Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Failures... and Ours

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 10:51 AM
Original message
Obama's Failures... and Ours
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 10:56 AM by ProSense

Obama's Failures... and Ours

Eric Alterman


<...>

The nation was ready for change, but Obama picked the status quo. And so "much of the public's anger, disappointment and frustration has been turned on a leader who failed to lead." Ganz identified "three crucial choices that undermined the president's transformational mission": "First, he abandoned the bully pulpit of moral argument and public education. Next, he chose to lead with a politics of compromise rather than advocacy. And finally, he chose to demobilize the movement that elected him president. By shifting focus from a public ready to drive change—as in 'yes we can'—he shifted the focus to himself and attempted to negotiate change from the inside, as in 'yes I can.'"

As a result of these choices, Obama not only failed to convince the public that he can turn the economy around—the central axis upon which judgment of the success or failure of his presidency will turn—but also lost the confidence of many of his original supporters. Yet in his refusal to adapt the inspirational rhetoric of his campaign to his presidency, he allowed the forces of right-wing reaction to claim the mantle of the common man. They even managed to make it appear to most people as if the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, were the party in the pocket of Wall Street and the big-spending fat cats.

Once again, it's hard to know whether Obama's legislative record could have been improved by a savvier strategy that dispensed with the misguided reliance on Republican reasonableness suddenly manifesting itself somewhere down the road. What is easy to imagine, however, is a much stronger showing for Democrats in the 2010 election and beyond, and with it the possibility of building on the achievements of the previous two years. The "youth vote" was one of the few categories of voters to stick with Democrats in 2010. As Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the Center for American Progress Action Fund observe, "Young people aged 18–29 years old supported Democrats by a 13-point margin in the 2010 election (55 percent to 42 percent)." But while the young 'uns made up 18 percent of the electorate two years ago, they fell to just 11 percent in 2010. Part of the explanation for the evident disillusion must lie with the unrealistic expectations of first-time voters. That's a given. But the disappearance of the heroic narrative of the campaign and its replacement with an ongoing series of back-room dealings of exactly the kind Candidate Obama so eloquently condemned must be apportioned the lion's share of the blame. Imagine if young people and first-time voters heard their president sounding like the candidate who told his audience, upon securing the Democratic nomination for president, "We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

All presidents make errors that appear obvious in retrospect. But Obama's mistakes in office are nowhere near the entire story. The rest of us must shoulder our share of the blame as well. A few days after the midterm elections, Van Jones spoke to a progressive gathering in Washington. After recalling the pageant of progressive performers who came to DC to celebrate Obama's inauguration at the Lincoln Memorial—which featured, among many others, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Stevie Wonder, Pete Seeger and the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington—Jones reminded his listeners, "You had the full beauty of the American people, the full force of our culture on display.... None of those people quit the movement and joined the Tea Party. All that creativity, all that power, all that spirit, all that soul—it's still here. We went from We Are One to We Are Done.... Well, guess what? The days are now over when any of us can afford to wait for a politician in Washington, DC, to set the tone and the tenor and the face of our movement."

The essential ingredient missing from Obama's campaign of hope and change was the hard work that would be necessary to convert the former into the latter—not only on his part but on ours as well.

A leader without a movement? Progressives lost control of the progressive movement. They have no clue where it went to, and have been using the President to try to spark a fire under it. They've been outmatched by the teabaggers and are feeling lost and confused.

Everytime they elevate the rhetoric it accomplishes nothing, inspires nothing. Nearly two years into this Presidency and they've failed to ignite any serious movement, waiting on the President, who has a country to run. The one instance that there was any outrage directed at the President to act, when he could do so singlehandely, resulted in him vetoing the foreclosure bill. A veto! Other than trying to ridicule the President as a strategy, they haven't been able to organize to pressure elected officials to act on anything. Congress has gotten a free pass.

The stimilus is a great example. The President got the largest package he could out of a Congress filled with Republicans determined to obstruct. From that moment on, some people latched onto the messages that fighting and losing would have been better, maybe for theater, but not for the country. From that moment on, those who chose to believe jumped on every negative narrative to support further disengagement.

There is no movement or driving force. Every serious attempt to spark a fire, from Van Jones and Elizabeth Warren's speeches at Netroots Nation, have been met with cynicism and continued focus on progressives as victims.

The frustration and call to action expressed in messages by Krugman, Soros and Kuttner are missing a couple of key elements: leadership and an actual movement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. They killed it
When they decided to put OFA under the DNC, instead of as a separate organization, they undermined the existing "movement" or organization. When Rahm discouraged the independent groups from coordinating their political strategies on HCR, they undermined the progressives. When they opposed progressives and labor unions on Sestak and Lincoln, they undermined the existing movement. When they refused to include Howard Dean, they undermined the movement that existed.

"The stimilus is a great example. The President got the largest package he could out of a Congress filled with Republicans determined to obstruct. From that moment on, some people latched onto the messages that fighting and losing would have been better, maybe for theater, but not for the country. From that moment on, those who chose to believe jumped on every negative narrative to support further disengagement."

The stimulus is a great example of how they oversold an very conservative bill, and there for undermined the message that progressives were selling which was that much more was needed. Even now that it is obvious that they were right, the White House refuses to admit that the stimulus was too small, or that we need more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "The stimulus is a great example of how they oversold an very conservative bill"
This is an example of just responding with the stimulus was too small. Yea, I know. It started up near a trillion and between the conservative Democrats and Republicans needed for passage, it ended up where it did.

What should they have done in terms of passing a stimulus bill?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I Guess They Should Have Taken People Hunting "Cheney Style"
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 12:10 PM by Beetwasher
Or use the "BULLY PULPIT!!!!". or "LEADERSHIP!!!!!".

Some people think that if you just use the magic words you can get whatever you want passed through the senate.

It's absurd, but there it is.

Either that, or they realize their criticism is naive crap that has no bearing on reality but they spout their nonsense anyway for reasons only they know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Be honest about what it would achieve
Selling it as keeping unemployment below 8% was wrong. Truth is, it barely kept it below 10%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. That is not how it was sold.
You are refering to the position the administration took based on the stimulus they wanted and before the actual stimulus passed.

The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.

We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise."

They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009

link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. And one they never backed off
When they decided to back off of their stimulus, and accept the GOP modifications (and conservative democrats) they needed to clearly out line the "costs" of doing so. This predominately should have been in terms of unemployment, and to some extent broken down into exactly what industries and jobs they were talking about. (There are layed off teachers and government workers because of some of the compromises they made). Instead, they left the 8% hanging out there, even while it went past that number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. But no connection to the decision he made on stimulus
There is an unwillingness to admit that the stimulus was too small, much less connect exactly who made what choices that resulted in that outcome. They instead try to talk about how much bigger unemployment would have been had they not had the stimulus they did. The problem with that is the public sees the problem as "we had the stimulus and we still had massive unemployment". No attempt to connect the results to the choices made. They blame the weakness in unemployment on figures they didn't have, even though others were already telling them it was too small.

They made bad deals with people and they will won't admit they were bad deals, expose who asked for them, nor what those bad deals were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. We're not talking about the size of the stimulus. This is addressing the
point you made "Selling it as keeping unemployment below 8% was wrong."

They did no such thing in terms of the stimulus that passed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. They did nothing with what they ended up passing
They send out a white paper saying 8%, then pass something that they now are saying kept it below 10%. They blame the difference entirely upon information they didn't have, even though they were told originally it was too small. And they won't connect the difference to any particular compromise or choice they made. As such, they end up owning the problem, instead of connecting it to any particular senator, or policy decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Yes
they did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Where Does This Bullshit Come From?
And how the fuck is it relevant? So somehow he could have gotten a bigger stimulus by doing what you suggest? What the fuck are you talking about? It's a non-sequiter. Obama never fucking promised the stimulus that passed would keep UE below 8%. Never. Put up or shut up. Where did Obama promise this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. It was the original estimate for the original plan
They accepted modifications out the wazoo for it, but never outlined the "costs" of those modifications. It was imperitive that the "costs" of these compromises be quantified, and attached to particular names that were demanding them, even if they were people who caucused with the democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. So IOW You're Admitting You Just Make Shit Up
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 03:05 PM by Beetwasher
Because he never said that about the stimulus that was passed but you are saying he did. His aides had said a large stimulus was needed to keep employment below 8% and that's what they wanted. He never sold the stimulus that passed as being able to do that. You pretend he did and now you are busted on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. No, not exactly
They went out and sold 8%. Then they get something passed and blame the short coming on data that they didn't have when they sold the 8%, not on the bad choices and compromises they made. Subsequent to that they still try to sell the stimulus as good because it kept it below 10%. They jut can't bring themselve to admit to the public they made bad compromises, much less connect them to individual choices or senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. They Did No Such Thing
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 04:08 PM by Beetwasher
You are making that up.

"They went out and sold 8%."

No, they didn't. Put up. Where did they do this? They never said the stimulus would keep UE below 8%. They never said that. The one they wanted ORIGINALLY was meant to keep UE below 8%, but they never "sold" it or promised that for the stimulus that passed.

By continuing with this line of bullshit after it's been pointed out to you time and time again is dishonest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. The "sold" 8%
When they passed the stimulus, they didn't mention that they had under estimated the extent of the need, and instead blamed it upon data they didn't have at the time. They never admitted that even under the previous assumptions, that it was too small, and it was. Only the magnitude of the short coming was changed by the new data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. No They Didn't, That's Bullshit No Matter How Many Times You Repeat It
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 04:15 PM by Beetwasher
And no matter how much gibberish follows the bullshit claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. I'm unimpressed with hair splitting semantics
The over sold the effect of the stimulus and have had to play catch up ever since, basically restating over and over the accomplishment as their over prediction became worse and worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Says The Guy Who Is Hair Splitting Semantics
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 04:41 PM by Beetwasher
About "Selling" something or other. Whatever that means. And pushing right wing talking points that originated with Eric Cantor and George Will:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. On What Planet Does The WH Deny We Need More Stimulus??
Not on this planet. Obama has said over and over we need more.

How would YOU get it through the Senate? I guess you think all he has to do is "SHOW LEADERSHIP" or some other such empty, nonsensical amorphous phrase with no bearing on the reality of actually getting something accomplished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. IT was the campaign slogan of 2010
The GOP was able to run around calling the stimulus a failure because it didn't achieve what it was claimed it would achieve. And it didn't. It didn't keep unemployment below 8% and the tax cuts didn't have nearly the effect they anticipated. And the White House has refused to agree that the stimulus was too small and that they were wrong in the magnitude of the effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. But he won't agree that the original was too small
He won't admit that the original was too small. And he won't assert that we need another stimulus plan because of that. The stimulus he is advocating now is vastly different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Seriously, What The Fuck Are You Talking About, He AGREES We Need More!!!
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 03:08 PM by Beetwasher
And that the original was not enough. What is the fucking difference? He won't jump through YOUR hoop and say the exact words "I agree with Zipplewrath that the original stimulus was too small!!!" Seriously, what kind of immature, nonsensical, vapid criticism is this and how would it be in any way relevant to accomplishing anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Is this the new civil tone around here?
Anyway, at this point there's nothing he can do. He's made his mistakes and now he's going to have to live with them. He can forget getting any new stimulus to fix his mistakes. He won't admit his original mistakes, he merely suggests the data wasn't yet available. Now he wants to talk about deficit reduction, like that's gonna help much. He won't begin to advocate for additional spending or job creation by the government. He's hoping the feds action will suffice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. LOL! Does The Word "Fuck" Offend You? So You Admit You Have Absolutely No Point?
And decide to change the subject. Got it! Fuckity fuck fuckers fuck! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Long distance between offense and civil tone
But whatever, as I was saying, they are stuck with their own mistakes at this point. Unfortnately, so are all the unemployed they left hanging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. So You Have No Point
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 04:09 PM by Beetwasher
Because the "mistake" you're talking about didn't happen. They never said they didn't need more stimulus, they never claimed the stimulus was enough and have consistently pushed for more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. The "mistake" was claiming 8%
They blame that upon the data that they didn't yet have, not on the predictably small amount of stimulus to which they agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. So Again, You Have No Point Since They Never "Claimed 8%" And You Can't Back Up That Bullshit
Cuz it never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. They "sold" it
Claimed, sold, advocated, published, advertised....


You really wanna make a semantic argument about how they misrepresented what they could accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
48. Now you are just fucking flat out lying...
I'm putting you on ignore... life is too fucking short to battle over RW spin machine lies with someone who is allegedly on your own goddamn side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. The Stimulus saved my small business, which is sort of a big f*cking deal to me & my family.
It also saved my best girlfriend's job. She works for a small infrastructure firm, and she was weeks away from another round of layoffs when the Stimulus passed. Now, she is putting in overtime drafting proposals for Stimulus contracts that have flooded the market. Sort of a big deal to her and her new family. Also, my sister's fiancé, an independent contractor, told me last night that he is currently working at two sites, both of which are Stimulus funded. Sort a big f*cking deal to him.

I wonder if any of us were counted in terms of jobs saved. My guess: no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. You'd be wrong
The White House has tried to take credit for all the jobs that weren't "lost" many times as they explained how much higher the unemployment rate would have been without it. The problem is much of this prediction was after the fact. Politically, that's not much of an accomplishment when the unemployment rate is still so high. They really needed it to be around 6% by now. Even with a much larger stimulus, that may not have been possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. LOL!
:rofl:

LOL!

"They really needed it to be around 6% by now."

LOL!

Seriously?! Please accept my apologies for :rofl:. I have seen firsthand the big suck of money out of my local economy over the past decade. The underlying economic foundation has been so dramatically destroyed. It will take a complete overhaul in the way we do business in my region and across the country to ever rebuild a sound economic environment. The WH seems to be encouraging that rebuilding at so many levels, despite the wall of violent, well-funded push-back from those that want to continue with the policies that got us here.

The Obama admin saved my ass and those of my friends and family members. The knock on effect has been so profound and tangible to us in the real world economy, at least in my neck of the woods. Perhaps, those living in a "virtual economy" may see it differently, as "some say" Obama is a RW corporatist and all.

That being said, I would love another round of stimulus. Too bad all on the right and many on the left won't give him the support he will absolutely need to pull it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thing is, the people WERE contacting their representatives. By email, phone,
letters and petitions, even 'tweets' (whatever the hell they are). And they were being ignored. Corporate money has made the people irrelevant to the process - our 'representatives' are fully aware that they can ignore the public will and still have the resources for the next election.

A movement is the people, and yet if the people can be ignored, the movement can be ignored. The only way the people can make their will heard is by their votes, and yet if they vote to support the 'representatives' who ignore them they gain nothing while if they vote against those 'representatives' they support the other side.

So they stay home and a pox on both your houses, and THAT is what we saw in the last election. Not a lacking in the 'movement', but the fruits of a corrupt congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. "our 'representatives' are fully aware that they can ignore the public will "
"So they stay home and a pox on both your houses, and THAT is what we saw in the last election. Not a lacking in the 'movement', but the fruits of a corrupt congress."

This is all the more reason for there to be a movement. You're describing ceding control to Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oh no you don't Buster!
You don't put Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of this economy. Oh no you don't! You don't keep those wars going on and on and on.

But you did, no matter what we said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. What?
A movement has nothing to do with the President's cabinet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. They left him alone on January 21 2009. Whatever he achieved, he achieved by himself
All the do, as Van Jones said, is write blog posts about how bad Obama is. They deserve whatever they'll get in 2012. It's not like they really want to make progress. They want glorious defeats. Well, they'll get one and then they can go back to write blog posts about president Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You have no point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
38. President Obama did not lead. He must lead. I think he understands that now.
We will soon see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
45. Well said Pro Sense
It is very true, the left went home on Jan. 21st 2009 and let the tea party take over. I remember coming to this forum over a year ago and seeing efforts to organize counter-protests be ignored. Most here rather just complain about being betrayed than actually do anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
46. Oh good. The usual loyalist Catch-22
The same people who just spent two years telling every progressive they could find to shut the fuck up, are now writing endless articles and pieces wondering why progressives weren't louder.

Sigh. This is why the Democratic Party lost.

But please, feel free to learn nothing at all ever. Maybe another Republican president can implode spectacularly before we get our next opportunity.

Two years after Bush, the Republican Party is ascendant. And it's all the fault of the people who loyalists were fly-tackling to keep quiet all this time.

Really amazing. Oh, and shameless, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Oh great
more victimhood.

Why do you believe people can control what progressives do simply by expressing their opinions?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC