Another promise broken -- RIP to Net neutrality

[Armstead]

The FCC is voting on a proposal to -- typically -- hand our collective butts over to the mercies to giant corporations, with the power to have discriminatory pricing and services for access to the Internet.

I guess the principle of Net Neutrality joins "No tax breaks for millionairs" and the Public Option/real healthcare reform on the scrapheap of broken promises.

[msongs]

1. internet needs to a public utility tightly regulated IMO nt

[Armstead]

3. It should be......But it won't be

[crikkett]

2. The FCC is voting on this now? I thought it was later this month.

BTW Your post is light on facts and heavy on emotion.

[Armstead]

4. This IS later this month...

Tomorrow is the day.

And yes I am pissed off, so forgive the emotion.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[Godhumor]

5. Except, all signs point to the FCC upholding Net Neutrality

so, hopefully, that will be a happy surprise.

[Armstead]

6. I hope so but I saw a disturbing news item today

It said that the two commissioners who have been the staunchest supporters of net neutrality have agreed to a "compromise" that will prevent serrvice providers from blocking sites, but will allow them to "manage" speeds and service tiers -- thus changing it to give them the ability to make usage more "pay to play" than it has been.

Sorry I can't give a URL but I saw it elsewhere.

[Armstead]

7. P.S. There will be a report on Countdown tonite

[prolesunited]

10. Well, perhaps you should wait until something actually happens

before posting such a definitively titled thread.

Maybe, heads up! Look where net neutrality may be heading. That might not get you as much attention, but it would be way more accurate.

[Armstead]

46. It's a done deal.....

Plus, warnings before the fact are more useful than pointing things out after the horse has left the barn

[PassingFair]

48. The vote is TOMORROW. Perhaps you prefer being blindsided...

but some of us like to be prepared.

[prolesunited]

81. From my post:

I agreed that he should post a warning. "heads up! Look where net neutrality may be heading."

BUT, this his OP is stated as a done deal. If people were going to make calls or send e-mails, it might discourage that because he is stating that it's over.

[PassingFair]

84. Look where it IS heading. Tomorrow. Now Today.

FCC is the FCC...we don't get to vote.

[vaberella]

14. A promise broken that apparently isn't...b/c nothing's been voted on yet. Dude, make that clear. nt

[Armstead]

47. I eat my hat if the vote tomorrow is different than what is being reported

[newthinking]

73. OK then, will you admit you were wrong if it it comes out as the OP states then?

[TheWraith]

83. Speed management and tiered service have been standard since the beginning of the internet.

Both for servers and end-users.

[ProudDad]

29. Only if Kopps blocks the "compromise" that's "on the table"...

Otherwise, the fix is in and just like the "payroll tax holiday's" rupture of the inter-generational contract that used to be Social Security...

Net Neutrality will be breached by the latest "compromise"...

[Honeycombe8]

8. Another poster said the FCC is poised to pass net neutrality. Which is it?

Where are you guys getting your information? The other poster cited Washington Post. Do you have a cite that net neutrality is NOT poised to pass the FCC commission?

[great white snark]

9. Shhh, please keep this a promise broken thread.

[Armstead]

50. It will be a broken promise tomorrow...

If I turn out to be wrong I'll happily eat some crow.

I'd rather be wrong than right on this....Just as I hoped I'd be wrong when they sold out the public option

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Honeycombe8]

93. Whose promise? The FCC commission's promise? It can't be Obama's.

He doesn't have control over this.

[Exilednight]

22. Just like we pulled all of our combat troops out of Iraq. People like to forget that we replaced

all those "combat troops" with 100,000 private military contractors.

[vaberella]

23. What does that have to do with net neutriality? Let's stay on topic.

This poster is not informed and doesn't even give a link to his information, but running on empty.

[Exilednight]

27. He asked which is it. I answered with how a similar

decision allowed Obama to claim a win when it's really a loss.

[ProudDad]

32. Here, there and everywhere...

What's the Problem Here?

"Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms." and more...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

"Tomorrow morning, the country’s five federal communications commissioners will be casting votes that could dramatically alter the Internet.

"The commissioners are voting on a troubling Net Neutrality proposal released earlier this month by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. While Genachowski’s proposal has yet to be made public, it reportedly would not offer the same protections to wireless Internet users as it would to those using wired connections. And it would open the door to “paid prioritization,” which could allow phone and cable companies to create toll roads favoring the traffic of a select few companies that can pay by slowing down everyone else. (This has been widely reported and confirmed by FCC sources.)"

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6790/the_end_of_the_internet_as_we_know_it/

Genachowski has been closeted with the CEOs of the telco's and cable companies "hammering out" this latest "compromise"...

When the Obama Admin. compromises, check your back...

[thelordofhell]

11. RIP to High-Def streaming movies on the web

bye bye Netflix streaming

[boppers]

65. Level 3 didn't want to pay for the same bandwidth that Akamai was paying for.

Unless Comcast wants to charge all of it's customers extra for that cost, or level 3 charges Netflix (and pays Comcast) for that cost, they're going to throttle that pipe or shut it off.

[newthinking]

75. Funny how other countries don't seem to have these problems?

[okieinpain]

79. hi-def streaming on the net, good god.... n/t.

[vaberella]

12. How did Obama break this promise?! n/t

[angee_is_mad]

16. Because he's the President(!)?

I've learned that's enough for a lot of people. You know everything is his fault

[vaberella]

17. Ain't that the truth. n/t

[ProudDad]

43. By appointing another corporate tool

as Chair of the FCC...

Instead of an actual consumer/user advocate...

That's how! :eyes:

The same way he appointed the foxes from wall st. to guard the henhouse of the economy...

[Armstead]

51. Oh I don't know... Maybe statements like claiming to be committed to protecting Net Neutrality

[OhioBlue]

64. So he claimed to be committed to protecting it

and it looks to pass? Again - how is this a broken promise?

[ProudDad]

69. Here's how

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x573501#573655

[jenmito]

13. On Countdown, Chris Hayes just said the votes are there for it to be upheld-report by Reuters. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

19. No problem! "The FCC will approve new net neutrality rules, along party lines."

The FCC will approve new net neutrality rules, along party lines. The agency’s chair Julius Genachowski has already proposed rules which would prevent internet providers from blocking legitimate internet traffic. It may take several years of court challenges before “legitimate” is completely defined.

Genachowski will get the votes of the other two Democratic commissioners. The two Republicans will vote against the new rules, several media report.

The most controversial section of the new regulations, at least from a financial standpoint, is that internet carriers which include cable and telecom firms will have the right to levy special charges on companies which utilize unusually large amounts of broadband capacity. This will almost certainly include video sites like Google’s (NASDAQ: GOOG). Broadband “pipes” suppliers like Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) have given the proposal strong support because it could bring them hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees.

The new regulations may be about to begin. The fight is only now joined.

Douglas A. McIntyre

http://247wallst.com/2010/12/20/net-neutrality-will-pass-fcc-dems-vote-yes-republicans-no/

[Exilednight]

24. And there you have it, a net neutrality "compromise" that screws us.

The most controversial section of the new regulations, at least from a financial standpoint, is that internet carriers which include cable and telecom firms will have the right to levy special charges on companies which utilize unusually large amounts of broadband capacity. This will almost certainly include video sites like Google’s (NASDAQ: GOOG). Broadband “pipes” suppliers like Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) have given the proposal strong support because it could bring them hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees.

Someone has to pay those hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees. Who do you think it will be?

[jenmito]

28. I think it will be the large companies. n/t

[Exilednight]

30. Wishful thinking. Those large companies always pass on the costs. n/t

[jenmito]

38. You hope you're right. n/t

[Exilednight]

39. No, just realistic.

[jenmito]

41. More like pessimistic.

[ProudDad]

34. On what planet...???

On this one the "consumer" pays...

And the corporate assholes vacation in Dubai...

[jenmito]

40. People on the internet at home won't be affected. Neither will small or medium sized businesses.

So, of course, you choose the only POTENTIAL drawback to this. Nothing new.

[ProudDad]

42. So you don't care if people (like me) who have their own

internet sites...

Are placed on a lower priority than those giant corporations' sites who pay the piper, eh?

You don't really know much about these internet tubes, do you?

[boppers]

63. Your site is already at that low priority.

Always has been, unless you were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for bandwidth to multiple backbones, a CDN for storage, and multiple access points for geographic distribution.

Since you didn't know that, I'm guessing that you aren't an internet engineer.

[ProudDad]

67. I'm guessing that you aren't an internet engineer...

I DO know how it works, have written hundreds of computer programs including programs for internet access...

My WEB HOST (you know about those, right?) DOES pay plenty to have all of that available for our use...

But when the telcos and cable networks reprogram their servers to pass the packets that are "paid for" while holding back ones that aren't...

While the (currently Obama) government is BLOCKING access to others...

We'll ALL know how screwed this shit is...

[boppers]

71. So, you're paying for that high level of access?

To your personal "WEB HOST" (singular?)?

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_services

We've done this since 1998.

[mkultra]

110. i think you are full of shit

as indicated by your use of the phrase "internet engineer" Your hosting service will no be pinged or charged a higher price level unless your deliver serious levels of content like that of youtube or netflix.

The usage charges will be handed back to the content provider which is who will be getting metered.
So what kind of "programs for internet access" have you written? lol

[mkultra]

109. so does your site use excessive bandwidth or are you just being histrionic?

[ProudDad]

66. YES, small and medium sized businesses

and personal websites WILL BE AFFECTED...

Along with folks who download music or movies...

You really don't know SHIT about how the internet actually works... :eyes:

Up to now, EVERYONE's packet was passed on with the same priority...

If these rules go into effect some people's packets will receive higher priority than the rest of us...

[boppers]

107. "Up to now, EVERYONE's packet was passed on with the same priority"

Wrong.

Google "DiffServ"

[mkultra]

111. wrong again

they are allowed to charge a fee to providers who chew up tons of bandwidth. Netflix alone is told to occupy 20% of all available bandwidth on the backbone during its peak hours.

[Armstead]

60. Ha!

Any added costs will get passed along to me and thee

[newthinking]

76. I will say it, but if someone comes back on here and tries to spin

what really is not truly "net neutrality" tomorrow they should get clobbered. But that is what will happen. I see it more often when critics give credit when they are wrong than I do those on the "other side" of the discussion. There are a number of folks in this discussion that absolutely *NEVER* admit when they had it wrong.

[Armstead]

52. Did you actually watch the report? It was clear that this is basically a loss

[newthinking]

77. Facts don't matter to some here

If net neutrality is compromised tomorrow you can bet there will be a bunch of folks on this board claiming that what passed was Net Neutrality anyway.

[vaberella]

18. Your post touches on exactly what I said in the topic below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x573063

[Armstead]

53. I am in favor of DADT Repeal -- but why is he always screwing the pooch on the....

...issues of wealth and power.

I'm glad Obama stuck with DADT. But on other issues it is clear that he is reluctant to stick with the more complex issues that actually challermge those with wealtyh and power.

[Teaser]

20. shorter OP

"I have no information about this topic, but I'm going to assume something bad is going to happen, because that's how I roll."

[vaberella]

21. ...

:rofl: You got me rollin'.

[ProudDad]

35. So now you're quoting Obama?

"I'm going to assume something bad is going to happen, because that's how I roll." B.H.Obama 2010...

[Teaser]

49. one of these days I'll get some kind of coherent rebuttal

I've written a Python script to monitor such replies to alert me of the occasion.

[ProudDad]

68. Script's probably as buggy as your prior post...

:shrug:

[Armstead]

54. Shorter OP -- I do know about this but not every post has to be an epic

[Teaser]

58. "I hope so but I saw a disturbing news item today"

lolzilla.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

25. They've destroyed the word neutrality now, as well as the net. nt

[vaberella]

37. They haven't voted on anything yet. The OP is false. n/t

[ProudDad]

44. They're voting tomorrow morning...

If Kopps does not block it, net neutrality is done...

[Armstead]

56. Give it 24 hours and it'll be a done deal

As I said above, if I am wrong I will happily eat crow.

[Sheepshank]

26. without the finality of the hearings

how do you justify claiming a broken promise? Is this how Dems do this now?

Unrec for jumping the shark...regardless of the final results.

[democrat2thecore]

31. Net "Neutrality" is the opposite of what it meant when the debate started

This is a HORRIBLE decision coming from the FCC. However, it's expected this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

[ProudDad]

36. I think you're right...

Unfortunately that means more bucks for lawyers...

And I'm not sanguine about this SCOTUS... :shrug:

[ProudDad]

33. This is probably the number one democracy issue around!

Hope that Kopps blocks this latest Obama Admin. "compromise"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=573501&mesg_id=573655

[ncteechur]

45. So companies shouldn't be able to provide different levels of internet speed to

consumers that pay more? I admit that I am playing catch up on net neutrality.

[Armstead]

55. The net is becoming a vital utility.........It should not be made unusable for those who....

don't have the resources to pay extortionist rates to send or receive information at a reasonable speed.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. this is not about charges to end users

that is a separate discussion. This is about service providers being neutral about access to content by end users. Net Neutrality means that, for example, AT&T can't block or degrade access to some sites while allowing or enhancing access to others over the network it controls to your iphone. If NetFlix and BlockBuster are both providing streaming video services your access to those sites cannot be blocked or degraded by, for example Charter, or whatever cable company is providing your broadband internet service to your house, even though the cable companies have an economic interest in doing just that.

[boppers]

57. The Net has never been neutral. Ever.

Making it so is simply not technologically, or financially, possible.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. then you do not understand the meaning of the phrase 'net neutrality'.

In fact the internet was designed with neutrality at its core: in its original design it was a packet switching network in which all packets were treated equally. Bandwidth differences were at the endpoints of the networks, once a packet entered a given network segment, it required additional technology to make the delivery of that packet unequal on purpose to other packets.

Endpoint bandwidth limitations have always existed: if your endpoint can only push out packets at 5Mbps, then that is your problem. Once those packets enter a 10Gbps trunk network, they move at 10Gb unless some effort is made to deliberately not do that.

Quality of Service technology is a relatively recent addition to internet technology and does allow for packet discrimination - prioritizing the delivery of some packet over others - but primarily the intent with QOS is to enable streaming media with at least rough guarantees of timely delivery, not to subject the packets originated from site A to degraded delivery times compared to packets originated from site B.

[boppers]

70. Okay....

If by recent, you mean "12 years ago", sure.

You seem to understand that QoS guarantees are one way of getting a faster level of service, and that everybody else is in the "slow lanes" (best effort delivery), so I'll point this out: Blackholing and throttling are part of keeping segments from being overloaded. It's part of TCP/IP, and came long before QoS: If a segment has data coming through at 10Mbs, no amount of law can make a segment with 5Mbs traffic go twice as fast in order to be "neutral".

Oh, and if site A pays for the traffic delivery, and site B does not, on a full pipe, more of A's packets make the trip.

[JoePhilly]

88. YUP ... QoS has been around for at least 12 years.

I can go back to time during the 90s, where QoS was critical in the Telco, Cable, wireless, Internet debates.

And hey ... throw in some SECURITY layers. You want security, you PAY MORE.

I want the internet to be open, but ... should my bank pay for better security??

This is not a black and white issue.

My financial transactions, and my tweets about my lunch are not the same.

[okieinpain]

85. it wasn't meant to deliver hi-def streaming either. n/t.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. yes - but the claim was 'never neutral'.

Also - telecom carrier neutrality has been the standard by law for over 100 years. This concept is not new law and is not somehow impossible on the internet.

[boppers]

90. Telecom carriers can charge more for content that is farther away, or for needing a lot of lines.

They also blocked access for some people (busy signals), and others could pay to have multiple connections (call waiting). If you wanted to be found by people, you had to pay for a listing in phone books. If you didn't pay the right amount, you couldn't access certain phone numbers, because they were "long distance".

They weren't neutral at all, they were so bad that anti-trust laws were required to break them up.

The two forms of media also differ by several orders of magnitude in bandwidth terms and forms of usage.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. You continue to conflate 'bandwidth' and 'endpoint services' with 'network neutrality'.

I don't know why you are doing that. It seems rather easy to understand the concept of net neutrality: we don't want the cable companies blocking Netflix because it competes with their HBO and Showtime services, or blocking access to Wikileaks 'cause they just want to. Telecom services have been barred from this sort of practice since the end of the 19th century. This is not about how much it costs to have a fat pipe into your home versus a skinny one, and I think you know that.

[boppers]

108. Because the concept you outlined was tried, and found wanting.

ISP's need to be able to block access to BotNets.
ISP's need to be able to block access to virus-laden sites.
ISP's need to be able to block spammers.

In short, ISP's need to be able to censor the Internet. It's not all happy and safe out there.

Now, since it's a frequent canard, let's take on the "Comcast censoring Netflix" argument:
1. That's already illegal, under anti-trust law.
2. Comcast has done no such thing. What they *have* done is asked whoever they peer with to pay for the cost of packets.

WRT Comcast censoring wikileaks, they conceivably could try that. I'd like to see them try. Hint: they will fail. It's just about impossible, for the same reasons it was impossible to shut down the green revolution, or for China to censor, well, everything they want to. Proxies and mirror sites make it impossible.

[newthinking]

78. You would have been against the rural phone act!

Give me a freaking break. We have a HISTORY of making sure that essential services like this are regulated so that the most get access. Getting phones into Rural America was a far more difficult thing and yet we did it. Net Neutrality is simple compared to that.

[democrat2thecore]

72. Paying Usage-based Fees & blocking Internet TV - THIS is "net neutrality"

Thank you to the The National Cable & Telecommunications Association for attempting (probably successfully) to ruin the progress of video on the web. They are the lobby for the cable companies. This is bad, bad, BAD regulation.
Use Netflix? Hulu? Amazon Video? Looking forward to more options on the Internet? Read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40758873/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

This legislation will open the floodgates to creating "classes" on the web. Usage-based fees mean a bonanza for the cable companies. An economic slam at working people and something that will be no problem for the wealthy to afford.

Are there ANY public officials not on the take? Washington is one corrupt place. This is another GLARING example.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. Who made the promise? Who broke it?

[WI_DEM]

82. Oh boo-hoo everything is Obama's fault

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Actually 'things the administration does' are 'Obama's fault'.

Or perhaps you think the chief executive is not responsible for the actions of his administration?

[johnaries]

89. "another promise broken"... Oh, boy, are you really stretching

to diss Obama.

OK, if you want to diss Obama for whatever reason, that's fine. But don't denigrate the huge progress that we have made.

No, we didn't get a Public Option, but we did get major Health Care reform and as a result a lot of people who would've been bankrupted by medical costs or - even worse - DIED, won't. Millions will be covered who otherwise would not have been. Price controls will be put in place for the rest. How is that a bad thing? That is a Progressive move forward - plain and simply.

Repukes wanted the Bush tax cuts extended permanently. They got a 2-year extension. Big fucking deal. They wanted the Estate Tax permanently repealed. They got a temporary raise in the base.

Look at what we all got in return.

I, personally, am sick and tired of all these threads that don't understand that the history of this entire Country is based on Compromise.

I am tired of all the Obstructionists on both the Right and the Left.

It's time to move Forward, and make Progress. We can't have Progress without Compromise. If you are not willing to Compromise, then you are an Obstructionist.

For those who don't understand the concept of "we can't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good", that's basically it. As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans".

I appreciate your Idealism, but you can't let your Idealism get in the way of Accomplishment.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. I don't understand. I thought FCC was supportive of net neutrality?!?! n/t

[ClarkUSA]

92. Your OP is 100% wrong. Washington Post headline: "FCC set to enact new net neutrality rules"

Federal regulators are poised to enact controversial new rules affecting Internet access, marking the government's strongest move yet to ensure that Facebook updates, Google searches and Skype calls reach consumers' homes unimpeded.

Under the regulations, companies that carry the Internet into American homes would not be allowed to block Web sites that offer rival services, nor would they be permitted to play favorites by dividing delivery of Internet content into fast and slow lanes.

The rules are set to win passage in a vote Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission, after a majority of the panel's five members said they planned to vote in favor of the measure.

The proposal, pushed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, seeks to add teeth to a principle known as net neutrality, which calls for all legal Internet traffic to be treated equally. It means that a cable company such as Comcast could not slow traffic of Netflix video, while a wireless carrier such as Verizon Wireless could not block competing Web voice services, such as Vonage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005769.html?nav=rss_email/components

Will you apologize for your misleading and totally incorrect OP, Armstead?

Check your facts before you deride President Obama again. Julius Genachowski worked on the Obama campaign as its internet guru and he was appointed by this liberal President. Fair-minded folks would give credit where it is obviously due: President Obama.

Another promise kept, along with DADT repeal and HCR. It's time to face the facts: This is more liberal policy CHANGE than any Democratic President has delivered in decades.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. As usual the rules are part of Opposite Naming Strategy.

Call it 'network neutrality' as you hand AT&T and Verizon the keys to discriminate pretty much as they choose on their wireless networks.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Your evidence-free rhetoric does not match the many facts laid out in the Washington Post article.

Don't waste my time.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. I'm glad you limited yourself to Plutocracy Enabler WAPO.

Otherwise I would have to question the veracity of your claim.

"The rule approved today by the FCC includes full network neutrality protections for the wired Internet, which includes cable and DSL service to homes and businesses, but provides lesser protections for wireless broadband service and may allow wireless broadband providers to block certain applications and services that compete with their own applications and services. The American Civil Liberties Union has called for network neutrality protections on both the wired and wireless Internet as important safeguards for free speech."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/fcc-approves-flawed-net-neutrality-rule

On the other hand I refuse to limit my discussion of an issue to the flawed perspective of a dubious source.

[ClarkUSA]

98. lol! weasel words => "may allow"

Let me know when reality fits speculation.

The WaPo article reported the facts, which is more than I can say for those who are fans of weasel-worded doomsday press releases and spout negative name-calling rhetoric.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. I'm wondering if you even understand the issue. nt

[ClarkUSA]

100. I understand the facts of the issue just fine but I always discount baseless rhetoric.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. So the ACLU and EVERY OTHER ADVOCATE FOR NET NEUTRALITY

have it all wrong? Seriously?

[ClarkUSA]

102. I repeat: weasel words => "may allow"

So far, you haven't offered a shred of hard fact-based proof to back up your negative rhetoric.

I have better things to do than kick this false OP thread so enjoy the rest of the Obama presidency. I know I will.

[Exilednight]

103. ClarkUSA: "Don't waste my time." Me: LOL, no one forced you to respond. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

104. What is the vote? What is the language? Where's the link?

It's so frustrating when someone posts a vague statement w/o being specific of facts. You posted just your general feeling of a vote w/o stating what the vote was or the language or anything.

[ejc914]

105. I agree another promise broken!!!

It seems since November that the President has been running scared. He is caving on everything he promised! He even brought Clinton out to help him!! I, as a black man, found this very upsetting. We go through all these struggles as a people and he has to revert to a white man to "help" him. I don't get it.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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