It's not a mystery. People really are angry.

[sabrina 1]

No one needs to come up with any wild speculations about the genuine anger among Democrats towards their own party right OR the causes of that anger.

There seems to be an effort to ignore the reasons for the anger of the American People towards their Government, which includes both parties and the White House and blame it on some conspiracy theory that many of us are mindless, easily influenced weaklings that a few 'propagandists' from the other side can instigate against our own party with planted comments on Political forums.

Frankly, I've never heard anything more ridiculous. First, anyone who has participated on Political Forums for a number of years, is well aware that there are 'plants' on internet boards and most of us can easily spot them by now.

Second, to go to a forum and pretend to be something you are not, is a pretty deceptive thing to do and takes a certain kind of mentality. Eg, when I have gone to Republican dominated boards, I was completely honest about the fact that I am a Democrat. What would I have accomplished by not being honest about it? We know that they too can spot someone who is not who they claim to be almost instantly.

Now for the facts

There are real problems facing the American people right now. Millions have lost their jobs and their homes, one in five American children are going to bed hungry every night. We are still spending billions on useless wars. No one has been held accountable for the massive fraud that brought down this country's economy. And worse, the American people, including the poorest among them, are being asked to pay the huge debt these criminals ran up, to 'share the sacrifice' while they continue to profit without consequences, from their crimes.

We all know that these conditions were caused by the lies and corruption of the Bush Administration.

We spent eight years watching in horror as they systematically destroyed the country's reputation, the economy, the Constitution itself and the lives of untold millions of people here and in other countries, such as Iraq eg.

Then we threw them out of office. With promises that things would change, that people would be held accountable for the destruction they caused.

We knew it would take time, maybe several elections where Democrats maintained power in order to ensure that any changes made could not easily be undone.

But no sooner did Democrats win than we began to hear excuses. 'We can't prosecute war criminals or economic criminals because there are more important things to spend our time on' etc. etc. There is no need for me to make a list. Anyone who is honest will acknowledge that rather than seeing much change, we are told we must be willing to 'compromise'. On everything. From War Criminals to Wall St. Criminals and on and on. But worse than that, the people we supported to begin the road back to a country that respects our laws, were in fact working to PROTECT these criminals.

Anyone who is not angry over some of these issues, Democrats protecting War Criminals eg, has either lost their own way, or they were the ones pretending to be something they were not during the Bush years.

To make it clear. Democrats elected Democrats expecting to see Democratic policies being fought for. No, we didn't expect miracles, we didn't want 'ponies' we didn't think the President was a 'dictator' or had a 'magic wand' etc. etc. fill in the talking point.

But we did expect a fight!!

We know he has done some good things and we know that Republican in the WH would be a complete disaster, the country can't sustain itself under Republican rule anymore. We know all this.

But we also know when Democrats are caving to Republicans. We are not blind. If there are things we DON'T know that Democrats have to deal with and we are being in some way unfair in our criticisms of them, then let them tell us. Don't call our ideas f**king retarded, or claim we, who are just ordinary people, are the 'Professional Left' etc, dismissing these very real issues.

Such political strategies have made Democrats seem defensive and angry.

And at the wrong people.

Why aren't they angry at Republicans?

The only way Democrats can win in the next election to address these issues honestly. Claiming that it's all about undercover agents secretly influencing the minds of Democrats is just not going to work.

We do NOT want Republicans running this country again. And if they win, I know who I will be blaming unless we see some winning strategies, such as addressing head-on the issues that Democrats care about, not making excuses about why they cannot fight for them and trying to blame it all on some conspiracy theory that we have all been imagining things and are the victims of some huge 'Mind-Control Operation'.

The issues are REAL. It is not some mind-control operation at work. There really are people with no jobs, War criminals being protected by the people we elected to go after them, Wall St. prosecutions being blocked, grossly expensive, inhumane wars still going on etc. etc.

We are truly not imagining these things! Are we?




We WANT this President to succeed, not for his sake, for OURS. Because if he doesn't?? Well, use your imagination and do not tell us to stop telling him why his poll are so bad right now. Anyone who genuinely does not want Republicans in the WH again, will not be silent when they see things that are just plain bad policies. Or bad political strategies that seem designed more to anger voters on the left than anything else.

There could not be a worse political strategy than that.

[The Magistrate]

1. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

[PonyJon]

187. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET give Obama a real majority to work with.

Quit second quessing, VOTE STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, you'll get the real results you're wanting.

[The Magistrate]

190. That Is My Custom And Habit, Sir

Still, the man has been a disappointment, there is no hiding from it. People will be doing their duty, but part of the whole concept of doing your duty is that you do not have to like it, even as you do it.

[JDPriestly]

203. Don't worry. I will vote for my progressive Democratic congressman.

I think Feinstein will be running again. It will be difficult to vote for her because she is so conservative on some issues, but she is liberal on others and I really don't expect ponies so, while I hope she is challenged in the primaries just to keep her on her toes, I will vote for her. I will probably campaign for my Congressman and for Senator Feinstein.

But with regard to Obama, I will vote for him most likely, but I cannot in good conscience to out and lie for him. I respect my friends and neighbors more than that. Many of us are on Social Security, and now that we have retired he is asking for cuts in the FICA taxes. That is really mean. Retired people have already made their sacrifices -- in the cuts to their savings due to the stock market crash and the loss in property values -- and due to the low interest rates in recent years. Obama cannot ask more of us. We no longer have the opportunities to work and will not have them in the future.

[cyberpj]

248. Obama had a real majority his first two years in office and was not impressive then either. nt

[Kurmudgeon]

254. Slept through that whole healthcare thing, didn't you....

[readmoreoften]

255. Yeah, um, that health insurance scam Obama dreamed up was far from impressive.

[defendandprotect]

270. Did you miss the "immaculate conception"? Obama's back room deals with Big Pharma and private

H/C industry?

And then Rahm "crowing" about it and telling business how GRATEFUL they should be

to Obama!!


:eyes:

[onpatrol98]

268. I do not know any democrat that isn't voting a straight democratic ticket?

I mean...this is DU after all. Either voting this way out of 1) habit, 2) fear of crazy republicans, or 3) our political interests are aligned. I could see if this was IU (Indepndent Underground) or RU (R U Crazy). But, it isn't. Now, there are those who plan on focusing their efforts (money and energy) on races besides the White House because they want a primary challenge. I am not one of those individuals. But, I really think we already agree that we want democratic leadership + Bernie Sanders.

We have had a real majority. So, clearly we need to do more than that.

[xiamiam]

304. i've voted straight dem for 4 decades...thats why i'm pissed..doesn't work this time..nt

[MineralMan]

2. Frankly, I have seen no evidence that you want this President

to succeed at all. None. Can you point to some?

Anything at all will do, any praise or encouragement for him. I'll wait right here.

[gateley]

6. Sabrina gave me some words of wisdom a while back that I

always try to keep in mind -- look at the actions, not at the person (I'm probably getting it wrong but you get the gist). She's better able to do that than I, but it's good advice for those who are able to adhere to it.

Although she and I differ in our views of Obama, I have no question as to her sincerity objectivity.

[sabrina 1]

12. Gately, I like this president. Sometimes I feel very sorry for him

as I can only imagine what he is dealing with. Where we probably disagree is that I want him to be more forceful, and I do realize that on economic issues I disagree with his strategy for fixing the problems. I think jobs are the most important way to begin to deal with the deficit and the debt. Not cuts to Social programs eg.

Anyhow, thank you for your kind words ~ I have always respected your opinions also. We get further without all the hyperbole imo. :-)

[gateley]

28. Actually, we agree on wishing he were more forceful and question

some of his strategies (and for me, many of his appointments!)

You're just more able to be rational about it and realize that we may never get what we hoped for from him. I just keep hoping. You're willing and able to do the Tough Love approach, I'm a wuss.
:hi:

[sabrina 1]

51. 'Tough love' lol, yes, I've had to do that in RL

and it's even harder when it's someone you know and love personally. And, it doesn't always work. It really is in the end, up to the person. I keep hoping that the President will see that the Third Way/Global Capitalism solutions are not good ideas and will then change course. I think at this point, he really does believe in them though.

[TrollBuster9090]

72. Tough love is one thing, but here's some tough truth: (Yes, the SCOTUS thing again)

Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer are all in their 70s. Ruth Ginsburg is 78 and has cancer.

The odds are that the next occupant of the White House will make FOUR MORE SUPREME COURT appointments who will be there FOR LIFE. Do you want four more Sotomayors or four more Scalias? Four more Kagans or four more Alitos?

Is it better to put up with a fake Democrat for another four years, or to put up with a 7 to 2 wingnut Supreme Court for the next THIRTY?

A 7 to 2 Supreme Court that would sit there overturning CIVIL RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, MINORITY RIGHTS, and VOTERS RIGHTS legislation well into the year 2040.

Imagine a country with a Citizens United decision every three months.

To quote LBJ's campaign commercial: THESE ARE THE STAKES.

[AllyCat]

100. This very issue is about the only thing that MIGHT get me to vote for Obama in '12

However, given what I have seen of him the past 2 years, I am not encouraged that he would pick anyone that would uphold the law. I KNOW the 'cons won't, but suppose there is some hope that maybe Obama will pick more Kagens and Sotomayors.

I just wish he could be primaried. We need someone to fight for us worker bees so there is NO DOUBT about SCOTUS choices.

Peace.

[TrollBuster9090]

171. If it wasn't for that issue I might not support him either. Unfortunately, it's THE issue.

I agree with some of the sentiments I see around here that, if he's going to govern like a moderate Republican, what's the POINT of electing a Democrat? It's just encouraging bad behavior.

And maybe it would be better to withdraw support from the Democratic party to teach them a lesson, and try to get them to stand up for progressive causes now and then.

But unfortunately, we don't have that luxury. Four more Alitos on the supreme court....and the country may not be able to recover from it. EVER.

Four more extremists like Scalia on the Supreme court, making regressive decisions for the next 30 years, and it doesn't matter HOW progressive the Democrats become. An extremist Supreme Court would simply overturn any legislation they passed.

There must be other ways to paper-train the Democratic party that won't make everybody from US to our GREAT GRAND CHILDREN suffer.

[JDPriestly]

207. I would like to see him primaried, but it has occurred to me that

a more effective way to change his points of view and program would be to get a majority of liberals and progressives in both houses. That will take a lot of work and organization, but that would make a big different. Obama goes along with Congress, so let's change Congress.

The Republicans, especially the Tea-Baggers have proved themselves to be really awful people. Seniors, especially have had their eyes opened about who the Republicans really are.

Why don't we take up the strategy that we change Congress. If a challenger comes forward, then great, but if not, we can try to take lots and lots of seats in Congress.

It would take a lot of grassroots leg-work, but we could do it.

[AllyCat]

312. We have a problem here in WI in that our rat-fink Guv has redistricted all the Repukes

into safe seats. They are doing it all over the place. We are all in a world of hurt and I don't think this Pres only looks to Congress. He goes by what the corporations say to do. We had majorities in both houses and he didn't do much.

[jaysunb]

122. +1000

Too bad some are tone deaf to the real consequences. :shrug:

[TrollBuster9090]

175. Given that it was really the SCOTUS that handed the 2000 election to Bush, and not "Naderites"

or Catherine Harris, I'm surprised people didn't realize this before. If the Democratic party base had supported Carter, we wouldn't STILL be dealing with Reagan and Bush Sr. appointees on the Supreme Court. Citizens United wouldn't have happened, and Al Gore would have just finished his second term.

[jaysunb]

196. I keep saying: I've seen this movie

and it's ended badly for not only Democrats, but, for America....and every time, 68,80 and 2000 we were undermined by, paid political operatives that infiltraited our ranks, and helped change the course of progressive history.

Storm clouds are gathering yet again. :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. Here's food for thought - if he IS a fake Democrat

what guarantee do we have that he won't appont RW un-democratic corporatists to replace the liberals?

His two appointments so far are hardly examples of flaming liberalism.

Tough truth indeed - he has given us NO reason to trust him. THAT is why some of us are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore.

He put fucking SS on the table, for gawds sake.

Fake Democrat, indeed.

[TrollBuster9090]

184. True, there's no guarantee Obama WON'T put wingnuts on the SCOTUS. But there IS a guarantee that

Republicans WILL put wingnuts on the Supreme Court. It's their raison d'etre! There are only TWO THINGS that you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE from Republicans if elected. Tax cuts, and regressive judges. Period.

So, that only leaves two alternatives. Either support Obama and help him win, or convince a VIABLE Presidential candidate to challenge him, and then MAKE SURE that the challenger wins. Kennedy challenged Carter, but he didn't succeed. Carter survived the challenge, but he was weakened enough that Reagan could win. If Kennedy had won, it might have been a different story, but he didn't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

233. The truth of Kennedy/Carter, of course, is that Carter was stronger

AFTER Kennedy's challenge - go back and check the poll #s. It was Bushco's secret deal on Reagan's behalf that cost Carter the election, not Kennedy's challenge. Of course the proto-DLC spun it that way - that was the corporatist entry into the Democratic party, and they've been dividing us ever since. Their first order of business was to discredit the liberals, regardless of whether it meant Reagan winning or not.

conservadems are always in favor of party unity - as long as it is unity behind THEIR banner. I've been a Democrat all my life, and one thing I'm certain of, they are not playing on the same team I am.

[MoonRiver]

245. I don't believe his reelection depends on the liberal left, mad as we are at him.

SCOTUS and other factors will keep us in line, more or less. His problem is the groups that really elected him, Independents and moderate Republicans. Those folks are mad as hell and will go for a Repub like Romney big time. I think Obama better put forth a really bold and dramatic jobs plan to woo back the middle.

[mod mom]

158. Maybe Obama doesn't want the job, doesn't like the fight. Maybe he should consider

Stepping aside for someone who the base can get excited about. The stakes are too high to have a candidate who is the better of two evils.

Great post. Rec'd

[MoonRiver]

246. I had this same thought yesterday.

He seems very tired and unmotivated. I think for the sake of the country he should step aside, but I do not believe he will.

[defendandprotect]

271. +1 ---

[redsoxrudy]

166. Sure but....

No doubt, the SCOTUS is the one issue that will get me to vote for him. It will NOT however get me to open my wallet or get out and knock doors for him.

[TheMadMonk]

178. And what make you think the Big O, won't appoint corp./(R) friendly justices...

...to the bench?

The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they won't approve the appointment of an individual who leans as dangerously to the Left as Richard fucking Nixon.

Obama has made it EQUALLY clear that he won't make an appointment which upsets Republicans.

Basically, you're fucked as a nation because as individuals, you are far more concerned with seeing that the undesrving don't than that the needy do.

[JDPriestly]

205. I would like to stop arguing about Obama. He is hopeless and deep down

we all know it. But if he had a really strong, progressive or at least fairly liberal Congress, he would respond to their proposals in a positive way I think.

So, let's start working on who would be good candidates for Tea-Bagger seats and for all other seats in Congress.

I think that strong progressives could unseat a lot of conservatives in 2012. The conservatives have made themselves look really mean and obnoxious. (Which is not easy to do considering that they are mean and obnoxious when it comes to politics.)

We aren't going to change Obama any way other than by changing the Congress he is working with.

[davidwparker]

281. +1

Then, there is that notion which we were discussing a few weeks ago. The unions were getting tired of O and there was talk of a new party. Like, the Labor party. Since this would take some time, start is like the Baggers did within the republican party -- just as a movement.

This Labor movement (party germination) would swing the party back to the left of center. If this is built around LABOR, it will bring in a lot of hurting Americans.

[JDPriestly]

295. Good idea!

[xiamiam]

305. and anti war which is the reason there's no money for jobs..nt

[defendandprotect]

319. The issue, really, is whether or not you can trust Obama ... more 'n more he moves to RIGHT ...!!

[sulphurdunn]

69. Pay attention to policy

not personality.

[sabrina 1]

113. Yes, exactly!

[tblue]

75. What matters most is policy, for me.

Party and politician are secondary. Really, it's about what's best for the country. I don't know how to support a person i their actions. I love Alan Grayson intensely, but if he started pushing bad policies I would not continue supporting him for long. How could I?

[sabrina 1]

8. How about you pointing out, any comment of mine will do,

where I have been disrepectful to this President! Unless you think disagreeing with him on certain policies is disrespectful??

[MineralMan]

10. As I said, I cannot remember any praise you have had for the

man. Of course, I can't possibly have read all of your posts, so I may well have missed some. There's no compulsion for you to reply to my request. It is my impression, which could be incorrect, of course.

[sabrina 1]

15. You have missed them.

I don't have time to go through all of my posts frankly, but a quick search revealed a few:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/4...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/1...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/3...

[MineralMan]

17. Very well, then. If that's true, I stand corrected.

[sabrina 1]

21. Mm, for some reason the links I provided didn't show up

in my comment, but I have edited it to include them.

[MineralMan]

29. I checked those links. They weren't about President Obama.

No praise or condemnation in them. Sorry. Don't bother with any further searching. I'll take your word for it.

[sabrina 1]

32. They are still not showing up on my screen. But they were

about the president, so I do not know what you are seeing.

[Mimosa]

234. MineralMan, will the 'fans' understand everything is NOT ABOUT Obama?

We can support him with praise 24/7. But if regular people are still losing jobs, losing their homes, not able to sleep because they are worrying about how to keep roofs over their heads and food on their tables, they will not be voting for the party they perceive is in power, in the Oval Office.

[KoKo]

127. Yes "MM" you did miss many of "Sabrina I"/s posts. Do a DU Search

to refresh your memory. You didn't do your homework, yet.

[Fresh_Start]

9. doesn't need to prove that she wants the President to succeed

The political party goal is not to prop up a failing president.
I for one was irate at the GOP for saying Bush was doing as well as he could: we all needed him to do better.
We need President Obama to do better.
Making excuses for the President is not helping the country, the hungry, the homeless, the unemployed or the children.

Accept your disappointment and work for a better future instead of maintaining a failing status quo.

[OwnedByFerrets]

251. A1

[Autumn]

11. That has nothing to do with the well thought out OP

No one has to prove anything to you.

[MineralMan]

13. No, you're right. No one has to prove anything at all.

I made an observation. It is completely up to the poster.

[sabrina 1]

35. You also have not provided any comment of mine that was

disrespectful to the president. Nor do you have to, of course.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. You make a personal accusation with arch comments which

are continued even as you sputter away. It was rude and uncalled for. Just an observation.

[Cherchez la Femme]

57. LOL Was gonna post:

Now THAT was what is called an "Observation"!

[Cherchez la Femme]

56. You made a "REQUEST"

and a challenge

which is equal to a demand, oh Mighty (you think) King! :puke:


So just sod off.

[TrollBuster9090]

74. MineralMan's comment wasn't really rude. I can't say the same of yours. nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

116. Oh Boo-Hoo-Hoo!

:nopity:
Perhaps I should cover my head & go back to the kitchen?


However, I *will* agree telling someone to 'sod off' isn't very polite -- at least across the pond it isn't.

The 'Mighty King' part -- well, his "observation" :rofl: was demanded like a king, a ruler, a boss, someone in charge would; replete with with his condescending "I will wait right here". Puh-leaze!
And although he is not authority, I still will question it.

It was anything but "an observation".

Sorry you don't approve.


Up until and prior to then, however, I will aver it was NOT rude -- they were facts, as I saw them, delineated step-by-step;
not honey-coated, surely, but I have no compunction to sweeten many posts, if any; not even to dear, dear MineralMan.

The entire thing is simply shocking, I know!
Will I EVER learn my place? :eyes:



Moreover and most importantly, do you think he'll ever get over it?? :sob:

[sabrina 1]

123. I think you know your place very well. I like 'where you're coming from'

:-)

[Raine]

96. It's not up to the poster, it's up to you because you made an accusation

even though you cop out by calling it an "observation". It's up to you to search and prove it, either that or quit making baseless accusations.

[Bonobo]

110. It was an accusation that the OP is here with an agenda to tear down the POTUS.

And it disgusted me.

It was an accusation and you are being passive aggressive about it.

[sabrina 1]

139. And it is that kind of comment that is the problem. It did not

address the issues raised, but chose instead to launch a passive aggressive accusation, unfounded as it happens, which could have no positive effect on the discussion and would only serve to derail the thread.

By contrast, although s/he disagreed with some of what I said, TrollBuster9090 provided constructive disagreement, which actually led to finding agreement, because s/he dealt directly with the ISSUES.

People can have the same goals, but disagree on how to achieve them, and if they stick with issues, rather than get personal, sometimes they can find areas of agreement. I wish there was more of that and less of the kind of personal attack we see far too often.

Thank you for your comment, Bonobo ~

[stillrockin]

23. Well, that's the problem. He's done little to earn praise but

much to earn disdain. But, hey, if he would show us some willingness to REPRESENT us, rather than Wall Street, I'd be right back on board.

[TrollBuster9090]

78. "He's done little to earn praise." Really?

Seriously, you can say he hasn't done as much as he could have done, but you sure can't say he's done little.

Universal Health Care (flaws and all) has illuded every President since FDR, and HE managed to get it passed at a time when most of the Democratic Senators weren't sure whether to salute him or send him out for coffee.

He also brought in a 700 billion dollar stimulus bill that stopped the economy from bleeding to death. Yes it was flawed, but honestly, you can thank Obama and the Congressional Democrats for the world NOT being in another Great Depression right now. Yes it was too small. Yes it was poorly drafted. Yes it made concessions to the Republican tax cut fetish. But YES it got done, and it was FAR better than nothing.

He also brough in Wall Street reform. Sure, Dodd-Frank is flawed, but if you think it's not progressive or comprehensive enough, tell that to Barney Frank, not Obama. Frank wrote it, and he doesn't have to prove his progressive credentials to any bunch of whiners on the interwebs.

He also repealed DODT and extended unemployment benifits. Yes, by trading an extension of the Bush tax cuts, but he did it.

He also brought in the Fair Pay act, and appointed two progressives to the Supreme Court.

Finally, he's also had to put up with more insane crap from more insane nutcases than any president in history, including some that are theoretically supposed to be on his side.

Saying he didn't do everything he could is fair. Saying he has done LITTLE is just childish.

[stillrockin]

117. I don't agree. I think he's been a total disappointment.

You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you like; this administration is has failed us.

[JDPriestly]

208. Sorry, but Wall Street is not in a Great Depression, but the rest of the

country is. So many people have lost their jobs and homes. Lots of people are earning less now than they did in 2007 and 2008.

Those of us who are on Social Security have not had cost of living rises for two years and cannot expect one for next year. The consumer price index is fixed so as to include items we older people don't buy, especially imported consumer goods, and does not include the necessities we have to buy like gasoline (although we buy far less than we did when we were young), rent, medical bills, utilities (which have gone up), local taxes (including charges for parking which have gone up a lot) and food.

Older people rarely buy I-phones, etc. We don't buy new household items, and we buy clothing only rarely. So the thing we buy have gone up in price, but Social Security remains the same.

You'd think Obama would be telling seniors that is the Republicans' fault, but he doesn't seem to think it is important. It is to us.

[defendandprotect]

272. +1000% -- " Wall Street is not in a Great Depression, but the rest of the country is" --

[stillrockin]

243. He's done little. Calling me childish doesn't change anything.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[XanaDUer]

60. +1

nt.

[smokey nj]

61. Well said!

:applause:

[Desertrose]

65. ....

:thumbsup:

What you said.

[Ignis]

82. DU's Hall Monitor hath spoken! Show your papers! Now!

:rofl:

[XanaDUer]

90. 1+ also

nt

[pecwae]

238. No shit. nt

[Bonobo]

108. I think that is a personal attack with no place here.

The OP brings up issues and you respond with allegations that she wants the President to fail.


Boo hiss.

[PA Democrat]

137. I didn't realize that our priority should be the President's "success"

and not what is best for the American people.

What a despicable accusation.

[dbt]

146. 200 recs for the OP!!!

That would be TWO HUNDRED RECS. (of course, that's just my OPINION)

By the way, I have been meaning to compliment you on your avatar. That pic is SO appropriate!

:loveya:

[dbt]

260. No, WAIT! I REALLY MEANT

333 recs for the OP!!! But, again, that's just my OPINION. BTW, I LOVE your avatar!

:bounce:

[Desertrose]

276. No.....I think you really meant 354!!!!!!

Hey dude...cool avatar! ;)

:loveya::hug::hi: :loveya:

[Creideiki]

157. YOU NEVER REALLY LOVED HIM!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!1!!!!

[valerief]

172. I'd rather see Americans succeed. nt

[PonyJon]

186. Here's one link where they've been keeping track of O's accomplishments.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET give us a SOLID majority in both houses and by God America will be saved!

[RC]

249. Not at what he is doing, I don't!

For starts Obama is continuing too many of bu$h's policies.
Where are the jobs? Where is the recovery for the economy? Where are our troops?

If Obama really wants to succeed, then he needs to do something... quite a few somethings different.

[StarsInHerHair]

309. tell me-does he get stronger if I clap my hands?

[Rex]

3. No, no, no! Paid shrills, PL operatives, liberals that don't know

what 'progressive' means, Nader trolls, etc.. THEY all want you to believe people are angry at Obama! SERIES! This is HUGH! :crazy:

It is embarrassing, daily, to see people (I guess out of a frustration/desperation) post that anyone unhappy with Obama is a Naderite or worse.

EMBARRASSING.

EDIT - Okay, I am not being totally fair here...it is also equally as embarrassing to see people attack the POTUS on issues he has no control over.

[highprincipleswork]

22. Naderite

I never thought anyone could push me to become a Naderite, but if anyone could, it would be this version of Obama.

[sabrina 1]

26. And the problem with this strategy of attacking Democrats who

have genuine concerns is that it makes it possible for the President to ignore the people, to believe that his policies of giving in to Republicans are acceptable to all of us. It will ensure a split in the party and end up causing us to hand over the country to Republicans again. I don't understand it, to be honest.

And I agree with you regarding sometimes being unfair to the President on things he has no control over. But he should be asking us to help him, not allowing his representatives to attack us.

[Rex]

33. I agree with you and would love to see the POTUS way more

involved with the Left then the Right. We need him desperately, we have become desperate people wondering which direction the country is going. A lot feel it is still going down, down, down.

[TrollBuster9090]

80. Besides wrong-way Rahm, which Obama representatives have attacked progressives?

[sabrina 1]

83. Well, there was Axelrod and the WH Press Sec also, who I believe

used the term 'professional left' although I may be confusing who said what. The point is, that slamming those who helped get you elected has not been a very good strategy. All it has done is become a distraction, for both 'sides'.

[JDPriestly]

211. Obama should address our concerns with more respect at the least.

I would like to see him debate a progressive challenger if only to hear his explanation for his right-wing positions on so many things from the wars to the banks to the role of insurance companies in health care to privatization of just about everything to Guantanamo, etc., etc. There are just so many issues on which Obama's positions have shocked and disappointed me.

He needs, at the very least, to acknowledge and address the concerns of progressives. If he doesn't, then I for one will feel that he is just shutting us out of the Party and that he and his right-wing friends are taking over and pushing us out.

I have heard that Geithner was Republican and then became and Independent. Is Geithner even a Democrat? Does anyone know for certain whether he has ever stated publicly that he is a Democrat?

[hfojvt]

36. there's no such thing as a Naderite?

I am quite sure that there really are people, on the left, who have abandoned the Democratic Party and put their hope, such as it is, in the rise of a third party, and changes to American Democracy that would allow proportional representation and/or instant-runoff voting.

And obviously, if such a plan is to have any hope of success, they need more people to join them and to stop "enabling" the Democrats.

Why wouldn't they want people to agree with them and join their cause? I certainly want people to join my cause. For example, to defeat Lieberman in a primary. I wrote a number of pieces, some of which are still in mu jounral, trying to convince people to help defeat Lieberman.

But just as I have a goal, of moving the Democratic party to the left (primarily on economic issues), and work towards that goal. Others also have an agenda - of creating a viable 3rd party on the left, and they work towards their goal, and one way to work towards that is to "generate" dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic Party.

That does not mean that everybody who expresses dissatisfaction IS such a person, only that, since such people do exist, that perhaps some are.

[Rex]

37. I was being smarmy toward the people that accuse the downfall

of America on Ralph Nadar. It is a tired copout - to beat a dead horse back to life.

[TrollBuster9090]

85. Michale Moore and Bill Maher didn't think it was such a silly meme.

Check them out BEGGING Nader not to run again in 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0

[Claudia Jones]

40. that is how it works

Threats from the left and from organized Labor are the only thing that ever moves a party to the left.

Obscured here is that these debates are not really about "for or against" the Democratic party, but rather they are about moving the party to the left or moving it to the right. Those calling for the party to move to the left are at least being honest about that, and are in response being accused of disloyalty and of being disingenuous. That is ultimately destructive to Labor, to the left, and ironically to the party, as well.

[JDPriestly]

214. We have threats from organized labor for sure this time, but

Obama has not budged. It's as if he was blind and deaf.

[Claudia Jones]

283. there is nothing, really

There really is nothing in the way of pressure or threat compared to previous eras when social and political change that benefited the everyday people was achieved. Strangely, there are many defenders of the party leadership who are demanding less pressure on the party and the administration.

The Obama administration can safely ignore Labor and the plight of the working people, as we have no leverage, no power. The administration cannot ignore Wall Street and big industry, however, because they can hurt the administration, they do have power and leverage. Hence, Wall Street and big industry are dictating the agenda of the administration. Therefore we on the left are criticizing the administration - no surprise there. Apologists for the administration (who often secretly approve of Wall Street and big industry dictating policy) then accuse critics of the administration of disloyalty and of "helping the Republicans."

[sabrina 1]

48. Wouldn't a better strategy be to do what the teabaggers did to the

Republican Party? They didn't leave it, they ended up controlling it, for the worse as we all know. But their strategy worked. They pulled the party, already almost falling off the cliff from the right, even further to the right, and then the Democrats seemed to feel compelled to move in that direction also, always searching for the elusive middle, which keeps moving further right?

If Democrats could organize in a similar fashion letting rightleaning Dems know they meant business, maybe we could start pulling on the rope a little back in our direction.

I'm not sure how to begin that process, but remaining inside the party but with a strong organized alliance, with the Unions, eg, and the CBC and the Progressive Caucus, and all money going only to Progressive candidates, maybe we can begin to pull them back to the left?

[TrollBuster9090]

95. Actually, they didn't do that by undermining their own sitting Presidents...

...with the obvious exception of George HW Bush. The party base pulled their support from Bush Sr because he wasn't conservative enough, and that was the one and only time I've seen conservatives pull a stupid move that is normally in the purview of the Democratic party base.

I guess they got the idea from watching how well the strategy of undermining Carter because he wasn't progressive enough, and having Kennedy challenge him in a primary worked out?

But I wouldn't hold the Tea Party movement up as an example of how the Republican base has made the Republican party more successful, and in the end ACHIEVED THEIR GOALS. Because EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE is true. The Tea party movement, by being so spoiled and so inflexible and so unreasonable is very rapidly PUSHING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INTO IRRELEVANCE. Not this year, but five or ten years from now. If the GOP hasn't managed to put that genie back in the bottle they're headed for political extinction.

If you want THE REAL reason for the success of the GOP since 1980, you have to look MUCH further back in time to the defeat of Barry Goldwater, and the start of the conservative movement. They have NOT been working since the 60s to DIRECTLY push their presidential candidates and sitting presidents to the right. They have been working RELENTLESSLY and STEADILY since the 1060s to push the OVERTON WINDOW to the right. How? By building a conservative echo machine. Funding conservative think thanks, supporting conservative radio and TV, funding state and municipal conservatives that can stack local courts with conservative judges. Supporting conservative research chairs, and...this is important...SUPPORTING CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS WHERE THEY *CAN* BE PUSHED TO THE RIGHT. They did not achieve their current level of success by trying to push their most visible representative, the President, further to the right.

If Progressives want the Democratic party to move to the left (and they should!) the way to do it is to work to move the Overton Window back to the left. Allow Democratic Presidents to play "centrist triangulator" because that's what they HAVE to do to win NATIONAL elections. But allow them to play "centrist" with a REAL left wing.

How about this:
work to SWAMP the Pacific North West, the west coast, and New England with STRONG progressive candidates...WHERE THIS IS POSSIBLE. Take down Snowe and Collins with everything you've got. Work to assure there isn't a single sitting Republican anywhere north of the Mason/Dixon line.

Next, get all those candidates to sign a Norquist-style "pledge" that they will fight to the death to resist any cuts to social security or medicare.

Support progressive media, progressive think tanks, etc. Work to elect progressive state legislators, progressive secretaries of state (who CALL elections and DRAW electoral maps), and progressive judges. Progressive school board members etc.

If progressives want to imitate the amazing success of the conservative movement, they're not going to be able to do it the CHEAP way. It can only be done the HARD way. As much as we may hate to admit it, movement conservatives EARNED their victories through DECADES of work. They didn't just say "yeah, we'll just threaten to pull our support from Reagan because he raised taxes and did an immigration amnesty. That should straighten him out, and if it doesn't we'll stomp off and form a third party."

[sabrina 1]

107. Those are all very good ideas. And I know the history of

how the Right managed to take over the media etc. My point about the teaparty was that rather than become a third party, they stayed within the party and put money behind the kind of candidates they wanted. Of course they are going to fail having become so extreme that even Republicans are worried about them. I was not suggesting at all that the 'left' follow that example. Merely that they stay within the party rather than leaving it to the right-leaning Dems which would basically be handing everything over to the Republicans.

The left is not organized yet the way the Right was. So, I guess we need to start there. We have been reacting instead of leading and that is what needs to change.

[TrollBuster9090]

112. Of course, the main reason the right is better organized is because

the organizational apparatus is astroturfed by billionaires like the Koch brothers, and the chamber of commerce.

The only thing that even comes CLOSE to that for Democrats is the Union Movement. Which is why it's so stupid and suicidal for Washington Democrats to NOT be supporting UNIONS!

Okay, let's not get me started on the Democratic party's desertion of the union movement. My blood pressure is already high enough over the current state of the party. :)

[sabrina 1]

120. Don't we have any millionaires on the Left?

I think we do, but maybe they haven't been motivated enough yet?

Unions, yes, that alone is enough to anger any real Democrat. And I think maybe, that is where the seeds of change may have, unwittingly, been planted. The Unions appear to have had enough and are saying so. That could mean more money from them to back more progressive Labor-Friendly candidates, if they stick to their threat of doing just that. Rather than handing it over to the Party to put behind more anti-Union candidates.

I am optimistic about this. Maybe I'm wrong, but they still have a lot of power AND money and they do seem to be beginning to use it.

Watch the BP! Lol. I can understand! :-)

[Claudia Jones]

149. contradiction in terms

The definition of the Left is a political counterbalance to the interests and desires of the wealthy.

"Wealthy Union supporter" is also a contradiction in terms.

Minor point. Good post.

[TrollBuster9090]

173. Yes, and it's one of the great ironies of the 21st century that the GOP has gone SO FAR to the right

that there are many billionaires who, despite having not moved (ideologically) are now TO THE LEFT of them. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros being the most obvious examples.

And I think we've just seen the high water mark for the Tea Party this July. As long as all they were doing was rabidly protecting tax cuts for billionaires, the Chamber of Commerce gang was more than willing to under write Dick Armey's Tea Party astroturfing machine. But as soon as they started to mess with the debt ceiling, and got US T-Bills DOWNGRADED....they're CUT OFF!

Right now the Fortune 500 gang is trying to figure out a way to disassemble this Frankenstein's monster that they've given birth to. I think we're going to see a serious drop in funding for Tea Party Republicans in 2012, and a serious increase in funding for moderate Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

218. And we are just getting started in organizing a grass roots Democratic movement.

Feingold has such an organization.

And Rebuild the American Dream is also one.

Then Move-On works for progressive causes.

And unions are another alternative.

We all pretty much work toward the same goals.

There is also the Dean organization.

And we now have a few folks on MSNBC, Current TV (with Olbermann) and Pacifica Radio as well as Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes among others on progressive radio to speak truth to power.

I am a big fan of all of these progressive spokespeople although I sometimes disagree with Randi Rhodes.

[Mimosa]

235. ^ Good News...it's not all bad. ^ n/t

[Claudia Jones]

264. no

Politics is about wealth and power, not beliefs. "Ideology" rarely enters into it. Sure, many wealthy folks are "good people." So were many slave owners.

The Republican party has become more reactionary, as an electoral tactic.

[sabrina 1]

286. True, it does seem contradictory, 'wealth and union'. Otoh,

to get anywhere in politics now huge amounts of money are needed. And the attack on Unions has been successful to the point that from what I've read, only 20% of American workers now belong to a Union. Which is why, imho, Unions need to act now before they are completely wiped out and still have some leverage.

Welcome to DU, btw :-)

[Claudia Jones]

291. money is not needed

The only thing money buys is power for the monied interests. Capital advances the agenda of capital. Labor, as in work, advances the interests of Labor. Labor is superior to capital. labor does not require capital, but capital does require labor. Labor is the source of all wealth, and capital could not exist without there first being labor. This is the foundation, the bedrock, of any and all politics that are not extreme right wing politics. Our time, work and productivity is the source of all wealth. We already own that and merely need to put it into the service of advancing ourselves rather than in service to those in power.

Thanks for the welcome. I have admired your posts the last couple of days.

[JDPriestly]

217. Agreed, Sabrina1.

I am to the point where I think we should stop wasting our time even thinking about Obama. If a challenger steps forward to debate policy with Obama, great. Whether one does or not, we should focus on congressional seats. We can get strong candidates and push to get them elected at the local level. I think we can do this.

[sabrina 1]

298. Definitely agree that the focus should be on Congress, JDPriestly.

[patrice]

150. Thank You. The criticizers of the criticizers of Obama don't want the Left/Labor to fail.

Some are just trying to be honest about the scenario being developed by anyone who thinks taking this President down is a step towards Leftie power. Without authentic grassroots doing authentic WORK, threatening Obama is a step backward, not forward for Progressive policies. We have the cart before the horse, or actually a cart with NO horse. A while back, I asked for weeks HOW step-wise people saw this thing playing out into success and never got a reply.

[JDPriestly]

219. Look, I am totally disappointed in Obama. I think he is hopeless.

But I want to forget about him. We can't change him unless we get a challenger to stand up.

So, setting the Obama issue aside, patrice, let's agree to work to get a progressive/liberal Congress. Let's identify the candidates, seat by seat, and persuade people to run for seats that have no candidates. Let's challenge those candidates who run as Democrats but don't represent traditional Democratic values.

I have evolved through the stages of grief about Obama and come to this point where I want to work for my ideals by getting a stronger Democratic contingent in Congress. I think we can replace a lot of the conservatives. They have just gone too far. Obama may or may not go down with the conservatives, but if he is thrown out, it has to be to replace him with a more progressive/liberal candidate, not a more conservative one.

I think this is realistic, because it is easier for the grass roots to work with local candidates than with a presidential candidate.

We should each agree to walk a precinct for a liberal/progressive candidate for Congress.

[patrice]

263. I always walk the precincts. The problem with that is that the candidates, being in the midwest, are

centrists or blue dogs, so we do at the local level the same thing that happens at the national level, i.e. put a place-holder in without an authentic longitudinal grassroots' operation underneath them to create pressure and ultimately to create a candidate that actually is one of us.

Though I'll look for a liberal Democrat, I probably will walk precincts that the party picks again in 2012. I think it's important for anyone who takes this work seriously to recognize that IT'S ALL BULLSHIT without the actual WORK. We have too many people getting high on themselves on the internet and not enough people committing to somekind of organized strategy INSIDE existing power structures, for the time being. There ARE several things that CAN be done for Liberals inside those structures if people would just fucking stop making the perfect the enemy of good potentialities. Too many false dichotomies and not enough strategic PROCESS.

One thing I keep telling this party is that they NEEEEEEEEEED to canvass bi-annually, not just in election years. They COULD get a few people and get started doing that, but they don't because they are AFRAID to ask people to DO anything but go to fund raising parties for fear of turning a social BS club into something that actually REQUIRES accountable work and, thus, lose a bunch of people and also risk turning the organization into something in which WORK determines position, not just money and friends.

[JDPriestly]

294. I organized a voter registration and information campaign for

my local Democratic Club. It was very strange to me that people will join the club and attend meetings but are not willing to give up a few Saturday or Sunday mornings to stand in front of a grocery store and register voters and hand out literature.

But when I campaigned for Kerry, I learned why that is. People have vague ideas about who they like in politics, but they don't really understand the issues well enough to talk about them. So educating Democrats to understand the issues is the first step in getting them to work to elect good candidates.

[Claudia Jones]

265. oh really?

So the militant left and Labor threatening FDR was a step backward? Civil Rights fighters threatening the Democrats was a step backward? Abolitionists threatening the Whigs was a step backward? You said that you "asked for weeks HOW step-wise people saw this thing playing out into success and never got a reply." Study the history of those movements from the past and you will find your answer.

[JDPriestly]

216. I strongly agree with you, Trailbuster, on the strategy of

building a strong progressive/liberal majority in Congress. That should be our focus. That we can do. The Republicans are in a mess. Their candidates are just downright ugly. And they have hurt working people and older people. We need congressional candidates who are on the people's side. I think we will have union support on this. This time I don't think the unions will knee-jerk support just any old hack the Democratic establishment picks. So we can get some strong Democrats into Congress. We need to challenge Republicans where they are. I like your approach.

[hfojvt]

104. certainly I think that is a better strategy

However, some others see the Democratic Party as already owned by the corporations and beyond saving, so they are pursuing a different strategy.

[sabrina 1]

111. True, and I don't blame them. I think it is good to let the Party

know that we are no longer, as the President of the Firemen's Union said, going to be told 'you have nowhere else to go'. So, it is a good thing to let the party know this, then it's up to them, if they want to lose the whole progressive wing of the party, or start listening for a change.

[hfojvt]

148. I do blame them though

the last time this was tried we got 8 disastrous years of Bush.

[JDPriestly]

215. I think that is what Rebuild the American Dream is about. You might check it out.

[sabrina 1]

290. Thank you, I will n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

109. I'm actually in favor of FOUR parties, and here's how to realize it:

Most of the functional, healthy democracies have at least four parties. A center-right party, a center-left party, a far-right party and a far-left party. We should have the same, where the two centrist parties usually govern, but must rely for support on the two wing parties, giving those smaller parties leverege.

Here's how to achieve it:

1. The Green Party needs to run candidates in safe Democratic party districts where Republicans don't even bother to field a candidate.

2. The Libertarian Party needs to run candidates in safe Republican districts where Democrats don't bother to field candidates. (Remember when Michael Moore ran a freakin' FICUS PLANT in a safe Republican district in Mass., and the FICUS PLANT WON!?)

This will FINALLY get third parties into CONGRESS, and in close votes, those third parties will have a LOT of PULL.

This will open the door to those parties being able to field a serious presidential candidate. So, we would have at least four presidential candidates at election time. The political system may even work better when the President is NOT a member of either of the two large parties.

But trying to take a sitting Democratic party president and try to push him left of center is a strategy that has has a proven history of failure.

[patrice]

152. Instant Run-Off Voting would do that, even without campaign finance reform. nt

[sabrina 1]

195. Lol! "Remember when Michael Moore ran a freakin' FICUS PLANT"

No, I don't remember that. 'And the FICUS PLANT WON!'

:rofl:

[JDPriestly]

221. I would rather field strong progressives and liberals as Democrats.

I have always been a Democrat. I don't like the idea of voting for a third party. But if that is your thing, so be it.

[JDPriestly]

213. Obama himself generated my dissatisfaction with him.

I am quite satisfied with my progressive Congressman and with Barbara Boxer my progressive senator. So Obama has no one but himself to blame for the dissatisfaction of progressives.

I will vote for him unless a better candidate runs. I will otherwise vote straight Democratic including even for Feinstein if she runs.

Obama should at least have the courage to speak to the concerns of progressives directly.

We have legitimate gripes.

I worked extremely hard to get Obama elected. I will not be helping him get re-elected because I can't. I would not be able to campaign for him because his record is, in my view, just awful. He has done a few good things, but nothing other than getting rid of don't ask, don't tell (which, notably did not cost any money) is really worth talking about. And the number of voters interested in that policy is not all that large.

His health care plan is acceptable, but nothing to brag about. We are still stuck with having to negotiate with private insurance carriers.

And his policy on the banks has been just awful.

He is basically applying the Shock Doctrine. Stiglitz just published an interesting article on his views which, I believe discuss that aspect of Obama's performance.

So, if I am unhappy with Obama, it is his own fault.

[Cherchez la Femme]

62. Why would "Nader Trolls" want to

"post that anyone unhappy with Obama is a Naderite or worse."

???

[Rex]

71. Sarcasm.

[Cherchez la Femme]

121. Oops sorry, missed it!!

:hi: :D

[Rex]

193. Hehe NP!

Maybe a little to sardonic actually, I get that way sometimes. :hi: :D

[TrollBuster9090]

79. Personally, I think only 5% of them are GOP operatives, and 95% are just naive and unrealistic. nt

[Rex]

194. It is completely possible that the majority buys into whatever the M$M

throws out there as table scraps and the GOP operatives try to work it into the system; while the unrealistic ones still cannot don't understand that Foxnews flipped the vote for Bush in 2000, just that they watch Foxnews like addicts and LOVE everything said like it was gospel.

Foxnews persuaded the POTUS to fire someone over a rumor that turned out to be a lie and no one blinked.

[JDPriestly]

222. And, Rex, that someone has not been defeated

and is now organizing the Rebuild the American Dream movement. I like him. He is good.

The local Rebuild group is a little to gushy over Obama for my taste, but at least they are staunch liberals so I am with them 100%. There are a lot of other good grass roots groups.

And we should all join our local Democratic Clubs.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. EXACTLY right!

Your eloquence is perfect.

K&R

[whatchamacallit]

5. K&R n/t

[hifiguy]

7. I wish I could rec this post 1000 times, sabrina.

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. In bad times, playing to the "center" isn't smart politics.

It worked for Clinton because the Republicans saw Bush I as a sell out and because Perot ate up "moderate" votes that would normally have gone to the Republicans. Then they ran a corpse against him.

In times of crisis the people want change from the status quo. Not slogans about "change" and pretty pie in the sky speeches about someday. They voted for it in 2008 and got politics as usual and deals with the same people who wrecked the country with give aways to the rich and endless wars.

The only thing saving Obama now is the sheer nuttiness of the Republican candidates and congress. He's relying on the "not as bad" theory of dumping the left and pandering to the right.

It's usually a good plan if all the people want is some tinkering with the status quo one way or another, but they want more than that when they're broke, going broke, or their kids are coming home in boxes.

[TrollBuster9090]

105. Some of the people reading this may be shocked, but I agree.

In bad times, people respond well to a radical change in the status quo.

That's what's at the root of Klein's SHOCK DOCTRINE.
Ironically, in a country that's already been pushed as far to the right as it could possibly go...if you shock it again the people have nowhere to go but LEFT. Which is how Obama got elected! The country WANTED a change in the status quo, ESPECIALLY a change in the POLITICAL status quo.

Obama F#CKED THAT UP BEYOND RECOGNITION! I've never seen an opportunity so badly wasted. NEVER! What he needed to do was make a clean break from the status quo, and the world and the economy would be booming righ now. Unfortunately, all we got was more wheeling and dealing and horse trading in Congress, and a lot of yielding to terrorism and hostage taking.

Too bad. I'm as disappointed as anybody here.

Having said that, the way to fix the solution is not to give the Democratic party and Obama some "tough love" and a spanking. Much like in 1979, that will have the opposite effect.

[madfloridian]

16. Excellent words. Thank you.

"But we also know when Democrats are caving to Republicans. We are not blind. If there are things we DON'T know that Democrats have to deal with and we are being in some way unfair in our criticisms of them, then let them tell us. Don't call our ideas f**king retarded, or claim we, who are just ordinary people, are the 'Professional Left' etc, dismissing these very real issues. "

[RC]

18. Right on! Your insight and eloquence it top rate.

Some here think because a "Democrat" is president he is acting in out best interest.
Where are the jobs?
Where is at least the start of the recovery for the average run of the mill citizen?
When will the wars end? Why have they been expended?
Why is Social Security and Medicare in jeopardy from the Democrats when they have nothing to do with the debt or deficit?
And on and on and one and...

[pscot]

19. You speak for me, Sabrina

Thank you.

[Little Star]

20. I agree with what you wrote. I also don't think any Dem wants

any Dem President to fail! We all want each of them to succeed. Sometimes they need to have their feet held to the fire, it's just that simple.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Well done, kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, sabrina.:thumbsup:

[on point]

25. Nailed it exactly!! Conned, craven or corrupt Obama is just not doing what he was elected for!

[kctim]

49. So the majority of Dems now disapprove of President Obama?

[coalition_unwilling]

27. I agree with what you have written here and have rec'ed it. But I am

curious: who has been saying that those of us on the left who are angry are victims of some mind-control operation? I don't doubt that it (or some close variant of it) has been said. But by whom? And what exactly did he or she say?

I'm angry because I was sold a bill of goods in 2008 and I will not get fooled again. I'll be voting Dem Socialist at the top of the ticket in 2012.

I am also angry at Republicans, btw.

[sabrina 1]

30. There have been several OPs recently claiming that the 'left'

has been infiltrated by operatives from the right stirring up anger at the president in order to cause him to lose the election. Apparently we should be suspicious of people who express anger at the President's policies as they may either be under the influence of these operatives, or actually be operatives themselves.

One recent post, which actually was not real eg, but was accepted as real, was a claim that Karl Rove's emails had been hacked and his 'strategy' revealed. To some this was proof of the idea that all the complaints about the President's policies were generated by Rove. The fact that it was not true, didn't seem to matter.

[nashville_brook]

38. this is also a twitter meme of late.

[sabrina 1]

42. It's beginning to have the feeling of a campaign, exactly and ironically,

what they are accusing us of. Now that would be Rovian tactics of mammoth proportions!

[coalition_unwilling]

55. I came to my anger against Obama all on my own (or with the active

collaboration of my spouse).

Actually, more precisely, my wife and I can trace our deepening disillusionment with all things Obama along this arc:

1) Disappointed when Obama announces there will be no investigations of the Bush Junta because of a need to 'look forward'

2) Dismayed when Osama bin Laden is executed extra-judicially.

3) Angered when Obama goes on "60 Minutes" to say that those of us with questions about the extra-judicial execution of OBL should "have our heads examined".

Along the way, his former Chief of Staff said we were 'fucking retarded' (or words to that effect) while, at the same time, the national unemployment rate has increased from 7.6% in January 2009 to 9.1% as of August, 2011.

[sabrina 1]

124. Me too. And I missed #3!

I still don't agree with extra judicial assassinations and I really don't think I need my head examined. In fact, I think anyone who supports such unconstitutional acts are the ones whose heads need examining! Wow!

I actually remember when the left was outraged at the very suggestion that Bush might consider doing that without trial or conviction. What happened?

:-(

[coalition_unwilling]

136. It's OK. John Kerry said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that those of us with concerns about the

extra-judicial executions should just "shut up" and "move on" (no allusion to the liberal advocacy group by the same name intended, I assume). See link below for specifics.

This is the same John Kerry no less who had the guts to tell the truth to power about Vietnam during the original Winter Soldier Hearings. This is the same guy I worked so hard for in 2004??? WTF???

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/08/shut-up-and-move-on-kerry-says/

[sabrina 1]

142. Wow! Again, I am speechless. I cannot understand him. He

has been more than disappointing, and confusing. I don't know where he stands many times. On one hand, he goes after the Right, then on the other, he bashes the left. I want people who are consistent! Is that too much to ask?

[girl gone mad]

31. This is the truth.

I was saying the same things before Obama was even the nominee. We must rein in big finance and big corporations and restore labor and environmental protections. We have to confront the criminogenic business environment. We have to invest in technological innovation, education and infrastructure. Neoliberal policies have failed the people.

I do not want to see America turn into a third world police state so that a handful of wealthy people can live like kings and queens, and I will continue to speak out against the policies which are moving us in that direction.

[dawg]

34. Sadly, we just don't have the collective smarts as a country to do the things you mention.

After 2008, Lehman, Goldman, & especially AIG, I thought for sure a Democratic administration would push for fundamental changes in the financial system. Alas, they only tinkered around the edges, and we are just as vulnerable to a major financial crisis as we were before Obama took office.

[chervilant]

52. Me, too. n/t

[Lorien]

174. Amen. We the people are what matter here. Our lives, the health of the planet

our rights as citizens, our ability to make a living wage...NOT an individual's political career. Unfortunately he doesn't seen to agree with us on that point.

[MadinMo]

39. K&R

[Solly Mack]

41. K&R

[the other one]

43. Well said. K n R nt

[swilton]

44. But Obama is succeeding -

it's just that he's succeeding at implementing a GOP agenda.

[AnnieK401]

46. I have to admit you're right!

I have been cutting President Obama quite a bit of slack because of what he is up against. However, your post was spot on.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Excellent post.

Very well written.

[chervilant]

50. DURN!!!

Great post, Sabrina!

I look forward to the day that the blaming and shaming--and other divisive memes--promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs will be seen clearly as red herrings.

We can ill afford to elevate Mr. Obama to hero status, just as we can ill afford to issue a blanket condemnation of his efforts.

Our nation is witnessing the inception of a global catastrophic re-ordering of our economic behaviors. Since our nation has led the hundred-meter-dash toward the uber hedonistic disaster capitalism du jour, We the People MUST work together to arrive at a global strategy for global recovery.

Obama's lackluster performance as POTUS is not surprising to me. I doubt there's a 'leader' on this planet who could stop the speeding bullet of corporate megalomania. Still, I am among those who have noticed that some of Obama's decisions warrant the increasingly vociferous adjurations from progressive democrats that he NOT be a sock puppet for the uber wealthy.

Dismissing our concerns as 'whining' or 'racist' is both demeaning and disingenuous, and it will not help us regain our footing in these perilous times.

[sabrina 1]

206. Excellent summary of the real problems, chervilant:

Our nation is witnessing the inception of a global catastrophic re-ordering of our economic behaviors. Since our nation has led the hundred-meter-dash toward the uber hedonistic disaster capitalism du jour, We the People MUST work together to arrive at a global strategy for global recovery.

Yes, a Global Labor movement. Just having one in each individual country isn't going to work. The Corporatists will simply go to some oppressive dictatorship and use the poor people there as cheap labor. But if we the people are everywhere, cutting off their access to cheap labor, sooner of later they will have to accept that slave labor is no longer acceptable, there or here.

And while we're at it, we need to get rid of their private prisons so they can't use that labor either. They went Global long before we realized what that really meant. But now we know. Time to join them in the Global market and enforce fair labor laws and liveable wage laws everywhere so they have nowhere to run.

[soldierant]

53. This is so true!

The EPA cavein today just last strawed me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. K&R!!!

:applause:

[truedelphi]

59. Uh, one problem with laying this all at the feet of the Bush/Cheney people -

Show me one instance of the leaders of the majority Democratic Congress, from Jan 2007, to Nov 2010, ever even trying to hold, reduce or defeat the huge requests for military spending. Just one.

December 2009 - over 165 billion dollars approved for the wars.

Summer 2010 - over 33 billions of dollars to aid us in fighting our war against the people of Afghanistan.


Show me an example of the Democratic leaders who fought even a little to reduce the military spending and then I can allow you to say this is all the fault of the Republican WH.

[patrice]

64. One of, if not THE, most fundamental issues out there. The fuckers sold us out in '02 & have been

CYA ever since.

:grr: :grr: :grr: ~

[truedelphi]

68. And labeling themselves "patriotic" while they sell us out. n/t

[patrice]

70. An abomination, no, actually dozens of abominations! nt

[sabrina 1]

89. Well, I was trying to correct the impression that we on the 'left'

have forgotten the damage caused by the Bush administration, a charge that is often made. Just wanted to get it out of the way.

What you say is true, which is why we are angry. Not because some rightwing plants are whispering in our ears or invading our political forums.

Iow, I agree with you! :-)

[truedelphi]

220. I should have started by saying I admire your writing

And this particular "talking point" could have been addressed after I said that.

I found the overall article really excellent. Four and a half stars. (And I am mostly a three star reviewer.)

But I am so sick of their talking points. Just really fed. up. to here.

In some ways, I would be happier if I didn't have to think about the talking points or think about the two people who will run next year. (Whichever two it will be.)

Every single nation that is taking decent care of the people inside their nation's borders are nations where there are more than two viable political parties. Often there is an intelligent, non-propagandizing media that confronts social issues and keeps people informed. They provide people with health care. Hell, in Australia, if you can pass the exams to get into college, the government pays for it.

While all my nation seems fit to do is give to the Upper one Percent, and pay for ever-expanding wars.

I saw some friends tonight that I haven't seen in a while, and they are all steamed too.

[sabrina 1]

301. No problem, truedelphi.

Interesting about countries with more than two parties doing better than we are. I don't know much about how that works but someone in this thread above, made a similar suggestion, that we need at least four parties. Something to think about. I think we are all fed up with the think-tank talking points so I know what you mean. If someone can't speak for themselves, but have to use talking points, they're not worth listening to imo.

[JDPriestly]

223. truedelphi, any chance you might run for Congress?

I have a good progressive congressman. How about you?

[truedelphi]

279. My congressman, Mike Thompson, is a Blue Dog.

he just re-won this district in Nov 2010.

I have mused about some "lesser" positions. Water is one of the more important resources, so a local water board might be a place to start.

I think it is very important that normal people run for office. People have this mistaken impression that those who run for office and are rich are somehow more suited for the positions held by elected officials. People think that you have to be a lawyer, in order to run for office. And then we end up the same ol' same ol', yet wonder "Why?"

[JDPriestly]

293. Don't think too long. Just do it.

We have a County Supervisor in Los Angeles who has been very successful. She started out running for a state assembly seat (might have been senate) and during her campaign, she walked door to door and talked to voters.

Voters liked here, felt they knew her, and she has been winning elections ever since. Voters do not forget it if the candidate herself knocks on their door (not alone of course).

So, you can start from something small and build support and then run for another, somewhat higher office. In any case you can make a difference.

[patrice]

63. All agreed. With exception of "win". We put a centrist in the WH & gave him a Congress with not

wide enough of a margin & toooo many blue doges & then all of that got waaaaaay worse in 2010.

Obama has not been, is not, will not be perfect, but he's had NO help either, so he's doubly bad, which of course makes him more vulnerable and, ergo, very likely to move even further away, toward whatever actually functioning support IS out there.

Whose fault is this? Obama's, Citizens United, at least SOME of Ours? . . . to hear tell absolutely everyone has worked their asses off in absolutely EVERY task imaginable and given every penny they could afford to get Democrats elected, but failed, so it's none of their fault. Sorry, I don't believe that. I think all of us need to start with being more honest about ourselves and others, stop with the mischaracterisations, the sloppy-logic rhetoric ourselves, and require that of others even if, actually most especially if, they are on our own "side".

Just as I don't believe that everyone who supports Obama does so for nefarious reasons, so do I also not believe that everyone who criticizes Obama does so for nefarious reasons.

This is my basic issue with the whole problem; it's ALL about Obama, or "the other guy", and not enough about each individual one of us, so little so to the point that people are not even trying honestly to understand one another, nor to ask questions, to recognize their own biases, and can't even be bothered to be civil or to demonstrate a modicum of respect for anything that doesn't reinforce their own rhetoric. Our whole political environment is counter-rational and the DU is as much a part of that environment as any Tea Party gathering.

There is truth and less-than-truth in both/any/all positions and there's just so much that any one man can do about any of that even under the best of circumstance, let alone worse, much worse, than that.

We're doomed and we ARE doing a significant amount of it to ourselves.

God give true Solidarity to American Labor, 'cause there's no one else out there who's got their stuff together well enough to Bring It.

[BOG PERSON]

67. Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat,

referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party.

In a 2005 blog post that may be as valuable as either of his books in identifying the inner president, then-Senator Obama castigated his own party’s ideological activists for their attacks on Democratic senators who had voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. “To the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, ‘true’ progressive vision for our country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward,” Mr. Obama, who voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts, wrote then.

At the same time, Mr. Obama has been loath to publicly disown his base on any specific issue, even where he disagreed and where his political prospects might have benefited. And this probably says more about his personal philosophy than it does about his ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/us/politics/01bai.html

[patrice]

77. He was my third choice, because of the wars. I continue to think he might be a dialectician, i.e.

his personal philosophy is dialectical. Thing about that is that a dialectic doesn't have to be anywhere near evenly balanced, in fact, the more out of balance, the more energy it produces, the more effect, not necessarily good nor bad effects, just more results of somesort, as long as the clash is facilitated, which is acceptable because, after-all, it IS a dialectic, so those results become grist for the perpetuation of the process.

I'm not sure about his personal ideology, Christian, I suppose, maybe Liberation Theology, which is kind of Libertarian salvation. Remember that one of the first things he did upon entering office was to act to preserve Faith-based Initiatives. All of that suggests to me that we have a "dominionist" of a different stripe here, something more ecumenical, and that the boot-straps all of us are supposed to use to free ourselves, WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S HELP, are in the nature of not-for-profit religious collaborations or one type or another. Pretty much speculation on my part, but new HEW regulations implement faith-based assumptions pretty extensively. I should return to the source where I saw those and find that stuff again.

[BOG PERSON]

119. dialectics is where something becomes its opposite

so, yes. in that sense i guess you could call obama a dialectician.

[patrice]

132. Two opposed elements interact to produce a THIRD element that combines aspects of both of the precur

sors plus new traits that are related to neither one of the precursors. The third thing is both and also neither of the precursor elements.

So each of the opposites becomes the opposite of itself, since they are combined into the third thing, which is also itself, since it is new.

Thinking of kids helps me with this. Children are both of the parents and also themselves, so they are both AND neither.

Marx had some stuff to say about this kind of process at work in History and Economics.

It also is found in Judaism, the Kaballah, I believe, in the syllables of "God"'s unpronounceable "name", representing thesis:anti-thesis->synthesis/new-thesis:new-anti-thesis->new-synthesis/new-new-anti-thesis etc. etc. etc.

The way that 21st century man has everything parsed out into either this or that is a relatively new way of thinking in relatively artificial constructs. It works okay if you don't remove your constructs from their contexts, which conservative highly disciplined scientists DO NOT btw, but which happens all of the time in common usage.

Even our logic, based upon Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, includes the possibility of essential characteristics of things (i.e. those traits without which a thing would not be what it is) that are the negation of opposites, e.g. "If light is an essential characteristic of X, X is not dark, ergo the negation of darkness is an essential trait of X." Sometimes I suspect that this sort of thing only really reveals an artifact of language, like saying (absolutely) "There are no absolutes". I'm not the first to think this stuff; you may have heard of Samuel Beckett's absurdist drama Waiting for Godot that illustrates some of these points nicely.

Whatever . . .

I suspect things turning into their opposites matters not so much to those who have buffers of various kinds.

[BOG PERSON]

135. the way you describe it makes it sound like

obama is just process-oriented with zero interest in the outcome. almost like he's just doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff.

[JDPriestly]

228. BOG PERSON, I see Obama just as you described -- solely process oriented.

He has no ideals whatsoever from what I can tell other than that people should get along and reach agreement on everything and then once they have agreed, everyone should support the thing agreed upon.

I do not like that idea at all. It deprives us of a lot of creative thinking.

[DaveJ]

94. Yea, I thought that was obvious. Is this new info?

Here I thought the liberals posting here were smart, yet they seem surprised by who he is.

I support liberal policies. But even more important is someone who can beat Republicans. I want Republicans to be beaten into the ground until they don't exist anymore. All I care is that he wins. That is all that matters to me.

[ibegurpard]

99. when someone you support wins and then enacts Republican policy

how is that winning?

[DaveJ]

102. People have short term memory huh.

Forgot what it's like having a Repuke POS. Confusing Republican policy with, not getting every single thing you want passed? Democrats in Congress lost. Why not blame them? Why blame the last significant person in office standing in the way to total annihilation? Or is it his fault the Democrats in Congress lost?

[JDPriestly]

229. That is not all that matters to me.

Policy matters to me. And if I have to wait and put up with Republicans until a real Democrat steps forward, that is the way it will be.

I do not think that a Democrat who lacks ideals and enthusiasm can get re-elected. People want integrity and sincerity. Obama does not give the impression that he has either integrity or sincerity at this point. That is going to be a big problem for him in 2012.

He has shown no real enthusiasm for his own ideas. It's just pitiful.

So my objective in 2012 is going to be to support individual progressives and liberals who do have spirit, to whom issues and not just winning for the sake of winning, matter.

I have a lot of experience with winning and losing and fighting, and I think that you cannot just win for the sake of winning for long. You just become cynical and start cutting corners.

To win, you have to be fighting for something you believe in. It is so strange, when you try to fight for something you don't believe in, no matter how hard you try, you are not as successful. That is my experience.

[sabrina 1]

98. I think that was probably when he came to Daily kos

and posted two diaries. I actually missed those diaries but he was not greeted very well with those ideas and did not return after the second one. So, while people may say we did not understand him, it is not exactly true. I supported him for a few reasons. He did not vote for the war, and he was opposed to Mandated Ins. Other than those two issues there wasn't much difference between him and Hillary. He also spoke out eloquently against torture and for the Constitution. No one expects a president to agree with everything they want, but overall, he appeared to be the best choice at that time.

[patrice]

134. He was also originally Single Payer. But if he IS a dialectician, ALL IS IN PROCESS, so . . .

in re Daily Kos and not unlike me and lots of other people, perhaps he was saying what he was saying by way of experimentation, hypothesis posing, first of all to see if it could indeed be said and, then, to see what becomes of it IN PROCESS once it is said.

:shrug:

[BOG PERSON]

143. dialectics is a philosophical framework not a political strategy fyi

[patrice]

153. I know that and I assume that one's action political or otherwise are based upon one's philosophical

framework, because that's how you understand the world and your place in it.

[BOG PERSON]

156. no because dialectics is for explaining things that have already happened

big historical trends like the end of feudalism or the emergence of new political/economic systems. things like that. you dont explain Individual Behavior w dialectics.

[JDPriestly]

226. So, patrice, what do you think we DUers should be doing that we aren't already doing?

Have you got your petitions ready yet to run for office?

How many hours are you giving to your local party organization?

To political organizing of other kinds?

Even just to building confidence and relationships in your neighborhood?

[Desertrose]

66. Succintly said..thank you Sabrina!

Very well put.....we want him to succeed for OUR SAKES!!!

[AzDar]

73. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ibegurpard]

76. goddamm right!

many kicks!

[Mnemosyne]

81. Great OP, Sabrina! K&R! n/t

[timefortherevolution]

84. That was indeed beautiful. Yes, we are purposely being ignored.

[kentuck]

86. I think they are angry, sad, and despondent....

in a mix of emotions.

[KoKo]

129. I think the "Angry Ones" are the ones who will make themselves heard.

The "sad and despondent"...will remain so. And, I have empathy for them, because anyone's whose been watching a listening for a couple of decades is sure going to feel "sad and dspondent" to see where we are today.

The "Angry" are the ones who just waking up have the energy. They might be the ones who forge forward.

[JDPriestly]

231. Democrats are going through the stages of grief.

I think I am beginning to reconcile myself with my grief and disappointment about Obama although I'm sure that I will have relapses because the issues on which he disappoints will arise again and again. There seems to be no end of disappointment with Obama. This is in part because we have the internet which makes information about what is going on so available.

I have begun to see a way out from under the Obama cloud -- and that is to focus on retaking Congress for progressives/liberals. I think we can do this. The Republicans have really made a mess of everything.

And ordinary Americans will reject the Republicans' solutions to the strawmen problems that the Republicans have set up for themselves. So, I think the Republicans, in spite of all their money, may be fairly easy to unseat.

California leads the way. After 8 years of suffering under Schwarzenegger, we now have a Democratic governor, Jerry Brown. He won over a strong Republican corporate contender who had endless amounts of money at her disposal. Jerry Brown won in part because the bankruptcy of the Republican ideas was so evident.

Democrats took charge of every position in California. We also won new roles in Hawaii. We won in Oregon and I think in Washington too. (Not sure about my facts on these claims.) Now we have to move toward the East.

I think we can take the Congress back for the Democrats. Pelosi has sure come out fighting for a change. She seems fed up with the compromise. That is a good sign.

I hope everyone will get behind this idea not because it is mine but because it is a good solution. But I understand that I had to go through the stages of grief to get to this point, and it was really tough.

Doesn't change the fact that Obama gives me a lot of grief.

[KoKo]

289. Well Said...Thanks for this Post! K&R..for YOU!

[joshcryer]

87. Obama never campaigned on "prosecuting war criminals." He was "post-partisan."

Anyone who is honest will acknowledge that rather than seeing much change, we are told we must be willing to 'compromise'. On everything.

But, that is precisely what post-partisan is.

The Democrats have done an admirable job as it stands now. And President Obama has been 100% consistent.

Those complaining about how he's not doing things he never said he would do indeed are suspicious, either those people are ignorant and stupid, or those people are intentional infiltrators, or those people were deluded. Since I don't believe it is necessary to attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity, I will simply assume that the true infiltrators are rare and that the mods take care of them.

[sabrina 1]

93. The Democratic Party representatives, including Senators and

members of Congress, many of whom had committees set up to look into crimes committed by the Bush Admin, most definitely led voters to believe they would 'restore the rule of law'. And anyone who denies that is deluded, or in a massive state of denial.

Sen. Leahy, Rep. Conyers, I was on his blog helping him do research into the destruction of the Constitution and couldn't wait until he would become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee so that Repubs could not block his efforts as they were doing at that time. Do NOT try to change history.

Congress is responsible for investigating these matters, but, as you point out, apparently this President had different ideas, which is NOT something he announced during the campaign. Nor did we expect Congress to refuse to their job even if the WH chose not to. But what happened to all those Committees? In fact, you make the points people are complaining about.

[joshcryer]

118. This President made it clear where he would be and he was 100% consistent.

[sabrina 1]

164. He campaigned on Mandated Insurance? Lifting the ban on Offshore drilling?

Really? Keeping Guantanamo open? Allowing the Military trial of a child soldier? That one ought to have had you outraged, IF you truly care about the rights of the oppressed!

Maybe you might want to change that 100% claim. I have a long list of things he campaigned on, but then did an about turn on as soon as he was elected.

[joshcryer]

167. Post-partisanship automatically makes those possibilities "on the table."

In fact, during the health care debate Obama's officials didn't fully bemoan the mandate, indeed, Obama http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/why_obama_didnt_press_for_mand">just kept quiet on it because he knew it was going to happen, so I knew that they were on the table in his mind even if he displayed new revamped Harry and Louise ads to admonish the idea.

During the campaign Obama was http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-02/politics/campaign.wrap_1_offshore-oil-drilling-obama-gas-prices">playing the middle on offshore drilling, Obama http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28788175/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-orders-cia-prisons-guantanamo-shut/">ordered the closing of Guantanamo, yet http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/barack-obama-guantanamo-congress-veto">Congress vetoed him. (Obama gets the blame, though, as per usual. And people wonder why "infiltrators" are suspected here.) Meanwhile Obama http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1010/Deal_could_avoid_military_trial_for_child_soldier.html">avoided a lengthy trial for Khadr who http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-25/us/khadr.plea_1_youngest-guantanamo-detainee-1st-class-christopher-speer-plea-agreement?_s=PM:US">plead guilty and should be released soon.

FYI all of these still outrage me, because I cannot say that any post-partisan candidate could ever take a strong stance on anything. Your dishonest characterization of Obama's positions won't change that fact.

[sabrina 1]

199. Do I need to post his debates with McCain on Offshore drilling

when he was definitely NOT playing to the middle. McCain was playing to the right and the middle, Obama slapped him down pretty good in that debate, from THE LEFT.

Obama gets the blame for Gauntanamo because he had a majority in both houses at the time. And he had the power of the Presidency to issue an executive order if necessary, the issue WAS that serious regarding the US's image around the globe. Not to mention that we now know from Wikileaks, and he most likely had those reports, that most of those people were INNOCENT. Sometimes you just have to take a stand.

'Plead guilty'. What was he guilty of? Every day he is detained, is a crime for someone who never should have been there in the first place. And now, he has adapted the Bush policy of indefinite detainment. Yes, things are slightly better, but not much. And what happened to Leahy's Committee to restore Habeas Corpus? Did he disband it and if so why? They HAD A MAJORITY in 2009!

And there you go again with your favorite word 'dishonest'. How have I mis-characterized his positions? All of them, his campaign positions are on tape. So it's hard to mis-characterize them.

[joshcryer]

225. Please do, as I don't recall that at all.

I don't recall one instance where Obama was significantly left of McCain on any issue.

I provided citations that refuted your claims, you could do the same.

[xocet]

131. No one needs to campaign on prosecution of war criminals. That act is called the rule of law.

Everyone who voted for President Obama is allowed to expect a Democratic politician to support basic Democratic principles - no torture, etc.

Thus, supporting the rule of law is a default behavior that is to be expected of a Democratic president.

[joshcryer]

140. Well, Time is the old justice that examines all such offenders, and let Time try.

Obama has reengaged the International Criminal Court (which Bush snubbed, for obvious reasons). Obama also has no majority in either the House or Senate and any actions must be measured. He campaigned on being a measured post-partisan politician.

His behavior was fully predictable.

[hulka38]

160. It is absolutely amazing isn't it?

They'll excuse not prosecuting obvious war crimes because the president didn't explicitly campaign on it. I mean what's this party coming to?

[joshcryer]

161. I'm excusing no one.

[sabrina 1]

230. Yes, it is amazing. There must be a name for it. All I can think of

is that history will judge this period in our history harshly. We are certainly being judged in other parts of the world already as the biggest threat to world peace on the planet. And our excuses, such as that one, 'he didn't mention it in the campaign so why did you expect him to uphold the rule of law'? There are no words, really.

[gkhouston]

165. Call me naive, but I expected a Dem who'd lectured on Constitutional law

would give a crap about the Constitution and the law.

[joshcryer]

182. It's not that Obama doesn't discard the constitution, it's that his post-partisanship...

...compels him to sit at the table with those who do. Perfectly predictable and expected.

[gkhouston]

188. Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with sitting at the table with the other party.

There's a hell of a lot that's wrong with adopting their memes and policies to the detriment of most Americans. That's not post-partisanship; it's a wholesale abandonment of democratic principles and common sense. I can remember when Republicans had different views but were still interested in the welfare of our country. That time has long since passed. There's going to nothing left but rubble if we continue pretending that the demands of unreasonable and greedy ideologues have merit.

[joshcryer]

197. I beg to differ. Obama, if he understood their obstructionist tactics...

...could've used the short time frame he had to enact good policies, and enacted them, holding the hands behind the backs of anyone in the party (particularly in the Senate) who didn't fall in line. Then he could, for the first time in the history of the United States, adjourn Congress* until his reelection, which would be sweeping and overwhelming.

There's no evidence that Obama actually thought that the obstructionism of the Republican party mattered, and indeed, his post-partisan attitude to this day suggests that he still thinks this approach is adequate. It is not. The Republican party is a dying party (we always have more votes than they do, we just fail at getting out the vote when it matters). They have nothing to lose by being purely obstructionist.

*In 2010 when we lost the House but retained the Senate, the question of adjournment could have been tabled, the House would've vehemently denied this act, the Senate, if it could have been kept in line, could have disagreed, at which point the President would've had the sole power to decide whether to adjourn.

[gkhouston]

202. If he didn't understand their tactics, he's dangerously naive.

If he did, he's complicit.

Neither possibility makes him an attractive candidate.

[joshcryer]

224. We're in agreement.

And to state what I think; he is naive. It's 'worked' so far in his mind (he got HCR, he got the budget extended, he got unemployment benefits, from his POV it's "working").

[OnyxCollie]

191. Prosecuting war criminals isn't optional.

People were tortured. (You know, like Saddam used to do. One of the reasons the previous administration gave for why we should invade and occupy a country that hadn't attacked us.)

Speaking of the illegal war of aggression in Iraq, how many people died? A hundred thousand? 650 thousand? Ah, who cares? They can't vote anyway. We need to get this man another four years!

Prosecuting war criminals has become a pony, along with restoring the Fourth Amendment, prosecuting bankers, eliminating tax cuts, etc.

We're gonna need a bigger corral.



I'm curious. Do you have any principles?

[joshcryer]

198. I am merely stating the facts. Obama was not the amazing Progressive DU thought he was.

I'm sorry if these facts go counter to whatever delusions people have had, but it's true. I find him to be fully consistent in his positions. He refuses to burn whatever pathetic bridges are left with the Republican obstructionists. It was predictable from a mile away, but he's consistent on that point.

The only way to make him fall in line is to remove the obstructionists from power and force him to become a partisan.

[OnyxCollie]

204. Well, why should I reelect (Yes, I voted for him) someone

who doesn't give a shit about following the Geneva conventions, or restoring civil liberties, or ending wars, or ending tax cuts, or protecting the environment etc.?

I know the Republicans are beholden to their corporate masters. Am I supposed to pretend it's not happening under Obama and vote for him just because he's a Democrat?

Fuck that.

And don't start with the SCOTUS. Elena Kagan's actions toward Don Siegelman showed she's no liberal.

[joshcryer]

227. I'm fully open to a primary challenge. The OP is sending appearances that they believe...

...that they want Obama to succeed, however. Take that what you will.

[OwnedByFerrets]

252. Shouldnt we EXPECT war criminals to be actively

prosecuted? No, he didnt campaign on that premise, it should be a given in OUR society. Its a sad state of our country when we actively harbor and coddle WAR CRIMINALS.

[xiamiam]

302. that is a huge part of pulling us back together..our psyches have been wounded

we are not who we thought we were but we still want to be..but there is definitely some atonement necessary to cleanse our souls..wrong has triumphed in our name..gotta clean it up..anything less is unacceptable

[EFerrari]

88. Well done, sabrina.

[DeSwiss]

91. Talked-out on this. :-/ But I'll K&R ya...... n/t

[myrna minx]

92. K&R n/t

[TBF]

97. Excellent. K&R nt

[Oilwellian]

101. Indeed

Irony escapes those who want to blame Democrats for expecting Obama to fight for Democratic ideals, and accuses us of being part of a right wing propaganda effort. It is right wing policies we want Obama to stop catering to. It's not the liberals who are responsible for Obama's tanking approval numbers because indeed we do want him to succeed. It is the centrists whose votes he covets the most, who are the most disenchanted with the direction he's taking this country.

K&R

[Lost-in-FL]

103. K&R, Brilliant!!!

Thanks you!!

[Bonobo]

106. Skewered! n/t

[louslobbs]

114. Bravo! Thank you Sabrina1 n/a

Lou

[louslobbs]

115. Deleted posted twice

Lou

[sabrina 1]

130. Hey lou, nice to 'see' you again!

:-)

[KoKo]

125. NO...it's certainly NOT a Mystery as to why there's Anger! Nice Post. K&R

:kick:

[upi402]

126. "War criminals being protected by the people we elected to go after them"

We are disenfranchised. There is no opposition party to corporatism.
Shhhhh:hide:

[McCamy Taylor]

128. Visit Free Republic sometime. They ARE angry at the GOP. Everyone is angry.

[sabrina 1]

141. Yes, I know, I have visited there, and have done so for a long time.

If only we could convince them to come over to the real 'right' side, imagine the power we would have to change things, if the country was not split by 'left' v 'right' but rather by 'right v wrong'?

[gkhouston]

144. 2012 will not be a good year to be an incumbent. n/t

[xocet]

133. K & R n/t

[PA Democrat]

138. You expressed what I have been feeling so well, sabrina.

[russspeakeasy]

145. Smart in school but dumb on the bus..

he, or his advisers are either incompetent, or don't give a shit about what the public thinks...draw a fucking line in the sand and don't cross it...if the prez or his advisers think that the repubs will like him and work with him, he/they are delusional and he needs to go back to community organizing..I'm sick of this shit and I will not vote for anyone that does not have the middle class' interest at heart. Right now, that appears to be Mr. Obama.:wtf: :nuke:
BRING ON THE LIST........................

[Divine Discontent]

181. he has the worst advisers a Dem has ever had.

I think they all must be a bunch of book-smart idiots..... your School Smart, Bus Dumb point is spot on...
What few of us that still support him on DU, and I am a supporter in the sense that I don't want an even WORSE president, are liable to just say screw it at some point!


http://www.cafepress.com/barackobama12

[russspeakeasy]

247. Exactly...

:argh:

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Oh come now! f**king retarded is a term of endearment!

K&R, of course. Well done.

[Jakes Progress]

154. No. No. There are no problems.

I saw a blue list just the other day. Everybody except a few radicals are real happy. Just ignore all those angry people. The White House does.

[w0nderer]

155. k&r n/t

[certainot]

159. how can the left evaluate obama while ignoring the right's most important weapon?

there is NO organized opposition to the right's most important weapon and until the left pulls it's fingers out of their ears and stops giving RW talk radio a free speech free ride to dominate media and attack their reps, the left is NOT getting their reps backs and shouldn't expect them to stick their necks out.

the debt ceiling teabag thing was pure talk radio, like the defeat of single payer and public option, not possible without it, and the fact that limbaugh made it politically impossible for boner to anything but turn obama down on the jobs speech should not have been a surprise to anyone but nearly the entire left, who just can't stand to listen to RW talk radio while it hands them their internet ass every day.

[certainot]

162. there's 1000 + teabagger headquarters in the US - why not picket them to show you anger

it's the coordinated RW talk radio stations that got us into this disaster, not obama and the dems.

[sabrina 1]

163. I agree, we must get more organized and start taking OVER, not

BACK, the airwaves. The Right propaganda machine was left to rule the airwaves for over a decade without any response from Democrats. They mocked it, thought they were above it, and never realized the power of propaganda.

Talk Radio is their domain right now. We have to figure out a way to take that away from them. Among other things.

[OnyxCollie]

201. You go on and on about right wing radio.

Granted, RW radio is 91% of the political talk radio spectrum.

But RW radio is there to convince the people that the shitty reality that is their lives is because of Obama's socialist agenda.

If Obama actually had a socialist agenda, it would be harder to convince people that the improvements in their lives (universal health care, for example) were something to hate.

So... if I were one of the PTB who run this country, I would:

Install a Trojan horse Democrat to forward a conservative agenda which negatively affects the population. Label it "Socialism" and have 1,000 radio stations blast the message over and over. See friendly Republicans (less lobbying, dontcha know) get elected next term to further the conservative agenda.

Your RW radio meme is enabling Obama's conservative agenda. You're doing the same thing they are, just finding a different scapegoat to blame.

You know, if I were one of the PTB who run this country, I'd be certain to play both sides to make damn sure I'd win.

I would infiltrate a Democratic message board and propagandize it with facts about RW radio (as if anything could be done about it) that takes the blame away from the true cause, the Trojan horse Democrat I installed.

Yeah, if I were one of the PTB who run this country, that's what I would do.

[certainot]

210. your mother is a whore and your father is a thief-

that's what those stations scream all day long while you just walk on by

and they already have the advantage- you are drunk and you are being an idiot

[OnyxCollie]

212. RW radio is only a tool.

Much like you are.

[certainot]

288. ignoring RW radio = biggest political blunder in history

it 's the best tool they have and it kicks internet ass because the left ignores it and gives it a free speech free ride

[OnyxCollie]

310. Wrong.

The 1996 Telecommunication Deregulation Act, signed by Bill Clinton, is the biggest political "blunder" (assuming it was an error in judgment, and I don't) in history.

[certainot]

315. he says he regrets it, would he have signed it if the left hadn't let RW radio hamstrung him like

they're letting it do obama? i doubt it. RW radio, without the fairness doctrine, did the heavy lifting pushing all sorts of shit through.

[FirstLight]

168. Hot DAYUM!

:applause:

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said...

(okay, except One 'little' thing)

This may not be the time to split hairs, I *do* agree that letting any Rethugs win at this point will cause SERIOUS damage to our country and our lives in ways we cannot imagine.
However, BOTH parties have their hands in the corporate pie...and BOTH are also keeping the damn wars going.

So as far as I am concerned, they are ALL crooks, and I don't trust ANY of them as far as I could throw them.
I am terrified for the state of affairs in our country and seriously PISSED that the wars are continuing unchecked when i voted for something ELSE.

But I will hold my nose and vote the ticket like a good Dem. because anything else would be a faster track to hell.

[napoleon_in_rags]

169. Obama needs to understand that his base is just a bunch of mirrors.

People look at leaders as a behavioral role model (even moreso on the right, thus Clinton rage) and therefore the leader must not only advance good policy, but exemplify whatever behavior he thinks would help things were it multiplied by millions of his base. That's why I wish the man would have some damn FDR style rhetorical fire. Its about getting people all over the country to forget about the BS and focus on whatever it is they think is really important, and standing up for it unflinchingly. That's really what this country needs, take it down to roots, to basics. There's been too many distractions and we have forgotten.

[woo me with science]

170. Great post. K&R nt

[girl_interrupted]

176. K&R There is no sense in denying people are angry

They have legitimate complaints. This party & president would be wise to stop and listen to them. That's what wins elections. A party and a president that acknowledges the voters and does what it can to help them.

[Starry Messenger]

177. k&r

[Divine Discontent]

179. what have they threatened him with, or have on him? that's what I've heard from some former

supporters of the president. I have to wonder myself, what is going on. He is doing things NONE of us would have expected.

Even the truest of true supporters who have an argument or excuse for every action (of which I am not part of them, I support him, but it's literally hanging by a thread) surely couldn't have expected him to give up on the tax cut fight on the wealthy that he promised to end, and that he'd, most recently, become

The Smog President.... :wtf:



http://www.cafepress.com/barackobama12

[rhett o rick]

180. The problem is that the Democrats in Congress arent true Democrats and havent been for decades.

They too bow down before the big lobby money. While Bush was president they use him as an excuse to let horrible issued be passed. They authorized Bush to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, yet could claim it wasnt their fault. Bullcrap. They have been going along with the horrors of the Republicans for decades.

There are two sides to this war, and they sure as hell aint the Democrats vs. Republicans. It's the corporatists vs. We The People. And there are a hell of a lot of Democrats on the wrong side of the war.

[leftstreet]

183. K&R

[FredStembottom]

185. Go, Sabrina, go!

Yes. The "mind-control" meme that was launched recently is not only desperate - but insulting, childish, logic-free and counterproductive.

I deeply appreciate you taking the time to help get it into the trash-heap of DU history.

:toast:

[humbled_opinion]

189. I agree with much of the OP...

I would add that Obama himself seems to have lost confidence. The absolutely wrong thing to do is to give up on your principles and I think that he has. He obviously has some people giving him bad advice. To me it started when he decided to double down in Afghanistan. All he had to do was bring the troops home. The healthcare debate took a lot out of him but it's only because he refused to stand up for a public option, which if he was destined to lose political capital over it than he should have been on that option not some insurance mandate that still yet may get tossed by the SCOTUS... One of the last straws was the capitulation on the tax cuts... How can you run an entire campaign against the Bush tax cuts that cost so much and caused a severe unbalance where the rich got richer on the backs of the poor and then when you have the chance to end the tax cuts you capitulate to the Cons and extend them, that just loses every argument you ever gave against them.

Anyway I am distrustful of many of our political leaders now, there are very few that stand by their principles, our principles, my principles....

[midnight]

192. Thank you for being so articulate... K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

200. No good options at the top of the ticket for 2012:

The "choice" will be between "Real Bad" and "Unfathomly Worse." Pick your poison, folks.

[markpkessinger]

209. Superb Post! Thank you!

Thank you, Sabrina, for stating so eloquently and powerfully the concern and frustration so many of us are feeling. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly have said it better!

[Shining Jack]

232. Recommended.

Great post, thank you. :)

[chill_wind]

236. Great OP, Sabrina.

The anger is indeed genuine and goes well beyond partisanship and party, for that matter. All we have to do is look at poll after poll at the overwhelming percentage of Americans who feel the county is headed in the wrong direction on the economy, jobs, the wars. The anger at EVERYONE in Washington right now- WH leadership and Congress both.

Those wanting to pretend there isn't real palpable anger are being either incredibly naive and foolish or deliberately disingenuous about both its reality and its causes.

[Dragonfli]

237. Sabrina, I always marvel at how well you say things I think, I wish I could match your ability to

post what is obvious in such a way as to make it all too hard for others to ignore.

All I have is common sense, an obsession with research and unfortunately an all too passionate (and often too angry voice).



Thank you for yet another post I wish I had the chops to author.

[zinnisking]

240. Amen.

rec'd

[sabrina 1]

303. hey, Dragonfli, I for one love your posts, so keep posting please!!

[Dragonfli]

314. I mostly just comment, haven't written an OP in over six years, but thanks! I try to be honest

[Le Taz Hot]

239. This is completely contrary to all of those posts

by OFA supporters who are SURE we're being duped and we must be shown the error of our ways by the much much wiser True Blue Democrats. Or are we closet Republican DU plants sent to throw asparagus at the President? It changes weekly. ANYTHING to hang it on rather than admit this president is a complete sell out.

[pariss3]

241. No results, no campaign donations

I'm new to the forum and unable to post a new thread, but had this in my email and thought I would share. I don't know that much about the CEO of Starbuck's; but I love the idea of his pledge:

http://www.upwardspiral2011.org/

September 2011

Dear Starbucks Friend and Fellow Citizen:

I love our country. And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America. But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.

Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington. And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders' steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty. Americans can't find jobs. Small businesses can't get credit. And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.

We are better than this.

Three weeks ago, I asked fellow business leaders to join me in urging the President and the Congress to put an end to partisan gridlock and, in its place, to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. More than 100 business leaders representing American companies - large and small - joined me in signing a two-part pledge:

First, to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security. Second, to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring.

In the weeks since then, I have been overwhelmed by the heartfelt stories of Americans from across the country, sharing their anguish over losing hope in the strongest and most galvanizing force of all - the American Dream. Some feel they have no voice. Others feel they no longer matter. And many feel they have been left behind.

We cannot let this stand.

Please join other concerned Americans and me on a national call-in conversation on Tuesday September 6th hosted by "No Labels," a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fostering cooperative and more effective government. To learn more about the forum and the pledges, visit www.upwardspiral2011.org

America is at a fragile and critical moment in its history. We must restore hope in the American Dream. We must celebrate all that America stands for around the world. And while our Founding Fathers recognized the constructive value of political debate, we must send the message to today's elected officials in a civil, respectful voice they hear and understand, that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now.

Yours is the voice that can help ignite the contagious upward spiral of confidence that our country desperately needs.

With great respect,



chief executive officer, Starbucks Coffee Company

[B Calm]

242. These free trade deals Obama is passing, WTF!! I voted for an FDR

and got a republican!

[Ilsa]

244. Very good, thank you. Only, I think a lot of problems started before Bush 43.

Media consolidation, disempowering of the people in our court/judicial system, deregulation of banks, consolidation of banks into very large entities, are all issues that began before W took office. He made some of those situations worse, no doubt, but some of our problems go back further than January 2001. The conclusion I draw from that is it will take many years to undo many of these screw-ups.

[OwnedByFerrets]

250. One of the very best posts, EVER.

[B Calm]

259. It is a damn good post. Wished more would take the time to read it all.

[tomp]

253. stopped reading at:...

"We all know that these conditions were caused by the lies and corruption of the Bush Administration."

if that is as deeply into this morass that we currently live in that you can see you are doing a disservice to the people.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR PROBLEMS.

anything else is a dangerous misinterpretation that has the effect of leading people back to the arms to the democrats. that is EXACTLY the wrong direction to go.

the anger that exists now should be directed against both parties. this is the moment. posts like yours threaten to squander that moment. just like obama.

a worse political strategy than obama's? yours just might be it.

[sabrina 1]

285. I think most people are aware of the role Democrats have played

by now. The OP was a response to the claims that we are only angry at this President and the Democrats in Congress because of some rightwing 'plants' on political forums whispering in our ears.

To cover the entire problem which many of us are only beginning to see, would be an entirely different OP.

My reference to the Bush years was a response to claims by the same people who think we have no right to be angry at all, that we on the left have forgotten those years. Iow, this was not meant to be a history of how we got to this point, with the help of both Parties. Merely to address the current ridiculous claims that we should all be happy and would be if only we didn't have rightwing trolls, which presumably are 'lefties' who are unhappy, on DU influencing us.

I don't know enough about the entire history of the takeover of the government by Corporate interests to be the one to write about it. This was limited to responding to those false claims which are becoming more frequent, that Dems are Good and Repubs are Bad and anyone who says otherwise is a troll.

You are welcome to go deeper into the history of how we arrived at this point. I would definitely read it and rec it and it might help put all of what is currently going on into perspective.

[Enthusiast]

256. We have come to expect

great posts from sabrina 1. This one is no exception.

Thank you for expressing my sentiments so perfectly.

[DirkGently]

257. Reality is. Shrieking attacks on those who notice it are dishonest & impotent, period. Great post.

[SavWriter]

258. I wish I could disagree

But I can't.

[Zax2me]

261. Remember the election? People cried, fainted in his presence.

Just seeing him caused adults to react like teens at an Elvis 1955 concert...

[Bo]

262. Stick a Fork in Obama...hes done..we should run Hillary again

Who here honestly thinks Obama has a chance in Hell?

[Ikonoklast]

274. Everbody except the 300-400 DUer's that normally recc threads like this.

And you.

Almost always about the very same number.

Very telling.

[sabrina 1]

277. For the record, I do not think Obama is 'over'. I think he will probably

win, because Progressives in the end will not allow a Republican into the WH. However, what is going to change this time is who people give their money to. The Unions, the voters now realize their money is better spent by them, rather than the Party who puts it behind Corporate Candidates and then use the fact that those Corporate owned Congressmembers are the reason the President 'can't get anything done'.

There IS a shift happening, and it's a good one. Now it's the people's turn to lead, and hopefully the leaders will follow.

But dismissing the overwhelming evidence of the disgust a majority of Americans have for their government, is simply silly. You don't need DU to understand that. Just talk to people on the street and no, they are not stupid, they know that they are not being well-served by either party.

Knowledge is power, now we know and it depends on us whether this Party gets dragged back from the Right they keep heading towards or not. I think the people can do that.

[xiamiam]

296. interesting that u point that out because i was just thinking that other than the 4 that i have on

ignore..there are a truly small handful who feel differently from the op..i'm guessing no more than a couple dozen here on du who are fervent supporters..i can name many of them..although i cant name the many who are in agreement with this post..like me

[defendandprotect]

275. Agree Obama is over -- the mask is off for all time -- but Hillary is part of Koch Bros/DLC

leadership -- why would you want to do that?

We need two strong anti-war candidates --

Two candidates who will move on MEDICARE FOR ALL --


Just those two things would begin to put the country back on a more balanced

footing -

and end a lot of pain and suffering!


And that would be the base for a new beginning --

We have to TARGET those pre-bribed and pre-owned Democrats solicited by Koch Bros.

DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- and find out what's actually left of the Dem Party and it it's

worth saving -- !!

[xiamiam]

297. yes..anti war candidates..most of america gets the wars are a charade and fiasco

and breaking our backs..that would be the greatest bipartisan move of all time..among the average american..not the bought and paid for so called representatives

[defendandprotect]

307. 80% of Americans want an end to the wars ... !!!

This is a liberal nation ---


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1864249&mesg_id=1867794


:hi:

[xiamiam]

311. actually, the majority of us are really nice folk who dont believe in killing people

for no good reason..and at this point, even the dullest pencil in the box is questioning why we continue to occupy countries which have done nothing to threaten any of us

[defendandprotect]

317. K/R ---

:hi:

[ibegurpard]

282. Jesus F Christ!!!

Honestly? Hillary???
And you think Hillary would be substantively differnet policy-wise how??
How about neither??
How about someone who will actually make the case that government has a vital role to play in a stable and prosperous society??

[defendandprotect]

308. +1 --

:hi:

[azul]

266. Right-on, s1

People are angry and I think that the RW powers saw it coming and financed the Tea Party to be a convenient and controllable outlet, so that the sentiment would gravitate toward some progressive or liberal movements.

I think that the corruption is so entrenched and powerful now that it would take something extraordinary to break through the corporate media and money patriotic/economic show. Like a popular supported Gandhian-like hunger strike against corruption, as was just done in the largest democracy in the world.

[Auggie]

267. Corporations are running the country, not people

It's not about Democrats or Republicans or any party. It's corporate rule. Corporate influence. Lobbyists and Special interests and quarterly profits. That's the problem.

[sabrina 1]

269. Yes, that is true. And it's worse since the Corporate Personhood

SC ruling. In the movie 'Sicko' there is scene where the newly elected Congressmembers are arriving at the Capitol Bldg for the first time and they are swamped by lobbyists which, according to the documentary, is par for the course. How many of them can resist the temptation, or maybe even the necessity, of the money being offered by Corporations? There is no school for Congress where they learn how to represent the people. But one thing is for sure, there are no lobbyists there for the people. Until that changes, nothing much else will.

[xiamiam]

300. another forgotten campaign promise..nt

[defendandprotect]

273. Great OP -- but I think it's way beyond "anger" -- public understands betrayal and are rising up!

[sabrina 1]

287. I hope that there will be changes rather than people just giving up.

There are indications that things can change for the better now that people are more aware of the problems with our government. Too bad our media was not doing its job, it would not have taken so long. But better late than never!

[defendandprotect]

318. We need two strong anti-war candidates for 2012 --- two strong candidates for MEDICARE4ALL ..!!

[sabrina 1]

320. I just wonder if that's possible at this point. But even if not,

getting hundreds of such candidates into Congress would be even more effective, imo. And with the Unions now saying they will choose and back only Union Friendly candidates, which I hope they stick with, I do have some hope that things could change for the better.

[John Agar]

278. Thank you, sabrina1, for eloquently framing the dilemma we all face.

I note that despite a few swipes, the vast majority here seem to appreciate your effort as well.

I'm vexed as to what to do about it all...living in a puke congressional district and all.

Our formerly red county went to Obama in 2008, but I don't think a repeat is in any way guaranteed.

[sabrina 1]

280. Thank you for your kind words, John. We are faced with a

dilemma, there is no question about it. The first step though is to recognize it, then the hard part, what to do about it. I have tried to think of some strategy that might work but so far, other than supporting Progressives for Congress which will take a lot of work and money, I have no idea how to turn things around. Still, I would much rather be focusing on that then continue to argue over the President, whether he is or is not representing us. I think most people agree that the current government is not representing us. And where do we go from there? That is the question!

[John Agar]

292. Thanks again. We obviously need to rethink what we have been doing.

The sense of elation and relief we all felt in 2008 has proved be an illusion.

We have to fight in every district, every state, not only against the Pukes who we all revile, but against the wolves in sheep's clothing who deceived us to get their own hands on the reins of power.

We need a new movement, one NOT focused on some political candidate, but on fundamental principles.

The tea party, for all its horrors, provides a model for how we might proceed.

Start by organizing, and then move to take the party back through local activism, including primarying establishment, sell-out Dems anywhere we can.

It's going to be a long struggle, but it's not like we have a choice anymore.

[sabrina 1]

316. 'NOT focused on some political candidate, but on fundamental principles'

Yes, that is exactly right. Good post, couldn't agree more.

[xiamiam]

299. thank you sabrina..yes, the first step is to recognize it..we've been locked in battle here on du

with those who refuse to recognize it and spin our wheels defending ourselves and gut instinct...time to put am action lists together..

[sabrina 1]

313. I agree, xiamiam and am going to try to put the effort into finding

out and posting here if I find anything of interest, who is working on changing all of this. It's pointless to be fighting over individual politicians other than deciding if they need to go or stay and acting accordingly.

[life long demo]

284. Some very good arguments posted here

I have to admit there have been times that I have been so angry at the President, I've said I wouldn't vote for him again. But then the realization that if President Obama didn't win, what would happen to this country and the people. I've wondered if his poll numbers are low not because we don't want him as President, but that people are angry that he hasn't been more agressive towards the republicons/tea party politicans. I just wish he would smack them down every once in a while.

[Zorra]

306. " Claiming that it's all about undercover agents secretly

influencing the minds of Democrats is just not going to work."

Yes, there is a whole lot of denial going around.

Really great post, Sabrina, thank you.