You know why many people don't trust Obama?

[ibegurpard]

Because you see the full court press he's doing on behalf of the TPP?
Where was he on a public option for the ACA with that?
Where is he against corporate "reform" of public education with that?
When does he really go to the mat? For what corporate American wants.
I voted for him twice and would do so again because of the alternative on other issues that I care about.
But I DO NOT trust that he will act for the benefit of working class Americans if moneyed interests want something else.

[Llanganati]

1. People do not trust him because they are beginning to understand

Obama is, in the end, a bourgeois politician. His allegiance lies with the capitalist class and thus his actions benefit the continued accumulation of capital. Of course, this does not mean he will satisfy the entirety of the capitalist class at any given point and will side with different sectors depending on the issue.

[ibegurpard]

2. Many people have understood that since halfway through his first term.

[markpkessinger]

23. +1 n/t

[sendero]

40. Since..

...his first year. And I remember getting a lot of flak for pointing it out. Some people are really slow, even here.

[fredamae]

232. Yes....and I have been

"properly chastised" myself many times....there were also some red flags during the first campaign...But I figured with this many millions in support I must be wrong or out of touch. So...I "rationalized" my concerns away and supported the rest of his campaign

I think the disappointment in his first term was the marker of my awareness of the sheer number of wall street wing Dems-awareness of dem leaderships bs, losing faith, hope and Trust in the goals of the dem party.

[840high]

134. yep

[bvar22]

164. I KNEW, as soon as he did this:

[font size=4]
The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


Not a single member of the Progressive Caucus (the largest Democratic Party Caucus) was appointed to a position in the cabinet or a position with authority and power.

Not a single Democrat who voted AGAINST the Iraq War was appointed to a position of power in the Obama Administration.
WOW. That is some "Team of Opposites" Obama promised during the campaign.
I'll bet there were Champagne Corks--popping on Wall Street that night.
Mission Accomplished!!!

These things do NOT happen by accident,
and was a true foreshadow of things to come.

[truedelphi]

202. And remember all the excuses we heard back then -

Along the lines of:

We need to wait and see.

Well, you need to give the guy some time.

He only appointed those Establishment types so that the Old Guard would relax, and then he will sock it to them!

[Jackpine Radical]

208. n-dimensional chess.

Rahm sends a secret signal to the Left to reassure them--

[L0oniX]

247. Did those excuses come from the same gang that's not pushing for Bernie?

Just wondering.

[ibegurpard]

264. there's one in particular I haven't seen for a very long time

but some of the other ones? yes.

[truedelphi]

300. Probably so.

The same type of neo conservatives that consider themselves to represent the interests of the new Democratic Centrist Party.

After all, their parents marched with Dr King, or sent the group monies. Their parents worked hard for JFK and Bobby. Never mind that they themselves inherited companies that they then proceeded to drive into the ground, underpaying their work force, grabbing the Golden Parachute when they filed for bankruptcy. (Which destroys the workers' pensions, but so who ever cares about the interests of those who did not inherit some well deserved wealth?)

All of this reviles the philosophy of FDR, JFK, Martin Luther Kng Jr, and the few remaining progressives inside the party.

[pa28]

224. That's what they call telegraphing a message.

The message the left was "fuck off" and I got the message loud and clear.

[CrawlingChaos]

241. BINGO!

God, those were some strange days. I remember having such ugly, ugly fights with people. Smart people I cared about were furious with me for refusing to keep the faith. But how could anyone look at that line-up and remain positive?? I still struggle to understand. Something about the Obama marketing juggernaut (and coming as it did after the Dark Age of Bush) made people forget how things really work in American politics.

[imthevicar]

259. YEP!

[hifiguy]

175. I figured that out the day he appointed Geithner as Treasury Sec.

Sending one of the arsonists to deal with the fire is generally considered to be a shitty idea.

[padfun]

185. Well it makes sense.

At least the arsonist knows how the fire started.

[truedelphi]

203. heh heh n/t

[Aerows]

190. That was what did it for me

Geithner had the gall to act surprised that there was a fire, while his hands smelled of gasoline.

[spanone]

36. endless horseshit.

[Sunlei]

101. President Obama has talked and worked for increasing asian pacific trade from 2009!

hundreds of public documents easy to find from his first days in office, when America was in horrible economic shape.

Here's one example.

Working to Boost American Exports, Grow American Jobs Through Trade with the Asia-Pacific

Ambassador Ron Kirk
November 14, 2009

On Saturday in Singapore, I spoke to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO Summit on behalf of President Obama. In my remarks to this gathering of more than 800 business leaders from across the Asia-Pacific region, I spoke of the robust and beneficial trade relationships that the United States enjoys with our 20 fellow APEC members – 61 percent of total American manufacturing exports are destined for APEC economies, and roughly 3.7 million American jobs are supported by those exports – and about the potential to gain even more job-creating opportunities for American workers, families, and businesses by increasing engagement with and exports to our partners in this fast-growing region.......
......Engagement in the Asia-Pacific region is vital to America’s trading future. If we want to create the jobs Americans need, we must gain further access to Asia-Pacific markets. As I told hundreds of business leaders in Singapore on Saturday, we must work together to bring home the benefits of trade....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/14/working-boost-american-exports-grow-american-jobs-through-trade-with-asia-pacific

from search WH. https://search.whitehouse.gov/search?affiliate=wh&form_id=usasearch_box&page=1&query=Trade+Asia

[truedelphi]

206. To Paraphrase Dennis Kucinich, "We can all see that you are working mighty hard, there,

Mr. President. It is just that some of us are wondering exactly who it is you are really working for."

As more and more time goes by, more and more middle class Americans realize he has not been working for them.

[MADem]

214. You're quoting the guy who RAN--not walked--to Rupert Murdoch's trough where he eats his fill?

Dennis "Anything For a Buck" Kucinich, the guy who made money being a perpetual candidate for the Presidency and who IGNORED his Congressional duties in so doing, is hardly the fellow I'd look to for advice on integrity.

He works for the sleaziest cretin in the WORLD. Big ass smile on his face while so doing, too--laughs all the way to the bank, playing the Democratic monkey to the GOP mouth-breathers.

He's loyal to one constituency--the constituency of Dennis Kucinich.

Bullshit artist extraordinaire. Some people will do anything for money.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179544/-Kucinich-Cashes-In-With-FoxNews

http://www.theguardian.com/media/us-news-blog/2013/jan/16/dennis-kucinich-joins-fox-news

But hey, we know who Dennis is working for, now, don't we?

[Sunlei]

218. I don't even know or care who that critic is. what has your DK done to bring more trade business to

the USA over the past 6 years?

[truedelphi]

225. That is not relevant. In fact, your statement is a red herring.

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

What was Dennis' specialty was not trade, but instead the actual rebuilding of an economy after a collapse. And Kucinich was sitting at the top of the House Committee on Oversight of Financial Matters during the 2008 Economic collapse..

His recommendation was that the laws that remained on the books from the days of the Savings and Loan Crisis, circa the late 1980's, simply be brushed off and followed. After all, what happened when the Savings and Loans went belly up, was that members of the Bush and Reagan Administrations saw to ti that local banks were offered federal and state charters, and then by agreeing to loaning the government bailout monies to the people on Main Street, the crisis could be resolved.

And thus the Savings and Loan crisis was resolved.

But Obama did not want to go that way, as there probably was a quid pro quo deal taken in late Summer of 2008 that if he was the candidate for the Presidency, then he would agree to whatever Wall Street interests dictated. So we got to watch Obama install Mr Geithner, who had done such atrocious manipulations of the market and the re-arranging of the Wall Street firms, that he deserved an orange jump suit and to be RICO'ed out of office.

Instead, Obama let this arch criminal become head of Treasury! (This despite Mr Geithner not having even bothered to pay his taxes for several years - for which I never heard of him even paying a penalty!)

The result is that right now, there is no longer any contract law iin existence for consumers if and when they enter into any agreement with a bank. The banks do what they want. Same with the big utility firms.

The other result is that for every dollar of profit generated inside the USA, some 49 cents of it goes directly to the coffers of big banking. Contrast this dismal state of affairs to what existed back in the 1970's and 1980's when only 8 or 9 cents out of every dollar of profit became the bankers' property.


And had Kucinich and several others on that committee seen their recommendations for re-building the economy followed by the President during its collapse, we would not be in situation wherein over 20 trillions of dollars has been spent, mostly shelled out to the big Financial People. And the situation with derivatives is still in place, so that the next time around that a big collapse occurs, we Americans in the Middle Class will once again see our stores shuttered, and our prospects for a decent life ruined.

[Octafish]

255. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Thank you, truedelphi.

[woo me with science]

297. Outstanding post. nt

[SidDithers]

209. ...

Sid

[Jackpine Radical]

258. Wow, Sid--You converted me

with your insight and impeccable logic there.

[ibegurpard]

265. So Sid...

Are you as disgusted by the recent left-leaning political earthquake in your own country as you are by progressives in ours?

[Art_from_Ark]

269. I'm looking forward to seeing Sid's well thought-out

smilie

[bvar22]

299. LOL

LOL

Still laughing.

"I'm looking forward to seeing Sid's well thought-out
smilie"

LOL

[cui bono]

229. I began to understand when he put Wall Street smack dab in the White House.

What was that about???

[donf]

280. And Hillary Clinton is cut from the same cloth.

PLEASE support Bernie Sanders. We must take our country back from the banksters!

[Skittles]

257. but he sure gives purty speeches

[Lil Missy]

3. I don't trust a man who eats kittens. n/t

[delrem]

4. I don't trust anybody who'd drone a wedding party.

[nationalize the fed]

11. + the number of civilians killed by drone strikes

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[CrispyQ]

131. Wow.

Who are classified as others? Would that be people who work at government facilities, but are not out right known Al Qaeda? So, some governmental uppity-ups, but mostly admin staff?


Watch it to the end folks. It will make you sick. Not graphically sick, but numbers sick.

[FlatBaroque]

163. wow is right

Good graphic.

[treestar]

38. You expect the US to leave Al Qaeda alone?

To do whatever it wants? Good luck selling that to the populace.

Really you think Obama droned that wedding party because he's a murderer?

[markpkessinger]

54. And what do you think happens every time a drone kills an innocent civilian?

I'll tell you: every person who knew him or her is turned into a lifelong enemy of the United States. If you want to continue to radicalize people against the U.S, then sure, continuing to murder civilians and writing it off as mere collateral damage is a terrific strategy.

[GoneFishin]

75. Unfortunately, that is exactly the goal of drone strikes. Having angry enemies is necessary to

justify spending our highway and infrastructure money, and public education money, on perversely profitable military hardware.

[CrispyQ]

133. This. ^^^

When will The People wake up? I cannot believe they fall for this nationalistic bullshit! I want to puke every time I see someone wearing the US flag, like it's a badge of honor. A local shop had some cool tye-dyed canvas bags & one had a 1960's love-peace theme going on, but in one corner, the artist had included a US flag. Huh?

Now if it had been on fire, maybe . . .

[Beartracks]

182. Maybe it meant Made/Designed in America...?

=======================

[kath]

149. Yep. Ya got that right!

[treestar]

108. I agree with that argument

But then am not sure we should simply leave Al Qaeda alone to do what they want to do. And I really doubt the majority of the population would go along with it.

[TBF]

155. If Al Qaeda didn't exist we'd have to create them ...

oh, um, wait ...

In other words, we WILL find a way to be involved in certain regions of the world as long as it is massively profitable to do so.

[F4lconF16]

157. Funny how that works. +1 nt

[Scootaloo]

296. If you agreed, there would be no "but"

You are making the same shit argument was made to defend the annihilation of Fallujah - "if we don't, the terrorists win!" And you make it for the same reason - "your team" is in charge. Ergo, any action taken by the executive must be divinely guided, eternally correct.

If a Republican somehow wins next November, you will suddenly discover that drone strikes on civilians are awful, abhorrent, and need to be opposed, at exactly the minute that person is sworn in. Not one second before.

[Enthusiast]

173. Well, you know, since the cold war is over we need a good solid reliable enemy.

Otherwise someone might ask why the US military needs so many golf courses around the world, and military bases too.

[delrem]

216. Yes, I think Obama droned that wedding party because he's a murderer.

Amoral.

The number of innocent ME citizens terrorized and killed in this "War on Terror" isn't justified by your claim that it's only vs "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda, after all, started as a CIA asset. And you know that.

[treestar]

236. So you really think he finds it totally unnecessary from a national security viewpoint

And that any POTUS in time of war you don't agree with is a murderer.

Too bad society doesn't agree.

[delrem]

245. You asked a question re. the droning of a fucking wedding party.

Don't give me this "anything" bs, it won't fly.

[Scootaloo]

294. Blowing up children is the key to defeating al-Qaeda?

[stonecutter357]

167. .

[L0oniX]

244. ^^^this^^^

[sabrina 1]

103. That's great, me neither. So what do you think about how Obama is pushing this

awful Secret Trade Deal, demanding that Congress Fast Track it meaning NOTHING that is BAD in it for the AMERICAN PEOPLE can be fixed. And WE KNOW that some of it is REALLY BAD because of the LEAKS.

[ibegurpard]

132. apparently we just don't understand it...

[Enthusiast]

174. We have little capacity for understanding complex issues.

[rhett o rick]

192. Or tells us he will close Gitmo and end the torture there, and roll back the Patriot Act.

Yes I was a bit naive to believe him.

[senz]

250. He COULDN'T close Gitmo

The Republicans wouldn't let him.

He's president, not dictator. He shares power with the other 2 branches of government.

Bet you didn't know that.

[rhett o rick]

268. So when he said "I will close Gitmo" he really meant, "If the bad ole Republicons will let me."

Is that what you are saying? "Oh he tried, he tried, he DID try, oh so hard. But I guess he couldn't make good on his promise."

When Obama took office there existed a bipartisan feeling that Gitmo should be closed. What did he do????? He appointed a commission that played patty-cake for two years before figuring it out. By then it was too late. Pres Obama waited long enough for the Republicons to take evasive action.

"Instead, in response to a seventh-grader’s question about what advice he’d give his inexperienced self, Obama said he should have taken a more immediate approach, presumably by simply ordering the remaining 242 detainees be moved elsewhere. That stopped being an option after Congress passed restrictions on transferring Gitmo prisoners to the United States."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/i-should-have-closed-gitmo-obama-says-116204.html#ixzz3ZnpTzezz

So to answer your rude question, "Bet you didn't know that.(?)", I did know that, and I know that he made a promise that he couldn't keep, even though it was in his full power to do so.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. And yet Obama has an 88% approval rating among liberal Dems

Go figure.

[ibegurpard]

6. the same liberal dems

who I see saying things like "I trust Obama but I just can't see why he's taking this position on the TPP?"
This is Obama's NAFTA
We lose more and more of the working class with issues like this and become increasingly the party of social issues.

[JI7]

17. why don't they support sanders ?

[markpkessinger]

18. Many of us are supporting Sanders . . .

. . . but Sanders never ran against Obama, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

[JI7]

19. the fact is Sanders does not have "many" supporters

[Scuba]

24. No?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805513

[KingCharlemagne]

124. Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp. Big surprise there, eh? - nt

[NCTraveler]

312. If that is what you think, you aren't paying attention. nt.

[Doctor_J]

32. This thread is about our duplicitous corporate president, not Sen Sanders

Running out of excuses I see

[JI7]

21. social issues affect working class

[ibegurpard]

35. In the political "pyramid of needs"

putting food on the table comes first.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Your privileged status blinds you. In 29 States, it is legal to discriminate against LGBT people in

employment and in housing. Can't put food on a table without a fucking job, are you able to understand that? Or is your elitism inherent to your being?

[ibegurpard]

69. yes I'm well aware of that

I live in one of them.
And could be fired for being gay.
Shove your presumptions up your ass.
Next.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. So then why are you claiming that 'social issues' are separate and less that 'food on the table'

if you are aware that discrimination in employment prevents people from putting food on the table? It's a major contradiction. Getting all surly with me will not make your statements more cohesive.
If people are discriminated against in employment they can't put food on the table. Thus, the 'social issue' of LGBT equality is all about putting food on the table. You can deny that all you like in as crude a fashion as suits you, that does not make you right, just wrong and rude.

[ibegurpard]

85. Discrimination is not the only thing that keeps people from putting food on the table.

And I assume you live in a state where the fight to eliminate that roadblock has already been won?
If so how nice for you.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. And when did I assert that it was 'the only thing'? I did not. Why don't you address what I DID say?

Moving the goalposts and claiming I said it is 'the only thing' is just cheap trickery. So far you have put words into my mouth and told me to shove something up my ass but you have not responded to that which is being asked of you.
Why are you putting words in my mouth, insulting me and moving the goal posts if your ideas are sound?

[ibegurpard]

90. Here's what you said:

"Your privileged status blinds you. In 29 States, it is legal to discriminate against LGBT people in
employment and in housing. Can't put food on a table without a fucking job, are you able to understand that? Or is your elitism inherent to your being?"

Your horse's ass assumption about my privilege was incorrect. I'm gay and I live in a state with no LGBT protections. Obviously I understand that because I live it...other than that you asked nothing of me. Using "fucking" in a statement is generally not an invitation to civil exchange of ideas.

My invitation to YOU to shove it up your ass stands.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. Did I say it was 'the only' cause? No. So why not address what I said?

If you understand that because you live it, then why in the hell are you claiming that matter of social equality have no bearing on 'food on the table'? It's a hugely contradictory pair of statements. Hugely. Hurling invective at me will not make your statements less contradictory. Why would you be sneering at issues of social equality if you are in fact aware that those inequalities hinder others from putting 'food on the table'? You should be advocating for protections, not claiming those protections are without value.

[pampango]

30. Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, are the only group that does support TPP and

fast track.

This is Obama's NAFTA

Agreed. And that is even more true than the degree to which NAFTA belonged to Clinton. NAFTA was negotiated and signed before Clinton came into office. He amended the done deal slightly and got it passed by congress. TPP is Obama's from negotiation to signing (if it ever is completed) to congressional action.

[INdemo]

114. It is a job killer. Our Amerian Steel industry will be finished if this

passes. Democrat's that are for this cannot be a Working class Democrat. A Reagan Democrat maybe (Republican lite such as Obama)

[still_one]

138. You do realize that most of the "Reagan Democrats" were from labor. Ironically, that election which

was a result of labors anger at Carter for deregulating the airline industry, along with other issues not related to labor, was probably the worst thing that could have happened to labor in this country

[hfojvt]

122. I figure the old truism is wrong

You CAN fool most of the people most of the time.

[Cha]

285. Ah, yes.. the reality of the Country.. that the President has helped including me. Not just the

little microcosm of DU who never met a cheap pot shot they didn't want to sling from their keyboard.

[AzDar]

7. I wish it weren't... but it's true.

[Not Sure]

8. +1

I completely agree. I voted for him for the same reasons, but as usual it was a vote for the lesser of two evils. I love that he's been in front of some social justice issues and come around on others. But his marionette act for corporate interests isn't remotely convincing. Put me down for Bernie.

[BreakfastClub]

9. No president is an island unto him/herself. Being president

requires terrible compromises and gut-wrenching choices. Clinton got blamed for the same things Obama is being blamed for, and ultimately both of them did it for the same reasons. It wasn't their "moneyed interests" but because they are choosing the best choice of many bad choices. They are required to work within the system, not outside of it. Presidents simply must compromise left and right.

I didn't support Obama in the '08 primaries, and I still don't think he was the best choice, but I do believe he is doing the best he can and is not betraying his long-time supporters. I do agree he messed up big on the ACA, and I will never fully get over that disappointment. Obama was not the person for that job. He almost completely failed and it was actually Nancy Pelosi who played a huge part in getting what little we got.

But this kind of thing happens every single time a president gets into his second term. The right wing even did it with the lunatic Dubya. He's not right-wing enough (!!), they said. It's just impossible for any president to make decisions that fully satisfy his base at all times in his presidency. It's not possible. I don't think it's in the best interest of the party for democrats to turn on Obama, nor was it ever in our best interest to turn on Clinton. Both men were handed a nearly bankrupt economy, and both have done their damnedest to navigate America back from the brink of catastrophic right wing administrations and republican majority congresses.

[DrDan]

14. I noticed you did not mention the TPP

[markpkessinger]

20. "choosing the best choice of many bad choices" -- on NAFTA? on TPP?

There have certainly been some cases where it can be said of both Obama and Clinton that they had to make the best choice among a set of bad choices. For one example of this, take Clinton's agreement to sign DOMA. Republicans were threatening to introduce a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. There was serious concern at that time that such an amendment may well have passed. And if it had, we would have had a much, much higher -- likely impossible -- hurdle to get over on the issue of gay marriage than we have had. So Clinton agreed to sign DOMA as part of a deal with Republican legislators that they would not pursue the constitutional amendment option. And thank God he did -- even though that law was despised by many of us, including me.

HOWEVER . . .

It isn't as if there was some pressing requirement to enter into NAFTA, and there is no pressing requirement to enter into the TPP today. Neither of these was or is about choosing the "best of bad choices." Choosing not to enter into trade agreement simply means that things continue as they have been. And when the provisions of a prospective trade agreement are as egregious as some of those in the parts of the draft TPP that have been leaked, clearly the better choice is not to enter into such an agreement, and certainly not to fast track it.

And there are other issues, too, where it simply cannot be said of Obama that his choice was the "best among bad choices." His aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a good example. The Justice Department, under Obama, has embraced a strategy of prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917 -- a malicious decision that renders it virtually impossible for the accused to mount a defense -- even though there has, in most of the cases, been no evidence or even accusation of attempted espionage. There were other, lesser statutes those persons could have been rightly prosecuted under. The choice wasn't the best among bad choices" -- in fact, charging them under lesser statutes would have been a better -- and more just -- choice.

His expanded use of drones is another choice that is hard to defend as the "best" among ANY set of choices. Every drone strike creates many more long-term enemies of the U.S. than it kills.

[LuvNewcastle]

45. Thank you.

That was a fine assessment of the problems some of us have with Obama. It would have been better to do nothing in many cases than to actively pursue some of the things he has worked hard at. Charter schools and this trade agreement are two good examples. This trade agreement will probably define his Presidency, along with Obamacare. Why would someone want to have something like that on his record? He and others in power are showing their true colors, and they obviously don't give a shit about what we think.

[tblue]

151. Well that says it all.

You put it more clearly than I ever could have. I just wonder where we'd be if he had made better choices. He'd still be thwarted by the Repubs, but at least he would be representing his own dang base.

[arcane1]

181. He chose to go after medical marijuana users rather aggressively too

[markpkessinger]

251. Indeed n/t

[ibegurpard]

34. Anyone with any political sense at all recognizes this

There is a HUGE difference, however, between a full-throated offense on behalf of trade policy that traditional Democratic Party constituencies oppose and being forced to make the best of a bad situation.

[sendero]

42. Utter nonsense...

.... there was NO reason to repeal Glass-Stegall and pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act other than to please bankers. There is NO OTHER CONSTITUENCY THAT GAINED FROM EITHER OF THEM, and plenty who lost.

[Enthusiast]

176. Precisely.

Many lost their homes and their jobs. It can be laid at the feet of Bill Clinton.

[True Blue American]

10. Trust

I have backed the President for 6 years, but his TPP stance means he lost me on this one.

His trip to a Nike plant was one of his worst decisions,ever,considering the sweatshops they have.

67 plants ,if I remember the number correctly. I would never buy a Nike shoe. This is an insult to Democrats.

I understand Sherrod Brown told him so. Sherrod is on the side of the American worker.Elizabeth, Bernie and Franken are 4 we can count on.

[Enthusiast]

179. Maybe it was his intention to insult Democrats.

I have seen some crazy shit going down with regard to Obama. Carefully examine the 2012 debate with Romney.

[truedelphi]

197. Welcome to DU, True Blue American.

You came here at an interesting moment in our lives.

[mwrguy]

12. Race plays a big part here

[okaawhatever]

13. You pretend to actually care about the public option, and yet you know nothing about what

happened with it. Could it be that you just wrote that because it's the "insult du jour" for Obama?

The public option was passed in the House. It wasn't in the Senate bill (they couldn't get 60 votes with it in there, and even getting the 60 votes was tough. The Dem senator from Nebraska held the whole thing hostage over money).

Before the bill could go to reconciliation Sen Kennedy died. Republican Scott Brown won the race to replace him (and yes Obama campaigned for the Dem who lost). Brown promised to be the 41st vote against the ACA which would kill it in the Senate. That meant they couldn't alter the Senate bill and the only way to get it to pass was for the house to adopt the Senate bill.

Elections have consequences.

[Scuba]

25. You're saying he gave up with no fight because he might lose. You completely missed ...

... the concept that if he fought for it he might have gotten a couple more votes.

Bottom line: he gave up without a fight. He didn't fight for it and lose, he didn't fight for it at all.

[treestar]

39. The fight to convince Brown of the public option?

When was giving up on that a bad thing? At what point?

[Scuba]

49. Brown wasn't the only Senator in the Senate. But then you knew that.

[MohRokTah]

70. You ignore the 60 vote requirement, but then you knew that. eom

[Scuba]

78. Obama refused to fight for the public option. He saved his fight for the TPP. eom.

[MohRokTah]

79. Bullshit. eom

[still_one]

145. He never had the votes in the Senate. The blue dogs were NOT going to go for it. Lieberman, Bayh,

both Nelsons, launderu, and a whole cast of other blue dogs would have prevented it from passing, and their would have been NO healthcare reform. That is the reality.

The TPP is a valid point to debate. Actually, whether one is for, against, or undecided on the TPP, no one should want it fast tracked, and that is the big problem I have with it. The public needs to see the details of the final agreement before it is voted on, and it should not be fast tracked or passed through a simple majority. It is too important for that.

[ibegurpard]

223. This isn't about revisiting the ACA fight

It's about showing what he'll go to the mat for.

[still_one]

235. Then why bring it up by the OP? fact, it distracts from the TPP argument you are trying to make

At least in my view the premise was "Why is Obama distrusted"

and the example:

"Where was he on a public option for the ACA with that? " sure implies that as you put it he "wasn't going to the mat for a public option, does not even align with the premise. He didn't have the votes, and he knew it. There was a finite period to pass the ACA, and he knew the midterms were very iffy.

In my view the premise is much better using the TPP as the argument

[ibegurpard]

263. It was to illustrate what he will and will not expend his political capital upon

The votes may not have been there but an effort to drum up public support and twist arms like he is doing with the TPP might have made a difference. We will never know because it was surrendered out of the starting gate.

[okaawhatever]

281. Bullshit. "It was surrendered out of the starting gate". He fought his ass off to get ACA passed

and to include the public option. There were a lot of issues that came up during the negotiations. Here are a few:

Obama & the dems commissioned a study once they had an outline of the ACA and learned that only about 2 million people would use the public option. That was much lower than they had estimated, and 2 million could pretty easily be absorbed in other ways. They also learned that only about 3% of insurance premiums go to profit. Of the 2 million, many of those would be higher risk individuals who wouldn't qualify for a private plan, but having too many of the uninsurables on the public option would make it cost prohibitave. The provision of the ACA that covers all pre-existing conditions fixed that problem. Also, the state exchanges came about as an alternative to the public option. It gave people a way to "shop" various plans and keep their costs down.

And of course there was this:


The panel’s chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and four other Democrats sided with Republicans in opposing a public-option amendment offered by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). Baucus said he voted against the politically volatile provision because he feared that a bill including it would not get the 60 votes it would need to pass on the Senate floor.

Obama did fight for the public option including adressing congress on the house floor & holding rallies to generate public support. What he did instead was adapt to the information as it changed and get the people covered at roughly the same premiums. It was estimated that the public option would save $100 billion over 10 years. Obama got a concession from the hospital association of America that cut their rates $155 billion over 10 years. That made up for the lost revenue and the customers extra 5% in premiums.

You really should educate yourself on the issues.

[treestar]

109. Which one could have been turned?

Lieberman? The one from Nebraska?

[okaawhatever]

180. The one from Nebraska basically blackmailed the White House and got a bunch of money

to help with Medicaid expansion to sign the bill without the public option, I don't think there was anything that could be negotiated with him or others like him to expand it any more. I also think he lost re-election.

[sendero]

43. So for one vote in the senate..

.... we lost the public option yet to pass the TPP he needs many many votes. He's going for the many but couldn't be bothered with the one or two?

Please.

[Scuba]

50. +1,000

[markpkessinger]

55. I'll add my +1000 to Scuba's! n/t

[treestar]

111. Different laws and different issues

Invalid comparison.

Totally different subject.

[truebluegreen]

129. Ditto! nt

[okaawhatever]

211. Oh how fucking ridiculous. You know what, the truth is out there. You can choose to believe

it or not. Best of luck in the next election.

[Cha]

289. Nothing new there.. it's hilarous how they can sling anything they want and it gets eaten up by

the same ones year after year. They never actually learn anything. If it's propaganda against the President they're for it.

[okaawhatever]

295. +100 nt

[truedelphi]

207. Hells' bell's -- anyone with two wits about them would have to wonder how

the meaning of a "majority" suddenly came to be that SIXTY VOTES were needed.

Only the collusionary, Democratic Centrist leaders would arrange an important situation in that manner.

[ibegurpard]

272. I don't remember seeing this at the time

but it certainly conflicts with your take on events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2

[Cha]

288. Oh it's one of the ignorant insult du jours.. They think they smell blood in the water again so

they're slinging any cheap pot shot they can find.. and know they're got a captive audience with this bunch.

[JI7]

15. because he is black

[cali]

28. You are pushing a false narrative. Are there many people who oppose

the President because he's black? Of course. But to claim that all opposition is rooted in racism isn't only demonstrably false, it's disgusting and disgraceful. There are a significant number of people who don't trust him because of the gap between words and actions, and just because of actions in and of themselves.

calling people racist without basis?

repeatedly.

[JI7]

153. when we talk about"many" it is because of race

[Puzzledtraveller]

171. I think it makes it easier for some to continue

their unwavering support if they believe that all opposition is based on something illegitimate, obviously as racism is. Legitimate criticism doesn't have to be addressed as a result. IMO.

[stillwaiting]

33. Try, it's because he's a "New Democrat". His words on his inauguration.

Revealed in just about all of his Executive Cabinet appointments.

There are PLENTY of white Democratic Congresscritters that are similarly not deserving of trust on economic matters for average Americans for exactly the same reason.

"New Democrats" = moderate '80s Republicans (which are words Obama also used to describe himself).

Do you believe Obama was lying to us when he described himself as a "New Democrat" or as a moderate '80s Republican?

I sure don't.

P.S. Voted for him twice, and glad he beat out the insane candidates he ran against, but he's done a horrible job FIGHTING to improve the economic security of average Americans since he's been in office (the economic gains from the "recovery" have all gone to the top 1% for the most part), and the Republican Party has not been this strong across federal and state legislatures in a very, very long time while the Democratic Party has had him as our leader (and that's after the Bush Administration and Republicans horrified the Nation so much prior to his inauguration).

[giftedgirl77]

47. Yep, scary black guy is trying to take advantage of everyone.

I call bullshit on anyone who has to self-proclaim they voted for him right before they go on to insult everything he's done.

[ibegurpard]

48. Call bullshit all you want

When have you seen him fight this hard on BEHALF of economic policy that benefits labor constituencies?

[TheKentuckian]

127. He is less "scary" than fucking Wayne Brady get out of here with that lame, copycat bullshit.

This is becoming the new last refuge of a scoundrel to fall back on "ism" when defending the indefensible.

Even unable to discuss anything on its merit the easy accusation of "ism" papers over many a hole for the intellectually dishonest and snake oil salesman like lies to push a harmful agenda supported by the radical regressive elements of Congress with a significant track record of being a black hole for American workers of ever race, gender, orientation, creed, and color.

[99Forever]

73. Horsepucky.

That's clearly but an excuse for him pushing the worse piece of shit corporate giveaway of the history of this nation. Nothing more, nothing less.

[polichick]

146. Try because he's a con man...

He had the people of the world with him - remember those crowds! - and from the get-go when he first chose staff, he turned his back on those same people.

[joshcryer]

16. Yeah, I remember his talks against the plubic option.

He really pushed for killing the public option. He spent hours in interviews saying how much he hated the public option.

[Scuba]

26. He certainly didn't fight for it.

Better to fight for it and lose than to not fight at all.

[joshcryer]

27. He was a newcomer.

And he didn't want to rock the boat. I don't blame him, given his inexperience.

[Scuba]

29. Wow, that's really lame.

[Exilednight]

92. He was elected because he rocked the boat from the beginning. n/t

[JoePhilly]

57. Maybe he should have blackmailed Liberman.

[ibegurpard]

59. maybe

or someone else.
Those sorts of tactics worked for Johnson.

[JoePhilly]

63. Funny ... liberals advocating the President use illegal methods to pass

... legislation.

Lieberman was never going to vote yes on a PO. Never.

I can spot you the other bluedogs .... but still you won't be able to come up with a legal way to get him to vote yes.

btw ... the ACA, that awful piece of legislation, just saved my sister and her family over 100,000 dollars in medical bills for their daughter this year. Over the last 3 its probably close to 200k.

You don't trust the President. And I don't trust the combustible hair club.

[TM99]

98. Funny isn't it.

Warren and Sanders will never vote for the TPP. He will call them out daily in speeches, interviews, and be quite insulting while doing so. But he couldn't do that to Lieberman, who was never going to vote for the Public Option?

Yeah, we know where is priorities really lie, and they are not with us the people.

[JoePhilly]

100. Is he blackmailing either one?

Calling out Lieberman would not have helped get a PO passed. Lieberman did not care.

How do we know this? Lieberman campaigned AGAINST Obama in 2008. Calling him out would have zero effect.

As for his priorities ... the ACA saved my sister and her family about 200k in the last 3 years. Its going to save my niece's life when its all said and done.

That tells me more about Obama's priorities than anything any of the perpetually disgruntled, might post.

[TM99]

220. Why raise 'blackmailing'?

That isn't what anyone has suggested but please carry on with your strawman. Quid pro quo is hardly blackmail.

I see you are a mind reader as well because you believe you know how Lieberman would have responded if Obama had played hardball with him as much as he is now with Warren.

Yes, I know, your sister and family were saved by the ACA. It is your go to responses to everyone about it. One person and family versus all citizens and all families. I can share with you as many 'fucked by the ACA' stories as you and others here can share the 'saved by the ACA'. The public option would have given us ALL finally a decent healthcare system like the other civilized countries in the world have instead.

[Scuba]

61. He was apparently saving such tactics for the TPP.

[ibegurpard]

62. which is exactly the point I'm making here

THIS is what he really expends his political capital on.

[JoePhilly]

64. Who has he blackmailed?

I'm fairly certain you can't come up with anyone since its not happening.

[Scuba]

65. Well, he's putting on a full-court press for the TPP, something he never did for the public option.

[JoePhilly]

67. So no one. Public option was never going to happen.

Btw ... the ACA, that terrible piece of legislation has saved my sister and her family close to 200k over the last 3 years.

Thanks Obama!

[Scuba]

68. The public option was never going to happen without him fighting for it, which he didn't. And ...

... as I've posted many times before, the ACA is better than what we had without it, but it's still flawed in many ways and leaves many out in the cold.

[ibegurpard]

71. exactly

[JoePhilly]

74. It was never going to happen period.

And if he wasted tons of effort on the PO, we would not have gotten the ACA either.

The all or nothing thinking results in no progress.

And the endless whining is not terribly productive.

But that has become what DU does best.

I trust a President who has done a great deal of good for this country far more than I trust the folks who complain endlessly from the bleachers.

[Scuba]

77. You don't seem to get it. But at least you're consistent.

[JoePhilly]

83. I get it very well.

Many of the loudest screamers can't articulate in any practical way, how to achieve what they demand.

Let's take Bernie as an example.

For Bernie to win the nomination, he and his supporters need to convience a large number of Democrats that he WILL win in the general election. Not that he might, that he WILL.

Many Dems already believe that Hillary WILL WIN. And so, for Bernie to win the nomination from her, lots of those folks, who would happily vote for Hillary, must become convinced that Bernie WILL absolutely beat anyone the GOP puts forward.

So what do the Sanders supporters do ... attack Hillary. Which does nothing to cause people who would voter for Hillary conclude that Bernie WILL win in the general.

Many of these folks are the same folks who were demanding a primary opponent for Obama in 2012. How'd that work out?

Political strategy is not a strength for the combustible hair club.

[treestar]

117. Especially about this fighting meme

Someone who critique is "he didn't fight hard enough" is very vague. And if he did it, it would be "just words." So it doesn't come from any honest place.

[Scuba]

177. It's not that he didn't fight hard enough. It's that he didn't fight at all.

[BillZBubb]

184. Exactly. He waved the white flag before the first shots were fired.

[treestar]

115. You know sometimes I think that's what people are suggesting

Like the ones who praise LBJ who they claim got bills through Congress via "knowing where the bodies are buried" and making threats to withdraw support for spending in those states, as if the good of the people could really be served in such a way. Fighting dirty to get what you want is supposed to be a virtue? Especially where they are supposed to be representing the people, not just trying for what they want.

[treestar]

113. How is this fighting done?

The bully pulpit? You'd say it was just words.

The fighting would have to be making some deal with some Senator. Which he did, and got a bill through.

[ibegurpard]

44. We're talking about what he fights vociferously FOR here...

...and the public option was NOT one of those things:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/etc/cron.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

"Ultimately, the public option failed as a result of many factors, including lack of support from moderate and conservative Democrats, opposition from Republicans and health care interest groups, and ultimately an absence of strong support from the White House."

[B Calm]

22. We have the best government corporations can buy.

[Smarmie Doofus]

31. Because he doesn't take ACA and public schools "personally".

>>>>
Because you see the full court press he's doing on behalf of the TPP?
Where was he on a public option for the ACA with that?
Where is he against corporate "reform" of public education with that? >>>>>

And why should he? He's never *had* to take them "personally."

Emotionally.... like the rest of us.....he's the product of his background and life experience. Such as it is.

K and R.

[JoePhilly]

96. The ACA has saved my sister and her family ...

... about 200k in the last 3 years.

That's pretty personal.

And tends to generate more trust than I gave those who endlessly attack the President.

[Smarmie Doofus]

140. It's hard to know how your post relates to either mine or to the OP.

Neither the OP or I am arguing against ACA.

OP is saying Obama defended ACA with a level of enthusiasm below that which he brings to TPP.

He's also saying ( if he's not, I am) Obama is insufficiently protective of the welfare of public ed.

My opinion is that both of the examples above are the case because neither issue.... public ed or affordable health care for all ....has ever been a PERSONAL issue for him. ( having been raised in a relatively economically stable upper middle class environment where public ed and inadequate basic health care were... psychologically speaking.... abstractions at best.

Neither of us disparaged or minimized the ACA. Nor did we dispute that many people are better off for it. OP maintains that Obama failed to fight for it with anything close to the same level of zeal that he is fighting for this hideous trade agreement.

I agree w. OP.

[ibegurpard]

142. Your assumption of my opinions about the ACA are correct

As is your interpretation of my OP
thank you!

[JoePhilly]

154. Try to force the PO and there would be no ACA.

Saw this happen in the 90s.

The OP is about trust.

And this President has done a great deal to earn my trust ... and those who have constantly attacked him, have been wrong over and over.

And I don't trust them nearly as much as I trust the President.

[ibegurpard]

162. You've been championing corporate-friendly third-way policy on DU

for as long as I can remember.
The fact that you trust him is completely unsurprising to me.

[JoePhilly]

316. Awe .. and now you try to hurt my feelings ... how "liberal" of you.

You self proclaimed High Priests of Liberalism have nothing on the far RW fanatics when it comes to this "holier than thou" nonsense.

[NCTraveler]

314. I think you make a good point here.

I actually give the Clintons a lot of credit for their failed efforts with respect to health care in the 90's. They did lay out a lot of groundwork moving forward. They elevated the discussion. Obama and his team looked at the history. They looked at the reasons for its failure. They thought about every aspect. I do believe Obama's main goal was to pass something. Something that would be more positive than nothing. I believe he thought that would lead to more drastic changes sooner down the line than later. He fought to get something enormous passed. I have my issues with the ACA. Have stated them in the past. But overall it is a positive. It was also a politician moving mountains for the betterment of society. He didn't do some of the things people here wanted because he wanted to pass something positive. Not rehash the Clintons failure of the 90's. Please note, I call it Clintons failure. I think the failure came with great benefits down the road.

[treestar]

37. What's the point of going to the mat for things that won't happen?

In politics you have to compromise. Or keep the status quo. Others are involved and people never agree.

I personally would like someone to give me a million dollars and I have a lot of good reasons why someone should do that. I could spend an hour on that speech and make a great argument. But I know it is not worth that hour. It's not happening, no matter how much I want it.

Obama wanted a public option and said so. Then he met Congress.

Distrust of people who don't get you what you want is not the way to be. If your lawyer can't get you off, you don't trust them? Maybe there was evidence against you. If your doctor can't cure you but only treat the problem, you mistrust them? There is no cure.

Do you mistrust your Senators? They didn't get the public option either. And they had a lot to do with why it wasn't possible.

[ibegurpard]

41. This is about what he goes to the mat FOR

a trade agreement that has, for one, provisions that gives multi-national corporations a venue to sidestep our own laws and regulations.
Unacceptable.

[ibegurpard]

46. One of MY senators

played one of the biggest roles in its demise...and he decided to end his political career rather than face voters over his role in it. Max Baucus lost the support of Democrats in Montana and energized Republicans because of his role in crafting the ACA.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Montana? One of the States that offers zero protection from discriminatin in employment to LGBT

It's amazing to me that virtually all of the smug straights who claim 'social issues don't matter as much as jobs' live in States that allow discrimination against some job seekers. So hypocritical. It's almost as if they are unaware of the way their own States treat minorities.

[ibegurpard]

81. I already told you to shove your presumptions

I'm well aware of my state's status when it comes to LGBT protections.
And do not expect you to believe me when I say I've been fighting to change that nor do I care if you believe me.
FYI...The Montana legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans, fought off a similar piece of legislation that passed in Indiana WITHOUT having to rely on our Democratic governor's veto.
So your smug "blue-state" condescension is not warranted on this issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. And yet you keep yammering that 'social issues' have nothing to do with jobs. Maybe you have been

fighting to change that law, that's beside the point entirely as are your endless and tiresome insults. My entire point is about what you are typing here, you say 'social issues' are not about putting food on the table, but they are about that thing exactly and always have been. From day one.

Those of you who claim discrimination against minorities in employment has nothing to do with their ability to put food on the table are simply wrong.

[DCBob]

51. I think those were impossible goals.. this one is doable.

[ibegurpard]

52. yup...cheer on your corporate third-way president!

go team!

[DCBob]

188. Nonsensical ignorant insulting comment.

[Cha]

290. That's all they got.

[99Forever]

53. I never trust anyone that has ...

... deceived me on multiple occasions. Especially neoliberals and neocons. They are the most dishonest of them all.

[tridim]

56. If you don't trust trustworthy people, there is something wrong with you.

It is a character flaw.

[ibegurpard]

58. If you trust people you have no personal relationship or experience with

then you get burned over and over again...deservedly so.
I can support people I don't trust to achieve goals we have in common.
I do not support trade policy that allows multinational corporations a venue to circumvent our laws and regulations.

[tridim]

125. Then you don't know what the word "trustworthy" means.

It's a character flaw.

[ibegurpard]

130. OK

[Cha]

286. LOL.. they're always looking for blood in the water.. think they really have it this time.. oh yeah

[JoePhilly]

60. I don't trust the perpetually disgruntled or the combustible hair club.

The folks who have endlessly made dire predictions that have turned out to be wrong, over and over again.

Obama was never going to end DADT. Never support ending DOMA.

He was never going to leave Iraq.

He was absolutely going to cut social security.

He was absolutely going to invade Syria, and Libya, and Egypt ... just like Bush invaded Iraq, too.

He was going to push through the XL pipeline.

Each of these, and many others, were common wisdom on DU over the last 6 years.

Post an OP calling the President a "fucking used cars salesman", and the congregation screams "AMEN!!"

Same folks now scream about TPP.

I don't trust them.

[MohRokTah]

72. ^^^ This right here.

With these same people screaming about the TPP, I think I have to support the president on it because those who are sceraming about it certainly are not trustworthy.

[DCBob]

82. Indeed.. have they ever been right about anything??

Cant think of one.

[JoePhilly]

88. To be fair ...

... they've probably been right here and there ... but on some of the biggest issues, not so much.

Take their approach to supporting Sanders, by attacking Hillary.

It won't work. They have convince people who already believe that Hillary will absolutely win the general, to believe that Bernie would also absolutely win the general. Attacking Hilary does nothing to change this simple fact.

Will they figure it out? I doubt it. Its like their demand for a primary challenge to Obama back in 2012. They should have been building alternatives to Hillary back then. But no. Waste their time tearing down Obama and most other Dems, and then wonder why Hillary is the strong front runner now.

I honestly think if they were in charge, they'd never get anything done. Nothing is good enough. And they'd turn on Bernie or Warren the minute either had to compromise to get something done.

[DCBob]

93. If they were in charge..

I think they would finally come to realize how difficult it is to pass progressive legislation. It's always easy to complain from the peanut gallery. Once you are the one making decisions perspectives change.

[JoePhilly]

95. Agree completely ...

... and the easy way to see it is to ask them to articulate a position, and workable approach to achieving the result they want.

They can rarely do it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

303. Sure they can ...

But whenever they articulate that position, the workable solution starts with, "Well, if {insert series of unlikely occurrences here} ...", and then they start in with the personal attacks when anyone points out the series of unlikely events are unlikely events.

[JoePhilly]

307. Lol

Unlikily occurrences or magical events!!

[treestar]

120. Amen to your last sentence

It's funny how they don't see that.

[redstateblues]

234. Thanks for the sanity

It's starting to fell like a fever swamp around here

[sheshe2]

248. KnR to everyone of your posts!

Thanks Joe!

[Bobbie Jo]

84. This, in its entirety.

This agenda was exposed long ago.

Always the same cadre, always.

[ibegurpard]

87. Probably how I don't trust the corporate third-way apologists

Who brought us NAFTA, telecomm deregulation and are now pushing this.

[JoePhilly]

91. Obama didn't sign NAFTA or telecom deregulation.

DU's combustible hair club screamed that the ACA was evil and would kill us all.

Over the last 3 years, its saved my sister and her family around 200k. Evil Obama.

I don't trust the folks who claimed that it was going to ruin healthcare.

[neverforget]

116. Clinton signed NAFTA and the 1996 Telecommunications Act

Clinton signing NAFTA

1996 Telecommunications Act

The 1996 Telecommunications Act deregulated the industry. Here's the time line:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/19/439135/-Media-Consolidation-brought-to-you-by-Reagan-and-Clinton

[treestar]

118. +10000000000000000

[tridim]

128. Thank you!

Trust is earned, and these trolls haven't earned anything resembling a sliver of trust.

It's obvious and insulting.

[uponit7771]

243. Their persistence even in the face of being wrong many times is sooooooo.........conservative

[redstateblues]

254. But but but You don't think Bernie will usher in a Socialist

Paradise with a republican house and senate ready to do his bidding?

[FSogol]

313. +1 n/t

[Unvanguard]

86. Different messaging for a different audience.

Obama is credible with Democrats, especially liberal ones. He is not credible with Republicans and he is not especially credible even with the sorts of centrist Democrats who wanted to weaken the ACA. (Indeed, some of those Democrats knew they probably stood to gain politically from being seen to defy Obama.) So the bully pulpit might work for the TPP. But it wasn't going to work on health care reform.

[99Forever]

99. Huh?

You forget this ?

[Unvanguard]

102. Meant every word.

[99Forever]

104. What color is the sky in your world?

[Unvanguard]

105. Pretty sure it's still blue

But Hume teaches that I shouldn't trust excessively in induction.

[99Forever]

106. Interesting.

It's blue here on Earth also.

[Unvanguard]

112. Sounds like a strange multidimensional coincidence

[Maedhros]

172. Obama had a Democratic majority when the ACA was being negotiated.

He could have whipped votes, like he did for the horrible "cromnibus" bill...but he didn't even try.

[ibegurpard]

178. And like he's doing at this very moment for the TPP

where does he fight the hardest?
that's where his real allegiances are.

[Unvanguard]

221. He could not afford to lose a single Democrat in the Senate.

And he had very little leverage or persuasive power over the likes of Lieberman or Nelson.

[ibegurpard]

222. He ultimately lost a lot

Max Baucus, the architect of the ACA, being one of them.
Won the battle and lost the war...for a Heritage Foundation free-market model of healthcare reform with some provisions to make it more palatable to Democrats.
And he wants us to trust him on TPP...

[Unvanguard]

238. The Affordable Care Act is doing enormous good every day.

I, for one, am glad it was passed.

And every single Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the final version.

(Edit: For the record, I oppose TPP.)

[Maedhros]

266. Find some.

That's why it's called whipping votes.

[ibegurpard]

267. Oh he's real good at it when he wants to be

like right now.

[INdemo]

107. So you would vote for Obama again even

if Elizabeth Warren would run against him?

[ibegurpard]

110. If my choices were Elizabeth Warren or Obama

I think it's quite obvious I would choose Elizabeth Warren.
If my choices were Obama and one of the clown car republicans we've heard about so far my choice would be Obama without even a hesitation.

[INdemo]

119. What about Hillary or Sanders?

[ibegurpard]

121. Sanders as far as he can go

[RiverLover]

123. 2008 Candidate Obama: "I will replace Fast Track...

"I will replace Fast Track with a process that includes criteria determining appropriate negotiating partners that includes an analysis of labor and environmental standards as well as the state of civil society in those countries. Finally, I will ensure that Congress plays a strong and informed role in our international economic policy and in any future agreements we pursue and in our efforts to amend existing agreements.”

8
“I oppose extending or renewing the current Fast Track authority as designed, but would support a
redesigned process that provided for greater transparency, more democratic participation, and required
labor and environmental provisions in the core of agreements.”

9
“I will not support extension of the existing Fast Track process that expired. I have not and would not
support renewing Trade Promotion Authority for this President. The current Fast Track process does
not mandate that agreements include binding labor and environmental protections nor does it give an
adequate role to Congress in the selection and design of agreements. I will work with Congressional
leaders to ensure that any new TPA authority fix these basic failings and open up the process to the
American people for their participation and scrutiny.”

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ObamaTradeCampaignStatementsFINAL.pdf

Just one of many reasons not to trust a man who sold us on promises he never intended to fulfill.


10

[840high]

136. ty

[DCBob]

137. I think one could argue that he is attempting to do that.

I believe the TPA now in question has new provisions for those issues he mentioned in 2008.

[ibegurpard]

141. And one could also argue he's thrown the majority of it out the window.

[DCBob]

144. I dont think so.

I will have to try to find an old TPA agreement but I recall they were pretty much blank checks with no provisions for anything.. this one being negotiated now is a vast improvement.

[RiverLover]

150. Proof?

nt

[Cha]

287. Of course he is.

[Bobbie Jo]

148. BBI

[CharlotteVale]

126. K&R

[still_one]

135. A public option or medicare for all could not pass. I love the same talking point on the ACA when

every fact shows he didn't have the votes from the blue dogs. Gee, I guess he couldn't wave his arm and open the red sea to cross.

The TPP whether one is for it, against it, or undecided, most reasonable people should not want it fast-tracked. People need to know the details of the final agreement, and amendments need to be allowed for short falls in the agreement.

What the President got passed in the first two years of his term was Dodd/Frank, the ACA, saved the American car industry, instituted the stimulus package, through the American Recovery and reinvestment Act, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure act to protect consumers from deceptive credit card practices, passed Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act he saved jobs in the education arena, and much more, which I am not going to list.

The republicans voted in a block everything thing this President tried to do, and the blue dogs were NOT a willing partner. We had Lieberman, Bayh, both Nelsons, Landreau, and other blue dogs, that were needed for a public option, and the votes were not there. He had two years to get a healthcare bill through, and though it is far from perfect, a lot of people are being helped by it, from the expanded Medicaid, children healthcare, the uninsured, to no denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions.

[ibegurpard]

139. Once again:

We are talking about what he is using all of the political capital at his disposal to fight for.
And what he is willing to go against traditional Democratic Party labor constituencies to fight for.
And it's a TRADE TREATY that sets up a venue for transnational corporations to challenge our laws and regulations.

Trade policy should be: you want to trade with us? follow our regulations.

[still_one]

147. He had no political capital with the ACA, no blue dog would have allowed the public option. The

reason he has as you put it "political capital" on the TPP is because of republican support in Congress, and that is troubling in and of itself.

President Obama has very little political capital, and has had to fight for everything, whether the results were good or bad.

Carter had similar issues. Many are unaware that Ted Kennedy actually blocked Jimmy Carter's ability to pass a national "health plan". Kennedy deliberately blocked legislation that Carter proposed in 1978.

[onecaliberal]

143. I don't know how you oppose NAFTA but support

More bullshit trade agreements. Guess it takes a brick wall for some folks. Talk to people who lost everything they worked for their entire lives when their entire field of work was shipped to another country. It kills me how people think these things are okay so long as they happen to other people. How did we go from debating g repeal 8 years ago to pushing for this?!?
ACA has saved the life of my disabled son to be sure. I'm beyond words grateful. Single payer can save MANY more. There are still people left out and that is not okay with me.
I thought we were the kind of people who thought about everyone not just ourselves and our own.

[Mojorabbit]

152. +1000 nt

[True Blue Door]

156. Not this shit again. It springs up like malaria with mind-numbing regularity.

Romnesia is apparently a chronic condition.

This kind of commentary is stupid, ignorant, amnesiac, history-revisionist bullshit with no connection to reality and no evidence of arising from rational thought.

I've debunked it so many times since Day 1 in 2009, I could practically automate the process.

If this is your attitude, then literally no President in history would have earned your respect. Not one, not ever, because you would always constantly see the infinity of things you wanted from them that they didn't deliver instead of the finite accomplishments they did, no matter how colossal.

Barack Obama is Mt. Rushmore material. You will probably come to understand that when you see most of the people who follow him into the Presidency, or else you'll become like those on the left who still insisted by 1960 that FDR was a capitalist sellout who betrayed the working people of America because (insert painfully obscure policy that pissed them off once and was totally forgotten by history).

The smallness of commentary like this is unbecoming of progressivism.

[ibegurpard]

159. Mt Rushmore material?

Hardly.
He belongs wherever they put Clinton...whose third-way policies he has enthusiastically continued.

[True Blue Door]

160. It's mind-boggling if you sincerely believe that.

The Obama and Clinton administrations are like JFK and Gerald Ford.

[Number23]

191. "The smallness of commentary like this is unbecoming of progressivism."

Couldn't agree more.

But DU has been blanketed with this kind of mess for over six years. And nothing could explain the level of civic understanding here better.

[True Blue Door]

195. "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

[ibegurpard]

196. the gods?

I'd be looking for another metaphor when you engage in the sort of hero-worship to suggest that Obama's visage belongs on a mountain.

[True Blue Door]

199. It's a metaphor from poetry, sport.

Don't strain yourself too much.

[ibegurpard]

200. Here's a quote to stick up your metaphor

"Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom."
Herbert Spencer

[True Blue Door]

205. Here's another.

“To believe all men honest is folly. To believe none is something worse.”

-John Adams

[Andy823]

161. Same old BS

From pretty much the same people who have been bashing him here on DU from day one. I trust him more than the people have never liked him in the first place, and have shown that in all their trash and bash posts.

[trumad]

165. Yawn

[Cha]

291. ..

[raindaddy]

166. It's become obvious who he represents

[truebluegreen]

168. Because he has proven he can't be trusted? nt

[stonecutter357]

169. hyperbolic nonsense.

[cantbeserious]

170. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[heaven05]

183. you don't "trust" Obama?

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 09:56 AM - Edit history (1)

so what. We better extract our collective Democratic Party heads from our collective nether regions and make sure we can get someone in that high office that will stand up for the majority members of our Party. All this wrangling is not going to change a damn thing about droned civilians, whether Obama is or is not in the pocket of the banker and corporate elite. We need to come together. Some of the 'disagreements' in this thread are pathetic in their divisiveness. We're eating our own. Disgusting and pitiful is what I read here. We will lose in 2016 if we don't start standing up for each other. No one on here can say they know more about pain, misery, living and struggling than any other living. Yes, there are different levels of pain, privilege and status in life according to our class system. Yet all here are subject to the same feelings of the political, economic and social danger, that any other feels, that is barreling down on us. Have no doubt, people we will feel terror in the next 18 months or so. Let's join on that level. We are all going to feel a lot more pain, no matter ones status in life as a Democrat, IF we let the fascist take over the White House.

GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE! Work with each other, not against. What's been done the last 6+ years is done. Let's move toward an enlightened Party of members in good faith and unity. This is the only way we beat the RW, soundly, in the upcoming political bloodbath right over the horizon. I will work with anyone here, yes even Manny, to get the right person in the White House to represent my needs and aspirations. Get together or we're going to sink.

[Number23]

186. And you know why alot of people do trust him? Because they look at the caliber of his opposition

and think if these folks hate the man, he must be doing (alot of) something good.

[ibegurpard]

187. Take a look at the caliber of his opposition on this issue...

...it's not the Republicans.

[Number23]

193. The same people on the "left" that are howling about this have howled about everything.

And they have been all too happy to align with Republicans before in opposing every step this president has made.

The comments you see all in this thread about not trusting the "trolls" here is very much in line with many, many Democrats seeing the president's incessant detractors on the left. Their concerns about TPP may be valid and real, but combined with the endless braying about other issues, it looks to be one more in a long line of hyperbolic, inaccurate caterwauling.

[ibegurpard]

194. Not everything

Just some of the most important things:
like selling out a public option on healthcare "reform"
like promoting corporate-backed education "reform" that undercuts our teachers.
like continuing and enhancing police-state spying and relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers.

[Number23]

201. No - EVERYTHING. And even when convinced that Evil Obama would do what Evil Obama does best

this board was filled with the howls.

And when whatever it was didn't happen such as cutting SS, approving the Keystone pipeline, air strikes and more in Syria etc. etc. etc. these same folks just pivot to braying about the next issue as if whatever it was they were just screaming about never happened.

Combined with the flat out lies ie "Obama called himself a moderate Republican" and "is more conservative than Reagan" this place lost it a long time ago. This scenario has played out so many times it's no wonder that so many people are 1200% completely sick of it.

[ibegurpard]

204. not everything

He appointed Warren.
He came out in favor of same-sex marriage.
He has championed many progressive policies in the federal workplace where he's had the power to do so.

He's also gone to the mat for some things that are very detrimental to working people.
This is one of them.

[Number23]

210. And this board screamed that none of these things would happen because the man is Pure Evil

And when they did happen, these same folks had the temerity to holler that it was only because they "pushed" him to do so.

He has gone to bat for some things that have been incredibly helpful for working people which is probably why he has a 70-90% approval rate among Democrats, liberals and the Democratic base.

You're seeing what you want and we are obviously not going to agree on anything so this discussion is pretty much pointless.

[ibegurpard]

213. oh calm down

you want to talk about hyperbole?
you just engaged in it.

[Number23]

237. Saying that this discussion is pointless is not hyperbole. I have no idea why you're telling me to

"calm down." What a dumb thing to say.

[ibegurpard]

261. No one has ever said he's pure evil

That's hyperbole and the truly dumb statement.

[Number23]

271. Again, it's obvious you only see what you want. You got people in this thread calling him a "con man

with nary a peep of protestation out of you. This board has been overrun for YEARS with people here calling him every disparaging name in the book but I guess you didn't see any of that, huh?

Because historically, con men have always been paragons of virtue, honesty and goodness. This whole thing is just stupid now.

[Andy823]

227. Exactly [phone]

Yep "they" pushed him by bashing him day in, and day out, here on DU. Yep they take the credit, and then start all over complaining about everything, and setting their hair on fire when the "next" issue comes up that they disagree with him on, and the disagree with pretty much everything. It's the same people who jump in on every thread they can find "against" what he has done, is doing, and mostly what the "WIL" do in the future. Their record of actually being right is piss poor, but that won't stop them, nope the hate must go on, so the follow their ring leaders recing BS threads by anyone, even first time posters, who decide to trash the president. I agree with you it's really getting old.

Good post.

[Cha]

293. Their egos are what fuel them.. not reality.

[uponit7771]

246. One of the reasons I'm for Hillary, cause the dumb ass'd conservatives hate her.

[dreamnightwind]

249. Congratulations

Your post is a perfect illustration of how the good cop bad cop scam is run.

[Number23]

270. Your post makes no sense at all

I'm mildly curious who/what you think the good cops as well as who the bad cops are but only mildly so.

[dreamnightwind]

282. Sadly I believe you really don't get it

Different planets I guess.

[Number23]

302. My guess is different levels of understanding of the English language.

[Cha]

283. Aloha 23.. I trust President Obama because he comes through.. he's earned his trust. And, couldn't

care less what these internet cheap ignorant pot shots have to whine about. They've been doing it for 7 years and now once again they think they smell blood in the water so they're all out with their

And, the bullshite.. "Obama has ruined any legacy is has with ttp".. is just wishful thinking by those who want it to be so. It's bullshit.

[bigwillq]

189. I've learned not to trust ANY politician (nt)

[ibegurpard]

198. generally a good idea

Align yourself with those who generally mirror your values and then decide how much deviation from that you can live with.

[Helen Borg]

217. Make that ANYBODY.

Just to be safe.

[Thinkingabout]

212. As a beneficiary of ACA I am very thankful he was strong in pushing ACA even

After he was told he was spending too of his political clout on this issue. Thank you President Obama for pushing on to help the citizens of this nation.

[ananda]

215. Obama has totally ruined any legacy he had with this TPP.

Sad.

[ibegurpard]

219. A story from Oregon

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-trans-pacific-parternership-tpp-trade-pact-oregon-nike-protests/

"Oregon resident John Walsh donated $2,000 to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign, but he lost faith in the president because of the TPP and other trade deals Mr. Obama has negotiated since taking office. Walsh joined protesters chanting outside the Sentinel Hotel, where the president raised money for Democrats.

"The biggest concern is inequality. Trade deals benefit a small portion of the population, particularly very powerful transnational corporations, and damage the vast majority of people in all the countries involved," Walsh said.

Walsh works for a printing company in Portland and is a member of the Teamsters Union. After voting for the president twice, he left the Democratic Party."

$2000 doesn't compare to the millions flowing in the coffers of the Democratic Party from the multinational corporations that support policy like this but this steady drip of support from longtime traditional support like labor from the party is what marginalizes us. With no alternatives but Republicans, who obviously don't represent their interests either, we have people who just stop voting altogether.

[Agony]

226. Incestuous plutocrat fuckery is why I don't trust him, whitehouse.gov ISDS reply to Senator Warren

is written by a guy who used to work for Bain. Jeffery Zients...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/26/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-questions-and-answers

Trust? fuck it. no way. You want to trust some fucker whose moral compass thought it was OK to work at Bain and Company? Screwing working people seems to be acceptable in some wing of the Democratic Party.

Let the damn TPP stand on its own two feet through ordinary debate and compromise and the same process that I expect in a modern Democracy. Plutonomy be damned.

[fredamae]

228. That is One Hellava Question

you asked there ....

[lumberjack_jeff]

230. It's nice to see that he's capable of leadership.

[cui bono]

231. The two things he's really fought hard for:

The TPP and his own presidential campaign.

Other causes not so much.

[EEO]

233. Hear, hear.

[Freelancer]

239. I'd vote for him again, but...

First bad sign was the dog. The day the helicopter doors opened on Marine 1, and the daughters stepped off, a hypo hypoallergenic puppy should have bounded across the grass to meet them. How the image people let that opportunity slip by is beyond me.

Next came the individual mandate. Hillary told the truth during the campaign -- that no healthcare plan for the uninsured would work without the individual mandate. But Obama said there would be no need for a mandate, and may have gotten the nomination partially because of it. Then, lo and behold, a reversal once in office. The President discovered a mandate would, in fact, be necessary. (Grrr)

The third biggie for me was Wisconsin. He promised somewhere along the line that if union members' rights were threatened, that he'd "put on boots, and march with them." Well, many thousands marched, but he did not. We see how that turned out. Thanks Mr. President.

Fourth, there's the whole TPP debacle -- enough said.

Lastly, he has barely used his power as chief executive to pardon and commute sentences at all. Ronald Reagan was more mindful and merciful in that department than Barack Obama and I see no excuse for that.

Oh well, it felt good to vent a little

[woo me with science]

240. A bait-and-switch, corporate Trojan horse presidency built on lies.

The silver lining to the con job is the awakening American awareness of how thoroughly and systemically our system is now corrupted by corporate money.

This is why Bernie's campaign is growing so quickly.

[whereisjustice]

242. He was keeping his powder dry so he could fuck us all over with TPP, then he's gone

like Clinton and the damage will be our children's lower standard of living. History repeats itself.

[senz]

252. A President can't buck corporate power by himself

It can't happen. We could elect Bernie (my hands-down favorite) and HE wouldn't be able to do it. What stands in his way?

* Republicans in both houses of Congress

* Transnational corporations -- which are now more powerful than any government on earth

* The mass media -- owned by corporate America

* Average Americans whose brains have been washed by conservative hate groups (Fox, Limbaugh, etc.)

To change this country we would have to get money out of politics and declare corporations non-persons. Then we'd need to reinstate the Sherman anti-trust Act and break up all the megacorporations. Then we'd need to rescind Reagan and Clinton's deregulation of the media which made the current monopoly possible -- so that the people could hear the truth again.

That's a big job. Much bigger than Obama. Much bigger than ANY president.

We have a lot of work to do, but it's easier to sit around and gripe about the current president.

[senz]

253. That's just a PARTIAL list of what needs to be done before a progressive president have an impact.

The best president in the world can't do it single-handed. The Big Boys (unelected) would destroy him/her in no time.

Obama's done dozens of good things for this country, but each one he had to squeeze through by the skin of his teeth. I hope someday he'll write an honest book about what it was like, but for his and his family's safety, he might not be able to.

[ibegurpard]

262. anyone with a lick of sense knows that

but what I seem to have to keep repeating here is that when he goes to the mat and expends his political capital, like he's doing with the TPP, it's NOT for progressive policy.

[George II]

256. False premise. It is NOT true that "many people don't trust Obama"!

You really oversimplify things, REALLY!

[ibegurpard]

260. A false premise would be that ALL people don't trust Obama

The statement that MANY people don't trust him is not false.

[Cha]

292. Many people do Trust President Obama.. and yeah, if "oversimplify" means "untrue".

88% of liberal Dems approve of the job he's doing. Oooops, you know that pisses them off.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/04/97-of-liberal-dems-approve-of-obama.html

Just the little microcosm of DU has always had out their for him.

[the_sly_pig]

273. I voted for the president twice...

I would also do it again. I am also disappointed with his lack of support with certain issues. But at some point we will have to wrestle with the fact that there are no clamoring hoards demanding change. Half the citizens could care less that there is a war on education and could stomach a religious State.

Our 'democracy' is a reflection of who we are now and it's probably unfair to make the president shoulder the entire burden.

[ibegurpard]

274. So did I

And would do so again if he was my only real choice to keep a Republican out of the White House.
I can live with him supporting issues that I'm against.
But I'm not going to to allow him to make the claim that we should trust him when he fights harder for corporate trade deals than he ever did for progressive legislation.

[the_sly_pig]

275. He had no congress to work with....

It's not that I disagree with you, but of the people I know personally that don't like him, it has more to do with the color of his skin than it does the issues at hand.

Toss in a wilting flower of a minority leader in the Senate and how is the guy supposed to get anything done.

All I'm saying is that to get progressive legislation the citizens need to unite and we're not anywhere near doing that.

He affected the change he could and nothing more. Though I am disappointed with his lack of support, I am much more disappointed in my fellow citizens for allowing regressive change to happen...

[ibegurpard]

276. read this

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2

[the_sly_pig]

278. Thanks for that disturbing article... :(

[ibegurpard]

279. I'm sorry

truly.

[Kablooie]

277. No matter how good a man he is he's still A POLITICIAN!

He may want to do good things, he may do good things, but a politician is never his own man.
He may go against the tide at times but he also must bend to the forces around him also whether he wants to or not.
It's impossible for a politician to remain trustworthy all the time so we must always hold some skepticism if we don't want to be seen as fools.

I don't know if he honestly believes the TPP will be wonderful for all of us or not but he apparently must push it no matter what.

[Maedhros]

304. I don't know if Bush honestly believed invading Iraq was to be wonderful for all of us or not

but he apparently needed to push it no matter what.

So we shouldn't criticize Bush - he's a politician, and not his own man.

[Kablooie]

305. It not that you shouldn't criticize him. The point is you shouldn't TRUST him.

[Maedhros]

306. Oh, I don't.

Your post seemed to absolve Obama of responsibility, though, which is a position I can't condone.

[Kablooie]

308. Not what I meant. I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough.

I believe Obama is a good man and his motives are probably good, (for the most part), but you still can't trust him. He will make some decisions that are not popular and will try to obfuscate the real reasons he made them.

[Maedhros]

309. That is certainly true.

For what it's worth, I don't believe Obama to be "evil." I do believe that his policies lead to great misery and suffering at the expense of people that most Americans consider unimportant.

[Nevernose]

310. Is he running for reelection?

He's a lame duck. Anything he does at this point, it's because he WANTS to do it, not because he has to.

[Kablooie]

311. I hate to say it but you may be right.

He may have been for the 1% all along and be willing to dump everyone else.

[ucrdem]

284. Yes, but it's considered impolite to say it. nt

[B Calm]

298. TPP, Obama and McConnell have an agreement.

[randys1]

301. I heard Thom make this point today also.

Seems odd this is the one thing he is willing to really really go for.

Great guy, worked both campaigns for him, would again.

But this is crazy

[Blue_Tires]

315. Please give me some names of more "trusted" politicians

Because I sure as hell can't think of any...

The people I know who don't trust Obama think that way for reasons that have nothing to do with TPP...