Barack Obama – Then and Now

[Time for change]

Though Barack Obama was far from my favorite Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008, and I did criticize him frequently during the primaries, after he locked up the Democratic nomination I found plenty of substantial differences between him and John McCain, in Obama’s favor. So large did I perceive those differences to be that I frequently wrote about them and the reasons why I felt it was crucially important that Obama be elected president.

Sadly, those differences turned out to be far less than I had hoped or anticipated, while the differences between Obama’s campaign promises and his actions as President turned out to be much greater than I had anticipated. I think those differences are worth recounting, as I think it is time that progressives/liberals (or anyone who believes that government should not be controlled primarily by the rich and powerful) start giving considerable thought to whether a second Obama administration is something they should work for, or whether their time, effort, and money would be better spent elsewhere.

To recount those differences I go back to a 2008 post of mine that more than any other of my writings systemically pointed out the differences between candidate Obama and John McCain. These were the issues that I considered to be of great national importance – on which I argued the need to elect Barack Obama president. If I had it to do over again I would remain silent on the subject because, given Obama’s actions as president I no longer consider the good majority of what I wrote on May 10, 2008 about candidate Obama’s plans to be valid. So let’s consider the status of candidate Obama’s plans then (as I documented them at the time), compared to what he has actually done as president.


Torture and human rights

Obama then
Obama had been universally and strongly against torture. This is what Obama had to say about George Bush’s Military Commissions Act (which McCain voted for) and his torture programs:

The five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today. We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay…

Instead of allowing this President – or any President – to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions…

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on terrorism.

Obama as president
President Obama does deserve credit for banning torture on the second day of his presidency. However, as Alain Nairn explains in “The Torture Ban that Doesn’t Ban Torture”:

What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of “an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government…”, which means that it doesn’t even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of “armed conflict,” which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren’t in armed conflict.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 that Obama spoke so eloquently against as a U.S. Senator enabled our military to kidnap people around the world, accuse them of being terrorists, and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay to waste away, without any due process to establish their guilt. But a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June 2008, Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that this process was unconstitutional. Glen Greenwald describes the close similarity of the Obama and Bush administrations on this issue, as they both thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court ruling:

In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp, the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn't apply to them. The Bush DOJ treated the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game…

Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue – the Obama DOJ argued…as Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." … and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind – as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.

Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo. Notably, the district judge who so ruled – John Bates – is an appointee of George W. Bush…

Climate change

Obama then
During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama emphasized the need to combat global warming, saying “I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.”

Obama as president
It was widely recognized by climate scientists prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference of December 7-18 in Copenhagen, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, that failure would likely portend world-wide disaster. An article in Scientific American by Douglass Fischer, titled “What Would Failure at Copenhagen Mean for Climate Change”, written a month prior to the Summit, summed up the stakes:

Climate experts, scientists and negotiators say that, absent international agreement, the children and grandchildren of those living today will negotiate a world where planetary geo-engineering is a part of daily life, sea-walls defend coastal cities, the world's poor are hammered by drought, floods and famine and our planet is heading toward conditions unseen for the last 100 million years…

The accord that the 30 leading countries agreed upon dropped the goal of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050, despite the fact that our best climate scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid catastrophe. It retained a (non-binding) commitment to reducing global temperatures by 2050, but contained no concrete plans for achieving that goal. Consequently:

Many countries almost immediately tore to shreds the compromise plan that the group of 30 countries presented in the main hall. Those countries that could face destruction as a result of climate change, in particular, could not see any solutions in it. Now we are faced with the threat of an impasse in global climate politics. And the consequences of this holdup will primarily be felt by the poorest of the poor. Experts anticipate that they will be subjected to storms and flooding stronger than ever before. Their crops will wither. Melting glaciers might deprive several million people of their water supplies and deprive them of their livelihoods.

Later, the United States committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

An article in the Guardian by Suzanne Goldenberg, titled “Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints and Fuels Frustration at Copenhagen”, summarizes the disappointment over the lack of U.S. leadership felt by much of the world:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act "boldly and decisively" on climate change. But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders. He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement yesterday… He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organizations have been urging for months.

Economic issues

Obama then
Obama’s tax plan was in many ways the opposite of McCain’s. It would have reversed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while reducing taxes and simplifying filing for working and middle class Americans. Specifically, he said:

The Bush tax cuts – people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and they ought to be relaxed so we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.… We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same…. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

In addition to his tax proposals, Obama had an extensive economic plan, which included: fighting for “fair trade” instead of “free trade”, as manifested by NAFTA; job creation; restoring workers’ rights to unionize; the creation of a universal 10% mortgage credit to give relief to homeowners; a crackdown on mortgage company abuses; and a crackdown on predatory lending policies.

Obama as president
Far from reversing the Bush tax cuts, Obama waited until they were about to expire, and then he castigated progressive Democrats for not submitting to Republican blackmail to hold extension of unemployment benefits to the unemployed hostage to tax cuts for the rich. The first major clue to his plans to give in to Republican blackmail on this issue was when he clarified at the G20 Conference in Seoul his plans for dealing with it. At this conference Obama said, “I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it". What exactly does “temporary” mean in this context? These tax cuts have already been operating for close to close to 10 years, contributing to an ever-expanding income gap between the wealthy and ordinary Americans, which is tearing our country apart. What meaning did his pledge to reverse them have if he allows them to be continued to the end of his first term? When exactly does he intend to reverse them?

So far job creation has been negative during the Obama administration – representing the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover. One thing that could be said in Obama’s defense is that he has been president for only two years, and that he inherited a nation in economic crisis. That is true, but so did FDR. Yet the philosophy and actions of the two administrations have been very different. In fact, Obama’s philosophy leans towards the Republican side of the spectrum, as he made clear in a statement:

See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers… that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery. I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient.

He’s bragging about us being “the wealthiest nation on Earth” during the midst of an economic crisis that is driving millions of Americans into poverty? Worse than that, his actions have not been commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis: Though our best economists recommended a much stronger stimulus package, he decided instead to go with the advice of his much more conservative economic advisors; his solution to the home foreclosure crisis was “Making Home Affordable”, a program that William Kuttner explains in his book, “A Presidency in Peril”, was orders of magnitude more favorable to banks than to homeowners; his continuation of the Bush bailout of Wall Street without demanding much fiscal reform from Wall Street failed to improve our financial situation; and in his 2010 State of the Union message he indicated that deficit reduction would be a priority over stimulation of a stagnant economy. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s response was scathing in his criticism of that:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team… It’s appalling on every level. It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment… And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view.

And what happened to the Employee Free Choice Act he claimed to support?


Civil Rights

Obama then
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama described a plan to strengthen civil rights on his website. That included: overturning of the USSC decisions that weakened laws against employment discrimination based on race or sex – including passage of the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work; ending deceptive voting practices that prevent citizens from voting; a plan to end racial profiling; elimination of racial sentencing disparities for drug offenses; and the use of rehabilitation, where appropriate, to replace prison for first time non-violent drug offenders.

Obama as president
Obama did in fact sign equal pay legislation to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, early in his presidency. And he also signed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce extreme racial disparity in sentencing involving crack cocaine (more commonly used by blacks) vs. powder cocaine (more commonly used by whites). His administration also signaled a minor thaw in the “War Against Drugs” by announcing that it “will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws”. And he did authorize a review of mandatory minimum sentencing.

President Obama deserves credit for all of these things.


Health Care

Obama then
Obama offered a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” Unlike the McCain plan, this plan would have made healthcare coverage affordable for everyone, prohibited discrimination based on preexisting illness or health status, and substantially changed our current private for-profit insurance company domination of the market by making available to everyone a Medicare-like, government sponsored program as an alternative.

I noted at the time that some criticized Obama’s plan because it left the private for-profit insurance system intact. While it is true that private insurance companies would not have been prohibited under his plan, they would have been seriously wounded by the competition provided by the far superior government programs. That competition would have forced insurance companies to either provide a product comparable to the government insurance programs or else get out of the market. It would have been a vast improvement over our current situation, and there is every reason to believe it would eventually have morphed into a single payer system as private insurance companies decided that there isn’t enough profit left in the business to encourage them to stay in it (See Paul Krugman’s discussion of this issue).

Obama as president
The plan that Obama eventually offered the American people as president was nothing like the one he promised as a presidential candidate. Instead of a plan “similar to the plan available to members of Congress”, he offered us the option – or, rather, mandate – of purchasing a plan from the same health insurance industry that has consistently abused its near monopoly of its product for the past several years or decades – albeit restrained by some government regulation. Instead of a system that provides competition to that insurance industry he offered us a system that mandates most Americans to purchase health insurance from that same industry – thus solidifying their monopoly.

Worse yet, Obama didn’t even appear to fight for the plan that he promised the American people. It simply slipped off the table. Worse still, he didn’t even acknowledge his about-face. He unveiled his shocking surprise in a speech of September 2009, in which he said:

An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

In other words, the plan that as a candidate he offered to “all Americans” – the not-for-profit public option – was now being offered to “less than 5 percent of Americans”, as Obama struggled to make clear to the insurance industry that threatened to fight him tooth and nail at the slightest indication of competition to their racket.

But even that proved to be too much for the health insurance industry to accept. Obama was forced to take even his measly offering of 5% off the table – without a semblance of a fight.


Children

Obama then
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama produced an extensive plan to combat poverty if elected President. A plan to fight poverty, which disproportionately affects women and children in our country, is perhaps the one most important thing that a President could do for American children. In 2008, 14 million American children lived in poverty.

Obama as president
The poverty rate for 2009 was 14.3%, representing almost 44 million Americans in poverty – the highest U.S. poverty rate since 1994. More than 20% of those Americans are children, most who are considered to be living in food insecure households.

In short, our rising poverty rate is largely a function of the Obama administration’s too conservative approach to the economy in general. I discussed that above, so I won’t repeat it here.


Iraq

Obama then
During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq, while committed to meeting our humanitarian responsibilities there. He stated on his website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda…

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Obama as president
In September, 2010, Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, thus apparently fulfilling a major campaign promise. Some have reported additional evidence that the U.S. military is planning to exit Iraq, as in an article from August, 2010, titled “Obama is Also Pulling Equipment and Bases from Iraq”. And indeed U.S. military casualties in Iraq during the Obama administration have been only a small fraction of what they were during the Bush administration – only 60 U.S. dead in 2010 as of October of that year. But the extent to which Obama actually intends to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq is open to question. From “Business as Usual in Iraq” by Marjorie Cohn, one week after Obama’s announcement:

Last week, President Obama ceremoniously announced that U.S. combat operations had ended in Iraq… Obama felt he had to make good on his campaign promise to move the fighting from Iraq to Afghanistan. But while he has escalated the killing in Afghanistan, it’s business as usual in Iraq. The United States, with its huge embassy in Baghdad and five large bases throughout Iraq, will continue to pull the strings there…

Obama’s speech about withdrawing combat troops from Iraq is an effort to demonstrate compliance with the SOFA… But events on the ground reveal that he is playing a political version of the old shell game. As Obama proclaimed the redeployment of a Stryker battalion out of Iraq, 3,000 combat troops from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment redeployed back into Iraq from Fort Hood, Texas. And that cavalry regiment will have plenty of company. The State Department is more than doubling its “security contractors” to 7,000 to make sure U.S. interests are protected. And with them will come 24 Blackhawk helicopters, 50 Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles and other military equipment.

Fifty thousand U.S. military troops remain in Iraq. Forty-five hundred U.S. special forces troops continue to fight and kill with Iraqi special forces. American troops are still authorized to take preemptive action against any threat they perceive. The policy regarding air strikes and bombings will remain unchanged. And untold numbers of “civilian contractors” – more accurately called mercenaries – will stay in Iraq, unaccountable for their war crimes.

What about Obama’s promises regarding Iraqi refugees? The international Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services (IRIS) reported on this in June 2009:

So has Obama lived up to his promises ? Is his policy concerning Iraqi refugees considerably different from that of George W. Bush ? … Obama’s promise of change has not yet been realized. Granted, Obama has not yet held office for even half a year… However, the tens of thousands still awaiting resettlement in addition to the continued abysmal conditions of both Iraqis that have been resettled to the United States and also those living in countries neighboring Iraq serves as a stark reminder that significant progress is still much needed.

A report by Human Rights First in August 2010 documented little or no improvement, recommending that the Obama administration “should implement immediate changes that would prevent the unnecessary and prolonged detention of asylum seekers…”


Conclusion

Obama’s adherence to some of his civil rights related promises shows at least that his campaign promises means something to him. Why then has he broken so many of his most important promises?

The crucial factor appears to be the amount of pressure applied to him by powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations. Most of them are not much threatened by such things as equal pay for women or minor reforms of our “War on Drugs”. President Obama is often willing to enact progressive legislation if it’s not opposed by powerful interests.

But taking on the financiers of Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries, or seriously challenging the paradigm that excuses our shameful “War on Drugs” are entirely different matters. These people don’t tolerate changes to the status quo that threaten their wealth or power status. They aggressively use their money and control of national communications media, as well as (to an unknown extent) their control of the machines that register voters and count our votes, to influence elections and through that our elected representatives. It requires substantial moral courage to stand up to them.

But when it comes down to a choice of challenging these behemoths or giving in to them, Obama chooses the latter every time. Consequently, the wealth gap explodes, the American empire expands, planetary destruction portends widespread catastrophe, the economic and political power of the wealthy climbs to obscene levels, and the rest of us remain mired in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I for one no longer believe that Barack Obama has the ability or inclination to reverse these dangerous processes.

[jaxx]

1. I think you're wrong.

What you call giving in is compromise. It's what made this country and what kept it going. It isn't doing nothing and sitting with your arms crossed with a big fat NO plastered on your forehead. That is an attitude I hope he will never adopt. We've had enough of attitudes, now is the time for change, and it's happening.

[Time for change]

2. Consider climate change for example

Climate scientists tell him that we have to have 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid world-wide catastrophe. He settles for an agreement estimated to produce 4% by 2025. What kind of compromise is that?

[Exilednight]

89. That's the kind of compromise where the climate eventually wins over mankind. n/t

[Doctor_J]

8. He "compromised" with people who admit to wanting to destroy him

and basically got nothing in return. THat's weakness and appeasement, not governance.

[JTFrog]

18. Another Kevin James moment.

Brought to you by the New DU.

:eyes:

[jaxx]

31. That's guts.

What a shame you must try to destroy the President with ignorant words.

[Enthusiast]

55. Appeasement is an accurate word. nt

[Joe Fields]

57. You have it ass backwards. He is destroying us, to appease his masters.

On edit; if you don't understand that, then you can only be a mildly interested party to this whole debacle called the Obama presidency.

"Oh look, new shiny thing. Think I like it!!!"

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Foo Fighter]

128. LOL! n/t

[Romberry]

109. Wow. You really are the brown bear

Obama!

Ignorant words? That's funny. Ignorance means not knowing. The OP knows. That's the opposite of ignorance.

[axollot]

71. He doesnt even gain much in political capital so it makes little

sense on why?

Has the Democratic party really become the Regan Republicans? Has it stepped so far to the right that this is considered the new left?

Afraid it looks that way.

Cheers
sandy
who worked her arse off to help get him elected.

[Divernan]

21. It's the GOP which has "a big fat no" plastered on their foreheads

And it's working our for them beyond their wildest dreams and greediest expectations.


Compromise is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. For example, a public option, rather than single payer, would have been a compromise.

Obama is claiming that the "tax holiday" is a concession he won from the GOP, when this is a program the GOP and their think tanks have been pushing for years as the first step to weakening Soc. Sec., with the goal of privatizing it.

The tax holiday is no concession to Dems FROM the GOP; it is a monstrous concession from Obama TO the GOP.

What's next? Hypothetical: The all GOP Congress passes legislation mandating the death penalty for sodomy. Obama threatens to veto it and announces he will negotiate a "compromise". The GOP "caves" and magnanimously gives the condemned a choice between lethal injection and electrocution. Then when the ACLU & the progressive Dems protest, Obama announces he "gets it", ridicules the purist progressives, and goes back to the bargaining table and forces the GOP to add "drawing and quartering" to the choices. Another victory for Fearless Leader!

[sirthomas66]

23. It absolutely is not! The US is near collapse and Obama will simply

accelerate that process. Do you really think the way to handle desperate situations is to make the people resentful by catering to the rich while concurrently scaring the middle class and poor by putting into process the taking of their lifeline of retirement funds in jeopardy? You call what Obama is doing compromise? That's bullshit! Obama sold the farm at the last minute without letting his own Party participate in the planning! The Party obliged him so that unemployment payments will continue. And his strategy of giving money to the rich to create jobs will not work--never does. The rich are steering the Republicans now because the rich need the extra funds to maintain their elegant lifestyles while others starve.

[jaxx]

29. The poor and unemployed don't give a shit about the repubs tax cuts.

They need to survive and this will allow that. President didn't sell the farm, he plowed the fields for the next crop to save the people. You're so hung up on the rich that you would sell out the poor and think you're wise to do so. No way.

[Time for change]

33. If it's true that they don't give a shit about tax cuts for the rich -- which I doubt -- they should

give shit.

Where do you think the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich comes from? Do you believe that it just materializes out of thin air and doesn't hurt anybody? Do you actually believe that the rest of us don't have to pay for that?

[jaxx]

37. Do you actually know they've been around for 10 years

and 2 more isn't going to matter that much? People are concentrating on surviving, get off your high horse and realize not everyone lives politics like we do around here.

[Time for change]

39. Yes, they've been around for ten years, and look where they got us.

[jaxx]

40. The tax cuts didn't do it all to the economy.

Or are you going to put the housing bubble under the rug? Or the bank meltdown? Your comment makes little sense other than being anti.

[Time for change]

41. I didn't say that the bush tax cuts were solely responsible for the state of our economy

But they are terribly costly to our country, and the rest of us have to pay dearly for them. I asked you if you thought that the rest of us don't have to pay for them, and your response was to tell me to get off my high horse. Really intelligent answer.

[jaxx]

42. Yeah and you're welcome.

We pay for everything. I don't consider them any dearer than anything else, like bullets and planes and the rest of the stuff we pay for.

[bertman]

46. jaxx, it's not a matter of the tax cuts going for two more years being a terminal

problem; although it's a catalyst. It's that the 'tax cuts for the rich make the economy grow' propaganda slogan is DEAD WRONG and always has been. Historical analysis of economic trends shows that higher tax rates on the rich lead to a stronger, more vibrant domestic economy.

Apparently the people who are advising Presididn't Obama didn't bother to check the evidence before spouting off the same bullshit lie that the Bush Administration and the current Repuke leadership have been spouting for ten years while jobs and the economy have tanked.

It's the President's job to represent the best interests of the people of this country and not to represent the best interests of the wealthiest. A point that is lost on this President and his administration.

[jaxx]

48. The rightwing said tax cuts make the economy grow, not the President.

What he said is:

<...> Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.

<...> I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/06/statement-president-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-benefits

[Joe Fields]

63. You really should not hang on this guy's words. Words mean nothing to him.

He campaigned against the war.

We are still at war, two years into his presidency.

He was against rendition

We are still doing it.

He was against spying on our citizens.

We are still doing it.

Is there ANYTHING that YOU can point to that he has said, that he hasn't done a reversal on, or simply ignored?

[jaxx]

64. Many things....promises kept.

Look it up.

[axollot]

74. Au Contre - tis you sitting on a high horse....

You are way out of touch.

Cheers
Sandy

[sirthomas66]

36. Plowed the fields? LOL. No, he is scorching the earth. And so the

poor and unemployed not caring about tax cuts for the rich, makes them right. Real abstract.

[jaxx]

Ask the unemployed what was most important to them.

Ask the middle class if they wanted to lose the tax cuts right now when the economy is still struggling. Honestly, people here act like the most important people in the world are the rich.

[Angry Dragon]

45. The people that act like the rich are the most important

people in the world ARE THE RICH PEOPLE

[frylock]

47. you keep using the unemployed as a sheild for this crap deal when you know full well..

that the so-called 99ers didn't get jack shit.

[jaxx]

49. Are you saying the President should have compromised?

And it's damn weird that whatever he does isn't good enough for the naysayers. It's getting to be a joke. The butt of which isn't the President.

[frylock]

86. what i'm saying is you want to beat people over the head with this unemployment extension..

while completely overlooking the 99ers. and no, i don't want the president to make more compromise. i want the republicans to make SOME compromise.

[bertman]

50. Your argument assumes that the last month was the best time to try to

end the Bush tax cuts. You are wrong. The best time would have been before the last election in November. President Obama could have gone on national TeeVee and said to the American people: "The historical evidence shows us that lowering the tax rate on the richest Americans is a FAILED method of helping our economy. We are in the midst of an awful recession that requires extreme measures to repair. My administration and the Democratic party are going to fight for the 98% of the American people who need help and whose very lives and livelihood depend upon this economy continuing to gain strength. Therefore, we are going to pass legislation that allows the Bush tax cuts for the WEALTHIEST 2 PERCENT to expire at the end of 2010, BUT which keeps intact the tax cuts for the other 98% of Americans. The Republicans have declared that they will NOT support this effort to improve the economy and the lives of MOST Americans, so I call upon you, the people of this great nation, to call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that it's time to stop the handout to the RICHEST Americans when the rest of America is in need of help. This is not a partisan issue. It is a national crisis and it needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW. Please help me to get this legislation passed."

Instead, the President and the Democratic leadership put this off until after the election. Talk about shitty planning!! Talk about an administration that cannot see 100 feet ahead on its path!!

The fact is that President Obama had no intention of allowing those tax cuts to expire and he and his advisors allowed the timing and the tenor of the fight to be determined by the Repukes.

This is not leadership. It is capitulation and collaboration by the same man who set up a deficit commission that was populated by members who want to destroy the social safety nets of this nation.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Jaxx.

[jaxx]

51. He could have walked into the senate and beat the crap out of McConnell

and he'd be wrong as far as you're concerned. Don't tell me to smell the coffee, tell yourself that you are defeating yourself and your pals with the constant negative comments. If people are really that down on this country I wonder what motivates them. Hate? Revolution? It's sure nothing that bodes well for the USA.

[bertman]

61. Hate? Revolution? Where do you get off on saying that? I didn't say any of that.

You pulled that out of your ass.

You know very well that it's this President and his cowardly capitulation that I and others are "down on". If it makes you feel better, go on fantasizing about how much he's helping America with his Republican agenda. Meanwhile, this veteran who risked his fucking life for your right to speak your mind, will continue to speak his on behalf of making America the country that it should be.

[jaxx]

62. No I pulled it out of posts on this forum.

And LOL at the put down of the President....one more in a line of many trying to get by with calling him a republican. It's all be tried and said on here and I'm here to tell you that the whine is earsplitting from the far left. Whatever advantage they thought they has been used and abused until we get this crap. Good for you being in the military, now try supporting your Commander in Chief.

[Time for change]

65. We're under no obligation to support policies that we detest, nor are we under any obliation to

support a president who pushes policies that we detest. This isn't a dictatorship - yet.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[axollot]

77. Exactly nt

[unapatriciated]

99. .

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

and thank you.

[Enthusiast]

56. He sold the farm....nt

[Mojorabbit]

25. Torture did not keep this country going. nt

[jaxx]

30. How inadequate.

[Capitalocracy]

67. Torture? Pah!

Who cares about torture? This is America!!1!!! FTW!

[TBF]

28. lol - Do you ever read the entire OP or just send off your standard pro-Obama

post without thinking?

[L0oniX]

44. +1

[Lucian]

59. 1. Yes, there is change happening,

but to the middle and lower class. We're getting poorer. If making people poorer is called compromise, that's messed up.

2. Bush never compromised. He got what he wanted. Obama had a majority, could've done what he wanted, and didn't. He dropped the ball and we're all paying for it.

Open your eyes and see what's going on around you.

[Capitalocracy]

66. Apparently the big fat no is working. nt

[maryf]

75. NO compromise!!

we can't survive any more compromises...

[liberation]

87. Same argument could be thrown back at ya: what you call compromise can be aptly labelled giving in.

Since all you had as argument were at best red herrings. It is safe to assume that if fallacy was all you had to add to the conversation, than the OP has then won the argumentation.

Cheers.

[panzerfaust]

92. "... now is the time for change, and it's happening." Sadly, you are right.

The Change

No Reason To, Your Policies Live On


You might want to take this chance to actually read the OP. Sorry if it is a bit long, but there was a lot of change for the OP to document.

[roguevalley]

106. compromise means something is gotten for what is given

since we are holding the short and dirty end of the stick, I think compromise is a nice word for caving. and it sucks.

[Romberry]

108. Reminds me of a recent YouTube video

Welcome to the Progressive Internet Forum

Perfect.

[nashville_brook]

3. going forward, it's going to be hard for Dems to sell themselves as having "a plan"

since the party elite clearly have no interest in fighting for these plans once they are elected.

[Skink]

4. I was going to vote for Edwards.

Why is it progressives have these scandals?

[midnight]

6. I was wondering the same thing.

[wildbilln864]

5. k&r! nt

[Karenina]

7. I hope I find the ability and energy to challenge you on a few points...

and the ABJECT FAILURE of Amis (früher CITIZENS, jetzt CONSUMERS/SERFS/PEONS/DIMWITS... Those Black Friday stampedes were a high point) who have completely abdicated their responsibility to maintain their "democracy" or the enlightened document they've inherited. Personalizing it onto Julian or Barry is missing the point by concentrating on the MESSENGER rather than the content of the message.

Questions:

How many on this thread have heard of Sigmund Freud?

How many recognize the name Edward Bernays?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mojw7DIpu1k

How many will make the connexion between toys and "Happy Meals?" :rofl:

How many will make the connexion between "presidents" and entrenched (for farkin' CENTURIES) wealth and power?

How many can define the word "ingenue?" That clean bill of health from WS in July(?) 2008 set the stage as I saw it. :shrug:

And did you see THIS???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbxov7CVi8

[Time for change]

19. I look forward to it

This is a very complicated and important subject.

:hi:

[Dystopian]

9. KandR.

peace~

[laugle]

10. Thanks so much for taking the

time to post an in depth analysis. It reminds me of why I became a member here. Agree or disagree, no one can accuse you of not being thorough..............Kudos to you!

[Time for change]

100. Thank you

[bertman]

11. Rec. Excellent post. Had he lost the battles after a FIGHT I could still be

supportive, but to NOT EVEN TRY to rally the people is unforgivable, especially given the immense good will and momentum he had when he took office.

Capitulation--not Compromise--has been the mode of operation for this administration.

I can't decide if he saw the intensity of the power of the opposition and lost his nerve, or if he decided that he'd made his mark on history so he could ease off the gas and become an administrator instead of a leader.

[bluethruandthru]

24. Agreed. If he had fought tooth and nail but still lost, I would be his

biggest supporter. Rather than fight the republicans and their lies...he just gives in to their demands. The more he caves, the bolder they get. Sad.

[oldlib]

12. You did a thorough analysis

of Obamas' position then and now and are to be commended. It is heart wrenching to realize this truth about the man.

[20score]

13. Great post, as usual.

[DeSwiss]

14. K&R n/t

[Edweird]

15. “The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.” - Gloria Steinem

[Senator]

16. Has he "banned" rape and murder too? (Sorry, no credit.)

He has simply refused to abide by and enforce the laws and treaty obligations our greater generations fought and died to forge.

If anything, his masturbatory "banning" display -- by definition -- attempts to arrogate to himself the power to "unban" by fiat that which has been a US felony and a war crime for decades, and legally remains so.

His refusal to prosecute alone has secured his place in history as President Torture Too. And worse, has rendered our once-great nation a Torture State.

The Driver of the Torture Getaway Car will be his ONLY legacy.

---

[mmonk]

17. I concur. I just don't know what to do about it.

And the more pressure from us the voter and/or activist, he seems to dig his heels further in on the side of those powerful interests. So I throw up my hands. This latest bill seems like a bill too far.

[placton]

20. yep you are wrong

Obama lied his way into the White House, and the real man is who has governed, and destroyed the Democratic Party (certainly, with lots of help)

[Time for change]

22. I make no claims about the sincerity of Obama's rhetoric in 2008

I believed he was sincere at the time.

Now I have serious doubts about that. Whether he lied his way into the White House, or whether he changed course after being elected -- for any one of several potential reasons -- is something I've thought a lot about, but I just can't tell. I suspect you're correct, but I have no way of knowing.

[Overseas]

26. Sad K&R. //nt

[Hamlette]

27. an absolute tragedy that he considers his circumstances

like congress

[Pisces]

32. Your conclusion is lacking analysis of the worst economic climates in history.

To tackle these behemoths as you put it, would have a direct impact on employment. Unfortunately big business still employees many people. Banks still lend to people.
We can not dismantle the giant institutions while trying to prevent another Great Depression. The President must make choices from the bad or terrible options given to him. So sorry that many
of the ideologues and purists try hard not to understand that the President is helping the majority of Americans.

A group of people work hard to tear down the people working the hardest. You don't have to agree with everything the President does, but also admit that you don't have all of the information
the President does when he is making the best of the worst choices.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. the President does when he is making the best

of the worst choices.


Leadership.... Presidential Power.. what a bunch of crap.

[Time for change]

38. Yes, tackling the behemoths would have a direct impact on employment

It would increase it substantially. Our best economists told him that he needed a bigger stimulus package. But that would leave less money for billionairres, so he went with his more conservative economic advisors who got us into this mess. Why do you think that the Obama has the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover?

And he gives away a multi-trillion dollar bailout to the big banks without requiring any fiscal reform on their part. Do you not believe that Wall Street was largely responsible for creating our current economic crisis, and that regulatory reforms are required to help get us out and prevent this from recurring?

[Angry Dragon]

123. Who's fault is it that we do not have all the information??

Why is the president treating us like 2 year olds??
"Mommy and daddy know best, don't worry your little head over it??

I want to know the facts, has nothing to do with national security, so tell us the facts.
How hard is that??

If he wants to make decisions in a vacuum then he deserves all the abuse he is getting.

[Hello_Kitty]

127. In the immortal words of great intellect and moral philosopher

Britney Spears in 2003: "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

[azul]

35. The world really needed help after the illegal presidency

had about ruined the USA and the rule of law. Expectations were very high that the mandate for real change would be taken up and advanced by whomever was elected in the opposition party.

But this president is just a politician after all, presented to get the disenfranchised debtors to work harder for change, change that is then perverted at each opportunity. The process that selected him to even be a contender for this office is so corrupt that people are desolated when they realize that they have been cruelly hoaxed and their voting power abused: broken.

It is the corrupt power of corporations running victory laps around the power of the people in the government of the people by the people and for the people.

Overextended debt and stupid betting and unchecked greed will undo the corporate power eventually, but will it be too late for species extinctions and massive suffering and deaths? What is the plan, or is there any?

[DemReadingDU]

43. +++

[ooglymoogly]

52. Welcome to the fast growing club.

I have been screaming about this man from shortly after he took office and began veering sharply to the right of his rhetoric and realizing this was not 3 dimensional chess, but just a cynical con to get himself elected. Not batshit crazy enough to get elected as a republican; eager to show the right how really dedicated he is to their causes of capturing every last resource at the expense of his constituents and the folks of this country; advising the well healed in no uncertain terms, ("I am not who you think I am") to disregard his talk and watch his walk.

With the tax cuts for the rich and the death tax piled on top of all the rest of the welfare for the rich...I think they have finally got it, while many laissez-faire democrats, still have not.

Watch now as the MSM begins raising his popularity amongst the "prols" which, contrary to what is said by the beltway pundits and what the fixed gimmicky pols are saying, projecting essentially what the string pullers are thinking. His popularity is in free fall amongst grass roots democrats. Just ask any politically active democrat you know; or hear what folks are saying round the water cooler; and particularly round the pickle barrels of sites like this one. His popularity amongst the very well off will skyrocket. Grass roots Democrats, on the other hand, who keep themselves educated, have taken his measure and found it wanting.

I will work my ass off for a true democrat challenger. We all know who the folks who fit that bill are.

[oldlib]

80. I too will support a Democratic challenger

to Obama in 2012. He has just gone to far in his support of Republican policies and unless he can make some dramatic changes he is toast in the 2012 primary.

[ooglymoogly]

53. KR for a good post.

[Enthusiast]

54. K&R I wish I could disagree.

But you are spot on. I am devastated by Obama's betrayals. I think I am even more devastated by this latest disappointment than the others. I fear for social security now after the payday holiday was enacted.

[gulliver]

58. You have the same problem a lot of people do.

You hear what you want to hear, and you base your expectations on illusions. Obama is roughly what he has always been, rhetorically and in the actions he takes on a daily basis. You, as your post inadvertently confesses, have been all over the game board. The "then and now" is mainly in your head. You thought Obama would do one thing and he did another, and you were mistaken over and over again. That's either Obama letting you down repeatedly or you simply not being very perceptive.

Occam's Razor says it is the latter. You and those who think like you hear promises and commitments that were never and could never have been responsibly made. Then, you overreact to what you perceive as negative results, choosing the most rhetorically negative interpretation you can. In short, your mental strategy maximizes disappointment.

If you want to feel helpless, angry, and betrayed all the time, you have found the formula. I don't recommend it.

[Capitalocracy]

69. Occam's Razor says it is the former. Politicians lie.

Obama made all of those campaign promises. When? During the campaign. Before he started governing like a Republican. Before, after. Promise, broken promise. Obama has been letting us down repeatedly. Promise after promise, position after position, the difference between campaign Obama and President Obama is night and day.

On the campaign trail, he said a health care mandate would be like solving the homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a house.
On the campaign trail, he was against the Bush tax cuts. He said Gitmo would be closed immediately.

If you read the OP, it's not a list of illusions about what people thought Obama would do, it's a list of things Obama SAID he would do, and in some cases did, but in too many cases, did the exact opposite.

[Time for change]

72. Mainly in my head?

I quoted his promises from 2008 in the OP. Did you read it? Which ones do you think I made up?

[gulliver]

88. Believe it or not.

The things you are calling promises aren't promises. For example, in your quote above, Obama doesn't say, "I will negotiate a treaty in Copenhagen that will replace Kyoto and solve global warming." He just says, "I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."

To suggest that the strong effort Obama made in Copenhagen is somehow even in substantial contrast to this quote, much less a broken promise or betrayal, is just mistaken. If Obama wanted to betray environmentalists and disavow climate science, he could have just done what Bush did with Kyoto and dumped Copenhagen entirely. Instead, Obama got what he could get, admitted it was not enough, and has maintained a steady commitment since then. There is no surrender and certainly no betrayal.

I did read your OP before posting. The rest of the "then and now" entries have a similar pattern. Imply an extravagant promise with little or no justification. Overstate the negative or insufficient aspects of results to date, quoting the most disappointed sources possible. Infer that betrayal, surrender, or failure has occurred.

It isn't just you. The reason I am picking on you is that you took the trouble to write out what quite a few other people are doing purely in their heads: setting themselves up for disappointment and maximizing the disappointment by salting their own wounds.

[Time for change]

94. Obama didn't get what he could in Copenhagen, because he didn't even try

He settled for something which our climate scientists say will destroy the planet. No, he didn't dump it entirely because he wanted to maintain the appearance that he was doing something of value.

[panzerfaust]

91. "Obama is roughly what he has always been"

True.

He is just not what he SAID that he was - or, at least, has not done what he SAID that he would.

"You and those who think like you hear promises and commitments that were never and could never have been responsibly made" Seems to me that the OP documented those "imagined" promises quite well by quoting candidate Obama and comparing those statements to the actions of president Obama.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f98opUNuVXc/S_1OmB4w2bI/AAAAAAAAPyo/HatBelPoKr8/s400/Spin+cat.jpg

De Nile ain't just a river in Africa.

[WiffenPoof]

60. I would Only Add This Point...

I still have enough faith in this country and our democratic system that I believe that the people still have influence...sometimes immediate influence.

This brings me to the point that this Administration is unbelievably weak in the area of messaging. I understand that the bully pulpit is not the magic bullet that some would have us believe. However, President Obama has been missing a golden opportunity to rally the American people to his side. President Obama is a gifted speaker. His response to the Rev. Wright issue during the campaign was one of the most effective speeches that I have ever heard.

Facing the "behemoths" that seemingly prevent him from enacting progressive change is difficult at best. However, the American people are a powerful force that can wield considerable influence on our elected officials. Since the campaign, President Obama has not taken his case to the American people. Of course, now it is much more difficult to do than it would have been two years ago. having said that, I still believe that he needs to use all of the tools available to him. One would be to rally support from his constituents.

-PLA

[Capitalocracy]

68. The bully pulpit may not be a magic bullet

but it's an important tool of governance that Obama has decided to abstain from using except in campaigning against progressive candidates and causes.

I think that's pretty damning evidence as to whose side he's on.

[democracy1st]

73. K & R

[DFab420]

76. Hey did you hear this too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_5_n_798636.html

I can't believe how much Obama gives up, he obviously doesn't like the LGBT community because he did it the hard way and got this passed into law through the houses right?

:SARCASM::crazy:

[BlueCheese]

79. Why is it that...

... when ending DADT was being endlessly delayed, it was always Congress' fault, because, you know, the president isn't the king of Congress.

But the instant it passes, it's because of Obama?

[Hello_Kitty]

121. And the DREAM Act, which failed as DADT passed

Totes the fault of Congress. Can't blame Pres. Obama for that!

[Time for change]

81. He didn't have to go up against Wall Street or the health insurance industry on that

If he did, do you think he would have done it?

[Crystal Clarity]

78. Yes, I'm annoyed w/President Obama too

Despite the climate in Washington, I think he could have done better. But I'm also irritated w/the non-stop, constant criticism of him... Have any of you actually been politicians yourselves? If not, please understand that change, while working w/in the system is not as easy as it may appear, even on local levels.

I always find it odd when I enter this forum... I've (on several occasions) come in here with ideas (such as Clean Elections) that could make a HUGE difference in how Government is run in our nation's Capitol, yet it usually drops off the front page very quickly in favor of yet more grumbling, and ironically on occasion, even more complaints involving money and politics... Ummm wtf?

I don't give a crap if what I have to say is popular among DUer's, but I DO care about what is, and is not working for us, as I know the rest of you do. We are ALL unhappy. Airing of grievances/constructive criticism toward President Obama/members of Congress is NOT a bad thing. Quite the contrary IMHO.

However, at some point, is there a way we can actually begin a dialog about what WE can do as opposed to what one man (or member(s) of Congress) can do fix ALL OF IT themselves? They are working w/in a F'd up system and until we, the people demand change, I doubt anyone but God can do a thing about it.

-just sayin... I know I'll be flamed on this and will TRY not to be drawn in, as I don't view that as being productive either.

I KNOW from reading DU long enough that we all want the same things. I just wish we could find proactive ways in which we could be united enough to deal with them together. There is strength in numbers and DU has them, it's just too bad (again imho) that we cannot seem to find a way to use these numbers to our advantage.

[Time for change]

83. You don't think that discussing the actions of our President and our other elected representatives

is a productive use of our time? They're supposed to be working for us, and as citizens we're responsible for evaluating their actions and deciding whether or not they remain in office. Constructive criticism of our elected representatives is one of the most useful things we can do as citizens IMO.

[Crystal Clarity]

84. Please re-read paragragh #3 nt.

[Time for change]

85. Ok, I hadn't read that carefully enough

But your next paragraph seems to contradict that, even though it may not technically do that. We have a representative form of government. We don't make our laws, and we don't run our government ourselves. We elect others to do that. So with regard to your question, "Is there a way we can actually begin a dialog about what WE can do as opposed to what one man (or member(s) of Congress) can do fix ALL OF IT themselves?", it seems to me that talking about and to the people whom we elect IS the most productive thing we can do. Yes, they DO have to fix it themselves, because they are the ones who were elected to do that. Our job is to make clear to them what we want them to do, and why we want them to do it, and work to elect those who we believe will do the right thing.

[bongbong]

82. Sign of things to come

I donated both time (3 days canvassing) and money (credit card) to Obama. I haven't donated money in a long time to a politician.

Immediately after I donated money my credit card number was stolen and a few thousand was charged on it. Luckily my bank (curiously, citibank) reversed all the charges.

I wonder if the NSA/etc was intercepting credit card #s used for Obama donations to cause trouble for the card holders? Although this is a highly unlikely conspiracy theory, one thing is true for sure.

Obama reminded me why I don't give money or time to politicians.

[panzerfaust]

93. Picture of things to come

One of my many problems is that I spend a lot of time reading history.

[davidwparker]

95. Thanks for compiling this. What I was going to do before

2012 was to compare Obama as president to McCain as candidate and then see how much difference there really was.

Glad Nancy was able to get DADT as a single item on the bill and the senate passed it. Obama, are you now going to tell your AG to stop the appeal of its Constitutional-ality?

Good job, Nancy. You made it easy for Obama again. And, also thanks to the Log Cabin Republicans who brought the suit in the first place and lit the fire under everyone.

[russspeakeasy]

96. Wow ! What a post. I don't forgive and I don't forget.

Many thanks for the post and the links..

[Lorien]

98. Many do, though. Note how the repeal of DADT has those who were pissed about the tax cuts

for the wealthy 100% on board with Obama again. He knows how to manipulate some of his base, that's for certain.

[Uncle Joe]

97. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Poboy]

101. highly recommend.

[The Doctor.]

102. So with the inevitability of the end of DADT upon us,

and his fulfillment of a promise, you feel the need to tell us how awful he is.

Nothing interesting about that kind of timing at all.

[Time for change]

103. I guess that makes up for

not fighting for climate change legislation that will prevent world-wide catastrophe that our children and grandchildren will have to live - or die - with. After all, the oil companies tell us that it's not a problem, so why worry about it.

[The Doctor.]

104. Right, he can do no right... I get it.

Just for a moment, I'd like to have a discussion between these particular extremes so many cherish.

1) I'm disappointed in him.
2) I'm not naïve enough to believe he ever had the power to challenge the corporations directly.

I wanted him to deal with every single thing you've outlined and more. I know that he wanted to, it was his whole reason for running for every office he held. I know this because I bothered to take the time to research the man. Anyone who thinks he is in office for different reasons did not bother to understand him. I stand on that and would have very little difficulty showing it.

Personally, I'd like to think that if I were in his position, I would pursue such an agenda regardless of the perils. I don't know what those perils might be.

I have little doubt that he does.


We have long been a nation manipulated by powers greater than those of the President. The fact that he's dancing around the issues that will directly affect the super-rich and corporations while doing what he can on social agendas they don't give a fuck about should provide you with some enlightenment. If not, well then... rage away.

[Time for change]

105. You know that he wanted to deal with all of these issues

Fine. I judge our elected officials on what they do much more on what I guess that they want to do.

Anyhow, I wouldn't characterize this OP as "raging away". I simply point out the differences between what he said he would do and what he actually has done as president. I don't believe that I characterized his motives for doing that.

[The Doctor.]

107. I find it difficult to give the BOTD

When you choose to deliberately post a reminder of every shortcoming of Obama's that would impact a Democratic community on the day of one of his significant promises becoming an imminent reality.

You cannot and will not accept that the man is doing good simply because he hasn't done everything good that we all want. Those of us with realistic expectations understand that was never going to happen... no matter how badly we wanted it.

We are not up against Obama, no matter how you wish to paint him. We are up against something far more insidious and potent.

Again, if you cannot grasp this, then our conversation is over.

[Time for change]

112. Oh bullshit

I never said that he hasn't done any good. But overall his presidency has been a dismal failure, as highlighted by the overwhelming rejection of his policies on the recent Election Day. He hasn't done everything good, you say? He has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover. He's done almost nothing to stave off the pending planetary descruction of climate change. He's contributed greatly to the greatest wealth gap in the history of our country.

The timing of my OP had nothing to do with DADT. I've been consistently criticizing Obama since he became president and immediately began breaking his campaign promises.

Of course we are up against something much more potent than Obama. But he's our president, and as such it is his responsibility to fight against that something. And he's utterly failed -- or refused -- to do that.

[The Doctor.]

116. There was a clue in the phrase "much more potent".

I agree that he should be willing to sacrifice himself to bring about real progress, but at some point he's seen that there is no break-even point after such a sacrifice.

Therefore, it only makes sense to continue along doing whatever good he can rather than precluding such effect by throwing himself or others away on more spectacular pursuits.

So far, he has done exactly that. If you look at his record, and the sponsorship of his attackers, it is very clear who his real adversaries are.

[Sheepshank]

110. In US Politics, without Compromise, there is nothing

In the Senate, a majority doesn't win. How many times to we have to see a bill fail because the minority won on the "no" vote?

Gawd, not understanding this basic concept is getting too stupid here. I take that back, for many it's not a misunderstanding at all, it's well understood misrepresented premise here by some who have a different purpose for posting here, than an honest progressive one. Clearly, this is not about the right to dissent and still be a progressive, this is about those who have a very different agenda in mind than making sure the GOP stay out of the Whitehouse.

Don't like the word compromise?...then grow up. This is not the sandbox where the bully takes all. Compromise happens during a negotiation. Something that grown ups do. The bills we get passed were negotiated so the minority can't hold it back or kill it completely. To wish that Obama was the type of dictator that could get all that he wanted is so pathetically naive. We know what he was shooting toward via his platform. We know what he got via Rep hold out. For those that want a dictator and hope that dictator values are identical to their own, move to N Korea, see how you like them apples.

[Time for change]

114. I would not characterize the things I described in this OP as "compromises"

They were more like capitulations to the Republican Party and the corporations that support them.

[Hello_Kitty]

120. Then stop acting like we "won" things that we didn't.

In the tax cut compromise the SS tax cut and extension of several middle class tax credits were NOT victories for the Dems. They were things the GOP likes. The ONLY thing we really got out of the deal was the UI extension and the extension of some tax credits for lower income people. And trading Making Work Pay for the payroll holiday results in an increase in taxes in 2011 from 2010 for people making less than $20K.

All in all, we got HOSED in that compromise.

[Raster]

111. Again, Time for change, outstanding!

Our mistake was to believe the PR. We really should have known better. Obama is not here to right the wrongs. Obama is here to make the wrongs just a tad more palatable. For all practical purposes and with minimal hyperbole, the government of the United States and the elected officials thereof, including the President of the United States, no longer serve the best interests of the people of the United States. This is no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people. This is a government that has evolved to serve it's corporate masters.

Obama is just a kindler, gentler priest of the plutocracy. The same horse, just a different color.

[Poboy]

113. kick

[closeupready]

115. K&R

n/t

[Piggy56]

117. Glass half full

Bush gave us 8 years of an empty glass.
I was hoping for a full glass from Obama but we ended up with a glass half full. Obama could have done better and so could congress. So could we the voters. The dem turnout was dismal in 2010. We do that again in 2012 and we will have a repug government and an empty glass. McCain would have left the glass empty had he been elected in 2008 and Palin or Romney will empty it if elected in 2012. Obama or not, we must keep the White House in dem hands.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[L0oniX]

119. Kick

[Rex]

122. Looks like except for a small, very misinformed minority, everyone here

agrees with you to a certain extent.

[Karenina]

124. Who does?

"I for one no longer believe that Barack Obama has the ability or inclination to reverse these dangerous processes."

Please find that person, put the full force of your power behind him/her and PRIMARY that weak, duplicitous sucker currently squatting in People's House!

:kick:

[Karenina]

125. I'm not accustomed to having posts deleted.

and am so saddened by the lack of critical thinking. KILL THE MESSENGER. Wikileaks reveals the duplicity. Everyone is concentrated on blond boy. Obama's presidency lays bare the incredible level of dysfunction within the gub'mint. Everyone is concentrated on "black" "boy."



Where is McLuhan when you need him? ;-)

[MisterP]

126. that toon is HILARIOUS in hindsight nt

[mdmc]

129. ..