What Democrats can do about Obama - Salon

[nashville_brook]

Matt Stoller asks if we're not heading into a Carter-Reagan scenario in 2012. He points out that the Obama brand is tanking not b/c he's adhered too close to party orthodoxy, but instead b/c his policies too closely resemble those of the prior administration: continuing unpopular wars, bailing out banks, letting homeowners lose everything, while allowing the jobs crisis to fester unabated.

This has caused an "institutional crisis" for the Democratic Party, where we face another "shellacking" in 2012, and seem unable to do anything about it.

Interesting read.


What Democrats can do about Obama
A liberal activist argues that the 2012 Democratic nomination should be debated -- with all options open

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/04/favoritesonsanddaughters

(snip)

No one, not even the president's defenders, expect his coming jobs speech to mean anything. When the president spoke during a recent market swoon, the market dropped another 100 points. Democrats may soon have to confront an uncomfortable truth, and ask whether Obama is a suitable choice at the top of the ticket in 2012. They may then have to ask themselves if there's any way they can push him off the top of the ticket.

That these questions have not yet been asked in any serious way shows how weak the Democratic Party is as a political organization. Yet this political weakness is not inevitable, it can be changed through courage and collective action by a few party insiders smart and principled enough to understand the value of a public debate, and by activists who are courageous enough to face the real legacy of the Obama years.

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

(snip)

This is an institutional crisis for Democrats. The groups that fund and organize the party -- an uneasy alliance of financiers, conservative technology interests, the telecommunications industry, healthcare industries, labor unions, feminists, elite foundations, African-American church networks, academic elites, liberals at groups like MoveOn, the ACLU and the blogosphere -- are frustrated, but not one of them has broken from the pack. In remaining silent, they give their assent to the right-wing policy framework that first George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, cemented in place. It will be nearly impossible to dislodge such a framework without starting within the Democratic Party itself.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Of it all, the thing that makes me the angriest is that Obama gave legitimacy to Bush's policies.

PB

[nashville_brook]

4. omg that mr fish cartoon is high-lar-ious!

[QC]

6. What is worse, he has made crummy "centrist" policies officially "liberal"

so that, say, when people are getting fed up with their health insurance mandate, for example, it will be something that the liberals did to them.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Or this whole "Social Security is ON the table" madness.

That's not even Centrist in my book.

PB

[QC]

11. Yep, the Republicans were running from Paul Ryan like scalded dogs,

so the president steps up and says he would also like to put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security "on the table."

There went an opportunity to marginalize the GOP for a generation.

Why does he keep throwing lifelines to the Republicans?

[DirkGently]

23. That's exactly what it feels like, isn't it?" Oh you dropped your sword? Take mine, sir."

Jesus.

[QC]

29. It is surely just a remarkable series of coincidences. n/t

[PonyJon]

287. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET, you will be happy.

The reason everything looks so screwed up now is because the voters really screwed up in 2010. Had they come out in force for DEMOCRATS as they did in 2008 Salon would need to find something else to wax elitist about. Don't make this mistake again - VOTE A DEMOCRATIC BALLOT -

[tblue]

295. We did.

And it wasn't enough.

[nashville_brook]

333. +1

[dameocrat67]

296. he had a majority in 2008. Why didnt he do anything with it.

n/t

[Lorien]

312. They conveniently ignore that fact and make weak excuses

"Blue dogs" "conservadems" blah, blah, blah...Bush twisted Democrats arms to vote his way when they had the congress, and Obama can't twist the arms OF HIS OWN PARTY to vote for progressive action? Bullsh*t. The only members of his party that he ever kicks and bullies are the liberals. He is doing EXACTLY what he wants to do. The recent EPA ruling proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. He's NOT a Democrat; he's a hardcore corporate conservative who will sacrifice all of us for their profits, period. We need to purge the party of his ilk ASAP.

[Le Taz Hot]

308. Pony OnTrick:

Buy bye.

[tomp]

320. ahhh, the voters made a mistake!

how enlightened!

any thoughts on WHY the voters did not come out for the democrats?

[SusanaMontana41]

362. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Ever feel as if you're debating in circles?

[QC]

331. I've been voting straight Democratic tickets since 1984. n/t

[nashville_brook]

346. me too.

Mondale/Ferraro -- who can forget that election night map. /sigh.

[QC]

358. Yes, that was a tough night. I had worked the Mondale/Ferraro campaign

at my college, and watched the returns with my fraternity.

Out of about fifty members, three of us were Democrats.

We watched our ticket lose 49 states.

And then I got to vote for Dukakis....

It took real fortitude to be a Democrat back then, which makes it hard to take shit from people who never had the slightest interest in politics until they turned on Oprah one day and saw the most deliciously dreamy senator on her show.

[Enthusiast]

118. "Why does he keep throwing lifelines to the Republicans?"

It is very curious.

[newspeak]

370. yes, I have voted democratic all of my life

all of my relatives are democrats, except for one glen beck loving uncle. I loved Paul Wellstone, and even though I didn't live in his state, I donated to his campaign. I begged him to run for the presidency.

[fishbulb703]

132. +1 I thought this guy was going to help us.

Yet he squanders every opportunity. It is almost like a sick joke.

edit:for clarity

[Proud Liberal Dem]

133. President Obama rejected the Ryan Plan

and, unless I missed something, hasn't become (and isn't becoming) law. There have been no changes made to Social Security and/or Medicare. Yes, there was discussion about a "grand bargain" that might have led to some changes/restructuring to Social Security and Medicare (which would've included some major concessions on tax increases by the Republicans) but it was NOTHING on the level of what Republicans want to do with the programs (i.e. privatize, choke to death) and it didn't happen anyway, so Obama didn't throw a "lifeline" to the Republicans. Ryan's plan is STILL just as unpopular and not going anywhere as long as a Democrat is POTUS and/or we have enough Democrats to filibuster it to death in the Senate. The Republicans originally demanded that approving Ryan's "Ayn Rand" budget (with Medicare privatization) would be their "price" for raising the debt ceiling (which, interestingly, involved raising the debt ceiling anyway). As we all know, Ryan's budget didn't get approved nor did President Obama advocate for it. In fact, he slammed it right in public right in Ryan's face.

[QC]

142. Obama validated the central premise of the Ryan Plan,

namely that "entitlements" are the source of the deficit and must be cut in order to rescue America from a fiscal apocalypse.

Quibbling over the details means little in comparison to that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

150. For people following the whole thing (like we do)---maybe

President Obama has publicly acknowledged that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit but had other motivations for wanting to change/restructure some things for future generations. Medicare, I believe, does have some connection to the deficit but again he wasn't AFAIK calling for drastic Ryan-like changes to the program (that people would actually notice). Most people probably wouldn't notice anything (or care) unless their benefits were actually cut or disappeared entirely. I don't know if most people actually feel like Obama "validated" anything or anybody by agreeing to talk about Social Security and/or Medicare during the debt ceiling negotiations. :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

209. I've noticed that the arguments in rebuttal fous increasingly on arcane, meaningless details . . . .

. . . . likely in hopes of distracting from the real failings.

[QC]

225. Yes, I have noticed that.

DUers love to discuss the minutiae of policy (at least we used to discuss policy around here a lot, before DU became a fansite) but what matters here, in terms of the general voting public, is that now it's OK to talk about cutting Social Security.

For seventy years, bringing up even the possibility of cutting Social Security was instant career death for a politician, but now it's the pragmatic, sensible consensus, because "even liberals like Obama know we need to cut entitlements."

Only a Democrat could have accomplished that.

[Stinky The Clown]

278. I agree.

On another topic . . . what's that province just north of North Korea . . . . . . ?

Oooops. Never mind. I found it. :)

[Bake]

392. Minutiae? Get us OUT of two wars and see what happens to the deficit.

Are we doing any good at all in Afghanistan?

Nope.

Bake

[AlbertCat]

325. namely that "entitlements" are the source of the deficit

Bingo!

Raise taxes!!!! At least on those who can pay.

But what Dem in the House or Senate is gonna go for that? They might lose their sweet jobs... even though they mostly seem to be independently (of their government jobs) wealthy.

Obama is not the whole problem. A big part of it, but not all of it.

[eridani]

300. Repukes are already using Obama's willingess to cut lifeline programs against Democrats

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/reach_out_and_touch_medicare#ixzz1US9aru7F

This is from a Republican mailer.

For The Record…It Was Obama Who Offered To Cut Hundreds Of Billions In Medicare During The Debt Debate

OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS PUT MEDICARE CUTS IN DEBT CEILING DEAL

USA Today: “Cuts in Medicare and other entitlement programs are on the table.” (Susan Page and Fredreka Schouten, “Political Damage Even If A Debt Deal Is Done,” USA Today, 7/31/11)

Obama Agreed To Medicare Cuts In Debt Ceiling Deal. “The deal announced on Sunday by Congressional leaders and the White House would make across-the-board cuts in military spending, education, transportation and Medicare payments to health care providers if Congress does not enact further deficit-cutting legislation by the end of the year.” (Robert Pear, “Congress Must Trim Deficit To Avoid Broader Cuts,” The New York Times, 7/31/11)

Obama Said “Adjustments” Must Be Made To Medicare. OBAMA: “Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On Budget Control Act, Washington, D.C., 8/2/11)

DURING DEBT CEILING DEBATE, OBAMA OFFERED $650 BILLION IN CUTS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND MEDICAID

Obama Put “Major Changes” To Medicare On The Table During Debt Ceiling Negotiations. “To hit the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the congressional committee is likely to reconsider major changes to Medicare that the White House and congressional leaders put on the table during this summer's debt-ceiling negotiations.” (Janet Adamy, “Debt Deal May Hit Medicare,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/11)

Analysis by Democratic pollster—
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/08/pollster-medicare-not-just-a-seniors-issue

Her bottom line: It is an even more important political issue now than in the past. “It’s not just a seniors’ issue by any matter or means,” she said. The Medicare changes in the budget plan advanced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., “really elevated it, because it was such a clear distinction” between the Democratic and Republican positions. ”You saw it play out in the N.Y. special . And it is the top testing message in congressional races right now,” Lake added.

She’ll be watching how aggressively Democrats rally around protecting Medicare but believes it will be harder for the party “to draw the distinction that many of us believe in” because President Barack Obama talked about Medicare cuts in the context of the budget deal. “So I think it’s going to depend on how strong a stance Democrats take or whether they muddle it.” Regardless, she adds, “it has the potential to be THE voting issue in 2012.”

[ProfessionalLeftist]

247. Why does he keep throwing lifelines to the Republicans?

Because he IS one?

[Vanje]

279. Yep nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

289. Dumb

Nuff said.

[chill_wind]

261. +1

[spooked911]

352. because he's a puppet of the evil PTB who want those things destroyed

there's little doubt he's just a convenient patsy that they will happily discard if he looks like a loser.

[Honeycombe8]

20. If you voted for Obama or Hillary Clinton...you voted for change to Social Security.

They both had plans for changes to Social Security, to make it more secure for future generations, as they put it.

No surprise there.

Unless, of course, you didn't watch his campaign speeches or the debates. Then, I guess you'd be caught off guard and surprised.

What is different are the KINDS of changes he would consider.

[Poll_Blind]

27. Bullshit. Quote the speeches where he and Clinton said they'd offer up SS for cuts.

PB

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[iemitsu]

69. whatever their intent in saying that SS needed attention

their implication was always that they were going to strengthen the program, not cut it.

[Honeycombe8]

172. It's all over the place. I saw it firsthand on TV. I watched LOTS of campaign speeches...and EVERY

debate. Seriously, you won't be able to compete with me on knowledge of the platform that Obama campaigned on. For instance, some seem to be disappointed that he didn't turn out to be the "progressive" that he was when he campaigned. He did not campaign as a progressive. He ALWAYS campaigned from the left of center, proclaiming himself to be someone who would work across the aisle, compromise, seek solutions, stay in Afghanistan (the just war), etc., etc. There are no surprises, really, with Obama, except that he hasn't learned from his mistakes...that the compromising has gone too far, that it doesn't work, that he's being walked all over.

Google it. It's there. Hillary also had a plan to reform Social Security.

I can even tell you WHAT their plans were. But I'll let you find that yourself.

[fasttense]

303. And he never said he would close GITMO?

Of course he said it. He also said he would strengthen Social Security by lifting the payroll tax cap.

Don't take my word, take the word of PolitiFact.com that won a 2009 Pulitzer. Here is a link http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/44/lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-on-earnings-above-25000/

[PonyJon]

288. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT - give Obama a real majority to work with.

The reason everything looks so screwed up now is because the voters really screwed up in 2010. Had they come out in force for DEMOCRATS as they did in 2008 Salon would need to find something else to wax elitist about. Don't make this mistake again - VOTE A DEMOCRATIC BALLOT -

[tomp]

321. you again, carrying obama's burden, blaming the people.

is that you, rahm?

[fascisthunter]

342. lol... yeah, THAT worked out so well before

[eilen]

350. The Democrats are ineffective and incompetent

The Republicans are insane and theocratic.

Both are handservants to the Banks and Wealthy.

The very act of voting has become automated, outsourced to machines. I hear they have voting machines today that vote for us now... at least that was how Bush was elected in his second term.

The OP article was right on the money.

If you care about the Democratic Party, why do you continue to support the people that are killing it?

[sabrina 1]

374. You got that wrong. The Democratic Party leadership lost the 2010

election. Do you have anything else to say on this board other than reposting the same comment over and over again? It's beginning to look like spam.

[INdemo]

32. Show me the facts that Obama or Hillary planned cuts in SS

Obama campaigned on keeping SS safe from any cuts as did hillary..Now on medicare Obama made several statements vowing to protect it..Now please show me the facts..When I first read your OP the first thought was ..now that is something a Republican would say..So you are telling us you didn't vote for Obama or at least Hillary in the primary?

[sabrina 1]

373. Here:

John Conyers: Obama Proposed Social Security Cuts, Not Republicans

(CNSNews.com) – The Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Mich.) said that President Barack Obama proposed cuts to Social Security in the debt limit negotiations, not congressional Republicans.

[Mr Deltoid]

34. Hillary is not timid

[newspeak]

372. I knew Hillary was DLC

I wasn't going to vote for the Goldwater girl. Also, read she attends those C street prayer meetings. Let's face it, most of our congress critters, even though it looks like they are debating, go to cocktails together, go to family outings together. Hell, I'm thinking maybe we need some on our side and have some of those blowouts that we see on TV with foreign parliamentaries. The WWF of congress would be better than the kibuki theater.

[nashville_brook]

39. we'd love to see your links on that. did i miss Obama's speech on The Fierce Urgency of Cutting SS?

damn.

[rhett o rick]

101. So your point is that we shouldnt worry about SS and Medicare because Obama hasnt given a speech

on "The Fierce Urgency of Cutting SS"? IMHO his lack of commitment to saving SS and Medicare are enough to worry me.
Do you think we should just sit back and wait to see, or be proactive and try to "help him" with the decision?

[nashville_brook]

159. should have included the "sarcasm" taggie.

:)

[rhett o rick]

263. Oh, apparently you DONT have a point. I was trying to do you a favor and guess your point

But snark is all you got. :no sarcasm:

[nashville_brook]

340. psst....

we're talking about what he campaigned on...and how his current position of "putting Social Security on the table" is inconsistent with what we voted for.

i'm on your side on this.

[rhett o rick]

368. Oh, that's different........nevermind.

I lost track of which side I am on. Cheesus.

[Honeycombe8]

174. I don't recall that they used the term "fierce urgency." But yes, they both said it needed to be

done sooner rather than later, before it became a problem.

[nashville_brook]

256. so, you can't produce a link.

[rhett o rick]

264. Can you provide a link showing that Obama supports SS and Medicare? nm

[JDPriestly]

277. Obama's plan was to raise the cap.

That was very important to me, and I remember what he said very, very clearly.

I would never have campaigned for him had he suggested cuts. Never.

[bvar22]

71. Here is The VIDEO.

The ONLY "change" Obama campaigned on was "Raising the CAP."
You don't hear THAT from Obama anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pw0cFRTLE

Watch It, and WEEP.
Where is THAT guy now that we need him?


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Honeycombe8]

175. Bingo. You win the prize. He DID in fact say that SS needed reform sooner rather than

later....and there was a reason for his thinking so. Hillary, too. I believe they had the same plans, actually, to get Social Security out of trouble (it wasn't in trouble at the time...it was headed for trouble down the road...still is).

What I recall seeing, was I think part of a debate...it was a TV shot of both Hillary AND Obama, each, one after the other, describing the changes that they would propose to the Social Security program.

It was also detailed in their websites.

[Occulus]

116. What a line of crap.

That's bullshit. No, it is. Complete and total bullshit.

[Honeycombe8]

177. Facts can be very upsetting, I know. But it is true. I suspect you didn't follow Obama's campaign

very closely, if you didn't know that. You also know that he always supported the war in Afghanistan, right?

He didn't propose the drastic changes we hear that he's considering now (I don't think we've actually heard him utter a plan to change SS personally, have we? It's all rumor and unnuendo?). Still, he was always on board with the thinking that changes had to be made to SS. Hillary, too.

[trud]

212. Afghanistan

I voted for him despite his being in favor of the war in Afghanistan. But never in my wildest imaginings did I think he'd ramp up the spending there to almost exactly compensate for the reduced spending in Iraq.

[ooglymoogly]

252. Your arguments are just so much phony baloney.

They are so full of holes, they become no more than pugthug and Dino talking points. They just are not credible. You have oiled your way between truth and fiction to promote a bunch of pure bullshit. Your "recollections" are what your lame arguments need them to be and have nothing to do with reality.

What you fail to recognize is that most on this site followed "0"'s every word far more closely than you ever could and were disparately counting on them to be truths.

[Honeycombe8]

327. You don't understand. I'm not making an argument. I'm just stating facts.

Google the campaign. You'll find that Obama and Hillary (and maybe other candidates) all were on board with changes to Social Security having to be made.

I'm not making an argument. I'm merely stating facts, as I said.

There are videos of it, if you internet search it. There was also a recent story on TV where it showed both Obama and Hillary stating their plans to save Social Security, for those who have forgotten that. Like you, I guess. If you ever knew it.

[ooglymoogly]

367. You are taking "facts" and twisting them to meet the needs of your argument.

The fact that "0" said he would raise the cap on SS (a good thing) in the primary does not bolster your arguments in any way. Particularly when what he has done instead, is eliminate the vital COLA, rob the SS fund of half a trillion to pay for his wealthcare and weaken SS for future generations by lowering the FICA tax that folks pay into their own insurance policy and thereby weakening it further.

He has done nothing to raise the cap as promised thereby solving even the hoked up claim that SS is insolvent.

There has been no effort by "0" to stop the poison pill to Medicare that bush put into place to destroy it and hand over trillions to the drug cartels from the SS fund.

The gist of your "argument" is that "0" DID exactly what he said he would do in the primary and that is batshit.

Do you really think anyone here would buy into such blatant claptrap?

[fascisthunter]

344. well stated...

...this is prevalent in politics I think, especially here in the US. It's too bad because it just propels us in the wrong direction and it doesn't have to be that way.

[ooglymoogly]

366. sorry wrong place nt

[Union Scribe]

190. So we shouldn't have voted for him in the first place.

Good point.

[leveymg]

304. What were our other choices? What could we do once Obama was elected, if he wanted to turn right?

How are we going to stop him and the other center-rightists in the Senate and House, now?

[Honeycombe8]

328. I'm not expressing an opinion at all, about anything. I just stated facts. Amazing..

and bizarre how upset people are about the statement of facts.

I don't even say whether I approved or not of Obama's and Hillary's plans. I clearly recall that they had plans, though, to "fix" Social Security. All their positions were listed clearly on their campaign websites, and they openly discussed this issue more than once during their campaigns.

In addition, I recently saw video on TV being shown, for those who have forgotten, of Obama stating his plan to fix Social Security, since it was his assessment it was in trouble for future beneficiaries.

All these are just cold, hard facts. Bizarre how people are all upset about that. Don't shoot the messenger, folks!

[JDPriestly]

276. Obama's plan was to raise the cap.

I would support that.

Unfortunately, he has forgotten what he said during the campaign debates, totally forgotten.

[Honeycombe8]

345. Yes, that's what I recall. But I can't be sure of all the details of his plan to "fix" SS.

Actually, he hasn't stated any new plans, that I know of. Unless I missed that. There have been second hand reports of it, rumors and such. But I don't think he's laid out an official plan to "fix" Social Security, has he? I might have missed that, though.

But I do know that it was always on his radar to fix Social Security, as it was in Hillary's radar. Maybe the other candidates, too, but I didn't follow their campaigns closely, so can't say for sure about them.

To get posters REALLY upset, I also recall that he was never strongly for a public option in his healthcare reform. I think he mentioned it a couple of times, but it was definitely not a cornerstone of his reform plan, and it was unnecessary to any reform, in his opinion. It struck me as something he stuck in there as an afterthought, for campaign purposes. If it was even in the formal plans on his campaign website, which I'm not sure it was. But it was clear that he was not really for that, or didn't think it would fly, one or the other. So he didn't really change his position on that, when it came time to do his reform package.

What DID change, that I'm upset about that others don't seem to be, is that he changed his position on the provision in Medicare that prevents the govt from negotiating prices with big pharma. He campaigned on removing that provision. This was a clear about-face, when it came time to do his reform. He sold out. He made a deal with big pharma...he wouldn't remove that provision, if they wouldn't work against his reform act. That sucked. And hurt us all a lot, because that one provision costs us trillions of dollars in the long term, and contributes to the Republicans' position that Medicare is too expensive. Because of a provision that THEY themselves passed, and Obama let ride!

[JDPriestly]

393. I recall a sort of speech he gave to his supporters on

a Friday afternoon a few weeks before the plan was actually announced -- and he said then that he was in favor of the public option. I remember it quite clearly because I was relieved to hear what he said.

He was not talking about a comprehensive or exclusive single-payer system but rather a public option.

With regard to Obama's weakness with regard to negotiating drug prices, all I can say is typical Obama. Ughhh!

I am happy to say that my Congressman is a true Democrat even though he realizes that he is in the minority.

[russspeakeasy]

280. Some people are very defensive, some people are just full of shit.

I not only watched his speeches, I listened to them.
.:wtf: and I never, ever heard him say ANYTHING about cuts.

[Honeycombe8]

330. Don't shoot the messenger. It's true. Both Obama and Hillary's assessment

of Social Security was that it would be in trouble in the near future for future beneficiaries, and action would need to be taken to "fix" it relatively soon. They both had plans for that. Maybe the other candidates did, too. I didn't follow their campaigns closely.

But I clearly recall both Obama and HIllary discussing their positions and plans on that issue, AND that their positions and plans were on their campaign websites. (You could look up their positions and plans on any major issue on their campaign websites.)

I can see it in my mind's eye...Hillary and Obama, standing or sitting next to each other, discussing their plans to fix Social Security.

In addition, a clip of Obama during his campaign discussing his plans to fix SS was shown recently on TV, for those who have forgotten.

I guess it's easy not to remember that. It wasn't a MAJOR issue during the campaign, compared to the wars and health care. But I remember it. I saw EVERY campaign speech by Obama that was aired, and I saw EVERY debate, I think...both Democratic and Republican, as well as the Dem vs. Repub debates. AND I consulted Hillary's and Obama's campaign websites, to look up their positions on issues. So I remember a number of things...not everything...but a number of things. That's how I know how silly it is for people to think Obama ran as a progressive and then changed. He didn't run as a progressive, although he was definitely a liberal, following the Democratic Party platform. The same as Hillary.

[bvar22]

Cutting Goverment Spending and de-funding the Safety net during a RECESSION...

..is NOT "Centrist".
It is Full On Conservative Republican Dogma.
It will take the Democratic Party a generation to recover from the "Centrists".

In 2014, when MILLIONS (40 Million - 70 Million?) of already struggling Americans are FORCED to BUY Junk Insurance that they can't afford to use (High Co-Pay, High Deductible), they WILL Blame the Democrats,
and rightly so.
The "Centrists" passed a Republican Health Insurance SCAM without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility. ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back and say,"Yep. We voted against it."
Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.


Thats the problem I have with Centrists.
They agree with Republicans too much.
They have ruined the "Working Class Party" Brand.
I can no longer honestly tell my friend and neighbors that "The Democrats are FOR the Little Guy".
Over the last 20 years, The Party has given me NOTHING to point to.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nashville_brook]

74. we needed this administration to FIX the holes in our ship from the last decade...now we're so deep

i doubt we can sell the message that it's possible to "fix."

[DirkGently]

192. Very well put.

[defendandprotect]

111. ... and Social Security hasn't excaped -- Obama has cut its funding and stopped COLA's ...!!!

Great harm has already been done to this highly successful program --

so many depend upon!!


:hi:

[readmoreoften]

96. They're not "centrist" policies. They are rightwing policies. They only appear "centrist" because

of the Tea Party proto-fascists. In Nazi Germany, killing "some Jews" would be centrist. Centrist is a relative term.

[defendandprotect]

114. +1000% ---

We now have one right wing party and one radically right wing party --

to be in the center of that is to be on very dangerous RW ground, indeed!



:hi:

[QC]

123. Yes, when a nation's political spectrum runs from the right to the far right,

the center is still pretty damn right.

[hay rick]

217. +

[glinda]

284. That is the job of the Tefarties. To pull everything more to the right.

[Lorien]

307. That's been the job of the RNC and DLC for decades

the end of the Fairness Doctrine helped them to accomplish that mission.

[fascisthunter]

347. They don't even "appear" to be "centrist"... they are extremist views...

....that have been shoved down our throats for the last 10-30 years. And no, their agenda has not been an open honest debate, that is why they deserve our full anger and disapproval. In a democracy, you open your ideas to a debate so the information becomes hashed out publicly for voters to make their minds up at the poll. When you are promoting an agenda veiled by lies, and half-truths, you are setting up a frail foundation, doomed to crumble over the long term. Their end game is costing us a country.

[nashville_brook]

357. +100000

[hulka38]

238. Exactly.

It's maddening.

[Sherman A1]

299. Officially, perhaps

in reality.... not so much.

[Lorien]

305. By "Centrist' you mean "Right Wing"

since Newt and Romney championed the mandate first.

[newspeak]

375. and as Jim Hightower's book title states

"the only thing dead in the middle of the road are dead armadillos". And how about "if the gods meant us to vote they would have given us candidates."

[yardwork]

324. That's one of the most unforgiveable things he's done.

[nashville_brook]

8. i think that's when many people "turned-off" -- our cultural narrative requires justice, and we were

denied that justice.

[Octafish]

21. No one is above the law.

That includes traitors like Bush, Cheney, and their crony capitalist crew of KKK warmongers.

[nashville_brook]

25. that's what we've been trained to expect...but that's not what happened, and that's created

simultaneously, apathy and chaos.

indicting the Bushies should have been the easiest move in history. their crimes were blatant. by refusing to go after them, Obama endorses those crimes and criminals...the opposite of what he was elected to do. THIS has done as much to drown government in the bathtub as anything in Norquist's wildest dreams.

[iemitsu]

95. and guaranteed the end of US global supremacy.

the sham that we are an "exceptional" nation or people has been exposed for all to see.
obama was handed a golden opportunity to fix some of the social and economic problems that us domestic and foreign policy suffer from and he blew it.
that was the promise of america. an exceptional people and system would lead the world out of the mess that old institutions have created.
i believe that, as "smart" as obama is he is a victim of cognitive dissonance. when faced with the reality that our system is not working well for most of us and that the captains of industry and government were criminals, obama doubled his faith in the status-quo.
i'm not sure that is an indication of "smarts" but he is not the only one who lacks vision.

[nashville_brook]

162. excellent points. "American Exceptionalism" and "excellence" of any kind is earned.

and can be frittered away quite easily, as we've seen.

[swilton]

265. We would actually be stronger as a nation if we had a

catharsis and brought the crooks (Democrats included) to justice. This was more than just a Republican thing....

[iemitsu]

282. you bet.

if we don't clean house we can never hold the high ground again.

[DirkGently]

35. ... so all bets are off. Exactly. If what Cheney did wasn't crime, there is no crime. No law.

... nothing.

[nashville_brook]

45. chaos...and, apathy.

[Little Star]

13. What scares me the most is putting things like SS, etc....

on the table! Things that a republican could never put on any table. That is just doing the heavy lifting for them. Once it's been on the table how do we ever keep the republicans from touching it further when they get enough power?

[Poll_Blind]

14. That's exactly the (nightmarish) point. President Obama did things Conservatives would...

...never dream of getting away with. Putting SS on the table when the Republicans didn't even ask for it...that's just fucking diabolic.

Conyers: Obama Proposed Social Security Cuts In Debt Talks, Not Republicans

Be sure to watch that video. It's Conyers, himself, stating that Obama put Social Security up for cuts when the Boehner or Cantor didn't.

PB

[Little Star]

17. Thanks for the link. I feel like we are down the rabbit hole.

[bvar22]

153. ...AND, the Republican Campaign Commercials have already been made.

"President Obama tried to CUT your Social Security, but John Boehner & The Republicans didn't like that idea,
so they walked out of that meeting.
So if you want to save your Social Security, Vote FOR The Republicans in 2012."

This ad will be accompanied by video clips of Obama admitting that he offered to cut Social Security.

How are you going to feel when you see this ad on TV?
How will you explain it to your friends & neighbors?
Do you really think they are going to believe you?

Are the Democrats TRYING to lose in 2012?


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QC]

16. Nixon to China and all that. n/t

[amborin]

43. when a Democrat does these things,

many Dems largely acquiesce, mainly the ones who identify with "party" or "personality;" that's probably why more and more articles suggest a rethug might be preferable: then, those swayed by, or mobilized by, or fixated on "party," rather than principles, might join in opposition to right wing policies (which many/some now largely acquiesce to, because enacted by a "Dem")

[jwirr]

86. Are you trying to say that the rethugs are not fixated on party and

ideology? That is all they are. As to those of us Democrats who consider party important - well we recognize that a president nominates SCOTUS applicants and needs a congress that will support them with a large majority.

[amborin]

371. no,

my post was discussing Dems who are fixated on party and personality;

it's sad that the main "accomplishment" that can now be celebrated (and that's way too strong a term) is SCOTUS apppointments.....

[swilton]

266. Totally agree with that argument

I'm amazed at how often I see someone with both a peace symbol and an Obama 2012 bumper sticker. After this Friday, the environmental groups are going to be included with the groups that are pissed as hell....

[alsame]

33. We can't and the elected "Democrats" won't. I fully expect

SS/Medicare/Medicaid to be gradually abolished as soon as the GOP regains the WH and the Senate.

[Poll_Blind]

37. My Dem. House Rep, Senator will. But they're on Obama's shit list, unfortunately.

:(

PB

[alsame]

50. I should have said 'not enough elected Dems'. There are a handful

who would fight.

[Little Star]

44. That seems to be the mission. GWB could not privatize..

So our party will open the door. Sad day when our own party puts SS/Medicare/Medicaid on any friggin table!

Something is really wrong with this picture. People better wake up soon.

[Poll_Blind]

47. It's worth pointing out that there is a big segment of our party fighting Obama's conservative...

...policies. It's a very tough position to be in, though.

PB

[iemitsu]

104. would that be the PF, the professional left?

i heard they were the problem and the ones making dems look bad.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1843334
:sarcasm:

[QC]

105. PF? Professional Felt?

[DirkGently]

110. People's Front (of Judea?)

[QC]

112. I hate those guys. The Judean People's Front, on the other hand,...

[Dragonfli]

119. splitters!!!

[stuckinarut]

251. I'm a member of the popular people's front...lol

[iemitsu]

122. i'm still wondering what that F stood for.

but i prefer the label people's front to professional anything. that sounds so sanitized and exclusive.

[QC]

143. Genuine mavericks are not constrained by mere letters and such. n/t

[swilton]

267. I hope that this Salon article will

encourage them to continue the fight as well as get those who have been less outspoken to join them....I think the Progressive Caucus is ready to step up to the plate and a few others as well....

[alsame]

49. "Only Nixon could go to China". Yep, the Dems had to open

the door.

[DirkGently]

89. WHY reverse THE most successful distinction between them & us? WHO thinks that wins?

If Dems don't stand for Social Security and Medicare, they are irrelevant, period.

Why is this party being led to the knackerhouse? Why are we so determined to become what we've always stood in opposition to, unless we plan to simply pack it in?

It's insanity, frankly. And it won't work.

[Name removed]

285. Deleted message

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

[mfcorey1]

302. Serve the base crap and they will go into a feeding frenzy as evidenced here. nt

[sulphurdunn]

343. The play book

of the modern Democratic Party is "fake left go right" and has been since the DLC took over the party leadership in the 80s. Obama is the product of recruitment for that play book and the DLC team. Any suggestion that he has begun the slow process of bringing the party home to its FDR roots, or that he has been hamstrung by the failure of his attempted bi-partisanship or of criticism by the left of his policies is silly.

[SavWriter]

2. Oh but we're told we have to back Obama

If we don't we'll get an anti Labor Republican who will let the corporations rape the environment. :sarcasm:

[nashville_brook]

64. or, who'd continue illegal wars for oil...or, who'd ruin Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid

we must do everything in our power to make sure no Republican hurts the american people in this way.

(...but if a Democrat does it, we'll call it pragmatic).

[Lorien]

313. A repug would have a tough time doing all of those things

because he or she would actually face some opposition.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Good post.

I, too, expect his jobs-making speech to mean nothing. His presidency will go down in history as one of being friendly to the Republicans, and little else.

It's a shame because he had (and still has) in his hands the podium, the ability, and the backing to do so much.

I've heard people speaking about him as if he were a gentle flower who simply cannot handle the Congress not being Democratic. However, Republicans with Democratic Congresses, and other Democratic presidents dealing with Republican Congresses have not spent their time giving in to the enemy. They've fought. This man doesn't want to fight for anything.

[closeupready]

24. Totally agree with you.

nt

[swilton]

268. I also have no expectations for his forthcoming speach

What's scarey is what would the man do in office on a second term if he's brazen enough to pull this shit when he needs to get re-elected.....Or maybe not getting elected is part of the strategy as well...Just run such a piss-poor campaign so the Republicans will win and then go off and be the jet set with wife, two kids and mother-in-law/baby-sitter.

[ChiciB1]

387. Yes, It's Been Said That It's NOT In His DNA... He's A Laid Back Type Of

guy. WELL, this person here is FED UP with LAID BACK. The current Democratic President and many of the moderate to right leaning Democrats in the party are KILLING what it once meant to be a Democrat!

For me, I've HAD IT! I EXPECT nothing from him. Sick of all his speeches that amount to a load of crap. WORDS do nothing, ACTION is what's needed and the Democratic Party I joined and have known for most of my life IS NOT this Democratic Party. I'm totally sick of people posting "lists" of his accomplishments which may be long, but they're mostly small and pithy! So go ahead, dig the lists out again, repost it all again... it's not something I will read ever again.

I no longer even blink when I see the lists, they are USELESS! This man says he's a Democrat. I say "what KIND of Democrat?"

R.E.S.P.E.C.T! Maybe he needs a lesson from Aretha to find out what it REALLY means and how to get it! It's not a word I use when I think of him, and I'm NOT going to listen to his speech anyway. I'll hear ALL ABOUT IT from MSM and as always RIGHT HERE! I certainly don't need to watch another "show" of words!

Color me COMPLETELY FED UP!

[kentuck]

5. Wow!

Somebody said it!

[Little Star]

7. I agree! We need a viable primary challenger quick! k&r

[Honeycombe8]

26. That's like saying you need a viable challenger to the sun! You can propose one...

you can fund it, contribute to it. You can worship it, vote for it.

But the reality is...when the leader of a party decides to run for re-election, he is, ipso facto, the only viable choice. There is no other.

You can say it ain't so til you're blue in the face. But that's not the reality.

The current President, of either party, rises and sets with each passing day, until HE decides he won't do it anymore, or until his party convinces him that he will step aside. You can have challengers all you want. But the rank and file of the party will not turn its back on its leader, if he decides to run for re-election.

Besides, you haven't thought of the practical aspects. You have a Prez who is personally popular and well liked by his party. He has gazillions of money in his campaign chest. Any challenger would have to immensely popular across the party, and across party lines into independent territory. (Can you think of even one person who would fit that bill? Someone that blue dog Democrats would endorse and support, as well as far lefters?) And then, he'd have to come up with contributors who would contribute gazillions of dollars to his campaign chest.

As a practical matter, it can't happen. We are stuck with the guy who brought us to the dance. Anything else just takes our eye off the ball and makes it more likely the Republicans will win.

[Little Star]

30. I disagree. We've got a problem here Houston!!!! Over and out.

[nashville_brook]

41. "Political parties need to be flexible enough to allow for new ideas to come into the process,

...or else third parties or civil disorder are inevitable."


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/04/favoritesonsanddaughters


"All it would take to provide this flexibility are well-known Democratic elders who understand that rank and file Democrats deserve a choice, and a few political insiders who realize that they can increase their own power by encouraging a robust debate. I don't think this will happen. But just imagine if it did."

[Honeycombe8]

170. Well, the elders could try to "convince" Obama not to run. I'd like that, you'd like that...

it's a given that millions of people would like that.

But as we saw with Carter...they get all hung up on the power of the Presidency. They salivate for more, once they have attained that level.

[DirkGently]

51. The sun? No, Obama is not the sun. The world does not orbit around Obama. Sorry. Jesus.

[QC]

57. You're not a fan of the obamacentric universe theory? n/t

[readmoreoften]

98. We all bask in his big cowardly radiance.

Get with it, you heathen.

[nashville_brook]

163. is there any kind of protection we can wear for that? OPF factor 30?

[stillrockin]

165. Zing!

[Honeycombe8]

332. Not just Obama. ANY sitting President rises and sets until he loses an election...

or decides he won't run. It is almost impossible to unseat him.

I'm not saying I like that. I don't. I'm must sayin'....some people talk as if they don't realize this. But it's a truism. Check the history.

The only chance we have a getting a stronger, more liberal Dem. candidate is for Obama to step aside. He, like all Presidents, is leader of his party. The party members simply won't eat him alive, to take a chance on someone else, who likely would lose a general election. If only for their own benefit...what if the sitting President defeats the challenge (which is always the case), and then wins re-election (which is usu. the case)? You think he's going to forget all those who tried to eat him alive?

[nashville_brook]

54. he's gone from "immensely popular" to "personally popular" -- just b/c he's a nice guy doesn't mean

he's leading the country effectively.

[OnyxCollie]

272. Yeah, let's vote for the guy we'd like to have a beer with.

That worked so well the first time.

[Honeycombe8]

334. True. But that wasn't what I said, was it? It's one reason that party members won't work to defeat

him, behind his back. Besides for their own benefit (most sitting Presidents win re-election, and they're not likely to forget who betrayed them)....at the end of the day, most of the Dems in Congress like him. That's not to say they think he's a great head of the party. That's different.

But when you like someone, you're less likely to stab him in the back. Some would. But history says that most won't.

[nashville_brook]

60. The Obamacentric Universe Theory!! huzzah!

[MissDeeds]

70. When "the leader of the party"

no longer represents the party, he should be removed. It is after all the Democratic Party, not the Obama Party.

[nashville_brook]

148. not The Obama Party...precisely.

[rhett o rick]

85. So what's your idea? nm

[iemitsu]

107. republicans, or their policies, win if we don't challenge obama

in the primary. he is one of them not us.

[Honeycombe8]

335. A challenger will almost ensure a Republican win. And that's not the same as Obama

winning. Wanting to raise the age of retirement is NOT the same as privatizing or ending Social Security and Medicare. It's just not. NEITHER is what I or most Americans want. But ending SS and Medicare? That's definitely not what I want. And that's definitely what would happen with a Republican W.H. and Republican Congress.

[iemitsu]

369. what evidence do you have that obama does not want to end SS and medicare too?

he has legitimized the idea of dumping the social safety net so that it can be done.
he is their man not ours.
the only difference between a republican and a democrat who acts like a republican is that the democrat is being less honest with his/her constituents.
obama promised us "change we could believe in" as he bolstered all the people and institutions that have been so destructive to our country and world.
he is not a visionary.
and the saddest part of the whole story is that obama is doing the bidding of people who hate him, and will always hate him, while he spits on those of us who did support his candidacy and would support his efforts to change america so it would work for more of its citizens.

[Bluebear]

127. We brought HIM to the dance, thank you

[Honeycombe8]

336. That's an old expression. You leave with the guy that brung you to the dance. nt

[Bluebear]

337. I know the expression

[Union Scribe]

191. Well that was...revealing.

[tcaudilllg]

246. The president who never served

is waiting in the wings, and he's just as critical of the administration as we.

[quakerboy]

293. Screwed either way

I agree with you partially.

A primary challenger has very little chance of winning. Incumbency has its advantages, especially at that level of politics. Barring further catastrophe (not just things we may believe to be destroying the future of the country, but actual right now catastrophe) a challenger has a massive uphill struggle to the nomination.

Then, even if you assume a successful primary challenge, the candidate would be handicapped in the GE. The Blue dogs who find their ideology so well supported right now would be put out. The corporate sponsors and their buckets of money would likely also take their leave. Plus it would be an issue of race. The first Black president, dumped by his own party after one term?


That said, you are absolutely wrong. We brought him to the party. And if he spends all his time dancing with our rivals, there's nothing that says we have to stay.

There's likely a huge price to pay for leaving. But I suspect a lot of people wont bother to show up this time. Can we hold either house or the presidency if our elected Democratic President has alienated 15% of their regular voters and 40% of the "new voters" of 2008? And what can we do to reverse that potential?

[Lorien]

309. None of us owe Obama a damn thing

he turned his back on US. WE own our votes, and only we decide what to do with those votes. He won't get mine.

[Honeycombe8]

341. True enough. But I have my own interests...not to vote to end SS and Medicare...

and to work toward saving the environment and almost extinct animals.

The Republicans would definitely work to end all those things. Obama, while not great on those things, is a far cry from the Republicans on those things.

I don't owe Obama a thing. But I have my own interests to protect. And that means NOT to let a Republican win the W.H. Obama is, in reality, the only chance of defeating a Republican in the general election.

It's like when those people voted for Nader in 2000. They ended up defeating their own causes. They were short sighted. It makes sense to dream, to wish...but when you see, and people tell you, that your dream candidate cannot possibly win, and in fact, will hurt the only candidate who would help your causes, and you refuse to listen, and stubbornly vote for your dream candidate anyway...that doesn't make sense. Unless you just want to have a temper tantrum or send a message.

But if the goal is to help your causes, then history tells us the way forward. I wish we had a choice. But we voted for Obama...I voted for Obama. I don't think I'd vote for him again, if we could do it over. But we can't. We're stuck with the guy who brung us to the dance.

BTW, I think Hillary would've been even worse. So I comfort myself by thinking that even if I'd voted for the only other viable choice...Hillary...it wouldn't have made any difference. Maybe it was fate.

[dionysus]

169. lol

:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

348. home run!

[TwilightGardener]

10. I don't like things being asserted as truth that are simply opinion.

We lost in 2010 because of several factors, none of which were because Obama wasn't liberal enough. It was mostly a pendulum swing, IMO. The Repubs were hungry enough to win, and had a lot of angry elderly people suddenly worked up over death panels and stimulus spending.

[Little Star]

15. I disagree with your opinion. He promised hope & change & didn't deliver..

that's why we lost in 2010, imho. So I suggest you stop asserting things as truth that are simply your opinion.

[TwilightGardener]

19. The article is opinion, my opinion is opinion, your opinion is opinion.

[Little Star]

40. Then why did you post you opposed opinions????..

Your right we all have one. So what if we express them? They represent the truth to each of us based on what we know until some of us are proven wrong.

[TwilightGardener]

65. I think it's important to recognize that this is simply another person's opinion.

[Little Star]

72. Then I guess we agree. ;)

[rhett o rick]

75. I think it is safe to assume that what you read on here is all opinion. If you know "The Truth",

please share.

[bvar22]

79. The reason that old people were worked up about Death panels...

...is that our leader was AWOL during TeaBagger Summer.
Had the Leader of the Democratic Party used his Popular Mnadate for Change,
and called on his Army Standing in the Streetsto come a Stand WITH him in Washington DC,
or anywhere else,
MILLIONS (including myself) would have answered.

Instead, we got waffling Silence,
and "The Republicans have some good ideas",
and Chill Out. I GOT this.

The "Voters" are NOT to blame for 2010.
It is the Job of Leadership to motivate the troops.

Harry Truman explained and predicted 2010 perfectly:

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010


Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!



Thats my problem with Centrists.
They agree with Republicans too often.
When Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrats are labeled "The Far left",
WHO is really doing the labeling?


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TwilightGardener]

99. I do not disagree that the administration underestimated the extent

of damage that the Repub messaging that summer was causing--and they didn't have an equally snappy comeback. I think they thought they had the public fully on their side in even TRYING to get HCR passed--but people are wary of change, and the Repubs played that to their advantage.

[iemitsu]

113. people did and do want universal health care.

we do not want to be forced to buy expensive and inadequate private insurance that won't cover the cost of our care.
obama set that up.
i have had employer subsidized insurance for decades and it has never been so costly or covered so little.

[bvar22]

199. The People would have supported a simple expansion of Medicare.

The "Comprehensive 2200 Page Reform Plan" allowed the Republicans to use scare tactics about a BIG Government TakeOver....exactly what they did to Hillary's Comprehensive Plan.

I LIVE in a very RED, rural section of Arkansas, and people WERE frightened by the Comprehensive Plan.
When I explained that the Public Option would be like BUYING Medicare,
every single Tea Bagger I spoke to agreed that they would LIKE to be able to BUY Medicare.
Most have family members ON Medicare, and KNOW it is a good program.
EVERY single one!.
It was an easy sell.

But the "2000 page Comprehensive Reform Package" = Death Panels.
The Obama Administration learned NOTHING from Hillary's Failure, and didn't WANT to learn anything.
A simple 1 page expansion of Medicare would have been an easy sell.
As for the other crumbs like the PEC exclusion,
simple one page bills addressing specific issues & reforms could have also been passed one at a time.
LET the Republicans try to block them.

It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
The Democratic Party Leadership could NOT have done a worse job if they had Tried to FAIL,
and when The Mandate kicks in (2014),
and people find out what is really in that bill,
all HELL is going to break loose.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[swilton]

270. Beautiful!

[EFerrari]

91. We lost 2010 because people had no jobs. not over death panels or spending.

Obama promised and did not deliver on a big liberal jobs programs so yes, his conservatism did lead to the loss of 2010 in part.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

134. What "big liberal jobs program" did he promise (and fail to deliver on)?

:shrug:

I suppose the Stimulus, auto bailouts, and even the bank bailouts didn't ultimately help the jobs situation at all? :shrug: Without any of those things, there'd be a LOT more people out of work right now.

[EFerrari]

136. I'm not great at digging up campaign promises but this might be it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23148959/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-proposes-billion-new-jobs/

Stimulus was too small and he was warned about that. Auto bailout probably did save jobs. Banks never delivered on freeing up credit much.

Another thing that he had some say on was Foreclosure gate. All those foreclosures cost jobs, too.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

141. He pushed for a Stimulus larger than what NANCY PELOSI was initially pushing for

There was probably no way that he could have gotten through a larger stimulus and the one he did get through at nearly $800T required the help of three Republicans to pass. I doubt that he didn't care what other people were saying but apparently he didn't see a legislative path to achieving a bigger package. :shrug:

I would agree with you about the Banks and credit. Hell, my personal credit is now getting trimmed and that NEVER used to happen. Letting the banks go splat on the sidewalk though would've cost a lot of people their jobs and I'm not even sure what kind of a mess the economy would be in if we had to restructure the entire banking system in our country with the Republican Tea Party obstructing and/or ransoming everything.

What was "Foreclosure gate?"

I'm not saying that he's been perfect on everything but it's hard for me to know exactly what he could have/would have done differently that would've resulted in a better outcome on some things. The Republican Party's obstructionism has been something that I've never seen before in all of my time following politics and President Obama has faced some rather unusual and/or extraordinary circumstances not faced by any previous Presidents AFAIK. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

146. Yes, the Republicans have no problem trying to destroy the country.

They're resident terrorists that we have to factor into everything, agreed.

On the other hand, I don't let Obama off the hook for not doing things somewhat differently.

Obama kicked all those illegal foreclosures resulting from (likely illegal lending practices) over to the states which guarantees nothing will be done. His HAMP program to help homeowners' get modifications was used by the banks to lure people into foreclosure, not to keep people in their homes. No one in the administration took foreclosures seriously enough and the problem is ongoing today, with the administration trying to block real accountability for the banksters that crashed the economy.

Jobs should have been a front and center priority from Day 1. It's easy to say that now looking back, I know. But economists were already talking about a recession before the crash. The red flags about unemployment were there.

[Claudia Jones]

223. that is what the Republicans say

It is called "trickle down." This is a bizarre philosophy you are expressing - that giving more money to those who took it from us in the first place somehow helps us. You are acknowledging that the administration followed the Republican "trickle down" playbook, by the way. If people want to promote that Republican idea, that is their business, however to then turn around and expect the rest of us - demand that the rest of us support that is foolishness. Of course we don't, and we won't.

[eridani]

301. The angry elderly people believed the Republican lie of being defenders of Medicare

They successfully went after PPACA for "cutting Medicare," even though it was only the elimination of subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans.

[sulphurdunn]

329. Pendulum Swing?

Hungry Republicans? Angry elderly people? Stimulus Spending? Death Panels? Where was our "not liberal enough" President while mass media was spinning such narratives? Since when do manufactured opinions become truths because they are asserted?

[CrispyQ]

353. If Obama doesn't win in 2012, though, it will be because he wasn't liberal enough.

And the left will be blamed for not showing up, blamed for not voting for someone who doesn't fight for their values.

And dem leadership will tell themselves the reason they lost is because they are not far enough to the right & so they will go even more to the right.

I'm done playing this game. I don't vote for republicans even if they have a D after their name.

[MissDeeds]

12. K&R

Excellent piece.

[DirkGently]

18. A vigorous array of Democratic voices could only help -- Obama included. People need to

be reminded what the full spectrum of the Democratic "brand" represents. As of now it's painted as either a big-business friendly, pro-war, doggedly "bipartisan" vaguely kinder and more polite refraction of the insanity that is modern American Republicanism, or some illl-deifined band of angry, marginalized "professional leftists" (thanks to the adminstration's determined labeling).

A lot of people understand that Republicans have nothing but pain in mind for all but the wealthiest, but are justifiably wondering if any real alternative exists. It appears the Republicans have acquired some magical ability to get what they want, no matter how horrible. When Democratic leaders bow their heads and concede we need to embark on a course of harsh austerity measures, slashing government jobs and environmental protection, whittling away at Social Security and Medicare, but do nothing about government secrecy and impossible war spending, what are they to think?

If these are the right things to be doing, surely Republicans know how to do them best. If they aren't, where are serious Democrats proposing something different?

The array of (disturbing) Republican Presidential candidates is creating a one-sided conversation. They have a dung-colored rainbow of variations on how we need to drill for oil in all KINDS of destructive ways; a wide array of the ways we need to deliver more buckets of crisp, green cash to our corporate betters. Different ways we can dismantle the Constitution in favor of the most perverse readings of the Bible.

We've got one guy, and a bunch of rowdy outsiders, dismissed as drug-addled extremists. They're not even speaking to each other, because they're not on the same playing field.

We need more voices and our own conversation, more people on the field, so people can imagine something else happening in the coming years besides a continuing spiral of destruction by Republicans who seem to win no matter how ridiculous their demands.

Even if the plan is for Obama to BE the candidate, he and we can only benefit by an expanding conversation with people outside of the looney bin of American conservative politics. A conversation with Democrats.

[nashville_brook]

31. there's so much in here...the "dung-colored rainbow" has been co-opted by our own party.

like QC points out above, we smacked down Ryan on cutting SS/M/M only to have our own president say, "hey, that's not such a bad idea."

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

There's so much in your post, I wish you'd make it an OP. I'm getting scatter-brained reading it. For instance, you mention the administration going after "the professional left," when the real threat to democracy and the Democratic Party has been The Professional Right in the form of FOX News, et al. Why go after the one or two timid teevee people who espouse liberal values when there's a whole cacophony of rabid right wingers filling the airwaves 24/7 with violent rhetoric?

[DirkGently]

46. Yes. Obama's style has defined the entire Democratic side of the conversation. Fair to ask,

particularly after the 2010 "shellacking," whether that version of the Democratic argument can prevail. What's the voter got to choose from, if the choice is eliminating Medicare and SS with one whack, or nibbling away at it?

People are again in the mood for "change." You have to present alternatives, and you have to bring the full array of Democratic alternatives to the current mess.

We need more voices.

[nashville_brook]

52. and more truth would be nice too :)

[DirkGently]

66. What do we stand for, at this point? SS? Nope. The environment? Not so much. Peace? It is to laugh.

Really, how are voters to distinguish us? "Less crazy than Bachmann?" "A higher IQ than Perry?"

People vote against what they fear and hate. But they also must be given something to vote FOR. If Republicans are kinda sorta right about things, why leave the house?

[nashville_brook]

73. add to that, this is a president who can't even schedule a speech w/o caving to the GOP

one thing people want from a leader is strength. even if he believes that "bipartisanship" is power, he needs to sell the American People on that notion, b/c as it stands, he's not seen as standing tall.

[tritsofme]

22. There are no credible challengers. nt

[DirkGently]

55. Only because there are no challengers at all (nt). As yet. (nt).

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[WillyT]

36. + 1,000,000,000 - HUGE K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:bounce:

:hi:

:kick:

[LWolf]

38. I agree. Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. nt

[EFerrari]

62. It was already ruined, he was just the third plumber in the Penthouse letter. n/t

[LWolf]

63. You're right.

It certainly didn't start with him.

[EFerrari]

81. Sometimes I think our party has never recovered from 1968. n/t

[DirkGently]

67. Youch!

:spray:

[nashville_brook]

68. "i never thought I would find myself writing this...but the other day when I had a leaky economy..."

I called up my pal, Boehner, who came right over with his "buddies," Mitch and Ryan.

What happened next can only be described as hot bipartisan action with no one getting exactly what they wanted, but I left feeling completely...satisfied.

[DirkGently]

187. ...

:spray:

[MessiahRp]

135. LMAO!

Awesome analogy!

Rp

[fascisthunter]

351. I don't think he ruined it... I think it was infiltrated

in the 80's by the "Third Way" fascists.

[LWolf]

361. Yes. And he's one of them.

He's just one perpetrator of many.

[fascisthunter]

381. sorry, I should have stated I thought he was part of the Friedman agenda

[ProSense]

53. What

"Obama has ruined the Democratic Party."

...utter nonsense!

Gallup: Selected Trend on Party Affiliation: 2004-2011

Democrats

2011 Aug 11-14: 26
2011 Aug 4-7: 34
2011 Jul 12-15: 30

<...>

2008 Nov 7-9: 33
2008 Oct 23-26: 34
2008 Oct 10-12: 35

Democrats (including "leaners")

2011 Aug 11-14: 40
2011 Aug 4-7: 50
2011 Jul 12-15: 47

<...>

2008 Nov 7-9: 51
2008 Oct 23-26: 48
2008 Oct 10-12: 52

PPP: Democrats Have a Growing Enthusiasm Problem

<...>

Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%.

In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.

<...>

[bvar22]

56. Harry Truman has "The Solution", but it is probably too late.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010


Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QC]

58. +1

[nashville_brook]

59. that's so true.

[DirkGently]

61. Excellent.

[rhett o rick]

76. Thanks for the post. nm

[MissDeeds]

88. +10000

That's it in a nutshell.

[grahamhgreen]

363. +1

[JoePhilly]

77. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

Now Obama has RUINED the democratic party.

Not only that, I've also heard he kicks puppies competitively for distance.

Maybe activists like Stoller should top "activisting", and run for something. He's clearly got things all figured out.

[nashville_brook]

it's nothing new that party leaders worry that right-wing appeasement would ruin the brand.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

139. Yeah

Is Stoller in the running for POTUS? Does he plan to be part of this grand "debate"? Who's he pushing to run? I might understand and/or sympathize more with some people's concerns about President Obama if he had been granted a Congress with over 60 Democrats in the Senate (a majority of them being progressive) or a Republican Party committed to working with him in a genuinely bipartisan fashion or at least didn't believe in using every legislative maneuver in the book to obstruct progress, particularly in the Senate, and did not believe in using the economy as a "hostage" in order to get what they want (kind of). In "normal" times and under "normal" circumstances, yeah, I might be able to see where some people are coming from but these most definitely NOT "normal" times and "normal" circumstances IMHO and I challenge Stoller and/or anybody else to prove me wrong about it. The fact that he got anything substantive done at all during his first 2 years is a freakin' miracle IMHO (but he did) and all some people seem to be able to do is piss all over those accomplishments and talk about getting rid of him (or giving up on the electoral process altogether).

And then they wonder why we keep ending up with Republican Presidents and Congresses in recent years? :banghead:

[JoePhilly]

145. Agree completely ....

It took 30 years to make the mess we are in, and if Obama can't fix it all in 2.5 years, then clearly he destroyed the Democratic party.

Its all nonsense.

But we have all these liberal purity folks demanding a primary even though they have absolutely no one of any substance to run in that primary.

The GOP used to mock Obama, saying that the left thought he was the Messiah.

I thought that seemed silly. but now that I see just how many on the left actually do seem to have thought he was the Messiah, and are now outraged that he was not, I do see what the GOP was talking about.

And you are correct, at this rate, we'll get an even crazier Republican White House, Senate, and House, and the screamers who hate Obama will claim that Obama put them there.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

152. I've thought something quite similar in regards to Obama and the left

in terms of the whole "Messiah" issue. Apparently, some of them thought that he could and/or wanted to ram through their entire agenda (untouched as well) in 2-4 years and are now dealing with a "betrayal" of apocalyptic proportions.

[dionysus]

171. it's funny. the same folks who sneered that obama supporters thought him a messaih, are not bitching

that he's not said messiah. funny actually.

[inna]

241. your comment does not make even a bit of sense, just fyi.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

254. Good

I thought that it was just me- not being able to understand it.

[JoePhilly]

248. Exactly ...

And they seem to ignore that as a candidate, he said it would take many years to fix the mess.

They claim they don't want ponies.

I agree ... they seem to expect him to produce unicorns.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

323. Not to mention the fact

that he needed everybody to pitch in.....that he wouldn't be able to fix things on his own. In one ear, out the other I suppose.

[nashville_brook]

158. he spells out his thoughts on this in his piece. reading it might improve your critique.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

253. I did read it

I stand by my original comments. As with so many other "critiques" of President Obama I've read over the past 2.8 years, it seems to lay all/most of the blame for President Obama and it doesn't provide a clear vision of how things could have been/can be different.
While I'm sure that I could think of a few things Obama could have done differently/better, with 70-80% of Democrats (and a wide majority of LIBERAL Democrats) supporting him for re-election and with him still holding leads over all of the (current) GOP field I have a hard time agreeing with the author that President Obama: a.)ruined the party or b.)is a failure

[jwirr]

78. One sure thing that has to be done is to have every state/caucus

in the party approve of resolutions regarding the social security, medicare and medicaid for the platform. Make it clear that Democrats do not put any of them on the table. He then has to run on these issues. When we get to the convention make a big deal out of this platform. That is a start. It is us calling him on his actions up front and in the public.

It also would not hurt if there were people holding posters regarding this at every speech he makes. We want him to win but he MUST understand we are not electing him to trade off our safety net.

[certainot]

80. another load of crap. obama is only as strong as his pitiful support. the left did not get

his back from the start. the power and paid brains throwing unlimited shit at obama is more and better refined than that that impeached clinton, stopped clinton attempts at single payer, swiftbpoated gore and kerry and kept the left from jumping in the streets after the stolen elections, made bush and torture acceptable.


now, predictably, the confused left punditry (and trolls) blames obama for having to compromise and play politics (this is still trying to be a democracy) from a position in which the people that promised to get his back completely ignore RW talk radio, the right's most important weapon.

evaluating obama and dem performance accurately is impossible as long as there is NO recognition of the coordinated propaganda tool that kiscks internet ass all over the place while invisible to those it regularly craps on. there is NO organized challenge to the right's best weapon and until that changes the left shouldn't expect anything to get better, no matter who they put in the white house.

obama's best move in the upcoming speech is to mention limbaugh by name as the leader of the republican party. he's done it before with success but the left dropped the ball, attacking limbaugh personally instead of as point man for the dominating media tool that has been primarily responsible for getting us into this mess.

[nashville_brook]

82. Obama might turn out to be what puts Perry in office. Sad, but without a strong Democratic brand,

it's likely.

[certainot]

84. GOP has the branding iron and the lazy internet left bends over for limbaugh at every opportunity,

may i have another please.....

[nashville_brook]

90. that's entirely untrue. we are in control of our brand -- it's our responsibility to protect it.

if we don't stand for the middle class, Social Security, environmental protection and a fair deal for the little guy, then there can be no discernible difference between the two brands -- which is exactly what is happening.

no one here bends over for limbaugh -- that's a twitter meme. it works in 140 characters, and blocked users, but it doesn't stand up to reasoned debate.

[certainot]

92. by ignoring talk radio for 20 yrs the left handed over their brand - doesn't matter muchwhat O says

or does.

[Lorien]

315. Bullshit. He has the bully pulpit and he uses it when he wants to

and as for talk radio; that took off with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Obama strongly opposed reinstating it. He likes things exactly as they are; the "center" is now firmly on the hard right of the political spectrum where he's standing. He hates the Left and all that we stand for. That much is clear. He's pro-war, anti-environment, anti-labor, not so crazy about the idea of equal rights for all, pro-Patriot Act, anti- public education, pro- status quo. That's no Democrat in my book.

[certainot]

384. bullshit. the left allows the RW think tanks to have the bully pulpit. 1000 coordinated radio statio

stations reaching 50 mil a week with well scripted repetition, while the hillbilly internet left bends over for team limbaugh.

obama's bully pulpit doesn't last. if it sticks the think tanks analyze and come up with a plan and the buzz machine that would make mad avenue jealous distorts, distracts, and blasts over it with volume and repetition and coordination not possible with any other medium. and those other mediums are the ones the left watches and analyzes and reacts to. too fucking late most of the time, which is why we're in this mess.

[certainot]

94. PS the left is blaming obama for it's own inability to protect its brand from carnival barkers with

the biggest megaphone in history

[nashville_brook]

102. yes, i agree he should beware of the "professional right" rather than the "professional left"

[MessiahRp]

138. It would be Obama that bends over for Limbaugh/Paul Ryan/Fox News, et al every time.

As soon as their talking points hit the press he's all over the place fawning over their ideas in speeches, telling them he wants to cut deals to their liking. He's the one that caves immediately every time. We're the ones that call out these proposals as nonsense immediately, then sit in total fucking shock as Obama adopts them as his own and sends out his punk ass crew to attack the left to try to earn street cred with the Tea Party, and then when we, the left, fight back, loudly and vigorously the apologists swarm on his behalf... even while his newly adopted Republican ideas are crushed by the right wing media as no longer right wing enough (because they want more and know they can get it).

President Capitulator is the real problem here. Not us.

Rp

[DirkGently]

83. Interesting premise. If the left is the enemy, who are the good guys, again?

[certainot]

87. you mean if i criticize the left for walking by the guy on every corner yelling your mother is a who

re and you father is a thief (because they're liberal), then i'm saying they're the enemy?

[DirkGently]

93. The left stands on the corner, screaming that your mother is a whore? Really?

Wow.

:silly:


edit: Quotes removed to reflect paraphrasing of the way the left was characterized as standing on the corner, calling your mother a whore.

[certainot]

97. re read my comment, that's not what i said, and you are sounding like a republican

[nashville_brook]

100. can you maybe re-phrase so that it is better understood who is the "whore" and who is yelling?

[certainot]

106. if someone puts up a soapbox on the corner and calls you a thief and murderer all day long and

you just walk on by there' s a good chance you might have to move.

that's what the right has been doing from 1000 of the loudest radio stations in the country for 20 years, since reagan killed the fairness doctrine. they're the same stations that broadcast pro and college and local sports and give us traffic reports and do emergency broadcasts, the left has ignored it and now it is acceptable. it has swiftboated our candidates and culled moderate thinking republicans. we let them turn the democratic party into teh democrat party- fox may have helped but talk radio does the heavy lifting and it is unchallenged.

limbaugh gots some attention /recognition recently for making it impossible for boner to let obama talk on wednesday. that is also why we nearly defaulted. and so on, for 20 years right under the left's noses, while our pundits analyze and evaluate AFTER the messaging has already been pounded into the earholes of 50 mil a week.

[nashville_brook]

108. i agree RW radio is a problem that has been allowed to fester, but, that shines no light on Obama's

unwillingness to support democratic values, policies, and programs.

[certainot]

115. i see it as politics, with dems at a major disadvantage because of ignoring RW radio

it is the same tool that has beaten back all reforms and progress the last 20 years while the left looked elsewhere because listening to it gave them headaches and there is no written record to analyze. instead we beat on the closest thing to a good president we'll get past this pack of criminal plutocrats and their media and think tank brains paid to destroy democracy. ewe've always had money in politics but the difference now is the radio and it makes no sense to me for the left to keep doing the GOP's work for it.. once the left takes on the radio monopoly and begins to take that advantage away it will get better. otherwise we can expect the same.

[DirkGently]

103. Please explain how what you said about the left calling your mother a whore isn't what you said.

[certainot]

109. you're right, it's a bit confusing who's doing the yelling but you put in quotes and your

interpretation doesn't make much sense.

please see my comment above for the clarification

[Lorien]

316. So you support the Fairness Doctrine then?

[certainot]

383. when uttered by prominent dems no two words get more serious RW actio than 'fairness doctrine'. U2?

loss of the fairness doctrine started it all and the rapidly warming planet has no time for idiotic debates, even with trolls, about a legal remedy for a talk radio monopoly of public airwaves on stations licensed to operate in the public interest, featuring cowardly blowhards using call screeners to protect them from real debate and prompted and praised by paid callers sitting in the basements of think tanks.

with the help of 'free speech' 'advocates' the same talk radio monopoly has made even a new and improved fairness doctrine an impossibility and not an answer for now. the real answer is hte collective left pulling their iPods out of thei rears and picketing the stations, shaming local sponsors, and demanding their universities stop sponsoring global warming denial and racism by broadcasting their sports on limbaugh stations. those remedies would be a lot faster. if only the collective left would finally figure out what's been kicking their internet ass all over the political landscape the last 20 years.

[Lorien]

314. Um, he's supposed to LEAD, not wait for his cheerleaders to scream extra loud

before he does anything. He was given a mandate from day one and had the Nation's support-and he pissed on ALL of us. Yep-even you, unless you are a Dittohead at your core. You Obamacrats always whine that we didn't "get his back"; what does that absurd statement even mean to you? Build a shrine to him in our basements? Write fawning letters of support to him as he pushes hardcore GOP policies and destroys the party from within? If we supported Big Oil, Big Banks and Big Pharma, would that be "getting his back"? Because those are the only constituents he cares about hearing from.

[certainot]

385. was this your first vote? did you notice how the right has destroyed all democrats the last 20

years? they've been kicking ass an the left has no fucking clue because it hurts their little heads to listen to the talk radio.

the same billionaire machine that's been kicking ass is still kicking obama around and the people who said they'd get his back are whining. maybe for a lot of them it was a first time vote because of age or they were just not interested until it got really bad. and since they actually thought we still had a democracy while they were having fun and playing they figured the black man could waltz into the white billionaires house and kick ass and they could get back to blogging. and when it didn't happen then maybe they didn't vote in 2010 and now they doubling down blaming obama for their own stupidity and laziness in allowing team limbaugh a total free speech free ride to determine what is and what isn't acceptable in america, to decide where the political center is, and why letting the US default was no big deal, for instance.

the collective left didn't get his back from the start, and there is still NO organized opposition to the right's most important weapon. pitiful.

[notGaryOldman]

117. Matt Stoller is a "liberal activist"?

Reads more like a GOP troll trying to stir up shit, ala Cheney.

[nashville_brook]

120. yes, i too have seen this tweet -- Stoller, was, in fact Sr Policy Advisor for Alan Grayson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stoller

Stoller is a past president of BlogPAC, a political action committee that funds progressive blogs. He was a senior policy advisor to former Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Florida).

Stoller is well known for his Internet activism during the campaign for the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and was a leading contributor to the liberal political blog MyDD. He left MyDD in July, 2007 to co-found OpenLeft, another liberal political blog. Stoller also consults for the Sunlight Foundation, FreePress.net, and Working Assets.

[DirkGently]

121. Blah blah highly qualified policy expert blah. Expert schmexpert. How dare he?

[nashville_brook]

124. :)

[DirkGently]

126. Just another fringe lefty from the fringes of ... actual expert knowledge. Screw those guys.

:D

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

297. Spoken like a true Obama-bot

Obama-bots just can take the truth about their cult leader.

[rhett o rick]

125. Obama is being given too much credit for the downfall of the Democratic Party.

The co opting of the Democratic Party was not so obvious during the Bush reign because the Koch-Democrats could keep a low profile and blame everything on Bush while they supported Bush. In 2008, the Bush cover was off and now the Koch-Democrats had nowhere to hide. They have no excuse not to follow Democratic values. The sham has been exposed. The Demo party is full of DINO's. 2010 showed the reaction of many of the disillusioned Democratic base. The confusion will continue thru 2012. The big question is will our corp-overlords go with 4 more years of Obama or will they get gutsy and run Jeb early? My guess is that they will give the country 4 more years of Democratic failures to convince America it's time for another Bush. The smart son. With Rove's help Palin and all the wacko's will be exposed and Jeb will be the savior of the Republican Party.

[DirkGently]

129. I think that's true. Clinton's Third Way template even appeared to work when the grass was green.

Smiling at Republicans and trying not anger corporate money won't work now. Put down the Triangulation Playbook and slowly back away.

[rhett o rick]

130. The corporatists think they see total victory in the near future. Fascism. nm

[DirkGently]

161. They sure are pushing hard. Unions, entitlements, privatizing schools. Who's going to push BACK?

[bvar22]

156. The Tea Leaves read that way here too.

The Working Class & The Poor are well and truly fucked for a LONG time in the USA.

There IS some real hope on the distant horizon.
Our neighbors to the South have managed to overthrow their Oligarchs.

"The worst enemy of humanity is U.S. capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that nation states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
----Bolivian Reform President Evo Morales

FDR said much the same thing in 1944 with his Economic Bill of Rights.
Bolivian President Evo Morales sounds more like FDR than anyone in the Democratic Party Leadership,
but you won't hear anything about THAT in our Media.
THEY will work hard to keep us divided,
and to frame the National Dialog tightly as a contest of Democrat vs. Republican.



Our neighbors to the South have given us a Blue Print,
but the also had Fair, Transparent, verifiable elections monitored by International Agencies.
We do NOT have that here,
and neither Party is remotely interested in giving THAT to the unwashed underclass (the lower 98%).

Until The Working Class & The Poor realize that we have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the Rich Elite Class Leadership of BOTH Political Parties,
the Status Quo will remain in place.

Things will get worse before they get better.
Take care to protect yourself as much as possible.

VIVA (Real) Democracy!
We Outnumber THEM 100 to 1.
Find the Common Ground.
We can argue over the details later.
Spread the Word.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[swilton]

273. Neighbors to the south

I agree that they have shown a pathway - that over-throw of oligarchs/ toxic politicians can be done....and I didn't hear them whine about not having the MSM behind them - or having to overthrow citizens united, remove campaign financing before anything could be done.

[rhett o rick]

379. So what do you see happening in the near future? nm

[Robeson]

131. This paragraph is what crash and burning looks like, folks...

...

The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

[demwing]

140. But..but..but...

75% of Democrats support the President!

Wait, if the numbers of Democrats have dropped by 15%,then that 75% support level just dropped to a 64.5% support level. The other Dems are so pissed they left the FUCKING PARTY.

Fuck it all, primary this man, he needs to go.

I don't care about pushing him to the left, I want to push him out. I want a populist progressive, not a wall street protectionist.

I'd rather go down fighting than live like a political eunuch.

[MissDeeds]

151. +1

:thumbsup: :patriot:

[nashville_brook]

155. good point about the numbers

i've notseen evidence that it's possible for non-corporate entities to influence Obama, left...right...or center. doesn't seem like he hears any messages that come from outside of his advisor-bubble.

[DirkGently]

164. Who's going to tell him not to listen to Wallstreet? Geithner?

[DirkGently]

160. Very well said.

[swilton]

274. Precisely

He doesn't need to MOVE left unless that's where the door is!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

290. Okay

Who are you going to run in his place? I mean one who's electable?

It's a little factoid you guys avoid every time.

[ProSense]

149. And this is what

facts look like.

[ihavenobias]

137. Kick n/t

[treestar]

144. He did not continue unpopular wars. He ended one and is

ending the one that was the most "popular." Both parties wanted to bail out the banks to avoid a meltdown. The Democrats are not at fault for what homeowners lost. Which was not "everything." Most of Bush's policies were changed. Some minor things about which too much is made are taken out of perspective.

The Democratic party is not ruined.

This entire piece has no goal but to aid and assist Republicans.

[Fuddnik]

147. The only war he ended was the War on Poverty.

The last time I looked, Iraq was still a tinderbox, and US troops were still getting killed there.

He can say the war is over. I can say day is night. We'd both be 100% wrong.

[bvar22]

154. And some people here insist Obama doesn't have a Magic Wand.

That was powerful Magic Wand he waved when he declared the WAR in Iraq was over,
and the all the "Combat Troops" are NOW "Non-Combat Troops".

50,000 Combat Trained Troops with Weapons and Air Support stationed indefinitely in IRAQ
is NOT "Ending the WAR".
It IS Permanent Military Occupation.
It IS what it IS.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nashville_brook]

166. ouch...that nails it.

[gkhouston]

228. I saw a few minutes of "Primary Colors" on TV yesterday.

I've never seen the whole film, but the bit I saw yesterday was a Democratic debate. One of the candidates was an older man who asked when the Democratic party decided it was okay to focus on offering the poor a safety yet, when the party used to focus on handing them a ladder so they could climb into a better situation. Ouch, but true. And now the net seems imperiled.

[DirkGently]

157. Right. Grayon's policy advisor has "no goal but to aid & assist Republicans." Pull the other one, eh

[swilton]

275. I'm glad to know that Grayson/

his policy adviser is still around - they certainly speak more for me than any of the corporate dems that are running things in DC.

[DirkGently]

173. "Investigation Finds U.S. Drones Strike Pakistan Every Four Days, Killing 775 Civilians Since 2004"

August 15, 2011
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/15/investigation_finds_us_drones_strike_pakistan

[nashville_brook]

176. "Obama continues Bush policy on state secrets" - ABC News

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/09/obama-continues-bush-policy-on-state-secrets/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/05/obama-justice-department-continues-bushs-state-secrets-argumentagain/

Obama Justice Department Continues Bush’s ‘State Secrets’ Argument…Again

In a court filing submitted in the middle of the night, President Obama's Justice Department is continuing the "state secrets" argument of his predecessor in litigation over the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, investigated for terrorist financing out of its Oregon offices, sued the government alleging it was targeted under the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.

In the middle of the night the Justice Department filed its response in the court case, telling a federal judge, who has ordered it to disclose information in the case, that Justice is still asserting the state secrets privilege.
"The Government must continue to oppose the disclosure of state secrets in any further proceedings," the Justice Department wrote.

here's the filing ->
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/AHIF%20USG%20Response%20OSC.pdf

[FrenchieCat]

198. Articles from February and May of 2009????????????

[nashville_brook]

214. once the decision was made to continue policies, there's not much sense in writing more articles..

however, please do correct this if you can find where he's dropped the Bush-era policy.

[nashville_brook]

178. Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/02/obama-administr-4/

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Lawsuit


The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition — including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn’t changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

[FrenchieCat]

200. Article dated February 9, 2009.....2 weeks after inauguration????

[nashville_brook]

227. unfortunatley, that's how soon the betrayal occurred. would love it if it weren't true.

[nashville_brook]

179. Obama continues Bush policy on detainees: Indefinite detention, no legal rights - Raw Story

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_continues_Bush_policy_at_Afghan_0221.html

Obama continues Bush policy on detainees: Indefinite detention, no legal rights

Bagram airbase flies under the radar but will continue to operate without US law

In a stunning departure from his rhetoric on Guantanamo Bay prison, President Barack Obama signaled Friday he will continue Bush Administration policy with regard to detainees held at a US airbase in Afghanistan, saying they have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts -- and denying them legal status altogether.

"This Court's Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram, Afghanistan," Acting Assistant Obama Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote in a brief filed Friday. "Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."

The move seems to be a reversal from Obama's much-trumpeted announcement to close the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January, in which he promised to return the United States to the "moral high ground" and "restore the standards of due process"

[FrenchieCat]

202. Article dated February 1, 2009 (same article as above one)?????? that's what 11 days

after Inauguration? :wtf:

[nashville_brook]

180. Obama Continues Bush Policy of Deadly Air Strikes in Pakistan - DemocracyNow

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/30/obama_continues_bush_policy_of_deadly

Obama Continues Bush Policy of Deadly Air Strikes in Pakistan

In Pakistan, outrage continues to mount over a US military attack approved by President Obama. Last Friday, unmanned US Predator drones fired missiles at houses in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, killing as many as twenty-two people, including at least three children. We speak to Pakistani scholar Sahar Shafqat.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Pakistan, where outrage continues to mount over the US military’s first act of war approved by President Obama. Last Friday, unmanned US Predator drones fired missiles at houses in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, killing as many as twenty-two people, including at least three children.

The United States has carried out thirty such drone attacks on alleged al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistani territory since last summer, killing some 250 people, according to a tally by Reuters.

The Pakistani prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that US drone attacks were "counterproductive" and ended up uniting local communities with militants. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated Tuesday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that such strikes will continue and that Pakistani officials are aware of US policy on this matter.
ROBERT GATES: Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al-Qaeda wherever al-Qaeda is, and we will continue to pursue them.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Has that decision been transmitted to the Pakistan government?
ROBERT GATES: Yes, sir.

AMY GOODMAN: Pakistani officials, however, deny there’s any agreement with the United States to secretly allow drone attacks inside Pakistan. Defense Secretary Gates’s comments on the missile attacks were the first to publicly acknowledge the strikes since last Friday. This is an excerpt of last Friday’s White House press briefing with, well, the new press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
REPORTER: And other US officials have confirmed these Predator drone air strikes, Pakistan. What is it about cannot confirming whether the President was consulted —

ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.

REPORTER: How does that compromise operational security?

ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.

REPORTER: Don’t you think it’s justifiable curiosity, Robert, about the President’s first military action —

ROBERT GIBBS: I think there are many things that you should be justifiably curious about, but I’m not going to get into talking about —

REPORTER: If other members of the US government are confirming this, why is it that you can’t comment?

ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.

AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Joseph Biden also refused to comment Sunday as to whether the United States would notify Pakistan before sending forces into their territory. He was on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Last week, an American drone apparently attacked an al-Qaeda force, or what they thought was an al-Qaeda force, in the territorial part of Pakistan, a cross-border operation. It’s my understanding that the President, the previous president, gave our US forces and the CIA permission to go across that border, to go after al-Qaeda if it became necessary on the ground. Does President Obama — will he continue that policy?
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: Bob, as you know, I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that.

But I can say that the President of the United States said during his campaign and in the debates that if there is an actionable target of a high-level al-Qaeda personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that.

But here’s the good news. The good news is that in my last trip — and I’ve been to Pakistan many times and that region many times — there is a great deal more cooperation going on now between the Pakistan military in an area called the FATA, the Federally Administered Territory — Waziristan, North Waziristan — all that area we hear about, that is really sort of ungovernable — not sort of, it’s been ungovernable for the Pakistani government. That’s where the bad guys are hiding. That’s where the al-Qaeda folks are, and some other malcontents.

And so, what we’re doing is we’re in the process of working with the Pakistanis to help train up their counterinsurgency capability of their military, and we’re getting new agreements with them about how to deal with cross-border movements of these folks. So we’re making progress.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Would you have notified them before any of these cross-border movements, because, as you well know, there is a fear that there would be leaks on something like that, and there might be a temptation not to? Exactly what is our policy on that?

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can’t respond to that question. I’m not going to respond to that question.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You’re not going to respond to that question.

AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Biden, being interviewed by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. When we come back from break, we’ll speak with a Pakistani activist and scholar about the first military attack in the Obama administration, the unmanned drone attack in Pakistan. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: As US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, prepares to head to the region next week, I’m joined now here in the firehouse studio by Pakistani political scientist Sahar Shafqat.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
SAHAR SHAFQAT: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s very good to have you with us. What about this unmanned drone attack? Where did it happen? What about the denials, on both sides, of US-Pakistani cooperation?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: The attacks happened in FATA, which is the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. It’s this no man’s land, literally, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, colonial-era sort of administrative region.
The denials, I think, are part of this drama that is sort of in mutually agreed-upon play that both the US and Pakistan are engaged in, which is the US is going to engage —- carry out these drone attacks; the Pakistani government will deny that they had any knowledge and will express outrage for domestic consumption.
But they’re very deeply unpopular, and I should add that they have caused a humanitarian crisis within Pakistan. In Bajaur, for example, it’s estimated that about 300,000 people have fled the region, which is about half the population there. And it’s -—
AMY GOODMAN: Explain where that region is.
SAHAR SHAFQAT: That is in part of FATA, which is the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Bajaur is one of the agencies within that.
AMY GOODMAN: Right next to Afghanistan.
SAHAR SHAFQAT: Right next to Afghanistan, yes. It’s a series of about ten or eleven different agencies within this — what Vice President Biden called the no man’s land, this ungovernable land. It’s supposed to have autonomy. And this has been, as I said, a colonial-era legacy, which successive Pakistani governments have more or less respected. This, of course, changed dramatically after 9/11, when the Pakistani government was forced to intervene, because Taliban and al-Qaeda had fled there from Afghanistan, so — which was a radical change in policy.
AMY GOODMAN: So, right now, this latest attack, what do you know about it? We have learned so far that something like twenty-two people were killed, three of them children.
SAHAR SHAFQAT: I don’t know much more than that, much more than what you know. But I will also add that it’s disappointing, from my perspective, and I think from Pakistanis’ perspective, that the new administration, which clearly has recognized that there were terrible mistakes made in the Bush era that have to be now sort of corrected with policy changes, has refused to acknowledge that there were serious mistakes that have been made in the US policy towards Pakistan and has in fact made clearly a decision to continue US policy towards Pakistan.
AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of Richard Holbrooke, who’s headed to the region now?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: Richard Holbrooke, I think — I mean, there are many sort of reasons to object to his involvement, which, you know, sort of pertain to his past, but I do want to point out one additional thing, which is that he has been named the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Originally, he was supposed to be named envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The Indian government lobbied very fiercely to have that designation removed, because they did not want to be lumped in with Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that, from my view, is unfortunate, because, you know, throughout, for example, Obama’s campaign, he noted that the solution to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan must involve some kind of solution between India and Pakistan, as well, that India is part of this equation. And I agree with that. And so, it’s disappointing that the sort of official designation for Richard Holbrooke is not going to include India at all in this equation.
AMY GOODMAN: The level of support for President Obama before he became president and now?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: In Pakistan? He was definitely more popular before the attacks on Friday, a week ago. And, in fact, the prime minister of Pakistan had more or less guaranteed to the Pakistani public that when President Obama comes into office, these drone attacks are going to stop. So he has, of course, been extremely embarrassed by this action, and there have already been mass protests against US bombing. And I think a lot of disillusionment has set in, because there were hopes that there would be some kind of policy correction, policy change, and that appears to not be the case at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Sahar Shafqat, what about the attacks on Mumbai and the links to Pakistan?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: Well, you know, again, none of that investigation has been made public, so I can only speculate on who exactly was involved. But to the best of our knowledge, we — I think it’s safe to say that, somehow or the other, the Pakistani security establishment was involved, either indirectly or directly or even through sort of — in a way of having knowledge of it and letting it happen. And again, this —
AMY GOODMAN: What makes you say that?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: You know, the groups that have been alleged to be involved are creations of ISI, the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliated social group, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. And just as an example of how the security establishment tends to patronize and help out these groups, when the Jamaat-ud-Dawa was declared by the United Nations as a terrorist organization, the government took a few days to sort of act, and when they eventually seized the assets of this group, they discovered, lo and behold, that all the money had been taken out of the accounts. I don’t think this was an accident. I think this was an opportunity given to this group to sort of, you know, clear out its money and regroup eventually. Unfortunately, the ISI and other security, you know, agencies in Pakistan have always worked against the interests of the people of Pakistan, and I think this is another instance in which they, again, either directly or indirectly have done that.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, the lawyers’ movement in Pakistan, where it is now under Zardari, the husband of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto?
SAHAR SHAFQAT: The lawyers’ movement is the most hopeful development in Pakistan in the last, I would say, probably couple of decades. Unfortunately, the movement has been weakened since the civilian government took office almost a year ago. And I should note that the United States has remained sort of steadfastly against the restoration of the judiciary and especially of the chief justice. My hope is that now that we have a former constitutional expert as the new US president, that he will see the importance of maintaining the rule of law and of restoring the judiciary.
The latest announcement by the lawyers’ movement leadership is that there will be a long march on March 9th and that there will be a sit-in until the judiciary is restored, until the chief justice is restored. And most recently, one of the major opposition party leaders, Nawaz Sharif, announced that he is going to participate and support this long march fully.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Sahar Shafqat, Pakistani activist and scholar. She specializes in comparative politics, an associate professor of political science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

[FrenchieCat]

203. Interview from January 30, 2009......?????????????

[Number23]

222. I'm dying here. Absolutely DYING

:rofl:

Don't get in the way when folks are trying to shoot themselves in their own ass, Frenchie. This thread represents so much of what's wrong with the criticism of Obama on this web site.

Folks distort what's actually happened ('he's still fighting two wars!), ignore others (the bailout of the auto industry and the stimulus which saved MILLIONS of jobs) and just flat out lie about others ("we lost in 2010 because he wasn't LIBERAL ENOUGH" completely ignoring or ignorant of the facts that independents and growing numbers of Americans view this president as TOO LIBERAL).

Legitimate, honest criticism is smothered to DEATH by this type of stupidity. I have no idea who Matt Stoller is but anyone who types that "Obama ruined the Democratic party" while he casually mentions "oh yes, the president did pass some really significant legislation and oh yes, Republican obstructionism is unhinged and unprecedented and oh yes, many of his loudest "supporters" turned on him before he'd hung his coat up in the Oval Office" is full of... something. And it ain't integrity.

[DirkGently]

234. Matt Stoller was Alan Grayson's Senior Policy Advisor. Possibly he knows of what he speaks.

[Number23]

237. LOL If he knew of what he "speaks" then why couldn't he keep his own job?

When Grayson got tossed, he did too.

Just what Obama needs -- Someone who couldn't keep his own damn job trying to tell him how to keep his!

[DirkGently]

257. Now you're slashing at Grayson, too? How many Democrats on your Enemies List? "LOL" indeed.

[Number23]

281. Probably a hell of alot less than on yours.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

291. +1

[nashville_brook]

239. please do post links to where any of these early betrayals were reversed. we'd all love to see them.

especially regarding airstrikes in Pakistan.

[nashville_brook]

181. Obama Continues Bush Policies in Latin America

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8582326

There were great hopes in Latin America when President Obama was elected. U.S. standing in the region had reached a low point under George W. Bush, and all of the hemisphere's left-leaning governments expressed optimism that Obama would go in a different direction.

These hopes have been dashed. President Obama has continued the Bush policies and in some cases has done worse.

The military overthrow of democratically elected President Mel Zelaya of Honduras on June 28 has become a clear example of Obama's failure in the hemisphere. There were signs that something was amiss in Washington from the beginning, when the first statement from the White House failed to even criticize, much less condemn, the coup. It was the only such statement from a government to take a neutral position. The General Assembly of the United Nations and the Organization of American States voted unanimously for "the immediate and unconditional return" of President Zelaya.

Conflicting statements from the White House and State Department emerged over the ensuing days, but last Friday the State Department made clear its "neutrality" as between the dictatorship and the democratically elected president of Honduras. In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, the State Department said that "our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," and appeared to blame President Zelaya for the coup: "President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

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

[nashville_brook]

221. what do you mean by "(I'm paid)" -- are you suggesting that a fellow DU'er is a paid troll?

[nashville_brook]

182. Obama continues all Bush tax cuts - NYTs & AmericaBlog

http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/wash-post-obama-to-agree-to-continue.html

http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/wash-post-obama-to-agree-to-continue.html


White House officials and Congressional Republicans said Sunday they were closing in on a deal to temporarily continue the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels, while bitterly frustrated Democratic Congressional leaders began exploring whether they would have the votes for such a package. In return, Republicans said they would probably agree to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed.

Probably? Why are we talking about giving them their tax cuts in exchange for a "probably"? Not to mention, you truly suck at messaging if the Republicans are able to make 'threatening to cut off the only lifeline for two million Americans and their families right before Christmas' a winning strategy:

In meetings with administration officials after the Senate votes, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and many other House and Senate Democrats voiced deep unhappiness at the prospect of extending all the tax cuts and also expressed their belief that the White House did not appear to be getting enough for such a big concession, officials said.

President Obama caving in a negotiation and not getting enough in return. Huh, imagine that.

White House officials, meanwhile, expressed hope of sealing a deal swiftly, perhaps by midweek, and clearing the Congressional calendar for a long list of other priorities that they aim to accomplish by the end of the year, including ratification of the New Start arms treaty with Russia and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gay service members as part of a wider Pentagon policy bill.

[nashville_brook]

183. Obama continues Bush policy on warrantless wiretapping, executive power - WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.


http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy
Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect 'State Secrets'

San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

[FrenchieCat]

205. March and April 2009?????????

[nashville_brook]

FBI to announce new Net-wiretapping push - expands wireless wiretapping to internet -

(please, please locate a source for this having been reversed -- b/c secret surveillance of our internet traffic isn't a Democratic value)



http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20032518-281.html


FBI to announce new Net-wiretapping push

By: Declan McCullagh FEBRUARY 16, 2011 9:02 PM PST


The FBI is expected to reveal tomorrow that because of the rise of Web-based e-mail and social networks, it's "increasingly unable" to conduct certain types of surveillance that would be possible on cellular and traditional telephones.

FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni will outline what the bureau is calling the "Going Dark" problem, meaning that police can be thwarted when conducting court-authorized eavesdropping because Internet companies aren't required to build in back doors in advance, or because technology doesn't permit it.

Any solution, according to a copy of Caproni's prepared comments obtained by CNET, should include a way for police armed with wiretap orders to conduct surveillance of "Web-based e-mail, social networking sites, and peer-to-peer communications technology."

The last example, which was floated last fall, is likely to be the most contentious. When an encrypted voice application like Phil Zimmermann's Zfone is used, the entire conversation is scrambled from end to end. It's like handing a letter directly to its recipient--bypassing workers at the neighborhood post office, who could be required to forward a copy to the FBI.

[nashville_brook]

184. Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/usnews/whispers/main4932324.shtml


(US News) Barack Obama's foreign policy is beginning to take shape. Semantically, it's a sharp repudiation of the policies of the George W. Bush administration. In reality, it's something like a continuation of Bush policies. Or, if you want to distinguish between the allegedly confrontation-minded policies of Bush's first term and the more accommodationist policies of his second term--a distinction that I think is exaggerated but has something to it--then it's something like the second Bush second term. With, of course, some differences.

On Iraq, for example, Obama has agreed to maintain large numbers of troops there for 19 months--longer than he promised during the 2008 campaign--and many for some indefinite time after that. That has gotten a few antiwar protesters marching and must have left many of those Democratic voters who ached to see America defeated in "Bush's war" feeling frustrated--or inclined for the moment to change the subject. On Afghanistan, Obama has ordered 21,000 more American troops to the theater--including 4,000 troops announced last month--and is continuing unmanned aerial vehicle strikes on unfriendly forces in Pakistan. This is consistent with his long insistence that Afghanistan is the "good war" and with his surprising comment during the campaign that he would strike enemies in Pakistan. But his decision also makes Afghanistan Obama's war and imposes on him the political necessity of securing favorable results within what voters consider a reasonable time, which Bush failed to do in Iraq.

And then there are those semantic changes. We are no longer fighting a "war on terror." We are instead conducting "overseas contingency operations" and, as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, responding to "mancaused disasters." (Napolitano might have used the gender-neutral "human-caused disasters.") We are no longer holding for indefinite periods "enemy combatants." But we will keep holding indefinitely those we catch on the battlefield who do not obey the laws of war (which is the definition of enemy combatants). We are closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay and releasing some of those held there. But the Bush administration released some of those held there, and we will keep holding those deemed dangerous somewhere or other. We haven't quite determined where that is yet. But the town fathers of heavily pro-Obama Alexandria, Va., have let it be known that they don't want any held in their jail for trial in the local federal court.

[FrenchieCat]

206. April 2009?????????????

[Fuddnik]

213. It's 2011. What's changed?

You could write the same articles today, and they'd be just as true.

[Toucano]

231. Don't bother. Frenchie thinks that's a "sell by" date.

You can tell her profound incredulity by the quantity of question marks she employs.

She misses the point that the decisions cited were made early in the administration, before the "it's all Congress's fault!" excuse could plausibly kick in.

Yes, these were Obama's decisions back when he was riding high on the wave of public support and aspirations for change. He had no choice but to be Bush III.

!!!!!!!

[nashville_brook]

259. all these continuations occurred BEFORE the evil GOP foiled all his plans for progressive utopia.

speaking of "sell by" date, Obama didn't waste any time before selling out these ideals. this was fresh meat.

!!!!!!!!:evilgrin:!!!!!!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

233. well....

So what’s happened over the past 32 months? There have been a lot of bumps and bruises, especially in the global economy. But if you step back from the daily squawk box, some trends are clear: Alliances are stronger, the United States is (somewhat) less bogged down in foreign wars, Iran is weaker, the Arab world is less hostile and al-Qaeda is on the run.
<>
Donilon describes it as a “rebalancing” of foreign policy. The top priority remains winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; whatever the news of the moment, Obama is determined to exit from both. A second sort of rebalancing, enabled by the first, is paying more attention to Asia policy. A third is the reset in relations with Russia, which officials argue pays dividends on issues from Libya to Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-successful-post-bush-foreign-policy/2011/09/02/gIQAlfzexJ_story.html


Hubris vs. humility: the contrast between the two presidential doctrines couldn't be clearer.

The Bush Doctrine envisions the U.S. as the bullying leader of the world, more powerful and important than the rest of the world. Ready to enforce its nationalistic vision using military might.

The Obama doctrine envisions the U.S. as one among the world's nations. Part of the world community, but with a special leadership role to play, based on our moral "responsibilities to our fellow human beings."

s a liberal who abhors war but realizes that conflict can be necessary, I fully subscribe to the Obama Doctrine. I'm especially gratified by the respectful humility implicit in President Obama's vision of the U.S. as part of the larger world community.

As far as specifics of the present-day Libyan conflict, I agree with The Economist which writes this week in The birth of an Obama doctrine:

"It is a good case--and it was a good speech. If Colonel Qaddafi is swept quickly from power, or reduced to impotence in some bunker, nobody will care very much about the manner in which Mr Obama put together his alliance and campaign. It might indeed be remembered as an extraordinary foreign-policy success.
http://usliberals.about.com/b/2011/03/31/humility-vs-hubris-obama-doctrine-vs-bush-bully-doctrine.htm


Revise the Patriot Act to increase oversight on government surveillance


"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."

Politifacts found this one to end in a "compromise"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/179/revise-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/


No...he's not Gandhi! you are correct on that.
After all, he did kill Bin Laden.

[nashville_brook]

185. Obama’s OMB Continues Bush-Era Interference With Public Health Standards - ThinkProgress

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/02/08/174560/obama-omb-interference/

Obama’s OMB Continues Bush-Era Interference With Public Health Standards
By Brad Johnson on Feb 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm


The Obama White House interfered with smog standards at the last minute, preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from properly protecting the health of millions of Americans. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its subsidiary Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), led by Obama pick Cass Sunstein, oversees regulatory decisions by federal agencies. “The EPA issued a new rule recently on nitrogen dioxide (NO2),” Center for Progressive Reform president Rena Steinzor writes, “but not before it was weakened by OMB. The consequences for the public health are real.” On December 18, the EPA had proposed installing new monitoring stations at all cities with a population of 350,000 or more, but by “the time OIRA completed its review on January 22, the minimum threshold for monitoring stations had been increased to one per 500,000 people.” The Center for Progressive Reform discovered an email from a top EPA official that reveals the agency opposed the White House interference:

The EPA had made its position clear, it turns out. In a January 20th email about the “500,000″ proposal, Lisa Heinzerling, the EPA’s Associate Administrator for policy, wrote, “EPA does not support the alternative threshold described in the email below.”

[Union Scribe]

193. Go tell that to the families still burying their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers

etc etc.

Your "but it's not a WAR war anymore!" line probably wouldn't fly too well with them.

[spooked911]

359. you're wrong

Iraq is still a war where our troops are dying. There is no timetable for ending Afghanistan.

The other things are not as minor as you would claim. Obama just isn't pushing or even supporting strong Dem policies, that is the plain truth.

[dionysus]

167. what a load of bullshit.

[nashville_brook]

168. what part?

[hfojvt]

186. the blogosphere has hardly remained silent. At least not here.

The push for a primary challenge is pretty strong here. What about Jesse Jackson Jr. or MLK Jr?

[Vidar]

188. K&R.

[BzaDem]

189. Did anyone actually read the full article? It is absolutely hillarious.

He is modeling a proposal off of Democrats forcing Grover Cleveland off the ticket in 1896.

Of course, he doesn't mentioned what the result was. Perhaps that was because Democrats lost the following four consecutive Presidential elections.

That is EXACTLY what Matt Stoller wants -- Democrats to LOSE. He wants to ENSURE we never enact progressive policies, because he is NOT A PROGRESSIVE. He is perfectly FINE with right-wing policy from a first-principles standpoint, and as a bonus, having right-wing policy allows him to continue to whine and pretend about him being a progressive. Us losing the next four consecutive Presidential elections would be a dream scenario for him.

[DirkGently]

194. What's hilarious is proposing Alan Grayson's policy advisor wants Dems to lose.

[BzaDem]

195. Not really. In 1990, people would have called it hilarious that Nader wanted Dems to lose.

Now, most people have long since figured it out.

One would suspect that proposing a strategy as a historical parallel that resulted in four consecutive Presidential election losses would make people figure this out. But apparently not yet.

[DirkGently]

207. Grayson's a Democrat, not 3rd party. Under the bus with him too? Anyone NOT the enemy?

[BzaDem]

208. Did Grayson imply that he wouldn't vote for Obama, or that we should follow a historical parallel

where the Democratic party lost four consecutive Presidential elections?

:shrug:

[DirkGently]

210. The question is how you accuse someone on Grayson's team of working for Republican victory?

Who is permitted to speak? Who is allowed to suggest alternatives? Without being attacked as a enabler of Republican victory.

What I really don't get about the savaging of DEMOCRATS who criticize Obama as though they are the enemy, is who that kind of talk is supposed to win over?

If you think he's wrong, let's hear why.

Let's not hear why people with rather obvious Democratic and progressive credentials are acting in bad faith.



Edited: for clarity

[BzaDem]

232. Looking for an alternative in a primary is one thing. I wouldn't support a primary challenger in a

primary, but I would support them in the general if they won the primary.

But if someone advocates for an alternative to the Democratic nominee in the general election, they are by DEFINITION an enabler of a Republican victory. That is just math in a zero sum election.

My only point is that rarely does one see an Obama critic flat out admit that their goal is a historical parallel with a loss of four consecutive Presidential elections for Democrats.

[nashville_brook]

229. so, if your purity test for Stoller doesn't pan out, you're going to divert attention to Grayson?

that doesn't even make any sense.

[BzaDem]

230. Huh? My point is that Grayson is not like Stoller. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

258. What is extremely suspect here is your extremely simple

extrapolations.

[nashville_brook]

196. only Obama has the power to wreck the Dem Party for the next 4 cycles, and he's doing a bangup job

[BzaDem]

197. Except that vast supermajorities of liberal Democrats disagree with you. OF COURSE there will be

SOME people that will be unsatisfied with ANYONE the party ever elects to the Presidency. In fact, this is true for both parties, and is true in ANY political system.

But the more important and relevant question is whether the vast majority of his party is satisfied with his performance. It would seem that they are, and that they don't believe he is "wrecking the party" (to say the least).

[nashville_brook]

226. that vast supermajority of yours has been shrinking from the high 80s to the low 70s

and we're 14 months out from the election with no economic upturn in sight. a pragmatist would recognize that these are not good signs and would endeavor to put the party back together.

but, i guess Obama doesn't the 15% of liberal democrats who formerly were members of the vast supermajority. and, I guess Obama doesn't need Senior Citizens who see him "putting Social Security on the table." also, environmentalists aren't known to vote much, either. no loss there, and smog is GREAT for business, and he'll convert the lost environmental vote with Chamber of Commerce members (easily!).

[BzaDem]

235. Oh, most of them will vote for Obama. In fact, most of those claiming they won't vote for Obama will

vote for Obama.

I'm just pointing out that since a vast supermajority of the party supports Obama, and that his approval among Democrats is higher than any President in the last 50 years, it is odd to suggest that the party thinks Obama is "wrecking it."

[tcaudilllg]

242. Not true.

And if it were, this article would not have appeared in Salon. The truth is the matter is, at least half the party is about to dump him. And when it does, most of yours -- and his -- support will go the way of Howard Dean.

[BzaDem]

244. ROFL

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

269. the relevancy of the article can be measured in the degreee of freakout by ideological supporters

[BzaDem]

298. It's kind of hard to freak out about something so hillarious.

I'm not the slightest bit worried about a primary challenge. But if the author's attempt was to make people scared, he probably could have chosen a better historical parallel than Grover Cleveland. :rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

201. Easy-peasy! Just reverse 70+% national Dem/Liberal support and you're home free!

[nashville_brook]

218. Obama's general approval ratings have hovered in the high 30s and low 40s recently.

while the approval rating of liberal Dems has fallen from highs in the upper 80s. the trend does not look for a president who will likely not an economic recovery to run on in 2012.

it's wonderful that self-described liberal Democrats support him at these levels -- i wonder if he'll be able to keep them, or if his advisers recommend more hippie-punching as we move into campaign season. if so, expect that 70% to be a high water mark.

[SkyDaddy7]

211. These post are such BS...

Sure be upset over the wars but to blame Obama for the jobs crisis is PURE BS! Folks need to understand Obama really does not have a magic wand so stop acting like he does. This is why many of us do not take your criticisms seriously.

We should be united against the Republicans.

[Fuddnik]

215. Unemployment is still high because Obama and Congress don't do aything about it.

Obama and his spokespeople have said several times over the previous that there will be no major jobs programs. They're all free-market ideologues.

Unemployment stays high, because they let it. We have a crisis and NOBODY is trying to fix it.

Fuck 'em all.

[SkyDaddy7]

391. That is the PURE BS I am talking about...

Obama got the MAX amount of stimulus politically possible in 2009 & since. Obama does not own a magic wand & Congress is controlled by NUT JOB Tea Baggers.

If Obama had the votes there would be another Federal Stimulus Program...To say otherwise is absurd!

[Plucketeer]

220. Fine

Then I'd ask for someone to point to WHERE in the line I step in so that I can look to my right and see nothing but Republicans and also look to my left and see nothing but Democrats. I'll bet you can't find that spot. I'd LOVE to be staunchly behind the but I'm thinking there won't be many to for me to be behind.
In '07, a certain candidate said he'd end our war in Iraq the DAY he took office - said we could take that proclamation to the bank. It was no more and no less bullshit than when McCain told voters HE knew how to get bin Laden and would advise the military of his secret if we elected him. Wasn' it treasonous to retain such info if he really did have it??? Of course, McCain was LYING - no different that the line Obama fed us.

[nashville_brook]

224. i love your illustration of the line, where you can look to the right and see only GOPers...

that's really powerful.

I did not register as a bi-partisan. I do not vote in the Bi-Partisan Primaries. I'm a Democrat because I believe in Democratic values, and those are the values I expect my Democratic leaders to FIGHT for.

[MissDeeds]

236. Word!

I agree - I will never vote for anyone who does not advocate and exemplify Democratic values and ideals. Furthermore, if the person I vote for fails to champion those ideals, I will actively support his/her replacement with another candidate who does.

[paulkienitz]

216. I can't think of another president with a wider gap...

...between the ideals that he ran on and the agenda of his policies in office.

Can you?

Even with Dubya, those of us paying attention pretty much knew what kind of president he was going to be.

[nashville_brook]

219. Commander Smirksalot was nothing if not loyal to his base.

as vile as he/they were.

[MJJP21]

240. I believe

that someone will come out at the last minute or near enough to the democratic primaries to announce an alternative to Obama. My opinion is that short of a pedophile this person will get enough votes to knock Obama out of the running. Any warm body at this point will spark a rallying move in his/her direction.

[Mosaic]

243. This article is 6 months too late

The time to be serious about a primary was long ago. I think I was one of the first to bring it up, but even I admit it is now too late. We must unite and support this man, and hope and pray he'll show Progressive values in his second term.

[DirkGently]

260. Critical discussion is always worthwhile. No politician changes based on unqualified praise.

[Lorien]

317. Not at all. We're more than a year out

and Obama will be 1000x worse with nothing to lose.

[1StrongBlackMan]

245. Before I read the article, I must ask ...

Should not the more appropriate, helpful, useful, better, more important question among Democrats be ... What should Democrats do ALONG WITH; or better yet, FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA?

To THAT question, I would answer: 1) Work our asses off to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress; 2) Work our asses off to unelect the radical rightwingers currently serving in Congress ... even if that means (as is the case in my district) supporting/working with moderate Republican candidates; 3) Devoting more time attacking the lunacy of rightwing rather than spending our waking moments being "critical" of PRESIDENT OBAMA; and finallly, 4) Taking each and every opportunity to talk with the hundreds of people that are frustrated with their current circumstance and ignorantly (or innocently) blaming it on PRESIDENT OBAMA.

If we, as Democrats, are not doing all of the above, then the rest is all "YOU DO IT" and/or "We need saving, because we won't save ourselves" bullshit.

Okay, now I think I'll read the article ... or maybe not.

[nashville_brook]

255. that's why the "brand" of the Democratic Party is so important. it takes a lot longer to get

someone on board for state races (etc) when you have to explain that not all democrats will turn tail on our values like Obama has.

[DirkGently]

262. Congressional reps are already distancing themselves. They need liberal Dems, even if Obama doesn't.

[QC]

365. Distancing themselves? I guess they've never seen him with his shirt off!

:silly:

[yardwork]

326. We did that. He's destroying the environment all by himself. No compromises needed.

The Republicans didn't make Obama "put Medicare and Social Security on the table." He did that all by himself. Same with the environment. The Republicans didn't force Obama to roll back clean air requirements, or approve a pipeline from one side of the United States to the other just to sell the oil to foreigners.

How would having a Democratic majority in Congress have stopped those things, and the numerous other ways in which the man capitulates to business interests every single time?

[earcandle]

249. Happy Americans song for you!

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Happy_Americans.swf

[earcandle]

250. Long Dark Night to Face.... unless we get someone to compete.

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Long_Dark_Night_ec.swf

[blkmusclmachine]

271. I don't see much concern about any of this from the Party apparatus:

Is the Party ALL

DLC/Third Way/"New DEMs"

now?

[Lorien]

311. Good question. Have the conservatives and neo-liberals purged the party

at the top of all progressives and liberals? That was always the goal of the DLC; destroy the party from the inside out and make it an extension of the GOP.

[DeSwiss]

283. If the Democrats want to have even a chance at saving their party.....

...from oblivion, then they best get rid of Obama.

- Otherwise it's curtains.

K&R

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

286. Piece of crap story

That was largely dicredited in its resonses.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

292. Obama is a corporate shill.

He has guaranteed his place in history and afforded his family and generations that follow the privilege
that his presidency will provide. He's made his deal with the Devil at our expense.

We need to get angry, very, very angry and hold every one of them responsible and we must do it NOW.
We pay now or we pay later but let there be no doubt we will pay dearly for the hope and faith we held
for this man. We need a primary and a candidate.

I rarely post here anymore but need to get this off my chest. My heart breaks for all of those that are going
to needlessly suffer for one man's maniacal demand for power and self preservation. We are not
dealing with incompetence which would be forgivable, but deliberate destruction of the party.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

294. SOMETIMES I WONDER

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

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

[Le Taz Hot]

306. k & r

Excellent article. I love Salon.

[creon]

318. Highly unlikely

I doubt that will happen.

I expect Obama will be re nominated without much trouble.

[tomp]

319. there are many problems with a primary.

among them is the fact that should obama prevail (which he is extremely likely to do) it will be an endorsement of his policies. this will further sink his opposition, and i take this as a real danger.

the media will marginalize anyone to his left in both the primary and the general (should that unlikely scenario occur), and the progressives will lose either way.

the only viable option is a third party, and not even with the expectation of winning, but with the expectation of educating the american people as to what is going on.

[mother earth]

322. The automatic nomination should never be a given. Esp.

when what we have witnessed is far from what we voted for. We voted for change, we expected leadership and backbone in what has become chaotic and clear abdication of law. We expected accountability and acknowledgement of the crimes that have gone unchecked by the previous admin. and wall st. What we got was a very poor excuse and non-representation of core party values. Why should we be expected to accept this once more, for another four years with a DINO? I don't think so...and don't wave the "it could be worst" BS by naming off the various rethug party candidates, sure they are batshit crazy. Shall we relinquish our core values for another four years out of respect or the it could be worst scenario?

What we have in office is DINO, no amount of the devil we do know is better than the opposing side....hell we got a 3rd term of GW...IN PARTY CHALLENGE is the only answer.

[CrispyQ]

338. "This is an institutional crisis for Democrats."

I completely agree. The dems are about to find out what happens when you consistently tell your base to "Shut up," during policy making and "Who else are you going to vote for?" during elections.


"Obama has ruined the Democratic Party." It was well on it's way, but he put a stake in it.

[nashville_brook]

355. +1

[DirkGently]

356. Wow. That's chillingly on point. ++

[ChiciB1]

388. RIGHT ON Mr. Fish! You Nailed It! Obama Falls FLAT & His Words

are ONLY WORDS!! ACTION, PLEASE. Action for "we the people" who are suffering because you left us behind!

[kenny blankenship]

389. I see Groucho glasses

Or maybe it's Gene Shalit - but what's with the scratches all over the lenses?

[fascisthunter]

339. the Democratic Party has been taken over by Friedman Ideologues

Friedman=Fascism... that seems to be their end game.

[Zorra]

354. Bingo. + infinity; ( nt)

[fascisthunter]

380. thanks

I wonder sometimes

[Zorra]

349. "Obama has ruined the Democratic Party." nt

[spooked911]

360. I doubt it. I thought Bush ruined the Republican party. But they seem to have come back with a

vengeance.

[QC]

364. The Republicans have had a lot of help with their grand comeback.

I think it's nice that Obama was able to take a party that was teetering on the edge of oblivion and make it relevant again, but I just wish that party had been ours, not the GOP.

[Claudia Jones]

376. a general comment

We have people here who:

1. Claim to support the administration and vigorously defend it at every turn...

2. attack organized Labor, the left, and promote and defend various right wing themes...

3. yet claim that there could be no rational reason for anyone to disagree with the administration's actions...

4. and then accuse critics of having a secret agenda to help the Republicans

[bvar22]

378. When some people on a Liberal Democratic Website...

...try to label Mainstream Center Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ Democrats
as "The Fringe Left",
you just KNOW who is delivering their Talking Points.

Thats my problem with Centrists.
They agree with Republicans too often.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nashville_brook]

382. and you see it so often now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

377. The two major parties have become money making businesses selling their product.

Complete with high paid executives, cute slogans, and endless promises about their product being superior to the other party's product.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[CrispyQ]

386. That is a perfect assessment of the two parties.

I'm not buy the bullshit from either of them anymore.

[Blue_Tires]

390. "Obama has ruined the Democratic Party." GMAFB

The writer has some decent points, but undermines them with over-the-top shit flinging like that throwaway line...(part of me wonders just how long Stoller has been in politics, because 2000-2004 was a much worse time)

If anything, The Democratic party has ruined itself by continually refusing to get behind strong, unapologetically leftist candidates and movements, and pissing on traditional bases (unions, environmentalists, democratic socialists, glbt, etc.) in favor of big tent, "go along to get along" moderates and conservative dems (of course the GOP has pushed the 'center' so far right of the spectrum that today's moderates are to the right of Nixon.) NOW -- Is Obama a symptom of this? Oh, yeah -- Take a look at the types of people he has surrounded himself with. Is Obama the only Dem to throw liberal policies out the window because he wants very much for the GOP and their media shills to stop calling him names? Of course not...BOTH houses of congress are full of chameleon, Beltway Boy's Club Democrats, many of whom even attack Obama from the RIGHT every Sunday on MTP, not including so-called democratic pundits, columnists, etc. I know a lot of stuff from the White House the past couple of weeks/months/years have left DUers hot with rage, but it's disingenuous to advance the narrative that the Democratic Party in Jan. '09 was happily marching toward a bold socialist future utopia living in peace with respect for all living things and the moneyed classes held in regulatory check...

This isn't going to be popular, but the 'big tent' needs to go, and I was saying that back in '04 -- History is full of examples of institutions trying to be "all things to all people" and end up being nothing to no one...IMO the party should get the message down to 8-10 unbreakable 'core' tenets and hammer them home in every speech and interview, appealing to moderates and corporate donors be damned. When you offer a simple, CLEAR message with a sharply defined mission statement diametrically opposed to the GOP, you allow moderates to make an easy choice (have you noticed recently how many formerly no-brainer bipartisan policies the GOP opposes; i.e., light bulbs for the sole reason because democrats support them?)..."Party inflexibility" can be a beautiful thing; it just depends on what you're being inflexible on. But the whole "We're-sort-of-liberal-depending-on-district-but-not-when-it-pisses-off-the-corporate-crowd-and-we-can-be-just-as-business/war-friendly-as-the-other-party" bullshit just gives me a headache, and I cannot believe that after eight years of Bush Jr. and the rise of the astroturf teabaggers that the Democratic Party has yet to figure this out. And while they marginalize the left base and focus group ways to appeal to a wider demographic, the GOP is only getting more hardline and happily following their base as they pull us all over the cliff...

Those who know me on DU know I'm a loyal Obama supporter, but increasingly pissed over his and Washington's ever-increasing tilt to the right (full disclosure: I'm African-American and voted for Kucinich in the primary), and I'd made it a point to usually stay away from Obama love/hate flamefests, but now they are everywhere...I just want to hammer home the bottom line for all this masturbatory primary talk (like 90 percent of all the 'primary' columns/blogs/etc. no one can even cite a viable challenger, much less some populist leader who would usher in that new socialist age): ANY primary challenge of Obama would be from the right, unless it's a DUer...Because the party as a whole (I mean the decision makers up top, not the rank-and-file) is to the right of Obama...

The next column I'd like to see from Stoller is "What Democrats can do about Republicans..."