admittedly

[nofurylike]

Edwards (Dean, etc ... ) would be able to do half as much, half as well, for twice the credit.

[OhioBlue]

1. very true. n/t

[nofurylike]

5. thank you, OhioBlue. nt

[zalinda]

2. But at least we would have gotten a seat at the table. n/t

[nofurylike]

6. with the so-progressive bilderbergers. or the so-progressive

men in pickup trucks with confederate flags on them ...

of course, not having been pilloried by people claiming to be of his own party, from the first weeks in office, would have made edwards, etc., less likely to have to confront them with their unreasonable expectations, thus circumventing the snowballing of "criticism" that led to President Obama finally openly criticizing those threatening election sabotage, and so on ...

edwards had views very very similar to Obama's. in many ways he was to the right of Obama.

but he now looks preferable in the eyes of the most critical so-called-progressives/-liberals?

same of dean.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Agreed. And Dean is pretty fiscally conservative. DUers kill me with this line

of reasoning. Dean's 50 State strategy gave us Blue Dogs. And Dean himself, while progressive, isn't that much more progressive than Obama. I wish the country could support a person like Howard Dean, but it simply has a long way to go. I said the same about Bill Bradley who I adore. But Bill isn't as liberal as many of us believe. Same with Edwards. He is even more socially conservative, though Elizabeth wrote that he was "coming around." HIs "Two Americas" rhetoric is what attracted some of us liberals, but I don't believe that he's to the left of Obama. Frankly he's to the right.

[nofurylike]

11. it kills me too, Liberal_Stalwart71. thank you for your reply! nt

[avaistheone1]

3. Frankly I think almost any Dem leader could have done better.

These rich man tax cuts are a disgrace, and taking down the wall on Social Security which involves the General Fund now is totally unacceptable.

Unrecommended.

[Go2Peace]

4. I agree

[nofurylike]

7. well, getting twice the credit for half the work done half as well

- including from repukes - most probably would have made accomplishing a tad easier.

but then, so many feel that that kind of hostage-negotiating politics are unacceptable - i.e., if they will only let white men ever succeed at all, then we better only ever elect white men.

any dem *who could be elected* would have been in the same position of having to defend the masses and the entire economy being held hostage by the oligarchs. but only Obama would have been ripped to shreds the way he has been by armchair presidents.

unrec back

[zalinda]

9. And, right on cue............

Any one who doesn't like Obama is racist. Nice try. Obama has surrounded himself with people who are either Republican or DLC, and he picked them himself, so HE takes the blame. He has constantly ridiculed the left. We have been told that he has gotten EVERYTHING HE WANTED in his first two years. So, that basically means he really didn't want a public option, he really wanted tax breaks for the rich, he really didn't want to end the wars, and on and on. He didn't compromise, he got what he wanted.

I can't think of one person who he has appointed that doesn't take the big business side of things, except maybe Warren, and we'll see how much they will let her do.

And for the record, most of us who complain about Obama, don't care who's the President. It's the issues that are important. Most of the crap stuff that Obama 'negotiated' hasn't hit the American people yet, and won't for a number of years. The people at the bottom are being sucked dry, they work harder and longer to barely make a living. The truth is that no one in DC cares. They never think about them. They don't want to mess up their 'beautiful minds' with thinking about how it is in the real world. We, the poor, are the bugs of the world. We are fine when we do our work quietly and invisibly, but if we make ourselves known, we are stepped on. And Obama is their leader. He set the tone in DC.

With Obama, it's not so much about sitting at the table, it's about being asked. We were never asked. Those who put him in office, who believed so strongly in him, were never asked. And, to top it off, we have been ridiculed by him and his 'clique'. We weren't the last ones picked, we were not picked at all.

zalinda

[nofurylike]

12. no. believing edwards, et al, would be better, would accomplish

more, sell out less; raging against obama, supposedly for not being so-called progressive enough, then suggesting primarying him with edwards or dean, etc., underlines the

REALITY

that white men get twice as much credit if they accomplish the same, and even if they accomplish half as much, half as well.

[zalinda]

15. So, in that reasoning, we should have

LOVED Bush, or LOVED McCain. Face it, our objection to Obama has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with who he surrounded himself with, and what he has done. Jesse Jackson has been one of the most outspoken people concerning race, and our government. Why wasn't he invited to the White House? Why is it that the Black Caucus is angry at Obama? It has nothing to do with race, and to continue to use that meme as an excuse for dissent, is really a disservice to the Democratic Party, our country and real racism.

zalinda

[nofurylike]

17. you are speaking for yourself. great, i'm glad to hear it about you!

as for the general country, etc., even as the fuckups they were, those two aforementioned asshats didn't receive the vitriol that president obama does even when he does something excellent.

i hope so many of obama's critics do not continue to take all criticism of obama critics personally and defensively. it constantly makes earnest criticism of the most vicious, self-interested critics impossible! we have a legitimate right to criticize unbalanced and destructive, sabotaging criticism, and we always get put down for daring to do so, because so many of the critics always believe we are talking about them.

[treestar]

10. Rec'd.

Obama deserves as much credit as they would get. For LGBT issues, he has done more than any other president.

[nofurylike]

13. thank you, treestar! yes, he really does! and yes, it is true that he

has done more for lgbtq...s than any other president!!
and wow, DADT repealed, ah?

WOW!!!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[political_Dem]

16. It's too late to rec, but it can still be kicked.

People need to stop and deeply think about what you said because it is truly profound. It also makes me wonder whether anyone learned from the experience of mob psychology during which the countless threads of Obama-bashing reigned supreme. At least, I hope someone did.

Thank you for bringing up this dichotomy that depicts this entire experience regarding the terrible treatment against the POTUS.

And about the bringing up of racism? The naysayers have to get over their own uncomfortability and self-loathing regarding race. Some of the critiques were racist and hurtful to not only the POTUS, but to Black people in general. The naysayers have to stop trying to cover up such derogatory acts while giving those who committed such racial animus cover.

The naysayers are not the sole arbiters of what is racist. Instead of trying to discount the racist experience, the naysayers need to listen and learn. If they only did those two things, perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to put down anyone who decides to do a critique based on racial or cultural difference--especially if that person can contribute their own knowledge on that end.

[nofurylike]

18. thank you so much, political_Dem! and for putting words to

this recurring clash that blocks discussion:

"The naysayers have to get over their own uncomfortability and self-loathing regarding race. Some of the critiques were racist and hurtful to not only the POTUS, but to Black people in general. The naysayers have to stop trying to cover up such derogatory acts while giving those who committed such racial animus cover."

i hope people give that serious thought before jumping right into the almost constant knee-jerk defensiveness.

and i love this:
"The naysayers are not the sole arbiters of what is racist. Instead of trying to discount the racist experience, the naysayers need to listen and learn. If they only did those two things, perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to put down anyone who decides to do a critique based on racial or cultural difference--especially if that person can contribute their own knowledge on that end."

thank you so much for these clarifying comments, political_Dem!