You Are Losing Me, DUers

[berni_mccoy]

This is an original post at Kos, but my feelings are the same for Democratic Underground. Please consider the wise words this Kossak has said and reflect on the hyperbole that's been going on around here.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/25/807830/-You-Are-Losing-Me,-Kossacks.

On edit: many here are taking the headline as a meaning of my leaving. This is not true. It means there are people here who have failed to convince me of the validity or sincerity of many of your attacks on the President. Certainly, there is some valid criticism and that is not what this is aimed at. This post is meant as a reality-check for those who would use their own ideas of what President Obama to be to attack him with failures to measure up to that fantasized vision.

You are Losing Me, Kossaks
by aaronedge

I found your hard work so inspiring. I found your continual contributions so encouraging. I also saw that you were getting wrapped up in rhetoric and ideas and not paying attention to the facts.

Still, I have stood back and watched as you have taken every opportunity to attack a President for behaving in the ways he told us he would behave as our candidate.

But, it increasingly seems that you have decided what you want "change" to mean regardless of what the President meant.

You have ignored the fact that we elected a compromiser, a man with a true penchant for bipartisanship and avoiding being heavy-handed.

You have neglected political realities and instead attempted to subject our leaders to the same ideological purity test we make fun of the Republicans for using.

You have raised your flag in protest against a troop increase in a war the President, as a candidate, called a "war of necessity." The President didn't hide his feelings from you.

I know it is popular for you to claim the President has done only minor things while ignoring the reality of just where our country stood on January 19, 2009, where we would have stood if the election had gone differently, and where we stand today.

I know it's popular for you to pretend that the small things the President has done are meaningless because you want him to do what you defined "change" to be, what you convinced yourself you were voting for.

But in the big things, Kossacks, health care, climate change, the economy, improving infrastructure, creating jobs, forestalling the foreclosure crisis, and addressing renewable energy, you have ignored that this President has done more than any other president in our history in less than a year.

Where is your basis in reality now? Why are you not devoting a great deal more time to acknowledging reality rather than living in the fantasy land of the presidential candidate you imagined?

I'm a young man, Kossacks. But after years of enjoying this community, I dared to think that you might actually stand by and support a President who is not only doing his damndest to make this country better, but is also living up to the promises he made on the campaign trail. Support in giving him more than 10 months of a 48-month term. Support in acknowledging that even when you disagree with issues he campaigned on delivering, you can't be mad when he delivers on them.

Instead, I see the same old attitude that has doomed us to electoral failure.

Please step up and back into reality. Please stop pretending we elected the President to do anything other than what he told us he would do if we elected him. Your failure, so far, to maintain your basis in reality, is pushing you to the fringe and, honestly, making you look silly. This has been a profound disappointment.

You are losing me, Daily Kos, and many other fair-minded, even-keeled, reality-based Democrats.

[NJmaverick]

1. Well said and BRAVO!!!

:applause:

[Threedifferentones]

303. whoops wrong thread....

[sharp_stick]

2. Fits this place pretty well n/t

[countingbluecars]

3. Exactly!

K&R

[NJmaverick]

4. When the Republicans regain power the ones to blame

are the so called progressives that instead of keeping the right wing loonies under control, joined the tea baggers in attacking our Democratic President and the Dems in Congress.

[tekisui]

9. No. I will nip that in the bud now.

IF repukes regain power, it will be because the Democratic Party failed to maintain the support of the needed liberals. The support of any group should never be assume or taken for granted.

[NJmaverick]

13. and here I thought that "nothing is my fault" thinking was confined to the right wing nut jobs

:eyes:

[tekisui]

22. You cannot expect someone to support a candidate

that doesn't represent them.

What that argument fails to realize is that the liberals will still largely vote for Obama. The percentage of those voting for Obama on the left, will be largely unchanged. What won't be there is the support through phone banking, canvassing, registering voters, etc.

It will be lost because the party activists will no little more than vote, and the consequence will be less voter turnout and the indys staying home.

[NJmaverick]

28. I woulld have to be pretty narcissistic to think a candidate is only going to look out for my own

self interests. I would have to be willing to look at the greater good of our nation to see beyond petty self interests and look out for what is best for the nation and keep the right wing nut jobs out of power.

[tekisui]

40. I don't think a candidate will look after only my self-interest.

I don't think you are trying to hear me. Keeping the rw nuts out of power should be a primary objective. But, if the Democrats can't do it, they have only them selves to blame.

[NJmaverick]

50. Wrong any progressives that are attacking and undermining them

are more to blame. Actions have consequences in the real world, something many progressives are oblivious to.

[tekisui]

61. Bull shit!

It is our responsibility to criticize when our leaders are wrong. I find it telling that you refer to progressives as something separate from yourself.

What positions do you even hold? Or is it purely based on personality?

[NJmaverick]

69. lol! Well your bullshit comment shows you have NOTHING

It's your responsibility to make sure the right doesn't destroy the nation. Instead you have abandoned that important task in favor of taking down our nation because you didn't get your personal wishes fulfilled. Obama is our PRESIDENT not a frickin Genie!

[tekisui]

73. You must have not made it past the subject line. That is okay.

You are too afraid of the right to embrace the left.

[NJmaverick]

85. I am too afraid to put my selfish interests ahead of the good of the nation

because I have to live with myself. It's called doing the right thing. You should try it some time.

[tekisui]

87. You should try being less obtuse.

[NJmaverick]

92. Sorry to break it to you but not agreeing with your position of self centered self interest

is not obtuse, it's simply being a good American.

[tekisui]

108. A good American doesn't ask questions, right?

A good American doesn't challenge the status quo? A good American forgoes their personal motivations and beliefs for loyalty an unity? A good American do not express dissent?

I think I understand you now.

[NJmaverick]

114. A good American doesn't see the President as his personsal genie

a good American doesn't ignore the threat posed by the loony right

a good American is tolerant of others and willing to compromise

A good American puts the interests of the nation ahead one's personal agenda

[treestar]

130. the threat from the looney right and the right wing media

are very real - some people must be insulating themselves from that reality if they really think they can afford to snub their noses at the Democrats.

[StreetKnowledge]

362. So, vote for the one that's less evil?

Or send the less evil one a message? The poster stating that the activists aren't gonna back up the Democrats if the Democrats ignore them is entirely right. I'm not ignorant of the lunatic right, but the left has gotten virtually nothing from Obama, and yes many of us do want that to change, and we realize that it won't change until the President and his administration remember that we voted them into office, not the lobbyists and damn sure not their toadies in Congress and the Media. The right isn't gonna save him, so if the left decides not to back him up, with politics today being what they are, he loses. And most of us on the left are not so scared of the right that we won't send that warning shot.

[bkozumplik]

372. well said /eom

[JDPriestly]

379. I would never snub my nose at real Democrats. But where are the real Democrats?

[dbonds]

136. Very conceeded of you to think you know the good of the nation over everyone else.

Maybe the good of the nation should have more embracing of the left.

[NJmaverick]

141. I am sure the Repukes you help get elected will see things your way

:eyes:

[dbonds]

149. You have quite a problem with fear clouding your agenda.

If you are so afraid of standing up for what is right then you have already lost.

[NJmaverick]

157. Knowing one has too look both ways before crossing the street is not having fear

cloud one's judgment. On the contrary it's good common sense. Sure idealists like yourself will blame the cars saying they should yield so you shouldn't have to look both ways, but it still sucks to get hit by a speeding car

[dbonds]

161. You not looking to cross the street.

You are letting fear keeping you from taking the first step to cross. There is a difference between fear and judgment.

[NJmaverick]

163. You seem to be unclear of the idea of an anology

[dbonds]

167. I got the analogy, you just did understand what role you play in it.

[JDPriestly]

380. When I look at the housing prices in my neighborhood, I feel like

I have been hit by a speeding car. My husband and I are are retired. This economy is really hurting us. Obama needs to renegotiate the trade agreements and stop the bleeding of jobs to places like India.

The fancy White House dinner was lovely, but who is paying for it? The people whose jobs have been outsourced to Lahore? They aren't earning anything to tax these days. Obama has promised to attack the budget deficit. He needs to attack the job deficit first.

[rhett o rick]

337. Hello, it's the blue dogs that help the republicants. nt

[peace frog]

190. Spellcheck can't help you

when you don't know the definition of a word (conceited) to begin with.. :eyes:


Main Entry: con·cede
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsēd\
Function: verb
1 : to grant as a right or privilege
2 a : to accept as true, valid, or accurate <the right of the state to tax is generally conceded> b : to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly <conceded that it might be a good idea>
intransitive verb


Main Entry: con·ceit·ed
Pronunciation: \-ˈsē-təd\
Function: adjective
1 : ingeniously contrived : fanciful
2 : having or showing an excessively high opinion of oneself

[Name removed]

196. Deleted sub-thread

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

[ooglymoogly]

365. self delete wrong place

[pundaint]

419. DU - dictionary underground?

[Name removed]

258. Deleted sub-thread

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

[billh58]

310. There is the

Left, and then there is the Far-Left. All "Progressives" are not Liberal Democrats, but those who choose to shun the Democratic Party, do tend to falsely label we Liberal Democrats as "zombies" who blindly follow the so-called Party-line, and "cheerleaders" who ignore President Obama's shortcomings. Neither of these accusations (or assumptions) is true for the vast majority of mainstream Democrats.

It is a very American thing to constructively criticize our political leadership. It is unproductive for the Far-Left "Progressives" to join the right-wing opposition in attacking our elected Democratic leadership just because their wish lists are not being completely fulfilled. If any Far-Lefties sincerely believe that Kucinich, or Hillary, or ANY other Democrat could have completely ended the Dubya-inspired wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by now, they are being disingenuous.

Is President Obama all things to all people? Of course not, but then again he comes closer than any of the "runners up," and is head and shoulders above anything the rabid-Right had to offer.

[JDPriestly]

381. It's odd that I am now considered a Far-Lefty.

Back when everybody else was marching against the Viet Nam War in the streets, I stayed home. Sure, I opposed the war, but I backed the Democratic president. When the country, tricked by Nixon's promise to end the war, voted for a Republican, I learned a lesson: Stand up for your values. The rest will take care of itself.

Obama did not learn that lesson.

I was considered moderate to conservative Democrat back then. I haven't changed my views but today I am considered a progressive or far-left Democrat. I haven't changed. The Democratic Party has changed influenced by the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama -- the first two southerners, the third the grandson of a bank vice president. How sad.

[sendero]

355. They've already destroyed it...

... and Obama is helping them, fool.

[pundaint]

418. It's just plain stupid to let the Right set the agenda and then argue about it.

I want a Left agenda to be the point of departure. That's why both parties have their own names, you apparently see it as the Right and the opposition.

Change doesn't happen by attenuation, it happens by directed action. We need some directed action toward the Left, and I'm not working for anybody who wont lead that charge vigorously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

402. No, NJmaverick did not say progressives are separate from him

He said "any progressives that are attacking and undermining them", and then talked about "many progressives"; if he had said "any people that are attacking and undermining them", that would not mean he was separating himself from 'people'. What he is separating himself from is the attacking and undermining.

[rhett o rick]

336. The only people the progressives attack are those that side with the republicants. nt

[Raineyb]

76. You also have no concept of accountability because you are under the impression that candidates are

ENTITLED to one's support. And as per usual you fail to realize that the vote has to be EARNED. If they don't do what people want they're not going to support them. And you certainly won't find people supporting anyone who doesn't appear to stand for anything. Yet another lesson you've refused to learn.

[NJmaverick]

89. LOL! You are helping the repukes by attacking the Dems

and you have the balls to lecture me that I have not concept of self accountability!?!?!?!:rofl:

[jgraz]

101. You have no concept of citizenship or participatory democracy

Go back to rooting for your favorite sports team. It will be a much better fit for your mentality.

[NJmaverick]

106. Right I am suppose to follow your position and believe my President is my personal genie

and if he doesn't grant me all my wishes I should kick him out and put a repuke in power.

[jgraz]

142. Just a little simple logic and reading comprehension. Is that too much to ask?

Really, even the most hysterical strawmen should have some basis in reality. Expecting a president who ran on a platform of "CHANGE" and "YES WE CAN" to actually deliver leadership is really not that hard to understand. Really.

[NJmaverick]

148. The idea that attacking Dems will the repukes is not a strawman

and it was intellectually dishonest of you to try and make that argument

[Name removed]

154. Deleted sub-thread

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

[paulsby]

207. this is such rubbish

how many posts are there where people claim that we are different than the repubs, because they march in lockstep (which is laughably false) and we are closer to the will rogers quote.

and then we get posts where people say criticizing obama=attacking the dems/helping the repubs.

i criticize obama where i think he is wrong, and praise him where i think he is right. that is what an intelligent, honest person does. only some kind of lockstep partisan fears criticizing a dem because it (allegedly) helps the repubs.

i think obama is right on afghanistan. i thus praise him

i think he is wrong on marriage equality. i thus criticize him

should i hold off on the latter because you think it helps the other party?

sorry, aint gonna happen

[JDPriestly]

382. look, paulsby, you are not e.e. cummings.

if you want to communicate so that people enjoy reading what you write, please use capital letters and punctuation there is a reason for capital letters and punctuation they help readers figure out when you are ending one thought and expressing a new one punctuation is used to signal to readers when to breathe even if silently so please use punctuation your readers will thank you

[Raineyb]

307. This pathetic, simpleminded line of thinking is EXACTLY the difference between

actual thinkers and sheep.

I will attack anyone who I think is wrong. The party doesn't matter; the principle does. You have no principles thus you'll accept any kind of behavior from anyone claiming to be a Democrat and that is EXACTLY the opposite of accountability. If politicians think they will get your votes regardless of what they do they won't do the right things. Why this fairly simple concept is beyond you I have no idea. A third grader would be able to understand it.

What's the difference between you and the tea-baggers? You have the exact same mentality. Party before principle that's what the tea-baggers care about and it's the same with you. You and the tea-baggers are flip sides of a very idiotic coin that's not good for the country at all.

[jgraz]

318. But... but... he's a MAVERICK

It's, like, right in his name.

[paulsby]

205. me too

i don't want a candidate that does what's best for me. i want one that does what's best for the country.

i often vote against my interests, because my interests are subordinate

[NJmaverick]

293. Good for you! It's posts like these that keep me from losing hope

[paulsby]

295. iirc, emily dickenson said

"hope is the thing with feathers". i like that.

[JackRiddler]

332. I see. Opposing invasions in Asia = "self interest"

[defendandprotect]

288. And $$$$$$$$$$ -- Obama raised a great deal of it from liberals/progressives . . ..

[JDPriestly]

378. Let's put it this way, tekisui.

If Obama wants to be a centrist, that's his choice. But he had better be able to find lots of centrists who are willing to give him money they don't really have, spend hours on the phone that they could spend with their families or friends, wear out their shoes walking precincts, buying his books and arguing on his behalf. Because those are the things that we did for him to get him elected, and we won't be doing those in the next election.

In the last few weeks, we have received call after call from political fundraisers. Over and over we asked them to take us off their list. That is how strongly we feel. And besides, in this economy, we really don't have any money to give. That is another fact of life that Obama will have to face. He will have to find some other source of small donors or blow his cover. Remember how he claimed that he was mostly supported by small donation. Well, he can kiss that claim goodbye. And I hope that as he does that, he remembers all the little folks who have lost their savings in the stock market crash and in the housing market crash and who are now jobless.

[bertman]

420. Thank you, JD. I agree wholeheartedly. And when I see Geithner and Summers on TeeVee

reminding us of how we need to give Wall Street more and more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, I cannot separate our President's failure to push for relief for Main Street from the reality that he is STILL supporting those two Thieves.

Not to mention his piss-poor record on civil liberties, gay marriage, etc. etc. This Progressive Democrat will support the President when he makes the decisions I think benefit the country.

I have come to the conclusion that there are only the two wings of the MONEY party. I thought that the Democratic wing was going to fight for me, but now I see that they are fighting for Big Bidness. That includes the President.

[Raineyb]

67. No you DLC apologists do a pretty good job at it too. But then there's not much

room between you and the right wing is there?

[NJmaverick]

72. Apparantly there was enough for you to park in there and JOIN them in taking down the Dems

[Raineyb]

88. The Dems are taking themselves down by NOT STANDING FOR ANYTHING

I believe it was Truman who said that if the people have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican people will pick the Republican every time. You can't expect people to come out to support candidates who make it clear that the populace and what the populace thinks on major issues like health care don't mean a damn thing to the candidate.

And they think they can get away with this kind of behavior because people like you will vote for ANYTHING claiming to be a Democrat. Just because it runs as a Democrat doesn't mean it stands for Democratic values.

[NJmaverick]

96. Truman also said if you want a friend in Washington get a dog

because he knew the self centered disloyal nature of many so called liberals

[Raineyb]

131. And you're loyal to what? Apparently you're a whore to anything in power which claims

to be Democrat. You're not interested in democracy you're only interested in the party. You have no principles that you'd actually stand up for. You know what they say about people who won't stand for anything. They'll fall for anything.

[NJmaverick]

145. I am not foolish enough to believe that helping the loony right take down the Dems

will lead to anything good. You keep living in that lovely ivory tower of yours where the real world is far away.

[Raineyb]

158. I live in the real fucking world and there's not a whole hell of a lot of change down there

Perhaps if you'd get out of the party's ass for two seconds you might see what the real world looks like. As it is your tunnel vision is currently full of shit.

[NJmaverick]

168. You don't live in the real "fucking" world if you haven't seen all the change

[Raineyb]

272. How's unemployment where you are?

Have we made any real steps to getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Did we do anything about regulating our banks so another systemic failure isn't a threat or did we help the big banks get even bigger? Are we going to have real health care reform passed? We've got a half assed health insurance reform but that's not quite the same is it?

Unemployment extensions can only continue for so long then what?

Have we worked to change the underlying problems in our country or are we just fiddling at the edges?

How are we supposed to fix anything if we have endless money for war but are on a strict budget for infrastructure and health care?

Real change means working at the underlying problems. We're fiddling around the edges and calling it change and it's not fooling a hell of a lot of people. Don't get mad because people are pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on. Clothe him!

[Mimosa]

390. ^ Jobs for people, health care, not WAR!^ n/t

[treestar]

102. There is a huge gap

Are you paying attention? You risk living in a country that is much worse than you imagine it to be under the Democrats.

If you don't want useless wars, why would you sit back and let the Repukes win and start them because the
Democrats weren't pure enough, even if they'd be involved in fewer?

The repukes don't want health care at all.

[NJmaverick]

109. Now you know facts have no place in the Obama basher's agenda

[Raineyb]

160. Excuse you? YOu don't have any fucking clue what my agenda is. But then

you don't know shit about most things, although you certainly make a lot of accusations based on things you've pulled out of your ass. You might want to pay a little attention to history, if you can be bothered to notice facts that don't vibe with your head up the ass point of view.

[Raineyb]

153. Apparently not. Your friend there is just as bad as the REpublicans with his/her loyalty oaths

so on that there's very little difference at all.

And as to health care which has nothing to do with what I was talking about, but as you brought it up I'll bite, the blue dogs are not at all interested in health care reform. They don't give a tinkers damn if all of us dropped dead right now from lack of health insurance, there are contingents who will not vote for anything with a public options. They're too busy whoring for insurance companies. Tell me how is that different from the Republican point of view?

And talk about Orwellian, this bit of legislation is not health care reform at all. It is at best health insurance reform and not al that much of a reform at that. Health insurance does not mean one gets health care or did the fact that half of bankruptcies being due to medical expenses (and most of those are with people who HAD health insurance) completely escape you?

In addition, it was Democrats who could have filibustered the blank check that was given to Bush in the first place but so many were so eager to show how hawkish they were they couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the millions in this country alone (not to mention other countries) who were protesting against this war, not to mention those of us who called, e-mailed and wrote to our representatives and pleaded with them not to vote for this.

The gap is not nearly as large as you imagine it is.

[JDPriestly]

383. Treestar, I was able to persuade independent voters to vote for Obama

because I myself trusted him and believed in him. I neither trust him nor believe in him at this point. As for change, he is going to start by changing himself before anyone else is going to believe he is bringing change.

Here in California, we would be better off without passage of the watered down healthcare bill. But for Schwarzenegger's veto, we would have single payer or something very much like it in our state already.

Let states reform healthcare on a state-by-state level if Republicans and conservadems insist on giving away what is left of our national treasure to the insurance companies rather than institute real reform.

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. You are wrong tekisui.

It will be the "progressives" fault no matter how much you want to deny it.

[tekisui]

27. That is absurd.

If the progressives don't support him, it is because HE lost their support. It is not the 'fault' of anyone except the candidate. If they are worthy of a majority support they will get it. No one owes anyone a vote.

[NJmaverick]

31. Well there is another trait many progressives share with the loony right

both are sure of their own infallibility

[Marr]

217. You're the one pushing party loyalty above all else.

I don't understand your bizarre projection.

[jgraz]

235. Why is it whenever anyone calls themselves "maverick"

they turn out to be the most toadying, bootlicking power-worshippers you can imagine?

[Raineyb]

296. Because they haven't learned the meaning of the word "irony?" n/t

[mitchtv]

421. Can I recc this post?

just too much lol

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. LOL!

:rofl:

[dbonds]

118. Exactly.

They are not owed my vote. My vote is given to who meets my needs. These blind loyalist remind me a lot of the group think the RWers have. And why is it the left always have to compromise when we are the majority, but the RW gets to do whatever it wants?

[dana_b]

423. we don't have to

it's your vote, do what you want with it.

[treestar]

41. But wouldn't that be true of any group?

A party has to be a big tent to some degree.

Everybody in the party will have some issue they don't agree on. Maybe even a lot of issues. But in a country the size of the U.S. no subgroup would get anywhere without joining up with people they don't agree with.

In other countries they even have coalition governments.

[tekisui]

47. Yes it true.

Every candidate has to build a winning coalition of voters. They will make decisions based on how they think they can build the winning support.

I think Obama is doing wrong. It seems they think they can lose support on the left and keep enough of the middle to win. That is a dangerous strategy, though. It is hard to bring back support once one has left. If something in the future causes the indys to jump, we're screwed.

[grahamhgreen]

132. Here, here! It's because our leaders are FAILING TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE, we will lose.

[NJmaverick]

151. yup just because you help the repukes by bringing down the dems

doesn't mean you are to blame for what happens when the repukes regain power.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

367. lol.

Great post. Nice touch at the end.

[grahamhgreen]

309. We are the dems - it is you who are bringing us down. People want change, not Bush light.

[DontTreadOnMe]

178. EXACTLY

well said.

[Cha]

269. You can try nipping it all you want but if

should happen it will be the fault of those who don't live in reality and never will.

.

[tekisui]

340. We all live in reality. Petty condescension doesn't change that.

It will be the fault, solely of the incumbent who couldn't keep their coalition together. Period.

[rtassi]

409. Also, reality isn't something that sits static, while the whole of humanity helplessly reacts

or adjusts to it. It is created by "US" as we go. It is a work in progress, and as changeable as our thoughts and our actions. When it comes to voting for the lesser of "WHO CARES" I'm with you ... He may get my vote based on the aforementioned premise, but I won't be getting doors slammed in my face next time!

[Warpy]

17. No, it will be a Democratic Party that still tries to please Republicans

while it ignores its own base in the name of an unachievable bipartisanship.

Any party that ignores its base will be thrown out of power.

We saw that in 1994. We could see it again. Our leaders need to throw us a bone once in a while.

As for the troop increase in Afghanistan, I know why he did it. I just hope against hope he tied it to a plan to get the hell out of there by the time his term ends.

[NJmaverick]

23. The teabaggers are attacking the Dems and protecting the repukes

now so many on the left are helping them by joining the teabaggers in attacking the Dems. The results are foreseeable, and the blame will be clear. The short sighted so called progressives that care only for their personal agendas and not the well being of the nation will be as much to blame for our nation's downfall as will the right wing nut jobs. In many case their failings will be harder to take because they should have known better.

[tekisui]

38. I care about the Democratic Party.

They are playing like a bunch weak-kneed amateurs. They have majorities across the board and couldn't deliver a liberal health care bill. They lose the frame on every debate. If they stood up and acted like leaders, their support would grow. They are either unwilling or unable to be decisive and bold leaders. As a result they are bleeding off support from both sides. No one is impressed with triangulation and weak compromises.

I want the Democratic Party to succeed. But, it is clear that they are not playing the political game well. The numbers show it. It is an exercise in absurdity to blame the individual for lessening their support.

[NJmaverick]

43. They have majorities but many of their so called supporters lack loyalty and are so fickle

with their support that the strong willed politician quickly finds themselves out on the streets. You want tough politicians like the repukes you need to support your candidates and show the loyalty the right wingers show the GOP.

[tekisui]

52. My representative is Heath Shuler.

I am supposed to be loyal to that schmuck? Loyalty is not a one-way street.

[jgraz]

82. Oh shit.

Shuler: the only guy who can compete with Bart Stupak for the title of Dumbest Motherfucker in the Democratic Caucus. You have my sympathies.

[QC]

220. But if he loses you might end up with a right wing fundamentalist homophobe!

Oh wait....

[goclark]

347. You are so right nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

32. Yeah,

always blame the left for Dems losing.:eyes:

You can't expect party loyalty from the people when the party isn't loyal to it's own ideals. Politics is not a sporting event.

[NJmaverick]

37. Loyalty is not about changing sides because a politician has not served your self interests

fast enough or strong enough:eyes:

[jgraz]

48. Loyalty is for chumps.

Politicians are elected to be loyal to us, not the other way around. We owe Obama nothing. He owes us.

[NJmaverick]

54. and losers. As all of us will be when the repukes take advanatage of that major character flaw

[tekisui]

57. You mean the character flaw of the Administration

blowing what was incredible support? Yeah, that will suck if it happens.

[Libertas1776]

59. +1

[NJmaverick]

64. Nope, I am talking about the character flaw of progressives lacking the concept of loyalty

or the ability to look beyond the narrow confines of one's self interests

[tekisui]

70. All politics is based on self-interest.

It is in my self-interest to promote liberal ideals. It is in my self-interest to seek a stable economy. It is my self-interest to oppose useless wars. It is in my self-interest to promote civil liberties.

Everyone votes on their self-interest, even you.

[NJmaverick]

78. No while there are many self centerd people in this nation there are still good people

that rise above their baser instincts and do the right thing

[tekisui]

83. Which is in their self interest.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

117. Wow talk about self delusion

:wow:

[treestar]

98. So it is for us all

But we live in a nation where the Democrats are our best hope for that.

The repukes probably think those are their goals too. There are still too many of them. If I don't support the Democrats, I'm afraid I'll get repukes, and IMO their approach to those goals are much worse. When it comes to the wars, they don't even try to avoid them.

[grahamhgreen]

115. Wrong (IMHO) It is not in a fireman's self interest to run into a burning house to save a dog, but

they do it! (or fireperson!)

The selfish argument is awful and untrue, imho, if it were true, the human race never would have survived until now - we would all have clubbed each-other to death long ago.

[tekisui]

128. I'm not talking about fireman clubbings.

I am talking about when citizens cast their vote. They act on rational and self-interested motivations. It is measurable when looking how demographics vote, and it is how strategists, including Obama's team, build a winning coalition.

[grahamhgreen]

146. And how McCain's team built a losing coalition....

[NJmaverick]

135. If that firefighter was one of the DUers that are bashing the Dems

they wouldn't have rescued the dog. They would have been too busy blaming the home owner for not having enough smoke detectors

[grahamhgreen]

140. We are not bashing Dem's we are bashing bad policies that are hurting Dems!

[Raineyb]

162. The problem is you're talking to someone who can't see the difference.

Apparently in the world according to those who have their heads up the party's ass, anyone who disagrees with certain policies is hurting the party. The party should never stand up for anything apparently so long as it can keep raking in that corporate money and hold on to power. Principles need not be applied.

[bvar22]

242. WRONG! (again).

I AM a Firefighter.
I run into burning buildings (when I have to).
I AM a Liberal Democrat.
I AM also a very vocal critic of the "Center-Right" Party Leadership...including Obama.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[jgraz]

297. pwned

:rofl:

[grahamhgreen]

306. +1

:toast:

[JDPriestly]

388. Thanks bvar22.

[JDPriestly]

387. I'm with you grahamgreene.

I am from a family of people who believe in service. My parents, my children, most of the people in my family are in helping professions. And for most of them, while they want to earn a decent living, life is not about money. Maybe that is why while we are well educated, we are not rich.

We just aren't motivated by greed. The assumption in the business community in America is that everyone is motivated by greed and therefore that money is the best incentive. I am upset that my house and my bank accounts and even the dollars in my handbag have lost value over the past year. But I am far more upset that some of my neighbors are about to lose their homes, that some of my very capable friends are jobless, about the increase in homeless and hungry on the streets of my city. So, it isn't just about self-interest. It really is about the interest of the country.

[jgraz]

77. Good luck with that.

I hope you plan on calling every progressive and talking them into supporting Obama again. Or did you have some other plan to make the left blindly follow someone who doesn't listen to them?

[NJmaverick]

81. I figure I will see the Repukes take control of the nation and the self centered and short sighted

so called progressives will try to blame everyone but themselves for their actions.

[jgraz]

86. Yeah, because you're really offering a solution

:eyes:

Tell me, Einstein: what's your grand plan for keeping your Democrats in power. Whining about the left on a discussion board?

[NJmaverick]

104. My solution is to support the Dems and put gentle non destructive pressure on them

Sorry if it doesn't satisfy "I voted for Obama to be my personal genie" ideals.:eyes:

[jgraz]

129. Name one example of your "gentle non destructive pressure"

My guess is most of it involves sitting on your ass typing up DU posts.

[jgraz]

301. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Just as I thought.

[treestar]

110. What's your plan for pushing the voters further left?

You need a majority of them.

[jgraz]

125. We already have a majority

A majority support Single Payer healthcare.
A majority support ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A majority support higher taxes on the rich.
A majority support strict regulation of the financial industry.
A majority support ending DADT.
A majority support investigating the Bush criminals.
A majority support repealing the PATRIOT act.

And this is without a single peep of leadership from our president on any of this.

The so-called "left wing" agenda is supported by the majority of the country. We don't need to push anyone further left -- except our so-called "leaders" in Washington.

[muriel_volestrangler]

403. Is that right about single payer healthcare?

The latest poll I could find said a majority oppose it:

Monday, August 10, 2009

Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose

Has American public opinion really changed that much in that time?

[jgraz]

415. The Rasmussen poll is an outlier from a company known for rigged poll questions

After months and months of ignoring polls showing a majority in favor of Single-Payer, the media jumped all over the Rasmussen poll. Of course, they didn't ask just about single payer, they asked about the federal government providing health care.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/august_2009/toplines_health_care_august_7_8_2009

Note the not-so-subtle bias in the questions. They aren't asking about single-payer vs for-profit, just if you favor government-run health insurance.

When the polls include a comparison to private health insurance, the clear winner is single-payer. e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

416. No, the CBS poll was not about single payer at all

That's a question about if there should be any government health insurance, or if it should be only private enterprise. The exact question in the CBS poll is:

"Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise? IF GOVERNMENT, ASK: Should the government insurance be for all medical problems, or only for medical emergencies?"
and the options (and 2009 figures):
Private enterprise 32
Gov't - All problems 49
Gov't - Emergencies 10
Don't know/No opinion 9

Whereas the Rasmussen question really was about single payer:

"Do you favor or oppose a single payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone?"
32% Favor
57% Oppose
11% Not sure

So, it does look like the majority of the American public does not yet want a single payer system.

[dbonds]

99. Quite judgemental there.

I doubt you have little more agenda than trashing progressives.

[NJmaverick]

127. You are wrong on so many levels.

My agenda is keep the right from regaining control of our nation and finishing the job of ruining our nation. THAT should be your agenda as well, but clearly it is not.

[dbonds]

144. That is only 1 part of my agenda.

There is more to having a good country than keeping it away from the right - although that is a necessary component. The right is spinning down and self destructing. But the damn corporatist and centrist are still holding on to the many of the bad policies. We have to change that.

[JDPriestly]

389. Just keeping the right from regaining control is a good idea, but it is

not an inspiring purpose. Obama was elected because his presence, his image and his rhetoric inspired people. His performance has been depressing not inspiring. What we think and say here is not the problem. We are just the canaries in the mine. When our breath fails, it is a sign -- change or you will not make it.

We do not expect to get everything we believe should be done. We just want some indication that Obama shares our values. Apparently, he doesn't.

I for one must say that if my values are irrelevant then I am irrelevant. I can live with that. But I don't know if the rest of the country can because I think a lot of people in America share my values. And if enough people feel that these values -- fair play, opportunity (health care, jobs, retirement benefit) for everyone and not just the bankers and the folks in India and China and nearly every other developed and developing country in the world, then Obama will not be re-elected. If some Republican comes along and promises to provide Americans with jobs and opportunity and all the other things that Americans need to survive, then the Republican will be elected. Obama will be out. Obama needs to wake up. At this time, he is the "decider." We have made our decision and we are stuck with it.

[Chisox08]

396. The Right haven't lost control of our nation

They just changed parties. That was the grand plan of the DLC. Move the Democratic party to the right and marginalize and demonize the left. My agenda is the Democratic Party platform not keeping power. If the Democratic leadership follow the will of the people instead of caving to the Repukes they would have the support of the people and stay in power.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. SELF-interest?

I have no children who might get sent to Afghanistan, and I don't own a house. Yet that doesn't mean I'm not furious about the whole Iran-Afghanistan mess or the way that the banks instead of the homeowners were bailed out.

I'll admit to some self-interest on health care, but I'm RELATIVELY lucky. That doesn't prevent me from being angry on behalf of the people who are totally screwed by the system.

[jgraz]

60. The major character flaw is in our so-called leaders.

Republicans win elections because they listen to their base. Democrats lose elections because they ignore their base. It's that simple.

[treestar]

112. The Democrats won the last election

If the voters are not as far left as you'd like, that's a reality you have to deal with.

[jgraz]

243. Once again, the voters are plenty left. The Democrats aren't

The left was forced, yet again, to vote for the not-Republicans. If the Democrats actually ran as true progressives, they'd never lose a national election.

[NJmaverick]

119. WRONG! THe right's base is smarter than you

they know enough not to attack their own side

[dbonds]

155. That is not smarts, thats a lemming

[dana_b]

424. so according to you

and from this thread, we're dumb, selfish and unloyal. (Way to win hearts and minds! :thumbsup: )

Why do you give a shit about our votes anyway if we're so repulsive?? I'm sure you all will do just fine with or without our loathsome help.

[alarimer]

84. He works for US, not the other way around.

If we do not like what he is doing, we are absolutely required to let him know.

I hate this "You're either with us or against us" bullshit.

All the cheerleaders are no different from Bush cheerleaders. It's the same damn thing. The fact is that Obama is consistently failing to keep his promises, especially about transparency in government and executive powers, which have been my biggest disappointments in him so far. In that regard, he is little different from Bush.

Now I reserve my loudest critiques for the DINO Blue Dogs and DLC types who infect Congress. THEY are exactly why we are not getting universal health care. But there is a remedy for that: primary challenges from progressives.

[jgraz]

91. Amazing how many people fail to understand that simple fact

It's like they have some genetic need to bow down to any authority, no matter how disingenuous that authority may be.

[treestar]

120. But the U.S. includes everything from teabaggers to communists

And Obama is still working on some of the items you mention.

He doesn't work for just me, he works for the nation; I'm just one citizen in the nation. Your post is as if there are no other voters besides yourself.

You condemn cheerleading just on principle. If Dennis were President you'd condemn us for cheerleading him too. And I'd be a lot worse a cheerleader than I am now.

[NJmaverick]

121. Regardless of what you wish the world to be

you got a whole different side with horrible visions for our nation that will be happy to step in if you are not willing to support the Dems

[Libertas1776]

56. No, yeah you're right

Loyalty is about blindly following "your" party like lemmings to the slaughter 'cause anything is better than the other side :sarcasm: Yes, lets just keep compromising and watering down our ideals and positions until we are no different than the other side...but as long as there is a D and not an R everything is just hunky dory :puke:

[NJmaverick]

62. I see the light your line of "reasoning" has convinced me of the error of my ways

screw the Country!!! I didn't get my desires and wishes fullfilled fast enough. Where is the next teabagger protest so I can help them take down the president.

[Libertas1776]

95. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah

keep plucking that harp. FYI This country is already being screwed and the president is taking himself down by taking the Bush torch and running with it instead of extinguishing it on January 21st, 2009.

[SammyWinstonJack]

179. .

Seriesly? :silly:

[JDPriestly]

385. I don't want Obama just to serve my self-interests. I want him to serve

the country's best interests. That is what he is failing to do.

Seriously investigating and punishing the waterboarding of prisoners is in the interest of our soldiers and in the interests of our country. We need to be able to claim the moral high ground when Americans are taken prisoners and tortured. Remember Daniel Pearl. If prisoners die in American custody after being tortured how can we expect sympathy from the rest of the world when we allow prisoners to be tortured to death while in our custody?

And if you don't believe this happened read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer

http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780307456298-0

Failure to prosecute torturers is just one of Obama's most serious wrongs against the country's best interests. This is not a matter of my personal interest. This is a matter of national interest.

[jgraz]

45. Following that "reasoning", it's the progressives who got Obama elected.

You can't have it both ways. If you lose because we don't support your candidate, then you won *because* we supported your candidate.

Don't you think Obama should listen to those who, by your own "logic", got him elected?

[NJmaverick]

58. try to follow this reasoning. The left has a responsibility to keep the right in check

when they neglect that responsibility or worse join the right in their efforts, bad things are sure to follow

[tekisui]

63. You just gave all of your power to the right.

Don't you see that? You see them as the default position to be opposed.

WE ARE THE FUCKING MAJORITY!

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

66. We can start by electing representatives who don't cave in to the right at every opportunity

You can post your loyalty oaths all you want. The simple fact is that if Obama doesn't support his base of voters, they will not support him. No post on an internet forum can change that.

[NJmaverick]

116. I got news for you the repukes your words and actions will help elect

are more than willing to cave to the right in ways you haven't even dreamed of.

[jgraz]

147. Y'know, you might want to explore the concept of punctuation

I mean, I like word puzzles as much as the next guy, but we really should leave the word salad posts to the freepers.

[Orsino]

197. Um, no.

A Democratic Party that failed to create enough positive change to overcome right-wing spin would have failed.

Progressives are too few and far between to earn more than a small share of the blame, which would rightly belong to all voters and the powers that influence us.

[proud2BlibKansan]

238. The progressives will still vote for Democrats; you need to worry about the Independents

who voted for Obama and who are being pushed to the right. Or maybe pulled.

[Duende azul]

314. I get it: "the so called progressives" are still needed for some purpose.

They'll be happy about that.

[rhett o rick]

334. Twisted logic again. You blame the progressives for not keeping the right wing-nuts "under control"

But the fact is, if the blue dogs would support democratic principles and team with the progressives instead of teaming with the republicants we might be able to keep the right wing-nuts under control.

[Telly Savalas]

348. To be fair, whining on an internet message board will have minimal impact on election outcomes.

[Bobbie Jo]

5. K&R

Before this gets whacked. :kick:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

30. Self-named Dissenters referring to those who disagree with them as Cheerleaders? Oh the irony.

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. K&R!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Hear hear!

[babylonsister]

10. Recommend! nt

[timeforpeace]

11. At Daily Kos also? Hmm. A wise man once said, if everyone tells you that you're drunk, you probably

should sit down.

[question everything]

15. "we elected a compromiser,"

Of course! Politics is the art of compromise. This is how it used to be before we became so polarized, before, yes, the Republican party changed from "live and let live" to "purity tests."

I think that the President was hoping to go back to those old days of the giants from both parties who knew how to meet, often behind closed doors and reach a compromise for the good of the country.

Sadly, in days of viral posts and videos and "kiss and tell" - it is hard to have secret meetings that would not be leaked and thus preventing any kind of compromise that would not lead to a member of Congress losing his job.

[JDPriestly]

393. You compromise after negotiating from a position as strong as you possible

can have. Obama is a very naive and unskilled negotiator. He just doesn't know how to bargain, how to make a deal. That is a lot of our problem. He starts from a compromise and moves to a give-away. You are supposed to start with a demand or bid and then move gradually toward a compromise.

[MineralMan]

16. Stick around. DU is not homogenous. There are lots of people

here who feel like you do, and we're also active on the forums.

Politics is the art of the possible. President Obama is working on making what is possible happen, as quickly as possible.

[berni_mccoy]

20. "You are losing me" does not translate into I'm leaving. It just means...

I don't understand those who would complain about unkept promises Obama never made.

[MineralMan]

90. I understand them, but they're still expecting something that

they're not going to get right now. As you pointed out, President Obama said what he would try to accomplish. He's having a difficult enough time, right now, trying to do those things, given the obstinacy of all the Republicans and the blindness of some Democrats. Expecting him to do what is impossible to do right now is expecting too much from a President.

However, the same people who are complaining are the ones who opposed Obama during the primaries. They have their priorities set, and will not be happy until those are met. They may even try to sabotage what the President can accomplish in their snit over what he never said he could or would do.

Ideologically, I am a socialist. I realize that socialism is not an attainable goal in the present-day United States of America. It may be, one day, but it is not possible now. We move, little by little, in that direction, and have done so for many decades now.

I expect from President Obama that he will do his level best to implement what is implementable at this time. I expect that, once he deals with the huge problems we have, including the economy, health care (which isn't going to get solved on this pass), two inherited wars, and more, he will turn to some of the issues that are those of the single-issue folks here at DU.

I also expect that the grousing and complaining will continue here. It's the nature of things.

[jgraz]

113. Obama clearly implied that he was going to be a bold leader

It's not the specific things he said, it's the entire persona he adopted for the campaign. He wanted to "change the world", and we wanted him to do it.

If he had been honest and run as a corporate incrementalist, we might have nominated Hillary. At least she has years of experience as a corporate incrementalist.

[berni_mccoy]

172. Again, he's not living up to *your* vision. That doesn't mean he isn't

delivering on what he said he would do.

[jgraz]

225. Yes, it's just me.

And when "just me" stays home in 2012, what's your plan for getting Obama re-elected?

[JDPriestly]

394. He did not tell us that he would appoint agents of the banks and speculators

to be his financial advisors. He did not tell us that he would sit idly by as billions were handed out to banks to big to succeed while Americans lost their homes.

I remember going house to house in the days immediately preceding the election -- in a Republican district -- in a state that voted for Bush in 2004 -- and asking undecided voters whether they thought it was fair that the banks charge 27% interest on credit cared debt and pay only 3.5% interest on deposits. I asked them whether they wanted a Republican or Obama to decide on economic policy.

Any real Democrat would have made curbing the greed of financial institutions a top priority. Obama has allowed the banks to walk all over his administration. The credit card reform bill is far too little and way to late.

There are just certain things that Democrats have always stood for -- like strong unions, low unemployment, fair trade and equal opportunity. Obama has not stood up for these things. It is not fair trade to allow banks who turned to American taxpayers when they were in trouble to outsource white collar jobs, good jobs, to India. That is a lousy policy. It will reduce American tax revenue and raise American government debt. And then the president and Congress will lower domestic spending.

At his last coffee with constituents, my congressman stated that he thinks that money for meals on wheels will be cut. That program saves the lives of the poorest and most helpless of Americans. Every American job that is outsourced means more hunger and misery in this country. But Obama is doing nothing about the bleeding of jobs.

[verges]

251. He's doing pretty much what he said he would do. nt

[jgraz]

408. No, he's not.

His broken promises on financial reform alone are enough to prove that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

As more comes out about his initial dealmaking on healthcare reform, we find out that even his most emphatic statements (e.g. "lobbyists won't run my administration") were abandoned early on. http://rawstory.com/2009/11/white-house-met-lobbyists-health

But the most discouraging and blatant con job was in the area of emotional manipulation. Let's say you're dating someone and she says, "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you." Then, later, you find out she's been screwing your best friend. Would you feel betrayed? After all, she never explicitly said she wouldn't screw your best friend.

That's what Obama has done. With all his talk about "hope" and "change" and "yes we can", he set us up to expect a bold leader who would be on the side of the people who elected him. Instead, he's delivered compromise, weakness and an undeniable preference for his large financial backers.

To me, that's a betrayal. The fact that Obama was careful to phrase it in a way that he could worm out of later doesn't change a thing.

[grahamhgreen]

18. IT'S YOUR attitude that is dooming this country to FOLLOWING THE FAILED POLICIES OF THE BUSH

administration.

We don't like his pay or pay crapsurance plans - we want Medicare for ALL!

We don't like his escalation of the war in CRAP-GHANISTAN!

We don't like his support for the craponomic policies of the neo-crappers like Goldman-Craps!

We don't like his support for crap like rendition, Craptanamo Bay, and "enhanced crapterrogations"!

We don't like his support for crapsourcing our jobs overseas!

Etc,...


NO WE WILL NOT GIVE UP! NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU BLAME THE VICTIMS!

IF I may answer: "But in the big things, Kossacks, health care (HIS PLANS SUCK!), climate change (HIS PLANS SUCK!), the economy (HIS PLANS SUCK!), improving infrastructure (HIS PLANS SUCK!), creating jobs (HIS PLANS SUCK!), forestalling the foreclosure crisis (HIS PLANS SUCK!), and addressing renewable energy (HIS PLANS SUCK!)..."

[berni_mccoy]

26. FYI Kossacks are what posters at Kos refer to themselves as.

And your ranting hyperbole supported by a minority on the left does not go anywhere toward helping to solve the problems at hand.

No one is blaming anyone ("blame the victims" wtf?), so if you feel guilt, it is at your own hand and nothing in the post.

[grahamhgreen]

105. Sorry - most of these plans are supported by the majority of Americans, not the fringe.

We have solutions for all of these from Medicare for All to withdrawing from Iraqistan, and GATT, and the WTO, and breaking up the banks and Walmart and big oil by enforcing the Sherman anti-trust act, making derivatives trading illegal, repealing the financial services modernization act, taxing fossil fuels to pay for renewable energy, JAILING BANKSTERS, etc..

Here is why I say the OP blames the victims of Obama's bad policies that victimize the American people, the language is one of blame:

"you were getting wrapped up in rhetoric....

....you have taken every opportunity to attack....

...you have decided....

You have ignored ...

You have neglected ....

You have raised your flag in protest ...

...you to pretend...what you convinced yourself ..

you have ignored ...

Where is your basis in reality...

living in the fantasy land...

you can't be mad...

...doomed us...

...step up and back into reality. Please stop pretending.... Your failure... pushing you to the fringe ... you look silly.

You are losing me..."


YOU ARE BLAMING US, THE VICTIMS OF HIS BAD POLICY CHOICES, FOR HIS FAILURE TO DELIVER MEANINGFUL CHANGE FROM REAGANOMICS, er, crapenomics, etc.

IMHO

[verges]

254. Maybe we should all chip in

and buy Obama a Magic Wand. In case you haven't noticed, there is a fairly good sized opposition comprised of all Repubs and a sizable handful of Dems!

[grahamhgreen]

308. Here is the wand, he says, " I need a million people to march on Washington in support of Medicare

for All"

It would happen tomorrow.

[Spazito]

19. Yep, me too...

I still check in to read LBN but as to the rest, it seems to be primarily bash the President threads on each and everything he is doing which, with possibly a very few exception, are what he said he would do during the campaign and MOST DUers voted for him knowing what he was promising.

"Please step up and back into reality. Please stop pretending we elected the President to do anything other than what he told us he would do if we elected him. Your failure, so far, to maintain your basis in reality, is pushing you to the fringe and, honestly, making you look silly. This has been a profound disappointment." This is good advice but will be, at best ignored, at worst torn apart here as it will on KOS.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. When do we lose you completely, Bernie?

:)

[HamdenRice]

24. K and effing R! This needs to go the to top! nt

[FBaggins]

25. Oh Bull.

you have decided what you want "change" to mean regardless of what the President meant.


That's the way he wanted it. He wanted everyone who wanted to get away from Bush to say "this is the guy who will do it" - so he left that open. If some of us "fell for it" then so be it... but let's not pretend that we can't be upset... because while we may not have understood what HE meant by change... HE most definitely understood what WE meant... and implied that he was our man.

you want him to do what you defined "change" to be, what you convinced yourself you were voting for.

No offense, but tough luck Mr President. The voters get to decide what they consider acceptable... not you. If you're now admitting that you aren't who we thought we voted for, don't expect us to make the same mistake again.

But in the big things, Kossacks, health care, climate change, the economy, improving infrastructure, creating jobs, forestalling the foreclosure crisis, and addressing renewable energy, you have ignored that this President has done more than any other president in our history in less than a year.

Oh bull. Intentions don't count. You can't say he's done more to create jobs when we're losing jobs. You can claim he made the right decisions... but they haven't paid off yet. "Things would have been so much worse if I hadn't" doesn't show up well on the scorecard. There isn't a ONE of the things on that list that are actually better than they were. Healthcare and climate change are two of the "big issues" and let's not try that spin that we didn't really "get" what he was for. He's made less than zero progress on these two.

Once again... good intentions are nicer to see than bad ones... but they don't count as keeping your promises. If we were electing someone to CARE about big issues we could have hired someone else.

[asjr]

29. We here at DU have been good--and we

have been bad. We have been right and we have been wrong. But I am not about to leave DU. It is the one place where I can go to know I still live in the U.S. It allows us to be who we are.

[treestar]

33. +1 is it too much to ask that the left support the Democrats

When the right rabidly supports the repukes and has the M$M on their side?

They work against what they are allegedly for.

[dbonds]

34. Bottom line

I don't care if it is only his best, he is compromising, or what the problem is - he is not getting done what I need to have done to feel like the country is in the right direction. We are still headed down a bad path. Compromising isn't a good thing. Neither side is happy. Compromising is what led to the civil war.

[Kermitt Gribble]

35. How can you demand

people support a president or political party that no longer represents their best interests?

[berni_mccoy]

49. How can you demand

a President live up to your fantasized vision of what he should be?

[dbonds]

55. What a stupid statement.

You choose to support or not support someone based on how they meet your needs. By its nature people demand politicians meet their needs. Only right wing thinking demands blind support.

[Kermitt Gribble]

93. It's my 'vision'

that a president move in a direction that's best for the country. If I feel that president is not doing that, it's my duty to not vote for that president. Do you not grasp the point of a representative democracy?

[ShortnFiery]

391. Yes, I guess that "they" will be deploying over to Afghanistan since it's such a righteous WAR? eom

[MindPilot]

36. Many of us didn't like those campaign promises either.

But the party loyalists assured us that his game was ten-dimensional chess. He would go left once he got elected. But that hasn't happened; Bill Clinton was the best republican the democrats ever put in office, Barack Obama is a close second.

And before you ask, of course Obama is better than McCain by several orders of magnitude. But I was really hoping for a progressive president, which I guess I have about as much chance of seeing as a pony.

[jgraz]

39. Bye, then.

This is the guy I worked for and volunteered for and voted for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFhzsTwDuk

Lemme know when he shows up.


"I may make make some mistakes, but you'll set me right." -- Barack Obama, Jan 20th, 2009

[ChiciB1]

173. Yea, Where DID THAT MAN GO??? n/t

[WI_DEM]

42. DU is not a democratic site. Most democrats I know and most democrats according to the polls

support our president. This is a site which supports Dennis Kucinich, which is fine. He's a good man but he cannot win a national election and he cannot probably win an election state wide in Ohio. A president, any president, has to compromise to get what is needed. All effective presidents have done this: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ & Clinton. The irony is that DU calls itself the Democratic base and yes, there are some here. But by and large DU is the far left of the Democratic party or the non-democratic left (Greens, Socialists, etc) who could care less about the democratic party.

Here's the latest PPP Polling on Obama (published weekly by Daily Kos):

FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 55 39 6
MEN 45 52 3
WOMEN 65 26 9
DEM 88 5 7
REP 5 93 2
IND 54 37 9

Only 5% of Democrats have a unfavorable opinion of Obama--DU doesn't represent democrats.

[jgraz]

94. Last I checked, Kucinich was a Democrat

Or did he switch parties when I wasn't looking?

[Greyhound]

199. But he's not their kind of Democrat. Oh the irony...

We've been here before and we haven't learned one damn thing. Perhaps another decade or two on the road to totalitarianism will be enough, or maybe it won't.
:shrug:

[jgraz]

226. Maybe he should post some dreamy beach pictures with his shirt off.

[Greyhound]

240. He definitely should exploit his wife more. He could hook most of the NASCAR voters with that. n/t

ETA; :sarcasm: (just in case)

[MineralMan]

103. You are only partly correct.

Right now, this thread is up to +31 recs. Trust me, the Kucinich Democrats and the others on the left edge are unrecommending this thread as fast as they can.

We have lots of dissent on this forum. The dissenters are active, loud, and post a lot. But...they are not the majority of people on DU. Not by a long, long shot. They're vocal, to be sure. But they're a minority, even here.

As long as Democratic Underground retains that name, I will be here. When it becomes something else, I will be gone. The alternative to the Democratic party at this time is inconceivable.

[bananas]

274. I'm a Kucinich Democrat, and I recommend this thread!

I'm not disillusioned about Obama because I didn't have illusions about him:
#222: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7087583&mesg_id=7088695
#254: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7087583&mesg_id=7088987

[bvar22]

359. "A president, any president, has to compromise "

"All effective presidents have done this..."

I don't remember Reagan or Bush the Lesser compromising...and they got a whole shitload of right wing agenda enacted.

[JDPriestly]

395. I've been polled and always stated that I support the president.

I just want him to look good in the polls. I will support someone else in the primaries in 2012. If Obama still manages to win, I will vote for him but I won't work for him. Let him find some "moderate Democrats" to work for him, not me. I'm 66 and it is getting really hard for me to climb flights of stairs to reach bungalows in the hills these days. I did it last time, but I won't do it for a candidate I don't really believe in.

And at the rate Obama is going, there won't be enough union members to get his back in 2012. They will all be unemployed or at least many of them.

[hfojvt]

46. thanks Berni

I find it somewhat disheartening that two of the top posts on DU's front page are essentially "I hate Democrats and I hope Republicans win in 2010". The same message that was so popular after our win in 2006 - "Democrats suck".

One clearly ridiculous example is the Stupak amendment. People here are seemingly mad at the Democratic Party because of the Stupak amendment, even though a huge majority of Democrats voted against it and every single Republican voted for it.

One could say the same thing about Afghanistan and Iraq. However much Obama may escalate Afghanistan and dither about getting troops out of Iraq, compare what he is doing to the rhetoric of McCain.



However, in another regard "You have ignored the fact that we elected a compromiser, a man with a true penchant for bipartisanship and avoiding being heavy-handed." As an Edwards supporter and ABCer, I was never all that happy about Obama's bipartisan rhetoric and his seeming penchant for comparing those on the left to those on the extreme right. I have no problem with attempts or desires to move both Obama and the Democratic Party further to the left, as I try to do through DFA, but this constant refrain of "Democrats are just like Republicans, and I am not gonna vote for them any more (thus allowing more Republicans to win, just like, uh, 2000, 1994, 2002, 2004, etc). It's like some DUers have forgotten how bad the Bush administration was and need their memory refreshed by a repeat of it (and I have long been fighting the nonsense message that "Democrats supported the Bush administration" because while some did (cough Clinton cough) most did not.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. I protested against Bush's policies that I didn't like. I'll do the same for Obama's policies.

I just love these "conform or we will die" threads from the right.

[Tippy]

53. Do you think they will understand?.....BIG K&R,,,,

What really upsets me is....a lot of folks began complaing shortly after the State of the Union...Presidnt Obama is good but he is not God...I often wonder about these complainers, did they ever believe in HIM...What did they do personaly, to help Obama get elected, what have they done since the election..Are they still active? Are they calling Congress, writing letters to the editor. Siging petitions...Helping to elect candidates to public office...Or, are they JUST people who like to spend posting on Discussion Boards?

[MindPilot]

71. Yes but that doesn't seem to do much

Remember when congress and the senate were flooded with calls and emails about the bailout, 95% opposed but they did it anyway? Something like 70% of the people want a strong public option but we likely won't get one. You know how support for both wars is diminishing, yet we get escalation? Yeah, that writing and calling is real effective.

[zipplewrath]

176. This is who I am

I was a late supporter of Obama, I had other first choices. He was a compromise candiate for me. When Biden threw the gays under the bus in one debate, I physically hurt. I was worried about his statements about Afghanistan when he seemed ready to double down there, but the party hacks told us he'd "do the right thing". I was concerned about electing a man with so little national experience, but thought he was smart enough to hire "good" people. I believed him when he said he wanted transparency. I believed him when he said "everyone" should have a place at the table.

And then he invited Rick Warren. And he picked Rohm. And then he invited Big Pharma, and excluded single payer. And then he got pulled deeper and deeper into supporting a corrupt government in Afghanistan. He blocked the torture photos, and told the tortures he "had their backs". He sold out the women with a more restrictive abortion amendment....

I could go on, but you know the drill as well as I do. I realize it is frutstrating because we were all so happy and excited TOGETHER. But we're not all so happy and excited anymore and if that takes some of the joy out of it for you, well.... I'm sorry but I lost a big bunch when he invited Warren, and it's been generally down hill since.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Lex]

68. on a number of things

[SIMPLYB1980]

74. He has for the most part.

Only fools that didn't pay attention to what he said think otherwise.

[treestar]

123. He is

You just interpret "change" to mean what you personally want.

In fact that's what some people are complaining about even now (keeping his promise on Afghanistan is something many don't agree with).

[QC]

75. Promises, promises...

[TheWraith]

79. Kicked and recommended. nt

[cry baby]

80. thank you! bookmarked, kicked, and recommended.

I'm not in agreement with everything the man does, but am hopeful that he will get things done that he said he would do, in time. I will be patient.

[LWolf]

97. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that you can't see how wrong it is to escalate the "war on terror."

That you can't see how wrong it is to escalate the war on public education.

That you can't see how wrong it is to equate health care with private health insurance, and to set the entire debate around that private insurance.

That you can't see how wrong it is to refuse to sign the ban on land mines.

That you can't see how wrong it is to extend certain provisions of the Patriot Act.

That you can't see how wrong it is to set the foxes to guard the economic hen house.

That you persist in thinking that Obama was ever more than a lesser evil vote for many of us.

That you don't remember how often we were told to "just get him elected, then hold his feet to the fire."

That you can't see all the legitimate reasons people have for being angry, disillusioned, or for opposing much of what is happening under this administration.

[Libertas1776]

107. +1000

[NJmaverick]

137. Shame in all your visions you can't see the consequences of your destructive posiition

[LWolf]

152. I see the destructive consequences

of the work to drag the party to the right, throwing too many, and their votes, under the bus every step of the way.

I doubt if the "centrists" will want to be accountable for that come election day, though.

[Mithreal]

224. Keep on keepin on. Centrists abhor principles and principled people.

Didn't ya hear, Obama is the Democratic Party. It is not what the people want, it is what Obama wants.

Grassroots, my fuking ass.

[derby378]

150. I think you should make this a separate GD post

You've laid it out quite nicely in lavender, milk, and gin. More people need to see this.

:applause:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

177. Thank you! I wish I could recommend this post. What I can't

get over is that there are all of these people who are so loyal and will walk through trial by fire with a politician, someone they don't even really know? They are so enamored of him (bordering on idolatry), that they refuse to acknowledge, and yes, not even respond to posts that point out everything you have right here.
One of the most current excuses is that Obama has to clean up after the manure of the last 8 years. If they pried their eyes wide open, they would see that Obama is piling onto that heap, continuing in Shrub's footsteps.

Peace,
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[SammyWinstonJack]

202. Damn sad, isn't it?

:shrug:

[dana_b]

425. well said

We'll still get blamed but we don't have to accept the blame.

[blindpig]

100. So,

I guess you'd prefer it if those who object to the Administration's actions and direction didn't vote for him? Would that make it better for you?

[Lilith Velkor]

233. That seems to be the objective here.

Either that, or trying that same old "Fuck you, vote for my candidate" line once more to see if it works this time. :freak:

[Raineyb]

122. Unrecced

This is the usual progressive bashing load of crap that demands that progressives show "loyalty" while accusing the same progressives of having purity tests. It's flame-baiting, progressive bashing bullshit that continues with the asinine meme that progressives owe their vote to any candidate as opposed to anyone having the right to withhold their support from anyone who hasn't earned it.

Support is earned and until you learn that you will continue to get milquetoast candidates who can't pass shit even with 60 votes in the senate, a majority in the house and the White House.

You keep accepting anything and everything that's handed to you. I'll be working on getting something better from these people and I shan't let them think I'll vote for them no matter what kind of crap they pass.

[Techn0Girl]

124. My President Right or wrong ?

We were promised a new type of politics - we got Rahm Emmanuel instead

We were promised to end the war - we got a new Afghanistan war instead.

Close Gitmo? No we can't.
End CIA torture prisons? No we can't.
Public Option? No We can't
End "Don't Ask - Don't Tell"? No we can't.
Repeal the "Patriot" Act? No we can't.

Banks are getting trillions - and it's rising. Bankers got hundreds of millions in new bonuses.
I got an extra 25 bucks a week unemployment subsidy.

Is this the new type of politics I was promised? No it isn't.

And I'm pretty pissed at having helped bring it about.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

126. Many of us here on DU --

voted for him despite his bullshit stand on Afgahnistan, not because we agree with it. Or agreed with him on gay marrige. Or agreed with him on his vision of heathcare reform. :shrug:

We voted for him because there was no other option.

So I will continue to whip his ass every day for the next three years to attempt to push him in what I think is the right direction.

Sorry if you can't handle that reality.

[Romulox]

134. Is this GD:P? No. Unrec. nt

[Individualist]

138. Unrec

Damn the DLC!

[optimator]

139. obama isnt a king

and most people are involved in politics because of ideas and issues , not worshipping a fuckin politician.

the president works for US.

[berni_mccoy]

170. Who is saying he is? Again, a hyperbolic response.

[G_j]

143. I don't buy it

:thumbsdown:

[Prism]

156. This is like an abusive husband threatening to withhold affection

Reality. That word appears a lot in the Kos post. Reality. Yes, well, I do consider myself a liberal because I like my beliefs to be grounded in solid, verifiable reality. Let's discuss reality.

The President promised to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. Instead, he repeatedly slapped the community in the face. Instead of joining us in promoting equality, the President's staunchest defenders employed a mixture of "sit down and shut up", "I support equality, but . . .", "You're just mad, because . . .", "You supported Hillary!", and scores of other explanations and excuses that all had one thing in common - the interests and rights of the LGBT community were always subservient to the President's political well-being.

I'm losing you? Really? After the beating me and my family are taking thanks to attitudes like yours? I'm losing you? Oh, the ego and privilege of this statement. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but my life hurts right now because of my inequality.

Here's some more reality for you. Nearly one in five Americans are unemployed or underemployed. While I do not blame the President for the economy he inherited, I can certainly find fault in how he's chosen to approach it and the people he has appointed to see these horrifying policies through. At this point in time, the financial industry that caused the disaster is not only continuing on unregulated, they are resuming the same behaviors that caused the economic meltdown. What regulations that have been proposed are weak at best, and Wall Street is raking in profits as if nothing happened. The President is actively dithering over the core of our economic troubles. The most severe aspect of our economic crisis, the hubris and greed of American finance, continues to go unaddressed. That is either incompetent or irresponsible at best. At best. At worst, we're looking at yet more active government collusion with wealth. I supported the President in the primaries, but now all those downsides are coming back not in whispers, but in screams. Is this man simply too unaccomplished and inexperienced to get the job done that America so desperately needs right now?

Health care. Let's discuss reality. Let's discuss how the President's core feature of health insurance reform is the polar OPPOSITE of what he campaigned on. He said mandates were horrible and hammered Clinton to death on them. Now they are the centerpiece of this particular project. Furthermore, even the most earnest and ardent propagandists for party claimed that we would have a Strong Public Option. Period. No question. And if we didn't, the bill didn't deserve to be passed.

Oh my, how a few months changed everything. Now, with mandates and an ineffective public option, progressives are once again "the real problem" and not the politicians who took all of ten months to send the American people sailing down river on a speedboat.

We're losing you?

God, if only. With allies like these, who needs Republicans. Sure, the Republicans might try stabbing us to death, but Democrats beating us with baseball bats isn't exactly a picnic.

Your feelings are hurt. You don't like what people are saying on a message board. Yeah, well I don't like what politicians are doing to millions of American people who are already battered and beaten by a government preoccupied with what their largest campaign donors want.

I think I have the larger complaint here. You could, of course, actually attempt to act on the principles you claim to hold and get on the side of the American people. Instead, everyone's far too worried about how a single politician's image might suffer. Oh dear, can't have that. I mean, what would Inside Edition say?! There could be bad press and everything!

Reality. Right. Some of us are living reality. Others are living in a Candyland founded on PR. I don't give a fig about the President's PR, and I really, honestly, earnestly do not care if I'm losing you.

[dbonds]

165. Well said.

[berni_mccoy]

166. Thanks for the prime example of extreme hyperbole.

[Prism]

169. When the truth is hyperbole to you, you're on the wrong side n/t

[berni_mccoy]

171. "like an abusive husband..."... hmmm, you call that truth and being on the right side?

My sympathies to you.

[Prism]

175. Care to refute anything I've said?

By all means. And I don't really need the sympathy. I will be just fine because I'm young, healthy, and financially solvent. I can weather our horror of government. Others cannot, and interesting life stories and admiration are no substitute for sound policy and fixing a broken American system.

And, clearly, given the excuses you and others have made for the President's appalling approach to LGBT rights, I don't honestly believe I have your sympathy. Why lie?

[Name removed]

191. Deleted sub-thread

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

[JuniperLea]

212. Wow... you surely are tempting the fates with all that braggadocia...

I think I'll spare myself and just put you on ignore right away... I don't want any fallout from your bankrupt Karma account.

[Prism]

213. I don't believe in putting people on ignore for religious reasons

It's a terribly conservative impulse.

[FBaggins]

184. Doesnt't really read like hyperbole

Easy summary... we're not losing you... the president is losing us.

The truly insane part of all of this is that it isn't as if he's picking up support from the right. It isn't as if anyone there looked up and decided that the President was now a "defender of traditional marriage".

Hey... I'm much closer to the center than the bulk of DU posters. I've been accused of being a RW shill a time or two for failing to toe the liberal line... but even I can see that stabbing the left in the back is pretty stupid.

The only thing worse would be to try to spin it as a pat on the back and expect them to say "please sir, may I have another?"

[enigmatic]

great post

:thumbsup:

[QC]

216. Well said, as always. n/t

[Jamastiene]

230. I wish I could Recommend this post.

Well said. :thumbsup:

[RufusTFirefly]

290. +1

[jgraz]

298. Awesome. Please make this an OP.

Pretty please?

[Prism]

313. Alas

Spin offs from this thread are currently being highly frowned upon by the mods.

[jgraz]

319. Gee, I wonder why.

:eyes:

[dbonds]

320. This spinoff thread survived some way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7089395

[Sapphocrat]

363. +1,000,000

[leftstreet]

399. +1

[RedEarth]

159. I agree... it certainly expresses my sentiment about DU

[goclark]

187. Bravo to the original message~my sentiments exactly!

I am so tired of being put down because I am supporting the Democratic Party ~ sometimes I wonder if this is RU not DU.

I have no problem with someone having strong feelings about an issue.

I do.
I have very strong feelings about the War and about Charter School for example.

But the Bully tactics are what I would expect at the site of another political party.

[Raineyb]

322. The bully tactics are coming from those who think that people should put their principles aside

to "support" anything that happens to come out because a Democrat suggests it. It is entirely possible for Democrats to propose things that are just plain wrong and it is not wrong for those who think it wrong to say so.

[NYC_SKP]

164. DU is a microcosm of the real world. Never give up. K and R.

:patriot:

I guess this will always be the case here.

But I refuse to leave.



.

.

[Surya Gayatri]

174. Hear, hear, Berni...

A big K and R for an excellent exposition of "real-politic". SG

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

180. It's fun to see how the "moderates" hold "the left" to be irrelevant and dangerous simultaneously.

On the one hand, we don't face "reality" because we don't win elections (in a fixed system), on the other hand we are accused of "losing" elections by the party purists.

[Sapphocrat]

364. If I were truly the vindictive sort, I'd be enjoying this myself, but for a different reason.

It was pretty lonesome when we LGBTs were taking the full blame for every Dem loss since 2002,* and now I see the broader Left going through exactly what we LGBTs have all these years.

If I were a real shit, I'd be enjoying some major Schadenfreude. But I'm not. All I feel is sadness... albeit mixed with a large dose of relief that we're not the only ones getting smacked around by the Party-Before-Values contingent anymore.

Maybe there's a silver lining; maybe the Left who didn't notice, didn't care about, or joined in the blame-the-gays game won't be so quick to judge next time.

Maybe.


* e.g.:

2004: "How DARE you gays ALLOW the Mass Supremes to approve GAY MARRIAGE (as if we had some arcane power over the Mass SJC) just months before the election?! You're going to lose it for the Dems!!!1!1!!111"

2006: "How DARE you gays PUSH HOMO MARRIAGE (even if the marriage bogeyman was all really Karl Rove's doing) and get ANTI-HOMO AMENDMENTS on eleven state ballots (even if we didn't put them there), bringing the RIGHT-WING CRAZIES to the polls in DROVES! You're going to lose the mid-terms for the Dems!!!!11!!111111"

2008: "You gays stop bitching about Donnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, etc., etc.!!!!111! You're going to lose it for Obama! Stop worrying about Proposition 8, and go phonebank for The Last Remaining Hope for This Nation -- who really has your best interests at heart, you shallow, selfish whiners!!!!11111!"

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[Sapphocrat]

368. Oh, forgot to agree with your original point. LOL

Indeed: We (LGBTs, always, and all progressives, currently) are simultaneously too irrelevant/insignificant to matter, and yet, somehow, inexplicably, powerful enough to destroy everything.

Karl Popper, writing about right-wing extremism:

"The followers (of Ur-Fascism) must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. ... However, (they) must also be convinced that they can overcome the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."

[Hissyspit]

181. There was also a post at DKos titled "You're Losing Me, President Obama."

that was posted in response. Both were on the Recommended list, but the 'Obama' was getting more recs.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

182. What's wrong with believing "change" meant "not restoring the status quo"?

Nothing.

Since you're telling me what I think, let me tell you what you think. You, and the dude you lifted this from, don't want change. You want the status quo restored.

[arcadian]

183. Good, see ya,

this place would be far better with out the cheerleaders and idol worshipers.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[arcadian]

195. There are TWO Democraticundergrounds now

There are those of us who want real change and want and end to wars and reliable health care and job recoveries, then there is the Democraticunderground who can see no wrong whatsoever in Obama. The first group I described are the real inheritors of the Democraticunderground mantle, we are still the under dogs fighting for the little guy, not the cheerleaders and the sycophants who only worry about getting Obama reelected in 2012.

[bvar22]

248. I am a member of ....

...your DU.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[EnlightenedOne]

186. This post sums up my feelings as well

I just don't know why or how anyone could think that all of our "ills" and problems could be solved within the first year. Washington is so steeped in politics and bullshit, it would take most one year just to get a handle on the issues, much less be able to resolve them all. I believe Obama to be a good and fair man who wants to do the right thing - I think right now that is all we can really ask for.

Bush and Cheney had NO DESIRE to do the right thing by Americans, their only desire was to enrich themselves and their cronies and to rob and rape the US Treasury and put it in their own pockets - which they did. Now, all the blame for those 8 years is being placed on Obama. Byt he Republicans AND the Democrats and I just think we should know better. Its ridiculous. this man is fighting a multi-front war - from all sides and in every way imaginable. I just can't believe that real Democrats couldn't be a little bit more supportive.

Somehow I can place myself in his shoes - my desire would be to accomplish real change, but the obstacles he is up against are no doubt monumental. And as a person who recently changed jobs after 15 years - I have been in a state of shock for the past 4 months, just trying to get a handle on things - I can't even imagine stepping into the presidency. I had hoped we could be more patient and a little bit smarter - and not go after the "red meat" like savages and cry babies. So many here do sound just like the Republican letters to the Editor I read every day and it makes me sick. If we were coming to the close of 4 years, then I think I could understand a bit more, but the first year? Ridiculous.

[varelse]

188. Damn

got my hopes up for a second there - then I read the OP. :P

[berni_mccoy]

192. I'll give you credit for reading the post. Many here clearly did not.

And you can't get rid of me that easily. I'm in this for the long haul, like it or not. :P

Peace.

[peace frog]

194. Yep

How do you spell fat fucking chance. :crazy:

[Orsino]

193. "...you have decided what you want "change" to mean..."

Why, yes. Yes, we have.

It doesn't matter what our president promised to do on the campaign trail, or during his first months in office. It's still our job to call him on his actions, because the thing he said most often during his campaign was yes, we can.

Our responsibility never left. We need to criticize the president when he does wrong--and he would, I'm certain, agree. He can take it. He's stronger, I think, than anyone on DU: stronger than those of us who criticize and those who would shield him from criticism.

I will keep right on deciding what I want change to mean, as I hope every DUer will. It'll make him an even better president.

[bevoette]

198. i am in the same place

it's not that i don't disagree or can't be critical of Obama. i do.

it's not even that i don't have many progressive/liberal opinions. i do.

it's that REALITY dictates what can be done...and the reality, as much as many may deny it, is that this country is hard-headed and difficult to govern and, unfortunately, is hellishly resistant to really progressive ideas.

yes, Obama could have come in guns blazing and pushed every progressive agenda item one could think of out of the gate...and not only would he have achieved nothing, he'd be guaranteed one term. i mean...gay marriage was voted down in Maine...in California of all places. come on...

this country is what it is...you work within the system, with all its faults, you do what you can to make it better, even if it's only a little...or you give up and move to Canada. or become the Unibomber. :shrug:



one thing i thought of last night...as Bush and co. were systematically destroying this country, i don't recall the far right wing flogging him nearly this much.

i think it must kinda be depressing trying to lead the democratic party. :crazy: if you want to win, you can't 'win', if you know what i mean...

[liberal_at_heart]

200. Obama was never my first pick, I simply went along

and now I'm tired of just going along. I want to vote for a candadite I believe in.

[cleverusername]

201. Oh, the drama!

The dramatic goodbye is really over done. :eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

203. Again, more uninformed responses from people who don't read the post.

[lib_wit_it]

204. I call BS on this because to accomplish true bipartisanship, Dems need to oppose the Pukes at every

turn, because even then, things go their way most of the time. You try appealing to their sense of fairness and bipartisanship and you get screwed every time and things settle in the center right at best. I'm so fucking sick of the ignorant, science denying, racist, bigoted, simple-minded outlook being accepted as mainstream I could scream. But that would make me an extremist.

Ah, WTF: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

When's our fucking march on Washington?

[Hekate]

206. Another voice of sanity and reason. I really should get out more often...

... and let my fellow DUers just roll around scratching and clawing and fighting in the mud by themselves. In the middle of the night it gets very depressing and I start to think that this must be reality.

I really do remember what Obama did and did not promise on the campaign trail. He seeks the middle way; he's a natural-born compromiser, and it's one of the keys to his charm, which he has a ton of.

And I also remember all-too-vividly the monumental amount of psychological projection that people did on him. He's a human being, not an archetype.

Visiting India and China and acknowledging their importance to the US? Acknowledging the age and station of the Japanese Emperor? Obama is a diplomat schooled in Asia and the Pacific, oriented in that direction from birth. That he chose to come to the Mainland US as an adult and seek an identity here as an African-American was no accident, but it was a choice. All other American presidents -- all of them -- have been oriented to Britain and Europe and have seen the rest of the world through an American/British/European historical lens. The world, however, has tilted the other way, and it's time for us to catch up. How incredibly lucky that we have Barack Obama, of Hawai'i, Indonesia, and Chicago, at this moment in history.

Not that anyone in this extensive and flame-filled thread will read my individual post, but KnR, and thank you Berni.

Hekate



Hekate

[azmouse]

234. The right man came along at the right time.

:)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

208. A tad too mouthpiecey.

Otherwise, excellent.

[berni_mccoy]

210. That made me laugh. Thanks.

:toast:

[tandot]

209. K & R

[JuniperLea]

211. Sums it up nicely!

And I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that any "ignored" hasn't fouled the thread yet... I have to go check it out! Maybe the Concrete Pizza Faerie had her way last night!

[Engineer4Obama]

214. Theres a better diary up now that takes the position that both sides are nessicary

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/25/808006/-You-are-all-winning-me

Here it is.

Obama's defenders aren't the problem, the critics aren't the problem. The level of vitriol and hate we throw at each other is the problem. Everyone could do well to remember that there is another human being on the other side of the words that we all read and try to if not listen to them at least respect them.

[pinto]

229. Good points. FWIW, I don't even see a "problem" per se, as long as we discuss policies not

personalities. This is a good discussion to have, imho.

What *is* it that we're working for?

What *is* our role in the party, from the top down to the local level?

What *is* the party's role in our lives, from the top down to the local level?

[natrat]

215. rome is indeed burning and they really are sitting idly by

so apologize all you want for them ,but it still looks like we are being screwed over badly by these crooks at literally every turn.

[nikto]

218. CAPITULATION TO RIGHTWING POLICIES IS LOSING ME

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bigtree]

219. heehee

flamebait mccoy.

[bananas]

221. There were numerous threads before the election where it was pointed out that Obama was center-right

yet many didn't believe it.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

<snip>

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office.

<snip>

[QC]

223. A lot of the people who said that got hounded off the site

for having the nerve to say what was perfectly obvious even then.

[bananas]

252. Obama is so right-wing, he wouldn't be allowed on DU.

Proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689892&mesg_id=4689983
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4422945&mesg_id=4423036
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

edit to add: that was pointed out before the election, but I can't find a link.

[QC]

256. Some people were so caught up in those pretty speechsermons he preached

that they wouldn't see what was right in front of their eyes.

[Sapphocrat]

371. No kidding.

And for saying so, I was only one of many who got our asses flamed, reamed, and kicked so ruthlessly it's surprising any of us can use the toilet today without skilled nursing assistance.

[NashVegas]

405. And Everyone Who Did That Got Shat On

by the 'bots.

[R. P. McMurphy]

222. My small words can add nothing meaningful here.

I think its important, though, to add my support to the "reality-based" faction here on DU. There are so many angry posts. A lot of the time it is not really comfortable or even much fun to be here. Give the man some time. I don't like everything he's done but there's probably a lot going on of which I am not aware. I will trust and support him throughout his term. This is going to be a long and rough four years. Let's keep his back and give him some room to maneuver. If you still don't like him in 2012; vote for someone else. In the meantime, he is undoubetedly the best President we have had since Carter. Maybe the best since FDR. Given time he may be the best we have ever had.

[natrat]

328. um... watching your country get sold out at every turn is not comfortable or fun nt

[Mithreal]

227. DU'ers, you aren't the Party. President Obama is.

Look at all the pretty grass. Grassroots is just for election season.

I unrec'd this but gave it a couple kicks, so meh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

232. L'etat c'est Obama?

With apologies to Louis XIV.

[bridgit]

228. ^

:kick:

[joeybee12]

236. How insulting that this cheerleader has the gall to imply people who don't agree

with him not fair-minded, and not even-keeled. Fierce advocate come to mind, people? Did he campaign on that?

[Greyhound]

237. I hear the Republiks are looking and you seem a good fit. n/t

[annabanana]

239. This is a very illuminating thread, Mr. McCoy.

By their fruits shall ye know...etc. etc.

[berni_mccoy]

410. Indeed. The hatred embedded in some of the responses is something you'd expect to see

on FR, not here.

[Stinky The Clown]

241. Would you have had people NOT vote for him? Yeah, he said all that. So What????

It wasn't right when he said and it isn't right now.

But what choice was there? The Democratic primaries *were* the election.

[jgraz]

245. I never understand this. How does promising to do the wrong thing make him better?

Obama said explicitly during the election that he would listen to the people who worked to get him elected. That's one promise he's flushed down the toilet.

[Prism]

255. I really don't understand this mindset

It's like if I promised to kick puppies. Then I kick a puppy and people get upset. My reaction? "Well, I told you I was going to kick a puppy. I don't understand why you're all pissed off."

I can't believe that's actually prevailing logic in defense of bad policy. Promising to do something horrid doesn't exculpate someone from the consequences of doing it.

[jgraz]

Not to mention the fact that he actually is breaking many explicit campaign promises

Here's a video from 2008. Count the broken promises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

[Prism]

277. Sigh

That slight breeze you may have felt was all my credulity leaving the room.

[jgraz]

286. That's what I'm here for

Enjoy the holidays! :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

358. Pretty striking

[jgraz]

374. I definitely feel struck

[debbierlus]

244. I would unrecommend this post a hundred times, if I could

And, I counter with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7083775&mesg_id=7083775

This President is a sell out to corporations and the military industrial complex.

And, PLEASE. He said a BUNCH of shit during the campaign. A ton of it turned out to be lies. So, you are expecting the people to bone up and take it because he is holding to his word on the WORST of his policies.

This is pathetic.

And, shame on the adminstrators to put this tripe up the day after Obama announced he is increasing troop presence in Afghanistan.

Fringe is truth. Reality based is denying harsh realities. I am so sick of it.

[jgraz]

246. As would I. I'll have to settled for rec'ing your awesome post.

[peace frog]

265. Thank you

Pathetic it is.

[Laelth]

330. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Political Heretic]

247. An incredibly easy rebuttal to make. I'll do it before even having coffee:

This presidents actions to date do not reflect change that I believe in.

"Reality-based" Democrats, huh? Isn't it funny how that's become new cute way to dismiss anyone you disagree with? If you disagree with me, then you don't live in reality. That's about as childish as a right wing fanatic. Shame on you.

I don't agree with your OP, but I don't think you are somehow "not based in reality" - we simply have a disagreement. And here's what that disagreement looks like:

I don't agree that the President or the Democrats in Washington are "doing their damndest to make this country better." I believe they are "doing their damndest" to do whatever they think will keep them in political power.

As far as saying this President has done more than any other president in history in his first year goes, well - you just demonstrated how much of your letter is built on emotion rather than reason or facts. That's a ludicrous thing to say when reflecting on all of our presidents during some incredible periods of our history, and not a slight on Obama to acknowledge how ludicrous that statement is. It's surely something that Obama himself would forcefully dispute, knowing as much history as he knows.

But there's something else - its not about quantity, its about quality. It's not about how fast the administration gets to issues, its about the direction that the administration takes. So saying that "he's done more" than someone else doesn't really move me, anymore that someone saying "he hasn't done as much" as someone else moves me.

Quality of action, not quantity of action is what matters. How do I define quality?

I define Quality as action that puts the needs of the poor and working class first, ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite and privileged.

What would that look like in practice? It would mean impelmenting policy or pushing an agenda in Congress that met the following criteria:

• It has sufficient benefits (for poor and working class)
  
• It has no critical problems (for poor and working class)
  
• The benefits effectively outweigh any remaining non-critical problems (for poor and working class)
  
• All things being equal, further effort to produce different or better policy on this issue would be more harmful (to poor and working class) than helpful.
  

The administrations adopted policy has consistently reflected a trickle-down approach. Handling of the financial crisis has been a Wall Street first, rich first, massive taxpayer subsidy to big business, with the hopes that benefits would "trickle down" to everyone else. How is that working? Unemployment is breaking double digits as a national average by the weakest (U3) measurement. By the strongest (U6) federal measurement, its over 17%.

Health reform? Also reflects a trickle down approach, ensuring that the needs and demands of wall street and big insurance and big pharmaceutical companies are met first, and only then getting "benefits" to ordinary Americans.

Foreign policy? Also reflects a trickle down approach - by that I mean the needs and interests of the powerful and privileged who have vested financial interests in the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan are prioritized first, over the needs and interests of poor and working class Americans to NOT DIE on foreign soil, nor of poor and working class families not to be left childless, or having family members returning home mentally shattered, wounded, limbless, etc.

A few huge examples amidst a sea of possible examples of poor and working class interests being marginalized and ignored so that privileged interests and agendas could be honored - with the administration and Democratic party using the same trickle-down rationale that used to be considered absurd "voodoo economics" when Ronald Reagan did it.

I'm not surprised Obama praised Reagan. He governs a lot like him.


You talk of how much has been done in a year? I look to how many major policy decisions have been made in that time that I absolutely oppose, that I believe go in the complete wrong direction, away from social and economic justice, and toward the reinforcement of the power and privilege status quo.

"Please stop pretending we elected the President to do anything other than what he told us he would do if we elected him."

I'm sorry, but you are fundamentally confused about why we vote. We chose the best candidate if we can find one, or we chose the least bad candidate if we need to stop a horrific one from taking office. And then we demand what we believe to be fundamentally just from that President when elected. I couldn't give two shits what he campaigned on. I wasn't confused about where he stood. He was WRONG on the campaign trail, but he was LESS WRONG than McCain..

You think somehow we have to sit down and shut up now that he's elected because he told us he was wrong on the campaign trail and we still voted for him? NUTS!!

Sorry you don't want anyone to question while this administration carries forth a pro-war, pro-corporation, anti-worker agenda in the mask of "democratic centrist" - but TOO BAD.

We're not going anywhere.

[dbonds]

250. Extremely well said.

[tekisui]

253. Good post.

[Prism]

257. This needs to be an OP

"It's not about how fast the administration gets to issues, its about the direction that the administration takes."

I have been screaming exactly this for months. It does no good. People still erect their "You just want everything fixed right now!" fallacies.

[berni_mccoy]

260. Did you vote for Obama? If so, did you understand his positions? If not, then you

are exactly who the OP is addressed at.

Your vision of President Obama and President Obama's vision don't coincide. You have only reinforced the point of the OP and you are living in a different reality than you would hope to be in.

[Political Heretic]

262. Did you read my post before responding - since your question is asked and answered.

I'll cut and paste it for you:

"Please stop pretending we elected the President to do anything other than what he told us he would do if we elected him."

I'm sorry, but you are fundamentally confused about why I vote. I chose the best candidate if I can find one, or I chose the least bad candidate if we need to stop a horrific one from taking office.

And then we demand what we believe to be fundamentally just from that President when elected. Let me be perfectly blunt and clear: I couldn't give two shits what he campaigned on. I wasn't confused about where he stood. He was wrong on the campaign trail, but he was less wrong than McCain.

You think somehow we have to sit down and shut up now that he's elected because he told us he was wrong on the campaign trail and we still voted for him? NUTS!!

Sorry you don't want anyone to question while this administration carries forth a pro-war, pro-corporation, anti-worker agenda under the blanket of "democratic centrist" - but TOO BAD.

We're not going anywhere.

[Prism]

266. The mindset is distinctly Bushian

When asked about facing accountability for his actions, Bush replied "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections." He believed, once elected, he had four years of free reign to do precisely as he pleased no matter what the people might think.

So we see that attitude here. President Obama was elected. He now has a mandate to do whatever he pleases. Who are we to complain? And if we're not happy, there's an accountability moment in 2012. Until then, leave the President alone.

It is totally insane and totally anathema to what American democracy is about.

[Political Heretic]

271. Agreed. I don't believe in "accountability momements" every 4 years.

Every day is an accountability "moment" to the people of the United States - particularly the bottom 80% that are walked on for the benefit of the top 20%.

Enough is enough.

[berni_mccoy]

275. So you admit you only voted for him because he was a "lesser evil"? Then you really

don't understand Obama and your standard for him to live up to is subversive at best.

All you seek to do is attack rather than to apply real solutions.

The solutions you'd seek to apply are not doable, unreal fantasies that will never politically be viable.

But keep hoping for that perfect world where everyone does exactly what you want them to. The Utopia is right around the corner.

[Political Heretic]

278. Admit? That fact was never in question. My only requirement is simple, not utopian at all.

"All you seek to do is attack rather than to apply real solutions."

Oh wait, is that it or is it that.....

"The solutions you'd seek to apply are not doable, unreal fantasies that will never politically be viable."

Ah, so THAT's it. I see.

Actually, if you read the post you orginally applied to you'll see that my criteria for supporting policy is actually very simple, and not at all "perfect."

My only requirement is that policy have sufficient benefit for the poor and working class.

That's my only requirement.

Only.

You're saying that even THAT is too much to ask and is a utopian dream?

:)

[Confusious]

292. Alot of things FDR did were considered "unviable"

He had the balls to do them, 'cause he believed in them.

70% of Americans want a STRONG public option. Only weak ass dems consider it "unviable"

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred." - FDR

[G_j]

267. +1000

[Mithreal]

276. Enthusiastic support of this post, very nicely done

[Bryn]

283. Bravo!

:applause:

[glitch]

323. Very well said, sorry it can't be its own thread, I'd recommend it. :( nt

[Political Heretic]

344. A response directly to the KOS post is its own thread:

Unlocked by mods after an initial confusion. Thanks to the mods by the way. An example of striving for fairness when the easiest thing to do would have been to just lock and move on. :toast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7089320

[glitch]

353. It got unlocked? Excellent! Off to k & r :) nt

[bvar22]

357. Bravo, Political Heretic, post #249.

:thumbsup:

[Agony]

406. Oh! SNAP!

thanks for taking time to write

[bvar22]

249. "reflect on the hyperbole that's been going on around here."

Would that include posts blaming The Left for the problems in Obama's administration?

[dysfunctional press]

259. at least we'll know better than to support or vote for obama in 2012.

[Confusious]

261. Boy this person is a worshipper

"you have ignored that this President has done more than any other president in our history in less than a year"

I can name a few who have done alot more. I can name even more that have done more.

[Bluenorthwest]

263. You are the King of Hyperbole Bernie

And this post in which you paint yourself as judge of what is and is not worthy and who is and who is not of good motives is typical of your arrogance. The other day you posted the most overstated bit of hyperbolic crap about my community's fight for rights. Utter hot air, overstatement and hype. Just to make you feel better. It was a DU low mark in my eyes. Not surprised it was you who did it at all.

[Prism]

268. Link please?

Would love to see this.

[berni_mccoy]

282. There isn't any because they are full of b.s.

[Lilith Velkor]

264. Good.

Maybe now we can discuss the issues, and folks like this diarist can go caterwaul about it elsewhere.

:party:

[QC]

289. +1

[WilliamPitt]

270. +1

[berni_mccoy]

279. Thanks from another member of the thick-skin club.

[JanMichael]

273. That's why I didn't vote for him in the primary. "Hope" and "Change"...

...were meaningless slogans to encourage false possibilities and a wellspring of activism by people who supported:

Single Payer - Nope not Hope

Ending the Wars - Nope not Hope

Fighting Corpo Greed - Nope not Hope

Ending prisoner abuse and other assorted scary crap (Bahgram?) - Chains not Change

Killing the Patriot Act - Chose it over Change just this week.

[WilliamPitt]

280. If I may ask

Who got your vote?

Who was going to deliver all those things?

Let me know and I'll send them some money.

[JanMichael]

335. Actually none of the corpo types would but I voted...

...for HRC who I figured had bigger balls (not intending sexism here) than "O", and a chance to win, but I was probably going to be disappointed with her too. I figured she might tell the repukes to go fuck themselves and back it up. Again I would likely be disappointed with her too seeing all of "the Family" stuff.

It's a bummer.

Honestly it really doesn't seem to matter anymore. Not trying to be an ass but there really isn't much hope for any real substantive change. Not at least at the rate we're going. Corpo money talks and progressives walk today.

[DWilliamsamh]

281. I only wish I had seen this post in time to join in recommending it. Perfect.

It encapsulates exactly what I have been thinking for the last few months - especially with regard to Afghanistan.

[branders seine]

284. Gee, it's almost like the Obamites spent the "dithering" time

crafting a PR campaign.

[Bobbie Jo]

287. Nice post, Rush.

[Starry Messenger]

285. Don't let that door hit ya on the ass.

:hi: Bye!

[Unca Jim]

291. AMEN!

Brother/Sister!

Amen.

No personal genies!

[katandmoon]

294. I called out Bush, and I will call out Obama when he acts like Bush. I could not care less if I

"lose" you! Why should I? Obama is the one who should care that he's losing MANY people who once believed in him. But he clearly doesn't give a shit. So why should I care if he gets reelected, when our votes don't matter to HIM? He mostly just pays lip service to progressive ideals but at the first sign of actually having to put his money where his mouth is and pushing for and insisting on them, the throws them under the bus where his long-time pastor Rev. Wright is still shivering, while religious bigot Rick Warren basks in the spotlight Obama shone on him. To me, that said it all about Obama's character. He has no loyalty to anything or anyone except his own ambition.

I have NEVER been more disappointed in a politician so fast -- EVER -- as I have in Obama.

[change_notfinetuning]

302. Yes, the speed and scope of the disappointment is truly breathtaking. I guess

disheartening would be a better word.

[grahamhgreen]

311. The speed and scope of his failure to change from neo-con policies is legend. nt

[HuckleB]

299. There is certainly a lot of hyperbole being tossed around at DU these days.

So much fundamentalist vehemence on some topics that science, curiosity and actual discussion are completely overrun by a mob of mindlessness.

It's frustrating to see this happen at DU. Such responses used to be limited to a couple of posters. Now it's the norm, I guess.

Anyway, I hope things change. I really hope things change.

[HughMoran]

300. Obama actually asked very nicely for our help

I don't think he was thinking that calling him "no better than Bush" or "a liar" or "a serial killer" or "a failure" (or any of a number of right-wing talking points) would be helpful. This is not constructive criticism, yet these are direct quotes from just the past 2 days on DU. I can't imagine Obama getting any less help that he's received so far.

[spanone]

304. k&r

[anonymous171]

305. I don't him to be a "compromiser." I want him to kill the GOP. nt

[Duende azul]

312. Oh shit, i accidentally rec'd this. Could someone please make up for it with an unrec

I can't stand this "but he said so during campaign" BS any longer.
"war of necessity" my ass.

[anonymous171]

315. It would be my pleasure. nt

[Duende azul]

324. Thank you!

Now I can sleep better:hi:

[bvar22]

316. K&R...I"m with you, Bra !

Where do I sign the Loyalty Oath.
I'm sick and tired of these damn whiny Liberals ruining the Democratic Party for the rest of us.

ALL they want to do is whine all the time about "Issues" and "Policy", and jobs, and stopping those WARS, and Health Care, and Unions, and help for the "Middle Class"......

Well, I've got some "help" for the Middle Class.....
"Go out and get another job you lazy ass whiner.
You only have yourself to blame if you expected Obama to do anything for the Working Class."

You would think those Liberal Whiners would have learned their lesson with that whiny ass Wellstone.
Well it is clear they didn't.
They just won't shut up and get in back in line and do what they are told!
Maybe its time for another lesson!

I'm RIGHT with YOU, Brother.
Its time us REAL Democrats show those "Liberals" who is really in charge around here!

[jgraz]

321. Fucker. you almost got me

:P

[glitch]

327. Now you're speaking their language, but it still won't get through.

And that's a damn shame.

[Number23]

317. Bra-FUCKING-vo!!

Kicked and rec'd!

[Jim Sagle]

325. Never had you to begin with. And judging by this post, we didn't miss a thing.

And yes, you're right in saying he didn't even try to fool anyone, he told the truth and let them fool themselves.

He told us Afghanistan was the right war, he told how much he loved Reagan, he singlehandedly rescued TARP from well-deserved oblivion, and he openly doublecrossed us on FISA - all BEFORE the election.

In these ways and every other way he made crystal clear his fealty to oligarchy, not democracy. And now you come along to tell us you're fed up with US.

Good riddance.

[ecstatic]

326. The only thing shocking to me is how quickly they turned

I mean, going into it, I had no delusions about what Pres. Obama would be up against. That's why way back in 06, early '07, I thought it might be easier to just go with Clinton. But I was pleasantly surprised when he was given a chance in the primaries and went on to become the nominee. I knew that he would face a ton of criticism from both the left and the right because people in this country hold racial minorities to a much more harsh standard. I think the part that irritates me the most is that I thought DU would support him a little longer than it did, but the attacks started before he was even sworn in!

[natrat]

329. still any reasonable person must be at least disappointed with the state of things

[ecstatic]

360. A "reasonable" person understands that it took 8 years to break it,

and it will take more than 10 months to fix it.

[Raineyb]

369. That's obvious but one can tell what direction things are going in by the

nature of the appointments and certain decisions and what I'm seeing there isn't instilling a hell of a lot of confidence. I'm getting a Clinton redux and not in a good way.

And that's not to say that I don't like the man; but I don't like the direction I see things going in.

[Mithreal]

345. A consensus does seem to be forming.

The criticisms were never going to go away. To expect they would is puzzling. Many here adhere to principles.

[Seen the light]

331. "you have ignored that this President has done more than any other president in our history in..."

"...less than a year"

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

333. Ironic that the real answer to that after FDR is probably GWB, no?

[LeftyMom]

338. Wow, whoever wrote that is a fucking idiot.

Or it's a brilliant satire of the pom pom wavers. I can't decide.

[Swamp Rat]

339. United we stand, divided we fall... um...

at the moment, it looks like we are falling-united. :(

I don't agree with some of the points in the OP, nor do I care for the tone.

However, I recommended your thread anyway berni_mccoy, because I stand with Obama, imperfect and slow-to-react as he is.

We need to support OUR President, for our own goddamn sakes!! He needs a LOT MORE TIME to do a nearly impossible job, and we need to run interference for him in order to give him this time.

In addition, we have NO OTHER CHOICE at this time!! and so far, Obama is a hell of a lot better than McNuts would have been.

[Bobbie Jo]

341. +1....indeed. nt

[Mithreal]

346. The debate isn't about Obama versus McCain ANYMORE.

Move the fuk on. I just hate logical fallacy. Good cartoon despite the diversion.

We need to support OUR principles.

[treestar]

350. The Repukes are not gone

It won't be McCain again, but it will be someone.

[Swamp Rat]

352. Exactly

[Swamp Rat]

351. LOL! I hate logical fallacies more than you, especially Red Herrings.

:D

However, you missed the point, which was about perspective and the 4th Dimension.

That aside, I will remind you the repukes have not gone away, and they are literally spoiling for the chance to divide us, if not distract us.

[Mithreal]

398. The balloon boy's a good one too. Background seems wrong though.

But I still like it.

Yes, the repukes will always be with us. And now Obama is the one leaving open opportunities for populist outrage against Democrats and not just made up bs either. Not sure how we combat their ignorance when we don't believe in what Obama is doing either. For the knuckleheads, I am not saying I believe Obama is doing nothing good. When I talk to all sorts of folks, I value my honesty more than most anything else and feel it gives me confidence and credibility. I don't want to defend stupid ass decisions and all sorts of compromising.

Anyway, later, and Happy Thanksgiving.

[Swamp Rat]

401. That's the original background of that balloon

:hi:

[Raineyb]

413. They don't seem to need any help as once again the "centrists" have gone on the attack

against anything to the left of what's considered center (which by the way has been pushed so far to the right as to make moderate leftists seem like radicals.) Meanwhile when election time comes they'll come looking for money and votes but what are they giving the left in return? The back of their hand as per usual. How long do they think they can keep doing this and not expect people on the left to get fed up with them?

[nightrain]

342. talk about whining! gees.... we get to have our own opinions and values

[TexasObserver]

343. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have the same advice for anyone who simply HAS to tell the DU readership that they might, just might, leave.

Fine. Leave. One less poster to start this kind of thread.

[salib]

349. Goodbye and good luck

[QC]

354. You shouldn't get people's hopes up like this. n/t

[Bluebear]

370. Talk about false advertising.

[Skittles]

356. I have ignored and neglected NOTHING

I knew exactly what we'd get with Obama which is WHY he was NOT my first choice

[Name removed]

361. Deleted message

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

[earth mom]

366. The truth hurts. nt

[mzmolly]

373. Food for thought.

No holiday pun intended ;)

Thanks Berni. :hi: KNR

[elias7]

375. Amen, brother n/t

[JDPriestly]

376. Obama was not my first choice. His performance in office is worse than I

could ever have imagined. After my candidate, John Edwards, dropped out, I helped Obama not because I agreed with everything he said but because I had hope. Isn't that what he offered? I am quickly losing what hope I had.

Now I realize that Obama is a sell-out to Wall Street. He does not represent any of us. He only represents the rich and powerful.

And the irony is that on DU others criticized the candidate I supported, John Edwards, for being too close to Wall Street simply because he had worked for a hedge fund. Never mind that Edwards and Kucinich were the only candidates to understand that we cannot have a functioning economy unless we renegotiate or do away with our trade agreements. John Edwards disappointed his supporters on a personal level, but he and Kucinich were still the only candidates who were on the side of ordinary people and who understood our choices. I'd rather be disappointed by a candidate's private choices than by their public ones.

Obama has presided over the culmination of years and years of efforts by the banks and Wall Street to impoverish America. Sure, Obama did not start it. But the people he hired as his economic advisers were at the forefront of the Wall Street takeover of America.

Obama has presided over an economy in which people have lost their homes in unprecedented numbers -- but Obama has done next to nothing for those homeowners. I know that he inherited the situation, but he wanted the job of president. We made sure he go it. And now he is forgetting us and the rest of the country. Don't blame me.

Obama seems to have no core values -- just a desire to be liked. That is a recipe for disaster. A president with core values would be defending and protecting all the people, not just the wealthy few.

[bkozumplik]

392. i hear ya

Edwards was my first choice too.

[shadesofgray]

411. +1

[2tr4nqued]

377. Obama is losing me with his warmongering. n/t

[redqueen]

384. "Instead, I see the same old attitude that has doomed us to electoral failure."

No kidding.

[omega minimo]

386. Impossible to reach into people's heads to support these generalizations; Sad to import Kos to DU.

"But in the big things, Kossacks, health care, climate change, the economy, improving infrastructure, creating jobs, forestalling the foreclosure crisis, and addressing renewable energy, you have ignored that this President has done more than any other president in our history in less than a year."

:wow: Huh? Really?

Where is the Kos writers' "basis in reality now?"


This is a bunch of horsehockey, not only reinforcing assumptions and cliches about what others actually think, but BORROWING from another damn site to indict DUers with questionable and unsupportable bullshit like the above quote.

[depakid]

397. Message to the apologists- good luck in 2010!

With every sell out, your voting base gets smaller and smaller.

[showpan]

400. A president is expected to lead

the country in a way that reflects what the people want. It shouldn't matter what they stated in campaign promises or what party he is affiliated with. He took an oath to uphold our constitution. Who here voted for him knowing we were getting another neo-con...who would have thought a Democrat would ever advocate right wing policies such as he does. He hasn't compromised with anyone except the neo-cons. A lot of people are upset now and for good reason, we elected another right wing corporatist and thought we were getting something different. He certainly portrayed himself as someone different. He did not state that he was for all the things most Democrats and decent people are against. We shouldn't have to read between the lines. At least this party doesn't amount to a bunch of sheep, spewing out crap no matter how wrong it is. Maybe that is why the repukes are down to what, a little over 20%. This country is in real trouble because WE keep electing corporate puppets. Hopefully it's a lesson learned. Like many here, I surely hoped that he would have stood for what the majority actually wanted, but he doesn't. Does that mean we should just roll over and take it. We have been taking it for years. When are we going to do something about it, because the new administration is just like the old one, and my family and I are suffering because of them. The point of this thread was to state that we actually got what we voted for, while this statement may be true, it doesn't mean that we have to stay the course. How many people with no jobs and no home is it going to take before this country takes OUR government back from the FED and their neo-cons who think they own us?

[NashVegas]

404. Don't Let the Door Hit Your Ass On the Way Out

The "change" you believed in in 2008 was attacking other posters for the sole reason they were backing a different candidate than yours.

You were never about "change." You were always about making sure your horse won because it would benefit YOU.

[pecwae]

407. Incredibly, DU will survive

this loss/promise should it come true.

[shadesofgray]

412. Really sick of the "Obama has done more than any other President in the

shortest amount of time blah blah blah" meme when gays are still being kicked out of the military, our privacy rights are eroded more and more, and abortion rights are a bargaining chip to get the insurance companies more bodies.

Regardless of how much administrivia Obama has crossed off the list, I expected a whole lot more based on his campaign promises. I expect politicans I vote for to keep their real campaign promises. I'm funny that way and I find it odd how one of the defenses of Obama's failure to keep so many of them is that nobody should have thought he meant them.

What is he going to run on in 2012 if he didn't mean them?

[Myrina]

414. Too late for a rec, but here's a kick ...

... even though the article's out there one someone else's thread today too ... its worth being a duplicate.

[BrklynLiberal]

417. Wow. This will take me a while to get thru. Be back later.

[BREMPRO]

422. well said berni- i agree with the your basic critique

that some DU'ers are acting like Obama was Kucinich in their minds, and he never was. As soon as he did something that wasn't progressive enough- they jumped all over him for breaking promises he never made.

and that many have unrealistic expectations of what the president can do within a broken system within 10 months after inheriting a financial and real estate collapse and two mismanaged budget ballooning wars.

he's trying to fix it. that will take time. Note the aversion of another great depression, the passing of a stimulus bill, cutting taxes for the middle class, the economy returning to growth, the real estate market stabilizing, the kicking lobbyists off advisory panels, the return of US influence in world politics, historic health care legislation that no other president has been able to get this close to passing, and may actually pass a divided and corporate compromised congress, the appointment of a solidly progressive and brilliant jurist on the supreme court, the move toward ending torture/rendition and closing Guantanamo. There are many other positive steps that don't seem to get much play here.

now you can take that list of accomplishment and complain about the specifics, but it's not fair given what he has on his plate and the opposition he faces to complain about how long it's taking, and you can't reasonably deny that he hasn't strayed far from his campaign platform, and the trend toward a more fair, just, and healthy governance, especially in comparison to his predecessor.

[MrMickeysMom]

426. I don't see the same attacks as you do...

Maybe it's because I don't read everything at DU or that I don't get upset with some here who attack Mr. Obama.

It's all subjective, so how can it control you so much?

[Bluesbreaker]

427. Don't let the door hit you on the way out . . .

Obama is responsive to Wall Street and corporate America, while he pays lip service to working people and the middle class. If you're happy with his performance, then you either have the same sympathies to the corporatocracy or you haven't been paying attention. He's a retread of Clinton and the DLC good old boys. Read the post about Rahm Emanuel making the WH staff read a blog praising Max Baucus. That tells you everything you need to know about where this administration stands.