"He trusts people too much. He trusted Wall Street, Republicans, BP. He's 0 for three."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

HuffPost TV

Posted: June 27, 2010 11:09 AM

Arianna Says Frustration With Obama Goes Beyond Left And Right On 'Fareed Zakaria GPS' (VIDEO)

Arianna appeared as a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday, along with Eliot Spitzer, Ross Douthat and Katrina vanden Heuvel . The roundtable discussed the growing frustration with Obama over his handling of the economy and the Gulf oil spill.

"President Obama is front and center in the news again this week," Zakaria began. "This time it's for the firing of Stanley McChrystal. Before that he was being criticized for his handling of the oil spill. His approval levels are down, and the nattering nabobs of negativism have been hammering him around the clock. Even some of the most left leaning of the commentary have turned on Barack Obama. So what does all this mean?"

Spitzer said that Obama needs to do more to take charge of the oil spill response. "He trusts people too much," Spitzer said. "He trusted Wall Street. He trusted the Republicans to engage in a meaningful way. He trusted BP. He's 0 for three."

"What Eliot said is absolutely critical," Arianna continued. "It's not just trust. I think there is almost like a reverence that the president has for authority. You know, a reverence for establishments. You know, the Wall Street establishment. The military establishment. The BP establishment, you know? Even his own admiral in charge of the BP oil spill a few weeks ago said that 'I trust that what Tony Hayward is telling me.' He actually used those words. So that is really very fundamental problem that is affecting his whole presidency."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-fareed-zakaria-obama_b_627015.html

[katandmoon]

1. K&R.

[Skittles]

2. trusted them? more like sucked up to them

[depakid]

3. and wants very much to be approved of and accepted by them

...into the country club crowd.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[DJ13]

22. Republican?

:shrug:

[Fruittree]

86. And you know this how?

[amborin]

24. +1000

[emilyg]

67. +1

[tularetom]

4. I support President Obama's agenda 100%

I wish President Obama did.

[Zhade]

40. DAMN. Well-said.

Though, at this point I'd be hard-pressed to explain what his agenda actually is -- I know what he SAID it was, and we all saw how that turned out.

[Fruittree]

87. You guys act as if all he has to do is say so and anything...

he wants becomes law. It obviously isn't all that easy. He's making incremental changes in the right direction as best he can. As an aside he also does not come off as arrogant and disrespectful of his office not to mention his wife and daughters as Mr. Spitzer did. And as for Arianna's screaming, misleading headlines - what can I say??

[TheKentuckian]

91. You're right, there has been incremental change to the right.

I could give a crap about arrogance and respect for daughters, whatever that crap means in context, I care about putting the needs of our people first. He can screw whoever he wants, that's between him, his spouse, and God, my focus is on the people being fucked over by big insurance, Wall Street institutions, carbon based energy, a military industrial complex that grows like cancer, horrible betrayals of our values, ideals, and law, and feckless and complicit politicians, and a government captured by multi-national corporations.

How folks like to get down and who they get down with is none of my business, I'd rather he fuck those who desire or are willing to screw him than the poor and working people of the country and the world.

What do sexual practices and partners have to do with good governance and delivering for the people?

[Fruittree]

103. I guess we differ...

I think a person's behavior in their personal life and in the way they treat their family says a lot about what and who they care about. If you can't be respectful of those who should mean the most to you and to whom you are most responsible - how can you be trusted to care about anything?

[TheKentuckian]

116. Because you can be good at you job and horrible at relationships and vice versa

You can be the hardest working and dedicated person imaginable in one role and be absolutely a miserable never do well in another.

Anybody that has known people and dealt with personnel understands stuff like that and has seen it in action time and time again.

[JDPriestly]

75. Agreed!

[truedelphi]

83. Whenever Jon Stewart shows the vids of Candidate Obama and what he said

Just two years ago, and then video of President Obama and what he says now, all I can do is wonder "Where the hell did they rendition that Candidate Guy off to?"

[rhett o rick]

85. Are you clear on what his agenda is? nm

[BrklynLiberal]

109. Brilliant...truly

[breadandwine]

110. If Obama doesn't want to be president, why don't he and Biden just resign and let Pelosi take over?

She's next in line of succession.

If he doesn't want to lead, if he doesn't want to be president, why not let a DEMOCRAT have the job instead?

Resign, Obama. Let a DEMOCRAT take over.

[NJmaverick]

5. "He trusts people too much," Spitzer said"

and oddly enough Spitzer is living proof that at least some people can't be trusted.

[rug]

7. Patronizing prostitutes is not the same as putting out for corporations.

The former is victimless.

[NJmaverick]

10. Breaking the law while you are Governor is far from "victimless"

in fact one might say he did to the people of NY and the NY Dems, what he did to the Prostitute.

[rug]

13. The body count is way higher on the Wall Street / Republican / BP side.

[NJmaverick]

15. Doesn't matter, he should be the last one to talk

not that Spitzer doesn't seem to have a problem with playing the "do as I say, not as I do" card.

[rug]

17. Body counts do matter.

[NJmaverick]

23. as does integrity, something Spitzer is sorely lacking

[rug]

29. Integrity is often measured by the company one keeps.

[NJmaverick]

31. Prostitutes?

[rug]

33. Corporations?

[Zhade]

43. That's a rather uncharitable view of prostitutes.

Having sex for money places much higher on the ethical scale, at least in my view, than does fucking over the poor and labor to benefit the rich and corporate power.

[WillyT]

72. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:rofl:

:yourock:

:kick:

[Fruittree]

88. Absolutely agreed -

He knowingly broke the law. He obviously didn't think it applied to him and he also obviously put his own interests above those of the people of New York.

[Arkana]

39. ...except for the woman who's selling her body for sex.

[amborin]

27. that's an ad hominum attack (and fallacy) & it does not refute Spitzer's commentary

[NJmaverick]

32. No that's just a fact of life Spitzer hopes everyone forgets

[G_j]

35. fine, but you have not addressed the actual subject matter

of the OP

[NJmaverick]

37. Spitzer stated his opinions with out supporting fact or evidence

so that leaves the listener to determine if he is someone that should be trusted enough to accept his opinion on blind faith. His past indicates that is probably not a good idea.

[Skittles]

58. without supporting evidence

:rofl:

HELLO, OPEN YOUR EYES

[Swamp Rat]

60. Do not EVER expect otherwise. eom

[amborin]

36. irrelevant to the discussion, though; it's just nasty gossip against a good Democrat

[NJmaverick]

41. Tell me if you are concerned about Democrats

what sort of harm do you think Spitzer's crimes did to the ones in NY? I hardly call someone that did such harm to the people of NY and all the NY dems "a good Democrat". I wouldn't even go so far as to call him a good person, after the way he betrayed his wife and the people of NY.

Plus you're wrong, since Spitzer failed to provide fact to support his opinion, you need to determine the integrity of the man to see if one should listen blindly to him.

[amborin]

47. still no facts ? ad hominum attacks are no substitute for facts

[Fruittree]

89. I think he's stating the facts at least as far as Mr. Spitzer ..

is concerned. I live in NY and I can't stand the way he's being made into a celebrity. I voted for him and had pretty high expectations - I don't know if he belongs in jail but I imagine other people without his wealth and name recognition would pay a higher price than he has for the same activity.
As far as Pres. Obama - I see a good man trying his best to get as much of his agenda passed as he can in a very difficult situation. I honestly don't see how he gets anything done..As far as Arianna's comments - how are they helpful in any way? Her goal seems to be to get as much name recognition and fame for herself as she can.
(I'm sorry, I'm not usually negative about people but I'm a little tired of people who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and whine and try to blame one person for all the world's ills..)

[Jim Sagle]

38. I'll guess you'll make damn sure they don't.

[NJmaverick]

42. Those that fail to learn from and remember past mistakes

are doomed to repeat them.

[Jim Sagle]

54. The only mistake here is being made by anyone who believes your BS.

Not that it's likely that anyone actually does.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Jim Sagle]

64. Yep...the 3rd shift flying squad of DLC hogwash dispensers is in V formation,

and raining nuggets of "wisdom" down upon our heads.

[JDPriestly]

76. Let he who is without sin, NJmaverick.

Spitzer is not the president. Spitzer is simply commenting on the president. Frankly, I think Spitzer is right. And if a river skunk is right, who cares how much he stinks?

[roguevalley]

45. spitzer never gave an inch on the bad guys and falling down once

doesn't abrogate your entire life or your smarts. I agree with him.

[WillyT]

51. That's Right !!! - And In A Policy Arguement... A Spitzer Is Worth About 10 Times As Much...

as most of the corporatist idiots we have in both houses of congress.

And yeah... I mean Democratic Party Corporatists!

:kick:

[Robb]

52. Appealing to that old chestnut, "if you're only going to screw up once, make it good."

"Falling down once doesn't abrogate your entire life?" Reminds me of a joke.

A young man is walking through a small village one day and decides to stop by a bar and have a beer. He walks into a bar, and sees a grizzled old man, crying into his beer.

Curious, the young man sits down and says, "Hey old timer, why the long face?"

The old man looks at him and points out the window, "See that dock out there? I built that dock with my own two hands, plank by plank, nail by nail, but do they call me McGregor the dockbuilder? No, no."

The old man continued, "And see that ship out there? I've been fishing these waters for my village for 35 years! But do they call me McGregor the fisherman? No, no."

The old man continued, "And see all the crops in the farms out there? I planted and have been farming those crops for my village for nearly 45 years! But do they call me McGregor the farmer? No, no."

The old man starts to cry again, "But you screw one goat..."

Politically, Spitzer fucked a goat. Sorry.

[Mimosa]

59. Spitzer was taken down because he was going up against the banksters

I'm beginning to think many middle-aged guys have some sexual issues. When one thinks about it Eliot was hardly as kinky or pervy as others. he hired a ho or two, BFD. But anybody who goes against the system is at risk of having their private life investigated and used against them. Or even being set up.

[Swamp Rat]

63. EXACTLY!

:applause:

[JDPriestly]

77. Mimosa, when you get past middle age, you realize the truth of your statement;

I'm beginning to think many middle-aged guys have some sexual issues. True, some handle them more wisely than others. But such problems are not unusual. I have to laugh at the very mature men married to very immature women. Are the men seeking a second childhood?

The number of middle-aged women who suddenly find themselves alone after years of what they thought was a good marriage is pretty high, especially when you think that a lot of marriages really get very good after middle-age has past. So, I think that statistics might support your thought.

[SunnySong]

79. If he hadn't prosecuted a ho or two I think he would have kept his job.

He was an Elmer Gantry with his holy crusade against prostitution... thats what strung him up.

[Catherina]

93. Preach it! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

108. I agree with everything you said...

thought Spitzer was being targeted from day one.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

115. Targeted with what? He's an intelligent human being, not a dog being lured by a female in heat.

If you run on a platform of prosecuting prostitution, don't visit prostitutes. If you do, you hand your political enemies a big fat gift.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

114. How about this? Anyone who hires a prostitute is at risk of having that information made public?

If he had not engaged in that behavior, he wouldn't have been "taken down". It was a dumbfuck thing to do ESPECIALLY since he came down so hard on prostitution in NY.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Nice try, that shooting the messenger. Try addressing the substance of what he said.

[Hissyspit]

78. Ah, so you agree with him.

It's possible to trust people in establishment authority positions too much.

Really, is that all you got? Spitzer was ABSOLUTELY right on Wall Street:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/543

here are people out there who are asking themselves "how did we get into this mess?" And there are people out there, like Greg Palast, who have been pointing the finger at the Elliot Spitzer ‘take down’ and saying, "Here’s the guy who was looking into it…and who at just the moment when he was shining the most light, got picked up on a banking/prostitution charge. Isn’t THAT interesting?" So, let’s look at this:

On February 14, the Washington Post published an editorial by Spitzer titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,” which charged, “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

In this editorial, Spitzer explained:

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

The editorial appeared the day after Spitzer’s ill-fated rendezvous with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel. With that article, some Washington insiders believe, Spitzer signed his own political death warrant

Given what AIG did after they got their bailout in terms of throwing themselves a big part and securing senior management’s bonuses, Elliot Spitzer starts to look like a visionary…a nasty, SOB visionary…but a visionary, nonetheless:

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued American International Group Thursday, alleging the firm manipulated its books to deceive regulators and the investing public.

The civil lawsuit, announced in conjunction with the State Insurance Superintendent, comes just days ahead of the embattled insurer’s long-awaited annual financial report, which is due to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday.

The suit charges that the nation’s biggest business insurer, ex-CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith engaged in fraud to falsely exaggerate the strength of the company’s business and prop up its stock price. …The suit cites e-mails and other evidence intended to show that Greenberg was personally involved in negotiating some of the fraudulent transactions, and that he directed other AIG staffers to create other misleading transactions, the statement said.

[no limit]

92. Damn NJmaverick, you must really really hate Bill Clinton. Huh?

I mean Clinton lied under oath while president of the United States about a blow job. That means he didn't just hurt "good democrats" in New York, he hurt "good democrats" all over the country.

I can't imagine the hate you have for the guy based on what you are saying about Spitzer.

[Dawson Leery]

6. I now hear that the G20 has decided to hold implementing

the already sub par banking 'reforms'.

[Edweird]

8. No. Sorry. You don't get to be President if you're a chump.

He knows what is what. Those are his choices.

[Skittles]

14. lol

[Edweird]

20. 'Boss's son'

I also don't believe he was half as clueless as he acted - and it was all just an act.

[RKP5637]

26. Exactly, much of it was IMO an act to appease an element of the populace, that

he's just an ordinary guy trying to do a hard job. A guy I could have a burger and a beer with...

[izquierdista]

50. Not half

Maybe twice, definitely not half. Even when he scraped together all of his loose marbles, they were all in his mouth for his tongue to trip over.

[Skittles]

65. believe me Edweird, the man is even MORE clueless than he acted

because while he was, er, "president", he had people monitoring him, teleprompters, etc.

[Edweird]

112. Ok. Here's what I'm geting at: (things kinda went off topic)

Obama was a successful lawyer and a Senator prior to becoming President. He is no chump.

Chimpenfurher was the boss's son so he could easily be as clueless as you assert - I will bow to your better knowledge on that. Either way I'm not going to let this "Obama is just a simple folk" meme stand. He is better than that and should be held accountable for his actions.

[leftygolfer]

9. quit with the mem that there is a "problem"

so frustrating that smart people keep repeating that there is some problem with the obama presidency. there is not!! there is a problem with how the media and GOP whores spin it. Obama is doing great, everythign he said he'd do.

[roguevalley]

48. people can express opinions

and have conclusions about what they see that differ. there is a problem with the presidency and we can talk about it. if you don't want to hear it, don't listen.

[spanone]

12. cable chatter...blah blah blah blah

[RKP5637]

21. The cable chatter is deafening. I'm almost ready for a state run dedicated

cable channel for gov. to get the message out to counter the cable chatter. So much of cable news is twisted and bantered about by the MSM the "real" news is lost. Maybe CSPAN 3 does more of that but we don't get it here. I get tired of hearing the news anchor jocks and blond twerps interpreting everything for us, the spoon fed masses, the ordinary people, the main street people, you know, the peasants and serfs.

[Radical Activist]

16. When did he trust Republicans?

He gave them an opportunity and knew he'd win either way. If they had cooperated he would have won. They didn't cooperate and it worked to his advantage. His major legislation is getting passed and people see that Republicans are unreasoning assholes.

How is this a bad thing?

It's not Republicans he's had to compromise with to get legislation passed, in case no one noticed. It's conservative Democratic Senators.

[JI7]

30. he didn't, but some people just make up things

in fact it's those who insist we didn't get single payer because Obama didn't want it that trust the REpublicans. they actually thought republicans and conservaative Dems like Bayh would support it.

Obama knew they wouldn't and tried to get what he could. and he got something passed.

[no limit]

95. How many things were gutted in the heatlhcare bill and in the financial reform bill for republicans?

Then how many of those republicans voted for the final bills?

And you are going to pretend he didn't trust them?

[Radical Activist]

97. How many Americans saw the Republicans show their true colors

thanks to Obama's attempt at working together?

I'm not sure how many things were gutted for Republicans. I suspect most of the watering down was to get conservative Democrats on board. Remember that these are some of the same Democrats who voted for nearly every part of Bush's agenda.

[no limit]

98. Based on the poll numbers for healthcare reform Americans didn't seem very happy about it

part of it was probably because Obama kept trying to insist on intellectual debate while the republicans insisted on saying Obama was going to kill grandma.

Olympia Snowe was put in a bipartisan group of 6 that got to shape tremendously how the bill would look. In the end not a single republican voted for it not even the ones in this group of 6. Yet Obama put them in that group because he trusted those republicans.

[Radical Activist]

99. Well...I think you have to at least try

even if you don't expect much. I realize not everyone agrees. I don't think it makes Obama naive or trusting to have at least made the effort. You can't end blind partisanship by acting more partisan.

[no limit]

100. No doubt you should try. But once obvious they won't go along drop them entirely

he didn't do that, he kept trusting they would eventually do the right thing.

[Radical Activist]

18. And when did he trust Wall Street?

He introduced more accountability and oversight with the bailout funds than what we saw under Bush. He passed more regulatory oversight, even if the Senate watered it down. How is that showing trust?

[tabatha]

19. Yep, why is there is a video by Rachel Maddow

touting his achievements?

[depakid]

34. LOL- the administration interceded on behalf of exorbitant CEO and executive pay packages!

You know- the kinds that caused the fraud and excessive risk taking that led to the meltdown?

and that was quite consistent with the Bloomberg interview last February:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

More: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA

Seeing statements and actions like these and it's not hard to see why Republicans (of all people) managed to coopt the groundswell of populist anger and resentment across the country.

[Radical Activist]

44. Didn't I bust you out earlier today for always going back to that one issue?

And didn't I already quote from your link that Obama is taking progressive action on the issue?

Seriously, it doesn't worry me that Obama is merely letting stockholders have more say in CEO pay instead of personally directing multi-million dollar companies like a dictator. It's actually preferable to an anti-authoritarian progressive like myself who would rather see stockholders mobilize than big brother President do it for them.

[depakid]

49. errr... no

and it's just one of many instances that make up the pattern here.

It's also reasonable to suggest that this is the reason why corporate criminals have gotten off in droves. Walked away scot free, despite overwhelming evidence of their crimes.

Corporate accountability under the law is not a priority in this administration (actually, based on the record- that's a quite the understatement).

[Radical Activist]

55. Oh yes, just earlier today. So let me destroy the argument you're making.

Here you are doing it again. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8644408&mesg_id=8644614

I also pointed out this part of your link.

Obama said compensation packages over the last decade haven’t always been commensurate with performance, and reiterated his call for shareholders to have a say in CEO pay. “That serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay,” he said. “Shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.”

Let's imagine two scenarios.

Scenario one is that Obama rails against how much the CEO's in the article make. He orders the companies to lower CEO pay and his theatrics make a lot of people happy. An insignificant amount of money gets spent elsewhere in the company.

Scenario two is giving stockholders more power over what a company does, as Obama is proposing in that article. That gives a real bargaining chip to groups who do shareholder corporate accountability campaigns. You may have heard of those campaigns from groups like the Rainforest Action Network and Amnesty International. I think Saul Alinsky was one of the first to try it. Over time people get used to the idea of having a democratic voice in the operation of large corporations. Which, if you think about, is a subversive anti-capitalist idea.

Scenario two has the potential for long-term transformative change that comes from people's movements rather than a top-down publicity stunt that makes people feel good. So no, I don't think Obama is backing down to Wall Street by giving more power to shareholders and I don't think your position is more progressive than mine. You're being short sighted and looking for cheap shots.

[depakid]

57. LOL- just can't accept that the guy's been cozying up to CEO and executives- and is on the record

about it!

Spin, spin, spin.

That bit in the interview about comparing CEO's to baseball players who didn't get to the world series- that one was particularly telling.

You see- in order to buy your scenario- one would have to conclude that Obama is utterly tone deaf. Sorry, but that's just not the case.

[Radical Activist]

62. So theatrics are more important to you than long term progressive action.

The impact of cutting a few CEO paychecks is negligible. In the bigger picture of our economic problems it's a meaningless amount of money. It's a symbolic act to make people feel good.

What Obama proposed is a long term structural reform that means something. You're not doing a very good job of attacking him by posting that article.

Let's look at another aspect of what he said by proposing that CEO's are paid in stock bonuses rather than in cash. It means CEO's have a bigger personal stake in the company doing well. No more golden parachutes when the company fails because the CEO's personal worth in stock holdings will be tied to the success of the company.

So actually, what Obama proposed is more meaningful and MORE PROGRESSIVE than the symbolic theatrics you're looking for.

[depakid]

66. I prefer responsible public policy that's designed to solve identifiable problems

Exorbitant CEO and executive pay and bonus schemes are identified problems having deleterious consequences that have been written about extensively both in the US and abroad.

Along with being a social and economic problem- it's also a political problem that's cost Democrats the enthusiasm and support of progressives and independents alike.

Yet another of the many reasons why Dems are staring down the barrel of another 1994 debacle.

[Radical Activist]

68. I have an idea about how to deal with the problem.

Let's give stockholders more power to limit CEO pay and have CEOs paid more in stock rather than cash so they have more of a personal stake in the success of the company.

Obama is addressing the issue you raise in a fairly effective way. If you're suggesting that Congress will set a hard limit on CEO pay then you're delusional. There's no chance in hell.

I've seen a number of posts from people today claiming that attacks against Obama are purely about the issues and not about him personally. Posts like yours make me wonder. You're determined to focus on the worst even when he did something progressive on an issue you care about.

[Rex]

25. I don't believe it is trust, it is love for corporations. Pure and simple.

I hope a day of reckoning comes for these huge conglomerates that kill off our world and our children...but I doubt it. Humans that lead seem to be too weak willed to stand up to Big Business imo.

[tabatha]

28. I don't think it is love.

It is having one's hands tied behind one's back.

[opihimoimoi]

46. FUCK THIS SHIT...FIRE HIM. GET SARAH IN THERE, OR HUCKY

:sarcasm:

Obama is the best we got for the mess

I stand by him and CREW

[BlueDemKev]

53. Palin-Huckabee 2012!

This would be a dream ticket....because it would be smashed to a powder and we wouldn't have to worry about losing the presidency.

[opihimoimoi]

70. "YA BETCHA" ...... :o) LOL

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[volvoblue]

69. that is the biggest bunch of nonsense.

this is the guy who beat Hillary clinton and McCain. he is not an innocent.
Far too many underestimate the man simply because he does not go around beating his chest and preening in front of a camera bragging.
the man conducts the unpleasant business of things behind closed doors.
he is not a trusting babe in the woods and to say such is just so stupid and lazy

[Number23]

80. Yep. One minute he's all gangsta "Chicago Style!!!" with his politics

the next minute he's an innocent lamb before a bevy of wolves believing every lie and falling for every deception. It's all so damned stupid.

[JDPriestly]

71. Hate to say I told you so, but Obama was not ready for the presidency.

He is naive.

At this time, what we need is a fighter for justice.

[WillyT]

73. Did You See This ???

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8644569

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

84. I'm in Los Angeles but missed this.

I don't know how to send you a private message, but if you are in LA, please send one to me. Thanks.

[Catherina]

94. +1 n/t

[IOKIYAL]

81. He Gave Them The Chance to Negotiate In Good Faith

and each flunked and the world and America see that now. He didn't just yell "You can't trust the ____________". He showed and proved that they can't.

Obama has made it clear PRIOR to getting elected that he will first assume that you are approaching him in good faith. Eventually that person will show their ass and lose his trust. and that person will show their ass for all to see just like the GOP and bp and whoever else have already. So whatever actions he takes after their offense will be validated because they screwed him first - so DUH!

Sorry, but I'm tired of people acting like they are smarter than the president. Arianna Huffington was the genius who told him NOT to run in the center or else he would lose the election and his base. Yeah, thanks Arianna. He ran on the center, kept his base and kicked McCain's ass.

Stop buying into these meme's people. Why is no one here suspicious that all the talking heads keep saying the same things, using the same words? These guys can't think for themselves. It's like they just carry a sign that says, "what she said"

[flamingdem]

102. + 1 --- CABLE CHATTER - SPITZER AND HUFF just want to promote their own arses nt

[DakotaBlue75]

82. Trust issues.

There is something to this. I agree Obama trusts establishments too easily.

[Fruittree]

90. Thought I'd post this from Daily Kos -

A better response than I can give -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/27/879831/-A-Nation-of-Whiners

[Jakes Progress]

96. That's the best light that can be put on it.

The alternatives to him being gullible and naive are just too terrible to contemplate.

[quiet.american]

101. Still wondering why Zakaria would turn to Spitzer and Huffington for "analysis."

LOL at both of them is my reaction.

[WinkyDink]

104. Clearly, the Prez has never seen "Animal House"! "You trusted us!"

[asdjrocky]

105. I think he knows who his friends are and he always has.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

107. Between you and Obama, the President is not the one

who thinks like Bush.

[undeterred]

111. There is no way to know what Obama really thinks.

We can only guess on the basis of how he behaves.

[Fire1]

113. Oh sure. When I want credible opinions and facts I listen to

ariana huff n puff and eliot shitzer.:crazy: