Given the resistance and sabotage that Pres. Obama has gotten from the media, the pukes, and the

[T Wolf]

DINOs even though he has not gone any more leftward than center-right on the "big" issues (war, economy, state secrecy, war crimes),

can anyone explain what he gained by not being more forcefully liberal? Could the enemies he faces be possibly any more strident in their fight against his policies?

This is not to argue that he has changed his approaches from what he "promised" during the campaign. He is what he is - a center-right "moderate."

As an example - if the rethugs will filibuster the not-so-far-right judicial appointments like Hamilton, what is the advantage of sending up his name rather than a real liberal?

The same applies to cabinet (and other) appointments.

Is this a strategy (as so many here like to say) to insure some "success" no matter how minor? Or is it the typical Democratic philosophy of not doing anything that might upset the enemy?

[godai]

1. How about his 73% favorable rating.

http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days

Although his enemies speak loudly and get a lot of air time, they are a small minority. The American people, based on Obama's decisions so far, show huge support.

[cali]

2. Obama is someone, I believe, who has the ability to grasp

that change cannot be achieved without building coalitions. He understands that it's not a matter of instant presto change-o.

And if you don't think his enemies could be any more strident, you're hugely mistaken. If by some fluke, Dennis Kucinich had become president- and things in D.C. and within the power structures were the same, he'd have been destroyed and would have gotten nothing done in Congress. Oh, and no, the pukes don't have enough folks to filibuster Hamilton. Inhofe can huff and puff all he likes, but he's impotent. And such folks as Snow, Collins, Specter and others will vote for Hamilton.

[DevonRex]

3. You lost with he's a "center right moderate." nt

[Adelante]

4. No. He is not a center-right moderate

He is not an ideologue, but a pragmatic idealist whose goals begin on the left and are ultimately about what can get done, rather than what might be ideal. His kind of left stems from community organizing, where progress is always incremental and comes of attempting consensus first and then getting what you can get without it. There are a lot of judges to be appointed. The Rethugs will do their thing and the public will see it. That's how Obama plays. All he has to do is be seen attempting conciliation, and he truly does hope for the best, I think, but when he is rejected, he gets to do it his way, and his critics aren't left with a leg to stand on. In the case of judicial appointments, if he went all out liberal, from the beginning, the Repukes might be in position to call him on it without appearing unreasonable. That's how his method appears to me. I wouldn't say that he has not been forcefully liberal in some areas from the gate. Insisting he will talk with "enemies," is a drastic change. Other presidents did it, of course, but Obama tells the public he's doing it and tells them why it is better for the country. Reversing the torture policy immediately on taking office even while wars are still going on. Restoring funding to abortion counseling NGOs. Lifting the ban on stem cell research. And so forth. I can't think of a center-right moderate doing these things, never mind right off the bat the way Obama did. But it's a matter of what he thinks he can get done and what he thinks he can't - for now.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Great analysis!

Thanks! :hi:

[Adelante]

6. Hello, my dear friend

:hug:

[FrenchieCat]

8. Hello youse! :)

:hi:

[T Wolf]

7. I specifically referred to major issues, not the little feel-good items like stem-cell research,

reproduction counseling, etc.

He has committed to a long-term war against Iraq - probably on the order of Vietnam or Korea.

He has expanded the war against Afghanistan.

He has handed trillions over to the very same thieves in finance that stole the money in the first place, while people are continuing to lose their jobs and homes.

He has continued the Bush game of secrecy under the guise of "national security."

He has NOT LED any effort to hold the criminals (repuke and DINO) responsible for the actions of the last eight years.

He has trashed health care reform to guarantee that insurance companies and big Pharma continue to control and profit from it.

All of this, in some effort to either (a) avoid conflict with the reich-wing or (b) settle for minute "progress" for some undefined reason.

To use a sports analogy - he is ahead by two touchdowns (large majorities in both Houses of Congress) with two minutes left and he punts on first down, hoping his defense can prevent the other team from scoring twice. He figures a tie is as good as a win and he better not jeopardize that. Instead, he should have stepped on the throats of the enemy (rethugs) and crushed them when he had the best chance.

Politically, the honeymoon is over and the bride, virginity intact, has run off with the caterer. The groom is left with a trashed banquet hall to clean up. And he doesn't even get to keep the presents, except the photos.