HERE's why we are keeping the heat on Mr. Obama!

[reformist2]

Read this excerpt from the lead story in today's Wall Street Journal:

"The year-end budget problems represent a major test of how Mr. Obama will lead in his second term, not just in negotiating with Republicans but in managing his own political base.

He is under pressure to take a hard line from activist groups as well as from many congressional Democrats, who returned Tuesday for a lame-duck session elated by their party's gains in last week's elections. Democrats picked up at least six seats in the House and dashed expectations they might lose their Senate majority by picking up two more seats in the chamber."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578117152861144968.html

=====

Republicans and business leaders need to know that Obama is feeling pressure to do what we expect, and that there is little chance they are going to get him to cave. And today they're reading that there is a lot of pressure indeed.

We make lots of noise, reporters pick up on this and include it in their articles, and then Republicans read about it and scale back their expectations. This is how democracy works. If you don't like people making noise about what they care about, you are free to turn off your computer. But don't tell us to behave.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Yes indeed........this IS why.

[Liberalynn]

4. +1

[byeya]

2. A Democratic centrist: He'll stumble forward if he's shoved hard enough.

[pnwmom]

3. You mean President Obama?

I don't know why we can't at least pay him that much respect.

[Liberalynn]

7. +1

[Wait Wut]

9. Yep.

I sort of blew off the rest of the post because of that little slip up.

[MineralMan]

5. Mr. Obama?

Really?

The Wall Street Journal's style sheet says to call him President Barack Obama as the first mention in an article, which they did in this one. You quoted from later in the article, in part of the article only available to subscription holders. After the initial use of President Barack Obama, the WSJ often refers to the President as Mr. Obama. Many newspapers do the same thing, but they almost all refer to him with his proper title in their first reference to him.

I'd suggest that you copy their style in the future. It's a matter of respect for the office of the President of The United States.

[Spazito]

6. Is there a problem using the proper designation, President Obama?

I have noticed some on DU tend to avoid using President Obama at all, use Mr. Obama instead. It is....interesting, to say the least.

The media uses President Obama for their first reference and then might use Mr. Obama after unless, of course, they are rabid right wing media outlets. The WSJ IS owned by Rupert Murdoch, right wing media mogul.

[MineralMan]

8. The WSJ also uses the full designation

as the initial reference. They did in the article being quoted from, as well. Later references can use other forms. What is quoted here comes later in the article, and is visible only to subscribers.

[Spazito]

10. Yes, I figured they did, my intent was to point out the WSJ is a right wing rag...

and that it is often the right wing that refuses to acknowledge that Obama IS the President and use Mr. instead.

[MineralMan]

12. A right wing rag, to be sure.

But even they give the President his due title. Our OP, here, didn't show even that amount of respect, and I think it's telling.

[Spazito]

13. Yep, telling indeed, imo. n/t

[reformist2]

17. Umm, the New York Times also calls him Mr. Obama. It's standard practice.

[Spazito]

19. I think you will find they use President Obama in their first reference...

Some examples, just from today's NYT:

WASHINGTON — Finally, President Obama is holding a news conference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/us/politics/obama-holds-first-news-conference-since-june.html?ref=politics

President Obama reassured leaders of labor and progressive groups on Tuesday that he will not yield to Congressional Republicans and extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as he negotiates for a deficit-reduction plan to avoid looming tax increases and spending cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/politics/obama-tells-labor-leaders-hell-stand-tough-in-budget-talks.html?ref=politics

Having helped President Obama win re-election, labor leaders will meet with him on Tuesday and intend to offer their robust support for what they view as his mandate: stand tough against cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and keep pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/politics/unions-offer-support-for-president-obamas-tax-plan.html?ref=politics

I could continue but I think my point is made. The first reference to President Obama in all these articles USE President Obama, it is only after giving the President the respect he has earned that they use the Mr. title.

[reformist2]

21. I'm aware. It's also no disrepect for me to call him Mr. Obama in a post on DU.

[Spazito]

22. I disagree, it is, imo, a sign of disrespect to start off with "Mr." especially...

on a site that supports the President and accords him the respect he is due.

Why the refusal to use the designation "President Obama"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. You're kidding, right?

We make lots of noise, reporters pick up on this and include it in their articles, and then Republicans read about it and scale back their expectations.

First, we make noise (and) reporters pick up on this ... only because it gives them something to write about; "see Democrats are unhappy with (President) Obama's leadership ... WE NEED A LEADER!" Never-mind that the majority of Democrats have few, if any, problems with the substance of President Obama's leadership style, only the style.

Secondly, "then Republicans read about it and scale back their expectations"? In what world?

[reformist2]

16. In what world? They're already scaling back, thanks to people speaking out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. They are NOT scaling back ...

Because of anything Democrats are saying, critical/challenging, of President Obama ... They're scaling back because of what the election results said and what the semi-sane wing of the gop is saying. In fact, the gop, seeing cracks in the Democratic ranks, is emboldened by the approach that you are advocating.

[bluestate10]

30. I agree. nt

[RepublicansRZombies]

14. Thank you! We won this election on the internet, WE have the power now!

All the money from the Koch's, all the liars on the corporate media...

and WE WON the messaging by spreading the truth on the internet.

WE are the ones we have been waiting for.

[kestrel91316]

15. I'm pretty sure you mean PRESIDENT Obama, right?

[FredStembottom]

20. Thank you, r2.

I didn't help elect a savior or an idol. I helped elect a talented guy who needs to know what we now expect from his 2nd term.

Please ignore the contingent that feels that democracy is a type of worship service.

Speak up, everyone! What will improve your life? What won't? You are just as free to speak as anyone else.

Advocate for policies not personalities!

[pnwmom]

23. Calling the President by his proper title isn't a type of "worship service."

It isn't an honorary title he inherited from his father. It's a title he earned from his hard work, and from the votes of millions of Americans.

Calling him "Mr. Obama" is something the GOP and Faux news likes to do, to diminish him. They still haven't gotten over the fact that an African American displaced the Bush monarchy.

[nc4bo]

27. What should really peel the wallpaper is how many times I hear pundits refer to him as "Obama"

I can accept POTUS, President Obama, Mr. Obama but "Obama" makes me so mad my eyes water.

[FredStembottom]

28. I agree.

It was explained elsewhere that the initial President Obama salutation was ahead of the snip the OP'er made.

All's well.

[pnwmom]

29. That's true, but the subject line is what I was objecting to. n/t

[FredStembottom]

32. Understood.

...and I agree with you.
Very much like someone saying "Democrat party" .

[pnwmom]

34. Yes -- like that. n/t

[kentuck]

24. This whole debate reminds me of the healthcare debate at the beginning of the first Administration..

They kept talking and they kept giving up their position and they kept moving to the right - and still got lambasted and shellacked in the 2010 election. The more they try to compromise, the more they get screwed.

[pnwmom]

25. How could it? Nothing has happened yet. And nothing about the President's press conference

makes it sound as if he's moving to the right.

[cthulu2016]

33. And the same folks saying every week that

the changes were just what an anonymous source said, then just a proposal, then not actually what had been added if you looked at it sideways in the right light, and then finally saying is was a really good thing, and always had been.

I do not understand the "government works best when you keep your mouth shut" crew. Never have, never will.

[sabrina 1]

26. We picked up EIGHT seats, not six, in Congress, maybe one more. Reducing the majority significantly

and warning Republicans that they will lose more seats if they continue to refuse to represent the will of the people.

Good article otherwise. Just wanted to correct that.

[JNelson6563]

31. Yes, posting on DU

as much negative speculation as you can come up with is awesome!1!