From Me

Excellent question.

[zalinda]

71. I find that those who are Obama cheerleaders

are not in trouble, yet. They have jobs, a roof over their head, money in the bank or stock market, plenty to eat, medical insurance, and are not connected to the wars. They feel the country can wait, because bad things happen to other people, not them.

I have not heard one person who is losing their home say that Obama is doing the best he can. He's playing a chess game, or I don't need my pony right now. And you won't hear someone say that I'll put off my cancer treatment until Obama gets around to deciding what the health care reform will be.

Those that care the most about conditions that are happening to not only themselves but to others, are screaming the loudest about Obama's "laid back attitude". For those of us that fall in the category of poor, taking your own sweet time getting things done, is not something we applaud.

zalinda