On having voted for Obama

[MadHound]

There are many people on this board who think that since I (and others on the left) voted for Obama, we have no room to complain. That we know full well what Obama was going to do coming into his administration, and that we should expect nothing more, or nothing less from him.

Frankly I find this position to be a fascist load of bullshit.

Yes, I voted for (and supported, with my time and money) Obama. This wasn't because I agreed with everything he said, far from it (for those of you who wish, go drag up some of my campaign season posts, you'll find that I strongly disagreed with Obama and Hillary). The only reason that I didn't vote Green was simple: Sarah Palin. Up until her announcement as VP, I was fully convinced that I would vote Green, but her first impression made it clear that I had to do whatever I could to keep her far from power.

Thus, I supported, and voted for Obama. I was not voting FOR Obama, but rather I was voting AGAINST Palin. Key difference there.

Which brings us back to the contention that if we voted for Obama, we shouldn't complain about his doing what he promised to do. I did not support his positions on many issues, including his promise to escalate the Afghanistan war, and I still don't. Yes, I realize that he is doing what he promised to do, but he also said something else, early in his administration.

"Go out and make me do it."

This is an inherently democratic statement that Obama made. He has basically stated that if you don't like his policies, if you don't like his stance on various issues, then go out and give him a reason for following your lead. If you want him to bring the troops home, make him do it. If you want single payer UHC, make him do it. This is an open invitation to both criticism and to action, a democratic tradition as old as this country. Make him do it. OK Mr. President, we're going to take you up on your offer.

Yet certain people around here want to kill that democratic spirit. They're trying to bully people into line behind Obama whether we think what he is doing is right or not. They want to take away our democratic right to criticize, our right to make him do it. Nope, according to these people, once you voted for Obama, for whatever reason, you've check your right to agitate for change at the door, and you must now fall in line or be damned.

It doesn't work like that in this country, and Obama recognizes that. In fact, as I pointed out, he welcomes criticism, he wants people to convince him to do something, even if it is something that he didn't promise to do in his campaign. Because Obama recognizes something that many of his supporters around here don't seem to get. This is a democratic country, and even if we voted for the man, even if we supported him, in a democratic society we the people have the right to agitate and organize for the change that we want to see. That what we're engaged in isn't the totalitarian notion that you've got to fall in line, but the uniquely democratic tradition of pushing for the change we want to see, a sentiment that is embedded in the foundation of this country.

As Obama said, "Go out and make me do it"

That's what I and millions of others intend to do. If you don't like that, oh well.

[Electric Monk]

1. Quite the rec/unrec duel going on over this thread. Currently the Recs are winning.

k&r

[MadHound]

3. Oh, pay it no mind

I never care whether or not my posts are recommended or not, in fact I find the unrecommends rather amusing.

All I'm looking for is a good discussion.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

45. THE OLD BAIT AND SWITCH GAME

[defendandprotect]

62. You don't seem to understand that if the UNs catch your thread

early enough, possibly no one will see it and there will be no "discussion" . . .

[MadHound]

70. That's why I try to make my threads interesting enough to promote discussion

Whether they're recommended or unrecommended. Some of my longest running threads were under the unrec side.

I refuse to play this rec/unrec game. I've found that if your thread is interesting enough, it will garner enough good discussion to stay up front no matter what.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the recommends, I like that people like my threads enough to recommend them. However I think of it as more of icing on the cake as anything else.

[C_Lawyer09]

21. Hell Yeah!!

That Molly Ivins quote rocks! Loved her writing and I can't remember seeing it before.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Happy to rec. nt

[ooglymoogly]

38. +1

[ooglymoogly]

39. PS your pooch looks just like mine in her

winter coat.

[elocs]

53. Wow! 7 minutes after the thread is posted the 1st response is importantly about Rec/UnRec.

Oh, by the way, those who UnRec love it when their actions are pointed out, especially within minutes after a thread is posted. Currently this OP is on the Front Page with plenty of Recs, so there was little point in highlighting the Rec/UnRec situation within minutes.

[Electric Monk]

96. In those 7 minutes it had been <0 as well as as high as +3, and when I posted it was +1

:shrug:

[liberal N proud]

78. ..

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

2. The fact that posts like this need to be made is a sad narrative on the state of liberalism

I gave you a K&R

[MadHound]

4. Very sad,

This is getting to resemble the bully boys of the Kerry campaign back in '04, only ten times worse.

[tridim]

9. It's like a rumble.

Schoolyard bullies.

Everyone has forgotten that our DemNA is still 99.9% the same. Makes me sad too.

[marshall]

102. It does seem like we're stuck in an endless loop

A Moebius strip of "It's . all . about . Sarah . Palin."

[ChiciB1]

5. I LIKE It & I LIKE IT A LOT! There Are Many Of Us Who DID Vote For Obama

because of the alternative. I can remember thinking I was going to sit out the election myself! However, I did get out and work very hard once I saw the name "Palin" and KNEW how very WRONG the outcome would be with McCain/Palin!

And I did work hard, and I also began to BELIEVE certain things which I probably should have known that campaigns are just that "campaigns!" So I sincerely wanted to see REAL CHANGE, wished for it with all my heart!

Now, back to reality I MUST admit that he has disappointed more than I had thought he would. Do I want him to succeed and prove me wrong, you BETCHA I do! But I must refuse to lay back and not speak my mind! I've never been a Rah Rah Cheerleader when I see things that I don't like, or that go against what I TRULY believe in.

I agree... MAKE HIM DO IT... Hold His Feet To The Fire!! Fairness for ALL, or Fairness for NONE!

[treestar]

18. If you voted for him to avoid the alternative

You'd be happy right now. All he had to do was be not-Palin!

[pundaint]

54. let's check that logic

There is a candidate whose policies are antithetical to our beliefs.

There is a candidate opposing the bad candidate who demonstrates such a glaring lack of preparedness for the position she seeks as to give us real concern for the country's continued existence should she win and her geezer running mate not complete his term.

We have to vote against the candidate with my views to protect the country against a collaboration of thieves and idiots putting the dangerous candidate in a place she has no business being.

Me and my cohorts save the country from great peril, but at the expense of a continuation of too many of Bush's bad policies and the opportunity to express our political will.

We must be happy!

Perhaps we should add rhetoric to the school curricula.

[Cha]

33. Right, if that's the only reason you voted for him.

You should be damn happy right now. And, your little bohica is just you asking for it.

[ChiciB1]

36. Cha... You Are Soooo Wrong About BOHICA, Used That For More Years Than

you know! I understand the frustration on both sides here, it's very tough! I've made my decision about many issues.

As a person, as a couple Barack & Michele are dynamite, charisma embodied in a fantastic way!

Joe & Jill Biden, extremely, extremely sensitive and wonderful... I have loved them from the start! Don't know how much influence Joe contributed, but my admiration for him AND HIS FAMILY leave me at a loss of words!

That said, I want this team to work... I want to see the PHOENIX rise but have many reservations about him, mostly about not taking a stronger stance against Repukes and what I perceive to be a leaning to the middle and mostly to the right from Obama. Granted he was handed an overwhelming task, but on the really BIG issues he has left me unsatisfied!

I can't tell you how very much I would love to "crow" about how their advancement makes me proud, but I just don't see it now! Too many decisions have left me with a feeling that I was duped, and also wanting! This IS NOT WHAT I voted for. I could list the angst and more reasons, but it seems useless to do that. The "feeling" has made me feel I'm looking at an administration that needs to show me the fight & really the GUTS Obama has for Democrats!

To me, he MUST crack the whip and I don't see it, and his bi-partnership has left me COLD... at this point in time! I'm disillusioned!

[HamdenRice]

6. What I'm reading: "Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman" My reaction: yawn. On to next post. nt

[MadHound]

8. Always look forward to your substansive and insightful replies,

They fill me with mirth and glee. After all, I know that I hit a nerve when all you can come back with is meaningless bullshit instead of a true refutation of my position.

[HamdenRice]

11. Hey, what happened to the idea that "treasury bills have already defaulted"?

Some whoppers can essentially take you out of the company of serious commentators to be read with anything other than bemused dismissal. That's the only nerve you hit.

[MadHound]

15. Ah, twisting my words again, OK

Speaking of bemused dismissal:hi:

[Tejas]

31. I see the Brownshirts have found your thread

MadHound, how dare you, step back in line!!!1!!

:sarcasm;

[nashville_brook]

73. obviously you're in the minority with the strawman assessment. worship of leaders is not

a democratic principle.

participation in the form of critique, as well as foot soldiering, is what we've always held in highest esteem.

[Sukie]

7. This phrase:

"I was not voting FOR Obama, but rather I was voting AGAINST Palin. Key difference there.", pretty much says it all about why you, and people who speak the same sentiments as you on Obama, are so quick to jump on everything that you perceive that he hasn't accomplished yet, rather than look at what he has accomplished.

[kiva]

13. And yet, those reluctant votes counted.

Maybe those of us who had reservations shouldn't have voted, but we just couldn't help ourselves when Bible Spice got onboard.

[bobbolink]

27. That's exactly what I'm thinking. Clearly, our votes aren't needed or wanted.

So, screw it next year.

Let them dig up the votes from........?

[kiva]

37. ...from the conservatives this president and congress are trying to appease.

[MadHound]

14. And. . . ?

What, we don't have the right to criticize the president because our motives were "impure"? Just because we gave our time, our money, our vote to Obama, if we're not a true believer, we're not allowed to speak up?

As Obama himself said, "Go out and make me do it." That's what we on the left are doing, making him do it. This sentiment that Obama expressed was very much pulled from FDR, a man fully acquainted with people "making him do it". He knew that his first re-election bid was going to be rough, because he had the Socialist party on his left, threatening to take away a lot of votes. So he goes out and nicks a couple of planks from the Socialist platform and makes them his own. Those lefty Socialists made him do it. Good thing they did, otherwise we wouldn't have the two bedrock programs of the New Deal, Unemployment Insurance and Social Security. "Make me do it"

[superduperfarleft]

26. So it's not enough that we held our noses and voted for him to keep your type

from screaming "Naderite!" at us, we have to be pure of heart as well when doing it?

[geckosfeet]

10. I will NEVER have buyers remorse for voting for Obama. I AM disappointed

in his weak stand on many progressive issues. But he has reversed many bush era policies and is moving slowly in a direction that I approve of. That makes me feel warm and cozy like my mommy is tucking me in at night!:sarcasm:

Hey - he's not perfect but the dems in both houses are worse. Lierman should have been booted or had his chairmanships stripped a long time ago - like right around the time he appeared on a stage with mccane during the election campaign. When I saw that I KNEW Obama was going to have his legs whacked by backstabbing dems sooner rather than later.

[INdemo]

61. I have thought many times if the roles were just reversed we could be seeing

real change. Including real health-care reform
Yes Biden/Obama..A real Democrat at the top who knows the system.

[dtotire]

12. Obama is a pragmatist

You can't change things overnight, especially a major recession. It's going to take time. The economists at the Fed think that the unemployment rate in 2012 will be 7%. This may be enough to get him reelected. His popularity will climb, and he will be able to get more things done.

[MadHound]

16. So now we're putting off necessary things until he is more popular?

C'mon, strike while the iron is hot, we've got large majorities in the Senate, in the House, and own the WH. If you're going to accomplish real change, now is the time.

Instead, Obama is proceeding by increments. That is all well and good in normal times, but we're not in normal times and some bold actions are needed, preferably before 2012.

[JackRiddler]

41. So pragmatism = total capitulation to McChrystal & Goldman Sachs?

[alarimer]

68. That's what pragmatism means.

It is a total absence of any belief at all, especially belief in true progressive values which lie at the heart of the Democratic platform.

Our politicians, including Obama, only pay lip service to those beliefs. Personally I blame Bill Clinton for this. He was too busy with triangulating and "the third way" bullshit that it ruined the Democratic Party forever. I am no longer a Democrat and have no plans to ever vote Democratic again; I likely will not vote at all, except maybe in some local elections.

The thing is, pragmatists are wrong. Democrats win when they stick to progressive values; people really want that. They only lose when the cater to Republicans. Rahm and company have this all wrong.

[barbtries]

86. definition:

1. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.
2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

i don't think that pragmatism is in and of itself harmful; what sucks is that politicians' prognostications about what is practical do not take into consideration that which would be best for the country. they're just working on their next election and collecting the money they'll need to win it. we are no longer a representative democracy with very few exceptions - our lawmakers are way more worried about themselves and their corporate masters than they are about us.

[Go2Peace]

84. It is when you make their staff your advisors. Can you justify that?

[Overseas]

89. I thought we were electing a pragmatic president.

Many progressive ideas are very pragmatic. Single payer was one. Withdrawing from Iraq was another. And stopping torture. Using negotiation and diplomacy more. Green jobs. Taking care of deferred maintenance.

I have been delighted by President Obama's demonstrated use of more diplomacy and negotiation, and moves to stop the use of torture. He has shown the world that this is no longer Bush-Cheney America.

However, one of the saddest things for me has been my misunderstanding of "changing the tone in Washington." I didn't think that would mean weakening major legislation to get a 1% bipartisan vote. And excluding the most efficient option from national health security planning just to claw desperately for the hope of 1 or 2 GOP votes from a party that has not been bipartisan for 15 years now.

Democratic legislators knew that whatever liberal policies the next Democratic president put forward, they'd be painted as Scary Socialist Dangerous. So they could have used the Bush Depression financial meltdown as the justification to reintroduce some very effective pragmatic progressive policies, to move us much closer to FDR's second bill of rights for very practical reasons. The bailouts provided a perfect context to promote Medicare for All as the public option. The public had bailed out the finance sector to the tune of hundreds of billions of tax dollars, and in these times of economic upheaval, they need a significant bailout too. Many were facing eviction from their homes and had lost half their life savings in the crash, the least we could do was ensure them national health security. And the fastest way to do that would be opening up Medicare.

The financial crash and the 8 years of neglected infrastructure maintenance the Bush Gang sustained to pay for their tax cuts and privatized wars provided a great pretext to push through a more jobs-focused stimulus package. Democrats all know that if you put the poor and middle class people back to work they will spend those wages and stimulate the economy. Those jobs would not be "a bridge to nowhere"-- Bridges and Highways To Somewhere all across our country have suffered from Bush neglect. Retrofitting our homes and industries with green technologies supports a national priority shared by Independents, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, dedicating lot of a the new jobs to retrofitting homes and businesses with conservation and alternative energy technologies would have gotten the USA ready for Copenhagen. We would have been able to demonstrate that the US was taking immediate action to join the community of nations working to reduce the atmospheric deterioration that has been destabilizing climatic patterns and ecosystems we have depended on for thousands of years.

A massive jobs program and opening up Medicare would have ensured Democrats' popularity for years to come among millions of voters. Instead we were treated to odd statements about that bothersome noise from the left, and the most economically efficient healthcare option, single payer, was excluded from the discussion until a major public outcry pushed it back onto the table for a little more sweeping aside. That was baffling and disheartening.

For me, candidate Obama presenting himself as a moderate didn't pose too much of a problem because I assumed he would promote the most economically efficient policies for the US' long term interests. Single payer and green jobs are very pragmatic ideas that could easily have been defended on economic terms. Even though the Republicans would have been screaming socialism, the broad group of Independents who voted for the president would have understood the practical reasons for implementing those policies. They voted for change too. President Obama could have done an excellent job in making the case for some progressive policies, first on economic terms and then on the moral dimensions. Different teams of Democratic legislators could have come forward to provide further evidence in support of those plans. Instead, we've been treated to more and more capitulation and groveling for that 1% bipartisanship, at the expense of our national economic and ecological health.

The saddest thing about all this is that we could be having so much more fun now. Had our Democrats stood together to push for these things, we could be looking forward to freedom from medical terror in the next year or two (not 2014) and seeing millions of our fellow citizens getting back to work in every state of the union to repair our neglected infrastructure and make us more energy independent. We could be uniting as a people who voted for change, learning how to navigate the most effective means forward into the Greening century and celebrating our successes.

Instead we're playing a peculiar, wimpy-looking bipartisan game. Yes, it has brought the GOP forward in all its repulsiveness and their numbers have fallen dramatically. But if that has been some kind of chess game to expose the destructiveness of the GOP, when will our legislators step forward to say, OKAY, we were just trying to show the American people just how obstructionist and uninterested in positive change the GOP is. Now that you've seen that, you'll understand why we'll be pushing the most pragmatic plans now, without worrying about getting the GOP on board. We'll be opening up Medicare in 2010, re-regulating the financial sector, and rolling out hundreds of thousands of green jobs.

But then again, perhaps I should be thinking more about the conditions inherited by this administration. The USA went through several years of overt criminal behavior by the Bush Gang and did not impeach them. The Bush Cheney team broke the Geneva Conventions and we didn't impeach them. The Bush Cheney team lied us into a war on Iraq and we didn't impeach them. So perhaps I should forgive my president for thinking that the country wasn't at all ready to think pragmatically. It had not done so for eight years.

[noiretextatique]

92. i agree...the false notion that pragmatism excludes liberalism

is really quite disturbing and disheartening. as is groveling for phony bipartisanship from a party that has lost all credibility.

[Overseas]

107. Pragmatic about what works most efficiently for the majority, vs. pragmatic self-interest

of the rich and powerful.

"Changing the tone" didn't have to mean groveling for one or two percent bipartisanship.

It could have meant changing the tone from What Serves the Corporations to What Serves our National Health in the long term. What is the most cost-effective means of raising the standard of living for the poor and middle class? What serves the 90% vs. what serves the richest 10%.

And what economic policies will move us away from brutal polluting expensive hard-core warfare toward more sustainable capitalism domestically and worldwide?

Seems like so many current capitalist kings think we've already blown the climate and pollution triggers that will destroy our planet anyway, so they just need to shore up enough private capital to protect their immediate families while the rest of the world is torn asunder. Kind of like a Rapture by the Rich.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Yes I think it's the wasted opportunity that angers me the most

Imagine what the Republicanites would be doing with a majority like this. I'd hate all of it, but they'd be steamrolling all their legislation through.

[Overseas]

106. It sure would be great to have the entire block of Democrats voting for the people

instead of to preserve their corporate campaign donations. It is painful that voting for measures which would ensure Democratic popularity for decades is less important because voting against the corporations could mean millions in funding to their opposition in the next election.

It is sad that I can use the term "corporations" rather than a particular industry because most of them seem to lobby as a block against regulation. If they didn't, US manufacturers would have pushed through national health insurance long ago so they'd be much better able to compete with foreign firms whose governments have subsidized national health plans for decades already.

Republicans are safe doing pro-corporate block voting because so many corporations want laissez-faire government, a.k.a. deregulated business environment. The liberty to get rich quick, without worrying about the devastating consequences to the USA and its workers of outsourcing and deregulation. The Quarterly Balance Sheet is all that matters. Anyone still suffering must not be praying hard enough.

[dysfunctional press]

17. fool myself once, shame on me...

fool myself twice about the same candidate- isn't going to happen.

[glitch]

23. won't get fooled again?

:evilgrin:

[county worker]

19. I'm disappointed in the way things are going. But I put the blame on Congress and not so much on

Obama. Sure I feel he didn't fight for a decent health care reform bill. But it is Congress writing the bill. I've said this before and the reply always is that Obama is still at fault for one reason or the other. I take that to mean the person believes the Obama administration is more than an equal branch of the government. We were always attacking the Bush administration for usurping Congress' power and now they want Obama to usurp this Congress' power.


No matter how you slice it those who want to criticize Obama will find a reason for it. Sure it is their right to do so and I don't think any DUer thinks otherwise.

But let's see an equal amount of mud slinging going Congress' way too.

I sure wish Obama was as much the progressive as Bush was the other way. I feel we are going to miss an opportunity here. I feel as bad now as I did when the election was taken from Gore. Then we had all the hope in the world that we would move in a more progressive direction just as we did when we elected Obama. Our problem is going to be getting out the vote for 2010. I can remember the 1994 elections like they were last week. I had some friends that were ditto heads and the day after the election I went to their shop and congratulated them on winning. We lost because the right was more enthusiastic than we were. We did not get health care reform and we sulked and stayed home on election day. I see a repeat of 1994 looming in the future.

However you feel about Obama let's keep telling ourselves how it important it is not to let the right get power again. We may not get what we want from Obama but I am sure as hell we won't get it from the right either.

I wish we could respect each other's point here and let it go at that.

[MadHound]

20. Oh, trust me, I give members of Congress their fair share of criticism

But like it or not, Obama is the leader of the Democratic party and of this particular government. That doesn't mean that he oversteps his bounds, ala Bush, but he does need to get out there and lead. He made a huge mistake by not whipping the Congressional Dems into shape and having health care reform done before the August break, and that lies squarely on his shoulders.

Obama seems to be unable to decide how or when he wants to lead. We need somebody who is more the caliber of LBJ, as much as I hated that man he did know how to get things done in Congress. If you let Congress just drift, with no executive direction, then not much gets done and most of that is poorly done.

But also things like this Afghanistan war escalation is squarely on the shoulders of Obama, he can't dodge that one, as are his education policies, his GLBT policies, etc. etc. You can't give him a pass on those, since they are all his baby.

And as far as the dreaded 'Pugs go, I'm starting to feel like Malcolm X when talking about Northerners and Southerners. He stated that he preferred to deal with a Southerner, because they were upfront about their dislike of African Americans, while Northerners went around behind your back, but did the same thing. I'm starting to feel like that regarding Democrats and Republicans, both are out to screw me and please their corporate masters, but at least 'Pugs are upfront about it.

I feel that there is no valid place for liberals in either major party. Yes, the Democrats ostensibly have our vote, but we haven't been rewarded for that support in a long, long while. Why do you expect a group of people to hang with the party when there is nothing in it for them? Give liberals a reason to vote for the party, not just reasons to vote against the 'Pugs.

[county worker]

24. I can agree with every word you wrote except for the last few.

Almost daily I tell myself to just forget about politics. I'll survive. But the thing that gets me is that any reasonable person can see that the mess we are in now is a direct result of the implementation right wing ideology during the last 8 years.

The majority saw that and elected Dems last year. But did the right do any self examination and take responsibility for the mess? No they just keep on keeping on with the same old shit.

If we stay out of the fight we will be even worse off than we are now. That is a reason to vote against them.

I see it like this. Am I going to see the great progressive movement I was hoping for? Probably not. I will always be mad about that. But this isn't half the pain I felt in 2000. I sure as hell don't want to feel that way again.

So we will not get single payer. We won't even get health care reform. We will be forced to buy insurance from those who are sticking it to us already. We will not pull out of the wars. Will will not see a civil rights movement for gays. We will not prosecute the last administration for war crimes and for it's unconstitutional and unlawful tramping on our rights. We have just turned the corner and have not gone very far down the path toward social justice. But the right wing ideologues are right on our heels and if we let our disappointment keep us from putting distance between them and us, they will run us over again. If you can live with that, you must be a glutton for punishment.

Compare how we were in 2000, looking forward to at least 4 and maybe 8 years of right wing power in government to where we are today, looking forward to 4 maybe 8 years of middle of the road power in government. Do I want DLC government again? Hell no. We need to move the pendulum to the left some more. But it ain't going to happen. I don't like it but I won't like the right being back in power even more.

[MadHound]

28. That's the thing, this mess isn't just the fault of the 'Pugs,

It is the fault of politicians in power. Clinton and his cronies let Glas-Steagal get wiped off the books, thus opening the door for this financial crisis. In fact under the Clinton administration the financial sector was deregulated even more than under Reagan and Bush combined.

This huge jobs problem, again, started under Clinton, what with NAFTA and granting China Most Favored Nation trading status.

We are getting bipartisanly screwed, yet too many people recognize this. It isn't a matter of the Dems making even incremental progress, they're not. They're taking this country off a cliff, just like the 'Pugs are, the only difference being how fast we're approaching that edge.

I'm not looking for a "great progressive movement", that's not going to happen and I've known that since I was a kid. However it would be nice once in a while for the left to get a bone thrown their way, and that hasn't happened since Carter, if then. You can't expect a group of people to continue to work for a party without getting rewarded, especially when they are working against their own best interests. I'm amazed that the left hung with the Democrats as long as they have.

Frankly, at this point, I see no hope from either party or for our country. To get the change we need we need publicly funded elections, get corporate money out of our government. But under our current two party/same corporate master system of government that's not going to happen. So instead we're going to travel that road to hell, and watch our country disintegrate from underneath us. Hopefully then we can pick up the pieces and build something better. But short of major reform, it's not going to matter who's in charge, 'Pug or Dem, we're still in that handcart, heading to that hot place. That's what it means living with this two party/same corporate master system of government.

[county worker]

29. Well I'm guessing you are a lot younger than me and have time to look forward.

I can only look backward since I am a senior. I did think we could have a new progressive movement. I look back to the things I feel we accomplished and think that there is so much more to be done and so much ground we have lost. I don't feel like I will live to see improvement in my life time. As you say there has to be a huge anti corporation movement in this country. The people have to find a way to be more powerful than they are. I don't know how that is going to happen without a huge liberal majority in government to write the laws. I hope for those younger than me that a way is found.

[Laelth]

30. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tejas]

58. CORRECT, they have had THREE YEARS to straighten things out!

Thank you for such a calmly phrased post!

[Scruffy1]

59. I agree

Every time I see some of the buffoons in the senate I cringe. Its the most undemocratic institution imaginable and there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it. Vitter,Coburn, Imfoff, Kyl, Sessions etc.
We saw what kind of power someone like Baucus can wield. You can scream at Harry Reid but there's not a dam thing he can do to another senator. Senate majority Leader is a thankless job . the two before LBJ lost their reelection campaigns largely because they couldn't get back to their state to campaign enough and its like having a Bullseye on your back. The real problem of course is trying to cope with our insane glorification of war and John Wayne like characters (who was also a draft dodger) who are cowards but like to act tough. The current president is about as good as man as we could expect with our current state of ignorance and capitalist beliefs which have been pounded into the populace in a propaganda campaign that would make Pravda proud. I'm convinced that as long as we live in a plutocracy run by a handful of people with wealth and power we're lucky just to survive. If these people can convince people that McDonalds is food its no problem for them to sell the public a politician. MCain is a great example his only real accomplishment was to be a prisoner of war-which is enough for the voters of his state. change will come about only when more of the public refuses to accept anything else.

[madrchsod]

22. just think of this-- a democratic underground in the 60`s....

i wonder if "hey! hey! lbj..how many kids you kill today?" would get ya banned?

i`m really disappointed in myself for believing there would be a fundamental change in our country. it looks like will get another neo liberal president that gives us just to make us happy. i guess that`s all we deserve

[superduperfarleft]

25. And just like in the 60s...

people who supported the quagmire in Afghanistan will look ridiculous in hindsight. I guarantee that in 4 years, when Afghanistan is a mess and we're dealing with a one-term Obama, the consensus on DU will be that Afghanistan was a bad idea, and the cheerleaders will either quietly disappear or claim that they actually never supported it.

[county worker]

34. I was in Vietnam. The big difference is that you saw what I was going through on the nightly news.

First, there is no nightly news anymore and if there was they would not show war footage night after night. If we saw what was giving the troops their PTSD we would demand an end to the war. If we saw the civilians killed by drones we would feel responsible.

I'm sure atrocities are going on and when a Mai Lai happens and we are made to feel ashamed of ourselves, the war will end.

[Techn0Girl]

51. AMEN to that sentiment!

There is something seriously wrong with our country AND it's leadership when it is too "dangerous" to show the truth.

[bdamomma]

103. at that time we were living with the war in our living rooms night after night.

now it's infotainment and out of sight out of mind for some Americans.

[bobbolink]

35. Having seen this play out in my generation, I think there is a damned good chance that you will be,

sadly, proven right.

Bookmarking this to show down the road.....

:hi:

[Mari333]

40. yep

edit to add:
CHEERLEADERS FOR MORE WAR SHOULD ENLIST OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

[JackRiddler]

42. You could also say, just like 2003 compared to today...

Because back then about the same large proportion of DUers as today's cheerleaders were agreeing that something had to be done about Saddam Hussein, and you should shut up if you don't have your own plan for dealing with him short of an invasion.

Wonder how many of those who made excuses then for the yes-votes of Kerry, Clinton et al. are now among the cheerleaders making excuses for more war and bankers' welfare today.

It would be a great day if next week Obama says he decided against the escalation. I know, no chance. We're talking about many lives at stake. But one of the very, very minor side-benefits, if the miracle does happen, will be to see the local cheerleaders fall in line behind the new line, and say they were for it all along.

[nini]

43. It seems people are either a 'cheerleader' or 'hater' of Obama here according to all these threads

Most folks here are somewhere in between - it's the two extremes that are filling up this board with what you speak of. Frankly it's all getting tiresome since real discussion ALWAYS ends up in a pissing contest between the 2 sides here.

[Laurab]

52. +1 nt

[TexasObserver]

44. I voted for him in the primary and general, and supported him financially.

After watching him perform so poorly this year, I regret very much not opting for the Democrat who was, in retrospect, clearly more capable of representing our party and our people in this important time.

Words cannot express my disappointment in President Obama. Unless he gets it together, we could lose congress and the voters next fall. He'd better see if he can decipher that old saying "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

All we did will be for naught, if he can't grow a backbone pretty soon and stand for something.

[Autonomy]

46. I didn't read past *fascist load of bullshit*

Doesn't anyone here adhere to accepted practices in rhetorical writing or Godwin's Law anymore? You know who wrote crap like this? HITLER.

[MadHound]

55. I'll duly inform such noted writers as Thompson and Vonnegut that they can no longer use the term

Oh, wait, they're dead. Still, they and other noted writers have used the terms "fascism, fascist," etc. to good effect.

Oh, and Hitler didn't use the term "fascist bullshit", sorry.

The fact that you can't get past a single term tells people more about yourself, and much less about the quality of writing. And none of what you "critique" is saying about you is good.

This faux outrage of yours over a simple term is really just so much overblown hyperbole. You don't have the guts to come out and actually criticize what I wrote, so instead you latch onto a single term and try to drive that into the ground. Sorry, but you fail.

If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, but have the intellectual honesty to own up to it. Don't try this bullshit beating around the bush, or Godwin's law or whatever. It makes you look foolish and petulant.

So grow up and own up, you don't like what I wrote, that's fine. Perhaps we can move the discussion on from there.

[Zodiak]

77. Agreed....too many DUers replace sophistry for discussion these days

Who gives a shit about a single word? Address the POINT!

[Autonomy]

109. Godwin's Law

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)<2> than others.<1> For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Cut & paste is all the time I'll waste.

[Skittles]

47. THANK YOU

gawd I am so fucking tired of these god damn goose-steppers

[AzNick]

48. Agreed... He delivered on all promises so far... good and bad ones nt

[Bluebear]

49. Excellent, MH.

[Stumbler]

50. Wow, so many great ideas for topics of discussion, esp between you and countyworker

I'll try to be brief. 1st, I too voted against McC/P, not necessarily for Obama. During the primaries he was my 5th choice, ahead of Clinton, but well behind Kucinich. For the record, I also voted for Nader in '00. Let me say I do not regret any of my votes, but I reserve the right to criticize and complain about my dissatisfaction w/ the way Obama's administration has been handled. My primary complaint is that it seems he's turned his back on the Liberals and Progressives who worked hard and voted him into office, only to bow down to the corporations as well as the (R)s and Cons who wouldn't bother to piss on him if he were on fire. Of course, Congress also has it's share of blame. Pelosi and Reid are terrible examples of (D)-leadership, imo. Again, they're not nearly Liberal enough. I live in MN's 5th, so I can say I'm happy w/ my reps, each of whom I've voted for.

That said, I acknowledge that I must hold my share of the blame for not working hard enough to "go out and make him do it." I'm guilty of not organizing and protesting as much as I could. I'm also guilty of not calling my reps as often as I should. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one reading this to feel the same way.

Even if each and every one of us who are upset over the lack of Liberalism being represented in D.C. became active tomorrow, I can't help but notice the large odds against us. There is no Liberal version of Fox News, working 24/7 to belittle, smear and discredit every (R) possible, while extolling only the virtues of the (D)s We support. The field of talk radio has been heavily slanted to the right for years, with a certain number of thanks going to our buddy Clinton. And the biggest hurdle of all, imo, is the 30+ year continuous slander of the word "Liberal" and the concept of "Liberalism." For many right-wingers it's akin to a four-letter word, and because of that most "moderate" (D)s running for office are scared to publicly embrace it and the very ideals that it enshrined to created this nation. (If anyone needs an example of this last sentence, ask a friendly right-winger what it means to be "a librul." Their responses, if coherent, will likely astound you.)

I guess all I have left to say is thank you for reminding me of the quote from Obama. Once I read it I remembered him saying it, and it makes perfect sense. And the next time I want to complain to my friend that Obama should behave as a Liberal, I'm going to remember to that it's time for me to quit bitching and "go out and make him do it."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. Thanks for your comment, Stumbler

If you live in MN-5, you should come to the Minnesota Forum and introduce yourself, maybe even come to our annual holiday party.

[Stumbler]

100. Thanks Lydia

As it happens, life is moving me from the 5th to the dreaded 6th, home of Bat-s**t crazy Bachmann. On one hand I'm really going to miss the Liberalism of the 5th, but on the other, I'm glad to have the opportunity to not only vote against Bachmann, but really get my feet wet by canvassing my area in support of Tarryl Clark, her heavily-union-supported (D)FL opponent. I still need to do a little investigating to make sure Tarryl's a worthy candidate, but at this point I'm falling back into the "anybody but Bachmann" cycle that spurred me to support Obama in '08. Wish me luck!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

56. One way to as Obama said, "Go out a make me do it"

http://peaceoftheaction.org/

This spring in DC

day after day- 1000 people committed to getting arrested
in peaceful civil resistance.

I'll be there

[MadHound]

57. I would love to go,

But between a very busy schedule this spring, and my lack of traveling money, I won't be able to make it.

However I'll continue on with my local twice weekly vigils, and see if I can hit the next big DC march.

Have fun there.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

60. This is around the time of the next gathering-big march

March 21st'ish- Commemorating our illegal and immoral invasion and continued war on Iraq

You are better than me in the vigil department- I go only once a week but...
here is my new sign



Keep up the real nobel fight my dear Mad Hound. You are a treasure

Peace IN, Peace ON

[defendandprotect]

63. Agree ---

[no limit]

64. So you were only against Palin? That old guy was pretty fucking crazy too you know?

Bomb...bomb...bomb Iran...

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

66. My thoughts exactly.

Had Cindy's stud, Mel (that's her pet name for him-short for melanoma), chosen, let's say, Ensign or Sanford, you would not have voted for Obama? Then the jet crasher replaces the cheatin' veep with Inhofe or Coburn and that would be OK? On a national level, the only third party we can afford would be something like Palin/Bachman. We can't fracture. I'll never forgive Nader and his backers in 2000.

[MadHound]

72. Then if you don't want the liberal, left wing of the party to abandon the Dems,

Start tossing us a fucking bone now and again, you know, reward us for all of our hard work, give us a reason to stay in the tent, some other reason than that the Democratic candidate is less evil than the Republican one.

You can't continue to expect the support of the left, without paying us back, realpolitik simply doesn't work that way. FDR, among others, realized that, and a good thing he did too. He was getting a major challenge from the Socialist party for his first reelection bid. What did he do, he went out and nicked a couple of planks from the Socialist platform and made them his own. That's how we wound up with the bedrock programs of the New Deal, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, because FDR was smart enough to give the left a reason to vote for him, not simply assuming their support because he was not as bad as the 'Pugs.

If you don't give the left, or any group for that matter, reasons to vote for you, they will go off on their own, either not voting or going third party. The 'Pugs recognized this thirty years ago, when they started courting the religious right, who previously had abstained from voting. They started backing some of the RR programs and thus won over an entire new voting bloc, one that has been a force at the polls ever since. The largest uncommitted voting bloc out there right now are disaffected liberals, those who don't see a point in voting for either party, because both parties screw them over. If you start rewarding those people, giving them a reason to vote for Democrats, gee, you would have a massive return to Democratic power for decades.

[MadHound]

71. Oh, I didn't like McCain either,

But at least I could live with him, he was a bit better than Bush, and once in office I thought that he would turn out to be a lot more liberal than Bush, more like the old, pre-2000 McCain.

But really, the margin of difference between McCain and Obama was close enough that I really didn't want either of them. Both were/are corporate whores, both wanted to escalate the Afghan war. It really was the addition of Palin that forced me into the Obama camp. I did not want anybody that batshit crazy anywhere near the White House.

[salib]

65. I voted FOR Obama

And I am also working hard to "make him do it" on many issues. Even more so, as Kuch said recently, it is Congress' job to do a great deal of what we want (i.e., end war funding, reverse the Patriot Act, reverse the Bankruptcy bill, and most obviously enact HR 676).

However, leadership is important, and Obama "seems" to have a great deal of political capital (as Bushwacker liked to say). Thus, it is important that Obama lead in Progressive directions. He has, on climate change, on nuclear disarmament, and de-escalation with Iran, etc., etc., etc. He has not on Healthcare, financial services reform, the current "wars", Patriot Act, etc., etc., etc.

Still, I like the man, and I generally like the President. He has made great strides in returning some sanity, a markedly improved openness (not in all things), and stern requests that the Congress and the Courts (as well as the alphabet soup and military) actually get back to doing their job. Collectively, we have given up a great deal of power to the Executive during the long Cold War, and he is one of the first (perhaps the only other was Carter) to try to deconstruct that paradigm and imbalance. Again, he is showing leadership there by NOT doing it, but requiring these others to.

However, there are some issues that are his alone. By signaling an unwillingness to sign up for the ban on Land Mines, he is taking his own direction. By continuing to stretch the "war powers" in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and then forcing an emergency 40 billion, we is and will be going many steps backward. Whatever the "chess not checkers" reasoning, it is wrong, and thus he is wrong, and that must be protested, we must get good Progressive candidates to change this (Congress can, after all), and we must manipulate, cajole and make the most tenable political path to be the one that we want.

Saying that any of this sentiment is "wrong" and "disloyal" as a member (or supporter) of Obama or the Democratic Party, is wrong, and certainly NOT democratic.

Thanks for the rant and back at ya.

[mikekohr]

67. From a big time, long time booster of Barack Obama, our President

"We are the people we have been waiting for." -President Barack Obama-

Movements that are most successful are bottom up movements not top down, celebrity/personality driven movements have short lives and limited potential. Stay engaged, stay focused, hold tight to your ideals but remain pragmatic,flexible and reasonable.

mike kohr

[winyanstaz]

69. K & R....and a big thank you for the post....

Very well said....

"Frankly I find this position to be a fascist load of bullshit."

and a big fat Amen to that too.

I voted for Obama...NOT the people from the last administration and yet I see they are still in there running the show.
Just because I voted for Obama...(and I think his wife and kids are beautiful)...doesn't mean I want him to continue to uphold Bush's agenda.

To demand our leaders give the people what the PEOPLE want and not the special interests is the democratic and American way. If you don't like it...too bad because I also have the right to hold my Representatives to the things that they NEED to be doing.
"My party right or wrong" was wrong when the republicans did it..and is wrong now.

[Gore1FL]

74. The statement is fine, but the reasoning is suspect.

I supported Obama fairly early on (though he wasn't in my top 3). I gave money, time, etc. I have the right to complain as well. We all do, but the reason is the 1st Amendment.

As far as voting 3rd party, I consider than silly. We have a two party system in this country, like it or not. We will always have a two party system in the country unless the Constitution is changed, because you cannot have anything other than a two-party system due to the mathamatics involved with the electoral college. The two party system is the natural fallout of the rules.

[MadHound]

80. Yes, we do have a two party system,

But once in a great while, one party becomes so obsolete, so undeserving of our support, that a new party arises to supplant it. This happened to the Whigs, it could happen to the Democratic party as well.

Not only that, but putting out a serious third party threat actually produces changes within one of the major party. Let's again look back at FDR. He was facing a serious third party challenge from the left during his first reelection campaign. The Socialist party was threatening to take away enough votes to throw the election to the Republicans. So FDR went out and co-opted two of the Socialist Party's planks and made them his own. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security or Unemployment Insurance. This is another way that third parties can move issues. You may consider it silly, but it does work, it just takes a lot of effort, however less effort I've found that this whole "change from within" nonsense that keeps getting crammed down our throat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Yes, because look what happens to candidates who try to change from within

They get marginalized and ridiculed by their own party. I won't mention any names, but I can think of two, one man and one woman, the mention of whose names brings out the Official Snark Brigade.

[Gore1FL]

99. That works, but ultimately,...

That is what makes the "two-party" system work. We simply have our coalitions built before the elections.

[MadHound]

101. Most of the time you're correct,

But we're in different times now, the Democratic party hasn't been rewarding its liberal base, therefore something has to be done to get their attention. Thus, its time to go third party. Better than staying home, which is what a lot of liberals have done throughout the past few decades.

It is a shout out for attention, and hopefully somebody hears it and understands. Otherwise the Democratic party is going to continue to bleed out liberal voters and will wind up becoming a permanent minority party, or going the way of the Whigs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. Yes, if you stay home you are NOT COUNTED

Even if 90% of the population stayed home and 10% voted, the candidate who got 6% of potential voters instead of 4% would claim a "landslide" and a "mandate." They've been doing it for years with 50% of potential voters; why not with 10%?

However, if double digits worth of voters voted for third parties, or even if ALL the disgruntled voters voted for third parties (which would bring the combined totals of third parties near or past 50%), the two majors would have to admit that they had lost the public.

Except for the DLCers, of course, who would rail against the leftists for taking THEIR OWN constant hints that leftists are not wanted in the party.

In any case, voting third party would be a strong yet non-violent statement if the Dems continue on their course of trying to become Tweedledee to the Republicans' Tweedledum.

[Gore1FL]

108. Last time we had a shout out for attention we got Bush n/t

[Deep13]

75. He was the better choice.

Nevertheless, his agenda and time-table and priorities are not necessarily mine. Regardless of what he promised or whatever, we elected him because of what we wanted and that's why I still feel it necessary for activists to goad him into doing the right thing and doing it soon.

[shadesofgray]

76. I voted FOR Obama...or at least who I thought Obama was.

But now I don't think anybody can make him do anything - except the corporacracy. I'm sure I will vote in 2012 but this time it will just be against whoever is running against Obama.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. You have stated exactly why I voted for Obama

It was the old "lesser of two evils" bit.

I was never fooled by his populist shtick, because I listened to his speeches with my editorial ears and realized that he wasn't saying anything. I realized that the whole "Do you want to have the first black president or the first woman president" argument was just a bunch of much ado about nothing, generated by the media (which is why the primary flame wars were so stupid) and that whichever won, it would still be business as usual.

As I've said many times, I deeply regret not emigrating when I was younger and could still be easily admitted to other countries. (I had actual job offers! :banghead:) This country is deteriorating in so many ways, and if I felt that my government (or even just the mainstream Democrats) really cared about people outside the Beltway/Wall Street cocktail party circuit, I could be more sanguine, but I see no evidence of it. Even the alleged health care "reform" is nothing more than corporate welfare for the insurance companies, with single-payer taken "off the table" (along with every other real change in any aspect of life) before serious discussions even started.

I feel like embarking on what people in the former East Germany called "die innere Migration," withdrawing from public concerns and finding satisfaction and ways to be helpful only on a personal level. I sort of did that already in 2004. I neither contributed to nor went door to door for the Obama campaign. I felt like a chump for doing that for Kerry only to have him concede so easily, and I sure wasn't going to knock myself out for someone I viewed as a phony. Probably a nice guy, but pretending to be something he's not.

The system is corrupt, and any candidate who really, sincerely tries to change things will be either assassinated or ridiculed and marginalized (by their own party) until we can get the money out of politics. I believe that at the highest levels, they're all in it together, and that such disturbingly bad and inept campaigns as those of Mondale and Dukakis, and Kerry's lackluster campaign, were set up to fail.

The "hatred" of the Republicans for Clinton and Obama is real at the grassroots level, where it has been carefully fomented, but at the top levels, they're all buddies. Look how easily both Clinton and Obama have acquiesced to Republican pressure. Look how Hillary Clinton is known for "getting along so well" with the very people who smeared her and her husband for 8 years solid. It was all a game for the people at the top.

[MadHound]

85. Truer words were never spoken

I'm much in the same position that you are. Though about emigrating in my youth, when Reagan first came to power and I was seeing the writing on the wall then. Hell, even before that I knew what sort of political beast I was dealing with. I cut my teeth on the McGovern campaign and have never really forgiven the Democratic Party for what they did to George. McGovern was not the pick of the good ol' boys, he was a true populist who was committed to real change. But the Democratic machine didn't want that, so they essentially bailed on his campaign and left him to fend for himself, with essentially only his primary campaign staff and little money, going up against the Nixon machine. Hell, more than once I remember national headquarters turning down requests for money for regional advertising, staff reimbursement, hell even office supplies. A lot of us were paying for things out of our own pockets. I was eleven at the time and I was out buying pens and pencils with my allowance and lawn mowing money. But I digress.

It is, at the top level, one big shell game, what I call the two party/same corporate master system of government and it isn't going to change until we get true publicly financed election campaigns. Of course since that takes an act of Congress, or worse a Constitutional amendment, we shouldn't expect that anytime soon, if at all, because these dogs aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them (well Kucinich and perhaps a few others would, but not near enough). Thus the only other option for real change for this country is to let it go to hell, implode on itself, then pick up the pieces and build it better from the bottom up. That's going to take a revolution, a civil war, or a true dictatorial power play, and we're heading there quickly. I predicted twenty years ago that some such event would take place within fifty years, and twenty years down the road that time frame is still looking solid.

So I'm where you're at. I prepare for the future as I see it coming, I keep gradually withdrawing from politics, and at this point will probably vote Green on principle because I can no longer stand either major party. So I commit myself to more local actions, though I will still and always protest these wars. But I'm not going to participate in these "good cop/bad cop" morality plays that our politics have become.

[glitch]

97. I think you are correct, both of you.

Furthermore I think the hatred at the grassroots level is fomented specifically to provide cover while corporatist policies are put in place.

What do democrats do when their leaders are unfairly attacked? Rally to their defense, of course, so Clinton had 60% popularity during the impeachment despite the telecom act, nafta, welfare reform, repeal of glass-steagal etc. I didn't particularly like him or his policies but I always voted for him in polls during that time and I probably wasn't the only one.

And the band plays on...

[Desertrose]

98. I completely agree with all three of you.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[barbtries]

81. well put

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

i still have grievances, and i'm still glad that obama won. as you said, there was no other viable choice. if i was still in CA i would probably have voted green, but i am in NC. i helped this state turn blue.

[2tr4nqued]

83. Doesn't mean you have to vote for him in 2012.

Lots of people who voted for Obama in 2008 won't do it again in 2012 if Obama escalates in Afghanistan.

[MadHound]

87. I probably won't

Unless the 'Pugs come up with another ticket involving crazy and religious whacko, I'll be going Green.

[varelse]

88. "Go out and make me do it."

That challenge is one reason I continue to admire President Obama.

This is an inherently democratic statement that Obama made. He has basically stated that if you don't like his policies, if you don't like his stance on various issues, then go out and give him a reason for following your lead. If you want him to bring the troops home, make him do it. If you want single payer UHC, make him do it. This is an open invitation to both criticism and to action, a democratic tradition as old as this country.

Your comments are dead on - this is our patriotic duty as citizens of a representative democracy.

Recommended :)

[Tejas]

104. Funny, I hear children say that on occasion.

Maybe it should've been phrased differently.

[Cha]

90. Oh, you have lots of room to complain

and complain and complain..ad infinitum.

[DailyGrind51]

91. We voted as much for "our" agenda as we did for him.

This should not be a "cult of personality", like the Republicans had with Reagan.

[noiretextatique]

93. democrats against democracy!

that's what i used to call the nader haters. sadly, these folks STILL don't grasp that the it was SCOTUS, not nader, who was responsible for 8 years of bush, inc. ah...but nader made it easier for them to steal it...right. that's like blaming a robbery victim for being robbed. and WE were robbed: SCOTUS committed treason to make sure we were robbed.
i have always been saddened by the fact that democrats oppose participation in our supposed democratic process when a candidate might take votes away from a democrat. not so when the rw siphons votes from a republican candidate. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result: that's how i feel about voting for democrats (except for the two barbaras, boxer and lee).
but the reality is: the other team is much, much worse. i've never had the luxury of even entertaining voting for a republican. i knew reagan would be a disaster, so i voted against him. i knew bush would be a disaster, so i voted against him. likewise with mccain and that lunatic he selected for vp. i was never very enthusiastic about obamaa, but unlike most politicians, i do believe he is genuinely a good and caring person. his heart is in the right place, but you are right: it's up to us to hold his feet to the fire. it is our duty is to be citizens, not cheerleaders. i oppose war...period...i don't care who is in the white house. we need single payer health coverage; as someone else mentioned, it is the MOST PRACTICAL way to provide health care to everyone. we need to put people to work and investment in infrastructure and green technologies is the MOST PRACTICAL way to create jobs. as weary as i feel these days, i know that my life is much different than it could have been if people hadn't agitated, for centuries, to get african-americans the same basic rights as white people. so, i accept your call to action: we have to make him do it.