Sanders: Obama lost touch with grass-roots movement

[n2doc]

WASHINGTON — President Obama's biggest political mistake was losing touch with the grass-roots movement that helped him get elected, Sen. Bernie Sanders told USA TODAY's editorial board Monday.

Sanders, a Vermont independent who is considering a presidential bid, said Obama ran a "historical" and "extraordinary" 2008 campaign.

"I believe that no president, no matter what his or her views, no matter how smart he or she may be, is ever going to accomplish anything for the working class and the middle class in this country without the active — italicized — active continuous support of grass-roots America," Sanders said during an hourlong, wide-ranging discussion.

After the 2008 election, Sanders said, Obama believed incorrectly he would be able to negotiate with Republicans, including now-House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

Sanders said he agrees with Obama on many issues, disagrees with him on some and considers the president "one of the smartest guys who's ever been in the White House."

more

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/02/23/bernie-sanders-obama-grass-roots/23877153/

[Skittles]

1. crazy that Obama ever thought he could negotiate with repukes

it's like he never noticed how they behaved before he was elected

[truebluegreen]

16. Or that he believed more in his own idea of himself

i.e. that he could reach an agreement with anyone. Personally I think that is why he was so slow to learn the lesson that was blindingly clear to many of us.

[bvar22]

23. ...or, at least that was the cover story. (N/T)

I personally believe Obama was/is smart enough to know exactly what he is doing in helping to cement in NoeLiberal (Republican) Policy....like a a mandate for every American buy "insurance" from For Profit Corporations.

[randys1]

26. pfft...sigh

[joshcryer]

59. Christ.

He campaigned on making private insurers do health care.

He campaigned on it. That was his campaign promise.

What the ever living fuck.

[cui bono]

98. Key word "campaigned".

He got what he wanted then he pushed the liberals aside. He sure fought hard when he was campaigning to get himself elected, where was the fire when he was "negotiating" with the GOP? No where. He gave away the farm before they even sat down at the table.

I too believe he is an exceptionally smart person. There is no way he doesn't know what we all know, doesn't see what we all see. But he told us to STFU.

[joshcryer]

112. It was a campaign promise.

Any other idiotic crap is so stupid. Is basically saying you voted for the guy who promised to do all the right wing crap you ascribe to him. It is beyond absurd. Asinine.

The ACA was a campaign promise!

[cui bono]

116. So leaving the grass roots behind was a campaign promise?

Link please....

And the Public Option as part of the ACA was the campaign promise. Come on, really.

Oh, and you failed to address my post so I'm not sure why you responded.

[bvar22]

109. He "campaigned" on many things...

...that were thrown in the trash on day one of his presidency:
*immediately re-negotiate NAFTA

*"make EFCA the Law of the Land"

*Raise the CAP on Social Security

*Label our food with GMO and Country of origin "because Americans have a right to know what they are eating."

*Exchanges "with a Public Option".

Your plaintive cries of but he campaigned on this hold no water.

[joshcryer]

111. Absolutely idiotic.

You insulted him for living up to a campaign promise. A promise made before anyone voted for him.

[bvar22]

113. Speaking of idiotic, something you are personally familiar with,

the Campaign Promise was to include a Public Option.
I pity those with poor (or convenient) memories.
I happen to have a good memory,
AND I save the video.

[joshcryer]

114. LOL, it continues!

I'm cracking up at this beyond silly absurdity.

Obama does something he campaigned on and all these stupid conspiracies crop up.

So stupid.

[cui bono]

119. Welcome to DU!

If you haven't lurked, you'll soon see a pattern of empty mean-spirited snark accompanied by that favorite smiley.

[joshcryer]

131. That the ACA was a "cover story"?

That ACA was a conspiracy by corporate sellout Obama to enrich insurers?

He campaigned on private insurance. He had a mandate for children.

[cui bono]

118. You have really lost the plot. The smiley is the final proof.

We all know that means there is no substantial argument to be made when you and others resort to using the rofl smiley.

bvar already pointed out that he did not live up to his campaign promise regarding the ACA. What happened to the public option?

[joshcryer]

130. That is a diversion and you know it.

President's don't always live up to their campaign promises. The point was that private insurance was part of the plan he campaigned on. Whether it lived up to the full standard is immaterial. He campaigned on it.

It's the fucking twilight zone here.

[cui bono]

135. You are the one who is practicing diversion and is in the "fucking twilight zone".

Your posts in this thread make absolutely no sense and do not follow any logic in this discussion.

First you say he did fulfill his campaign promise because the ACA got passed. After it was noted that he campaigned on the public option you now say "President's don't always live up to their campaign promises."

Talk about "fucking twilight zone". Sheesh.

[joshcryer]

139. So what did you expect him to do?

Give up the ACA because there was no public option? It expanded health care for millions of people under Medicaid expansion. It got millions of people insured due to the mandate (and his original proposal had a mandate for children).


I guess that would be your preferred outcome. If the SCOTUS didn't gut the expansion in certain states (that refused to expand due to Republican governments in those states), then we'd be looking at tens of millions of people covered, for free or very low cost.

Seriously, what was Obama supposed to do when he didn't have the votes for the public option?

[cui bono]

144. If he really wanted the public option, why did he have secret meetings with big pharma?

Secret meetings that he continuously denied until he had to admit he was having them?

Why did he not let single-payer advocates have a seat at the table?
Why did he not fight for the public option?
Why did he put the ACA in the hands of Baucus?
Why did he begin "negotiations" by giving up the public option instead of by asking for single-payer? We all know you're supposed to go into a negotiation by asking for more than you want and settling for around what you want. The GOP sure as hell knows it and Obama just gave them what they wanted before they even asked for it.

Sure seems like it's exactly as bvar surmised. He didn't even try.

You have the gall to post insulting replies - projecting, all of them - and now are just flailing about, refusing to see the facts, playing the Obama is a victim card yet again. He didn't even try. He just gave up. Actually, he did worse than that. He told the left to STFU. Which brings us back to the OP, which is what really happened.

So take that and stick it in your "fucking twilight zone".

[joshcryer]

147. The public option was on the table.

Until two weeks before the vote. Baucus was extremely angry that he was literally the only one in the negotiations to keep putting the public option. Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, and Bill Nelson would not go for it. They refused. What was he supposed to do?

Single payer was a distraction, Obama did not campaign on single payer, and there was no promise by Obama to advance single payer. Those who wanted to be seated at the table knew that they wouldn't be because they weren't in on any policy talks before the proposal was made, they had no standing, and overall they wanted to make a showing. Michael Moore wanted them to do a "reset" and "start over." But the timeline for the 60 vote window is 72 days. Putting single payer on the table would've been a complete non-starter. And because Obama didn't campaign on single payer he couldn't have been expected to do so.

But, as usual, Obama passes wide ranging legislation changing the landscape for American health care, with waivers for states to implement single payer, millions of poor people getting Medicaid expansion, free birth control, and nope, no credit, he's not a fighter, in your words, "He didn't even try. He just gave up."

"Obama just gave them what they wanted before they even asked for it."

What a crock of utter bullshit.

[cui bono]

149. So you don't know how to negotiate or are you just pretending not to so you can

defend Obama?

You ask for single-payer if you want a public option. Obama shut out single-payer, lessenig the chance of getting a public option.

He never used the bully pulpit to rally people about the public option.

When Grassley and others were flat out lying about death panels and whatever else Obama was not heard coming out strongly and saying they were not telling the truth. We all saw what happened. You can't rewrite history.

Please defend his secret meetings with big pharma. Why did he lie to us about them? Huh? Is that really okay with you? You think that was him fighting to get a public option.

You are living in la-la-land. You can't see the truth because you simply can't believe that Obama isn't perfect. How sad. The apologists are ruining this country. It's because of people like you that the Dem Party keeps moving to the right. It's really sad to see so many on a Dem board gushing over someone who is a self-proclaimed moderate Republican. We really need a third party that will stand for what the Dem Party used to stand for, before it became so corporate.

[joshcryer]

150. I saw what happened, historically.

It happened, it's gone and done, it is over with. You can't go back and claim to rewrite history. Obama didn't "shut out single payer" he never advocated for single payer. Not once did he advocate for it.

What's the "bully pulpit"? What was he supposed to do? Leave the negotiating table and go to some town hall meetings that the media wouldn't even cover? The Republicans would've loved that one and cracked up at the naivety of it all.

But, naturally, you make things personal. I'm sorry, I respect the President for what he did with the small window of opportunity that he had, especially when he had to deal with Blue Dogs to get it done. I'm sorry this appears to bug you so much that you have to call me an "apologist" and that "because of people like me" the country "keeps moving to the right."

I don't shit on the good incremental changes that happens, that's it. Big fucking deal. States will be adopting single payer by the end of this decade, and it will be only because of the ACA. That's the kind of change that's possible, not fantasy land where people don't even know how the negotiation process works.

[cui bono]

159. He absolutely shut out single-payer. He didn't campaign on having secret meetings with big pharma

either and he did that. Honestly, that is quite a reach you've got going there. He didn't have to campaign on single-payer to have him not allowing them at the table be shutting them out of the negotiations. He didn't give them a seat at the table. That is a fact. Period. Whether or not he campaigned on single-payer doesn't change that. Talk about rewriting history. So far all your little jabs are projection.

"What is the bully pulpit?"

Really? You've got to be kidding. You really think rallying the people has no effect? Wow.

"But, naturally, you make things personal."

Really? How about you read your insults in these subthreads of yours. Jesus. You've lost it. You used to be better at this.

Apologist is a political term. You fit the description when you continuously defend and cannot bear to hear any criticism what so ever and especially when you hurl smarmy insults rather than attempt to discuss the policies. There are a lot of apologists around. Many articles have written about them. They hurt our country by moving it farther right when they continuously defend a self-described moderate Republican president.

I know how negotiating works. Obama is very bad at it. He gives everything away before he even comes to the table. He doesn't ask for more than he wants, he settles for much less before the negotiations even start.

Your last post shows you are either being purposely obtuse or you simply don't understand. I can't help you with that.

Go ahead, have the last word.

[joshcryer]

160. He never advocated for single payer.

Your nasty insults are a non starter from the get go. The whole point of my post was that he was being insulted for doing (mostly) what he campaigned on.

And the ratfuckers continue to shit on a great president who managed to pass wide ranging legislation that will change the landscape forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

Have a nice day, enjoy your final nasty insults.

[cui bono]

167. LOL!

MY nasty insults. That is rich.

Projecting yet again.

[bvar22]

133. Making stuff up again?

If Obama had campaigned on a Mandate to BUY Health Insurance from for profit Corporations,
do you believe he would have been elected?
LOL


I told you I saved the video.
Video doesn't lie, but some in this thread do,

[cui bono]

136. +1 for truth. Truth that some just don't want to hear. n/t

[joshcryer]

138. Obama didn't have the votes.

He made a promise on the public option he couldn't keep. But otherwise he did promise a mandate for children and he did promise private health insurance. That's what he campaigned on.

[cui bono]

145. He NEVER tried to get the votes.

See my other reply for more.

Enough with the lame excuses. He squandered the groundswell of support he had by pandering to big pharma and ignoring single-payer advocates and telling the left to STFU.

He is smart enough to know how to negotiate, so he must have done it on purpose, because he failed miserably.

[joshcryer]

148. That is a lie repeated here quite often.

Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

But like you said, in your other reply, "Obama gave them what they wanted." So there's really no convincing people who buy the right wing lie that Obama had anything but a weak hand and that he was able to pass any legislation at all was a miracle. Really, all the Republicans had to do was delay for a couple of weeks and nothing would've been passed. That Obama managed to get something passed in the very small windows that the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority is absolutely astonishing in retrospect.

But, nope, no respect for how history played out, just revisionism and hatred for someone who did everything they could do to get health reform passed.

[bvar22]

164. Did you watch the video of Candidate Obama.

Pop Test.

What did he say about "Mandates"?

a) He said he mandates wouldn't work.

b)He said he supported Mandates with no Public Option for ALL Americans.

Remember, YOU brought up his campaign promises.

[joshcryer]

165. Yes, his Harry and Louise ads.

He had a mandate for children though. He was two faced about it.

[Stellar]

153. LOL,..I wonder...

Could it be coming from....Clintonistas? Conspiracy is a Republic0n thing isn't it?

[joshcryer]

154. Just typical ratfucking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

Obama campaigns on something then becomes corporate sellout. Campaign promise kept = corporate sellout. They did that in 2010 with the "catfood comissions" saying that Obamacare = catfood comissions. The Tea Party coined the term, the left fell for it.

[Stellar]

166. hurt feelings

n/t

[cui bono]

158. Funny how there has to be some nefarious plot behind all criticism of Obama

when in actuality it is legitimate criticism of a president who is a self-proclaimed moderate Republican.

[Stellar]

168. aww tsk, tsk...

[cui bono]

169. Well that was an informative, well thought out post.

Clearly you must be right.

[markpkessinger]

17. Indeed . . .

. . . . if he really did believe that, it represents an unconscionable -- not to mention inexcusable -- political naivete.

[Skittles]

21. yup

looking for the best in people who stole a presidential election and lied their way into war

[markpkessinger]

30. And inexcusable political naivete is the most charitable explanation I can come up with. . . .

. . . The only other explanation is that the President's ego is inflated to the point that it has given him a wildly irrational confidence in his own ability to overcome determined opposition.

[cui bono]

99. bvar posted another explanation above.

Perhaps he never wanted to fight for what he campaigned on. He sure ran a fantastic campaign. He sure fought when his own future depended on it. Now, not so much.

[DanTex]

25. That is crazy. It's been obvious for a very long time that they are off the deep end.

I mean, I've known this forever, and I've never actually met a Republican congressman in person.

[olegramps]

105. You are fortunate. It is not a nice experience. Only God knows what jeapordy you are in.

[MissDeeds]

6. Agree completely n/t

[daleanime]

10. Dropped like a rock...

[blkmusclmachine]

13. change you can beLIEve in

[obxhead]

15. Exactly.

You can't abandon what you never cared about to begin with.

[1norcal]

19. Lost Touch HA...

I wrote the new President an extended letter and sent it to the new white house by snail mail, and got a stupid form letter about
health care. I was fearful even then that it was all show.

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, he is being diplomatic ...

[Mnpaul]

49. I don't believe he was ever in touch

It was all just a well played sales pitch. I knew he was a phony went he went after union sponsored ads benefiting his opponent in the primary.

[TheKentuckian]

50. This is where it really is. He shut down his own movement in favor of "inside baseball"

a game he had no plausible way of setting himself up to dictate because he didn't have the connections, favors owed, or institutional juice to play but rather was largely dependent on personal popularity and the quality of his machinations to draw in who was needed.

[woo me with science]

54. +10000000000000000

[ND-Dem]

62. yes. almost immediately after he won it became pretty obvious that his grassroots wasn't

needed any longer. despite the famous website.

[RiverLover]

94. Bait & switch nt

[cui bono]

120. That's exactly how I feel.

"Used, manipulated and discarded"

smh

[840high]

128. Yes.

[uponit7771]

142. Bernie never said in the article that Obama lost touch but you know, continue to believe anything..

... that furthers anything negative about him

[cui bono]

146. His actions further it more than anything we believe. n/t

[uponit7771]

156. Yeap, Obama has complete 85% of his agenda the 15% that hasn't been done (not from him trying

... on MOST of it) means he's lost touch.

Perspective is always needed

[cui bono]

161. The agenda of a self-described moderate Republican. n/t

[bvar22]

162. Turned his back on

[font color=white]......[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[pampango]

3. "Sanders said he agrees with Obama on many issues, disagrees with him on some and considers the

president "one of the smartest guys who's ever been in the White House."

A self-described democratic socialist, he believes lessons can be learned from the Scandinavian approach to governing — focusing on health care as a right, free higher education and an emphasis on environmental issues and childhood poverty.

Bernie is on to something. Scandinavians have an understanding of how to run a progressive society.

[SoapBox]

7. Oh I SO agree with this.

Daily it amazes me how America lost it's way and that such a mass of citizens could be brainwashed (by lack of education, hate radio / TV, religion, mass media, etc.) into voting against their own interests.

[elleng]

12. I WISH it amazed me, SoapBox,

but considering the brainwashing you've described, and I've decried, I'm not amazed. Concerned and frightened, more like.

[Mnpaul]

52. I think they really are brainwashed

I think that little spinning icon on Fox is hypnotizing them. I look at the comments on any of the latest articles on O'Reilly as proof. They believe that O'Reilly told the truth even after a lefty posts his actual words dozens of times in the thread. It is like they can't see it.

[SomethingFishy]

47. Not long ago I was on a concert tour in Scandinavia...

One afternoon I went out to do laundry and one of the other roadies, a hard core wing nut came with me. As we were driving through Oslo he looked at the city, all the construction, the bustle, the students, and commented "that socialism thing really works for them over here doesn't it"?

While the rest of the conversation was me trying to explain how a for profit health care system is really sick and twisted, and him arguing with me, I think he came away with a new awareness, that I wish all could experience.

[Enthusiast]

4. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

Go, Bernie!

[LiberalArkie]

5. I had hope until I heard about Rahm Emanuel being chief of staff

[Jackpine Radical]

37. My denial mechanisms survived Rahm's appointment.

I kept telling myself Obama would keep him on a leash, maybe use him as a hatchet man on occasion, but not let him near policy.

When I proved wrong about that, I thought maybe Obama was using Rahm in that n-dimensional chess game that so many of us believed in back then.

I think the last illusions were shattered sometime in 2010. I keep voting Democratic, and will no doubt continue to do so for just about any Democratic nominee but Lyndon LaRouche. But, without denying or minimizing gains in the last several years, I'm neither happy nor optimistic about what my party has shown me overall in that period.

[rhett o rick]

57. I knew something was very wrong when he invited Rick Warren to say a prayer at his

inauguration. Why Rick Warren? Seriously, why? He was making is very clear that he was done with the Left. No thank yous, nothing. And then came Rahm Emanuel and his open distaste for the left, and the "here's your hat, what's your hurry" to Howard Dean. It wasn't like he no longer needed the Left, but he wanted to be clear that he was distancing himself from the Left. Since then I believe that every one of his appointments have been looked on poorly by the Left. It appears he knew he had to differentiate himself from the Conservative Candidate HRC, so he pretended to be progressive. Once elected, he dropped the pretense on inauguration day.

[ND-Dem]

63. yes, that was a pretty blatant kick in the teeth.

[appalachiablue]

69. +10. Rick Warren? Unreal. Perhaps to try to difuse the Rev. Wright controversy.

[rhett o rick]

76. I think he wanted to signal the Conservatives that he wasn't really a Progressive.

Rahm's appointment sealed it. No turning back since. No progressive appointments.

[Nay]

107. Exactly how I felt at the time. Bernie is being diplomatic in his comments.

Bernie, through his long tenure as an independent who's a socialist, will not dump the left that (maybe) will elect him because he has that long history. Honestly, I'd love to see Bernie win, but we can't depend on the Dem machinery to get it done. It would have to be done by social media, lots of TV interviews (which should be easy for Bernie to get), and door-to-door. Also, lots of recruitment of college kids, who are warming up to democratic socialism because their futures are going to be shit unless we start doing things differently.

Bernie, being a well-known senator and a long-time shit-stirrer, should be able to get on any show or address any audience without getting cold-shouldered by the political machine. He knows how to plow right through those bastards.

[rhett o rick]

108. If Sen Sanders becomes a Democrat, I don't expect the Third Way Party Machine

to give him any help. They probably wouldn't help Sen Warren. In fact, that's probably why she isn't running.

[Nay]

127. Oh, I don't expect they'll help willingly. But I don't know exactly how they can REFUSE

help - legally - to a Democrat who's running. If there are some legal requirements that election funds be distributed in some way, Bernie will not be shy about calling in a lawyer to get his due. He's not afraid of anybody, really. That's my main interest in his run, frankly. Someone, somewhere, has to act boldly and without fear, or we're done.

[rhett o rick]

129. I don't think they are obligated in any legal way. nm

[QC]

72. His Hug-the-Homophobes!!! campaign strategy gave me doubts,

way back in 2007/2008.

Rick Warren, KirbyJon Caldwell, Donnie McClurkin--who accused LGBT people of of being "vampires" out to lure America's children into hell--all present and accounted for.

What made it worse for me was knowing that Obama was far too intelligent to actually believe that stuff. It was as purely cynical a display of naked politics as one will ever see.

But--attention Loyalty Test Brigade--I did vote for him, in 2008 and 2012--because I live in a swing state and the alternative was unthinkable.

And I am deeply appreciative of the progress the president has made on LGBT issues.

But there were plenty of signs early on that the president was not particularly progressive. Rahm was a big one, but there were earlier clues.

[BlueCaliDem]

81. As a member of the Loyalty Test Brigade (as you label us) I was disappointed in that as well.

Shocker? I hope not.

I might be fiercely supportive of President Obama, but I'm not blind to his many mistakes or faults. However, he redeemed himself by fighting hard to successfully kill DOMA and DADT through Congress instead of an Executive Order (which would have been temporary), and when he instructed AG Holder to not stand in the way as Olsen and Boies successfully fought Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court.

I was disappointed when he accepted Van Jones' resignation. I was really disappointed about that.

I was disappointed when he didn't push harder against Republicans in his first two years when he actually had the power (in number of Dems in both Senate and House, rather than members who would support him).

I was disappointed that he didn't push hard for a public option (although there is something like it, a weaker version, within private insurers that wanted to participate in the Federal and State exchanges - like the Silver 94 HMO plans that are superior to even the Platinum health insurance plans private insurers offer).

I was disappointed when he supported Lieberman when Senate Democrats wanted to admonish him.

I was disappointed when he gave legitimacy to Fox "News" Channel by appearing with Bill-O and Wallace as if they're real journalists instead of propagandists for the ruling elite.

I was disappointed when he hired Rahm Emanuel (I really don't like the guy).

But you know what? Despite my disappointments, I understand that he's not a dictator. I understand he doesn't have a magic wand. I understand that Senate Democrats - most notably Harry Reid and ConservaDems - didn't have his back on, well, anything. Speaker Pelosi, however, worked hard with him, but 440 of her hard-fought bills got derailed by Senate Democrats, too.

I also understand that President Obama isn't as liberal as I would've liked him to be - what I hoped he would be. But I also understand he had to work within the framework in order to get anything done, so I've cut him some slack. It's why YouGov's poll shows that he is the most admired man in the United States and the second most admired man in the world.

[Bluenorthwest]

170. But here is you from 2004...all Bible and gay marriage is unthinkable....

BlueCaliDem Sat Nov-13-04 03:14 PM
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110


These things have to be done. They just do. You were the Democrat we had to pressure for change, do not pretend otherwise. You said unthinkable, you said "married" for us, married for you. You cited the Bible against us. And now you lecture about this as if you were not that Democrat. Just good god damn.

[mountain grammy]

8. K & R

for Bernie Sanders, a man who is upfront and honest. As hard as it is for me to even hope for his election, I find myself hoping.

[Doctor_J]

9. I'm more cynical than Bernie

I think the 2008 campaign was nothing but a hoax, that the president was never in touch with those voters, and intended all along to serve the corporations.

[Skittles]

22. people dazzled by purty speeches are easily fooled

[bvar22]

24. "Hope & Change" was nothing more...

...than a clever Marketing Slogan.
Nothing more.

[font color=white]......[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[bigwillq]

46. Never was a big fan of candidate Obama

thought he was just another slick politician.

I will give him this: His team ran a skilled campaign.
But I never bought into all the nice speeches and the hopey-changey BS.

Voted for him in 2008.
When pre-election polls indicated he would win my state in 2012, I decided to vote for someone else.

[Doctor_J]

55. I wasn't dialed in. Head over heels in love with him

Though when he didn't pardon Don Siegelman the day after the inauguration, the antennae went up.

the time was right for a complete, aggressive anti-Bush agenda, complete with healthcare, pentagon cuts, green energy initiatives, resurgence of organized labor...the whole thing. He and our huge majorities didn't even try. Pelosi and Reid had to intervene to get the president not to cut SS. The opportunity of a generation was pissed away, and now the party is almost dead.

My time's almost up, I got to live a big part of my life under the New Deal, Great Society, golden age of Labor, and the rest of the Dem successes of 20th century. For this I am thankful, as well as the handful of DC Dems who still fight the good fight.

[bvar22]

134. Instead of pardoning Democratic Governor Don Seigelman on day one,

his Justice Dept. pardoned corrupt Republican Senator Ted Stevens on Day one.
They won't even take Siegelman's phone calls.

Ted WHO?
Sorry, we don't take calls from people we don't care about.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. Candidate Obama was an image 100% fabricated to win votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

[JDPriestly]

14. Read the entire article. Sanders just makes so much sense.

And he doesn't have a couple of hundred advisers. He just knows his stuff. What a wonderful president he would make.

He is really very middle-of-the road in his views in my opinion. And he would know how to drive a compromise that benefited everyone. I think even Republicans would learn to like him (secretly of course) if they were working with him in the White House. He and Elizabeth Warren have common sense, and there is no substitute for common sense.

Thanks Bernie.

[BrotherIvan]

48. He certainly does

He is a true statesman, one who has a deep knowledge and experience of the issues. I think that is very important and we should not be looking for the next shiny object. He has a long, transparent record to judge by as well. A great one. He is pushing the much needed infrastructure bill right now and has written many excellent pieces of legislation, including Single Payer. Senator Sanders has my vote.

[uponit7771]

18. Disingenuous OP title, stating the obvious and not including Obama as a "losing touch" is not

... how to gain credibility

[randys1]

27. Easy for certain folk to monday morning QB what the first BLACK president had to do just

to not be shot, probably.

Just to not be attacked even more than he was, probably.

Did he try and negotiate when most of us knew it was a waste of time?

Yes, but the reason HE did that might be for reasons any of us WHITE folks would not have had to .


Is he the far left liberal I want him to be, hell no, neither is Hillary but for that matter neither is Liz

As to Bernie, I will work on his campaign until there aint one

[Skittles]

31. sorry, no

Obama wasted way too much time coddling repukes, WAY past the point that could include your reasoning

[randys1]

33. YEAH, the first Black president in the face of unprecedented obstruction based solely on racism

should have just told them all to go to hell...

I would have loved it, but it wouldnt have worked out

[Skittles]

35. omg, please

he was ELECTED to sock it to them after they TRASHED the country

he ran on CHANGE!!!!

[uponit7771]

141. He didn't run on being a dictator!! "Obama had all the power" is such a tired winger meme

[Skittles]

143. OMG what's next, the magic wand meme?

ENOUGH ALREADY

[eShirl]

65. In other words, we shouldn't have elected him?

Is that what you're trying to say?

[randys1]

95. Actually, while I of course voted for him and worked for his campaign, in retrospect it

probably would have been better for him and the world had we elected Hillary first, and after 8 years then Barack.

My theory is while the right would have hated her for being a Woman and no other reason, like they hate Obama for being Black and no other reason, the obstruction may not have been as bad.

But of course we should have elected him given the alternatives.

Personally, I paid attention to what he said before he was elected, and other than a couple of things (big ones unfortunately) he is behaving exactly as he said he would.

[yeoman6987]

97. Perhaps we should of had Hillary with President Obama as Vice President

That would guarantee 16 years and I think a lot more would have gotten done.

[totodeinhere]

103. That strategy would not have guaranteed 16 years. There are very few guarantees

in politics. A lot of vice presidents including probably Joe Biden do not go on to the presidency.

[yeoman6987]

106. You do have a point

I am actually one of the few who is scared shitless that a Republican will win in 2016. I think it is certainly possible. It makes me ill thinking about it.

[uponit7771]

140. FUDrs would do the same to Liz if she ever went middle on any issue...

[geek tragedy]

28. Obama's movement was never a populist movement of working class voters.

It was always a curious amalgam of ideological and non-ideological people across a wide spectrum of ethnicities and age groups, but focused on the young voters, to whom the phrase "FDR Democrat" is essentially meaningless.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Shhh ...

Everybody knows that Candidate Obama spoke directly and specifically to the farthest Left of the party to answer the call of the movement that didn't start until 2 plus years after he was elected!

[ND-Dem]

64. young voters didn't get what they voted for. which is why a lot of them didn't vote the

second time around.

[cui bono]

121. Hahahahaha..............

omg.

[Autumn]

29. Bernie is wise.

"If you say, 'Thank you for electing me, now I'll go back and I'll see you in two or four years,' that is a recipe for failure," he said.

I'm voting for this man.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. Senator Sanders is wise in his philosophies and theories, but it wouldn't wash in the "real" world

of American politics were he to become president.

What some on the Left and Liberal Libertarians fail to understand is - and what Senator Sanders is failing to remind them of - the president is NOT a dictator. He's not a king. He's just one branch of our three co-equal branches of gov't, and the president -whether we like it or not - must work within that framework if he wants to get anything done.

Without the backing of Congressional Democrats, all a President Sander's hopes for a liberal country will die a swift death. He'll become a lame-duck president for four years before the Neo-Confederate Party crushes him in his bid for re-election. Most Americans will abandon him, too, because all they'll see is failure when, in all reality, he isn't the one failing this country, just as President Obama hasn't failed this country.

As President Obama had seen early on when Democrats joined with Republicans to deny him the funds and power to close Gitmo (Senate voted 90-6 against), Senator Sanders would be derailed by both Democrats and the Neo-Confederate Party in Congress if he doesn't "conform". Knowing that Bernie Sanders would refuse to conform, we'd be looking at a lame-duck president for four years.

If you think President Obama is a failure with regard to liberal policies, should Senator Sanders be elected president, you're going to see mega-failure the likes we've never seen in all of American history. Guaranteed.

[Autumn]

84. Yeah right, whatever. Have a nice day.

[BlueCaliDem]

85. I see. Not ready to face reality, eh, Autumn. Well, have a nice day, too. eom

[Autumn]

88. Here's my reality. You keep voting for moderate republicans cloaked in that magic D you get

moderate republicans cloaked in that magic D. That's your choice, not mine. This will more than likely be my last presidential election. I will vote for whom I chose, It will NOT be a corporate centrist, it will NOT be a moderate republican cloaked in their magic D. It will be for the person who fits my values, even if they are not on the ballot, even if they are not running. It is my vote. I will vote as I chose and I will not vote against an asshole republican because the alternative is a bit better but still willing to go along with republicans while they harm the working class. I will not hold my nose to cast my ballot. That's my fucking reality.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. The reality is, Autumn, without a liberal Congress, it doesn't matter how liberal the president is.

S/He's not going to get anything done with a barely left-of-center Congress. That was the message I was trying to convey in the post you derisively dismissed.

For the record, I voted for Liberal Barbara Boxer both in her primary as well as the general.

I voted against Dianne Feinstein and for Mike Strimling (a true Liberal) in the primaries, but when he lost (got fewer votes than that crazy Orly Taitz) I had no choice but to vote for her in the general because I didn't want another Republican in the Senate. I want to work at getting more Elizabeth Warrens in Congress that will pave the way for a liberal president, otherwise we'll condemn that liberal president to becoming a one-term lame-duck - and the Neo-Confederates will cheer. I want our win to stick.

I can only hope that you live in a solid Democratic State which will afford you the luxury of not voting in 2016 or voting against the Democratic nominee who might not be to your liking. That's all I can hope for.

[cui bono]

122. The "real" world is what you make it.

If you are going to keep accepting and even praising and defending mediocrity and center-right policies that's what you are going to keep getting. And if you keep making excuses for the pols who feed you that center-right bs then they are going to keep giving it to you.

Time for the real liberals to stand up for what we want. We don't want center-right policies any more. We don't want a Dem president who enacts Republican ideas. We don't want the Dem Party to move even farther to the right. We don't want a choice between an extreme right wing candidate and a center-right candidate. We're fed up.

If you don't stand up for what you believe in then everything else is just an excuse.

[BlueCaliDem]

132. Maybe in YOUR version of the "real world", but not in this one, cui bono. You can wish for a liberal

America who will vote for a Liberal *president till you turn blue in the face, but it just ain't gonna happen. In order to change that, you'll have to change the minds of Americans who have been fed a steady diet of "socialism is BAD". Good luck with that.

You'll have to face the fact that this country, although very liberal at the core, will REFUSE to vote for a Liberal. And unless and until Liberals like you and others on this board get out there and make a LOT of noise so that the media will pay attention, this is how it's going to stay.

I stand by what I wrote in my post. Senator Sanders, should he by some miracle become President Sanders (and it would take a miracle) would become a lame-duck president and a one-term one at that. The majority of Americans don't pay as close attention to politics as you and I, and all they'll see is a failed president who might howl angrily at the skies, but who'll get nothing done because he won't have Congress behind him.

Just to be clear...presidents can present the most liberal ideas and policies to Congress in the history of mankind, but nothing will get done without a cooperative Congress. That's political reality.

*Edit to add word

[cui bono]

137. Wll if you can't conceive it, it certainly will never happen.

Perhaps we need a party without all the defeatists who have already ceded power to the center-right.

Who thought Obama would get elected 2 years before the vote? Who knew who he was?

If we're not optimistic about our future, then what's the point? Would you tell your child not to even try something because you can't fathom that they would be successful in today's world? There are a million stories about people overcoming, succeeding against all odds. Why would you want to speak out to shut down that optimism, to shut down any attempts to change things? That's what you are doing.

[BlueCaliDem]

155. Although I was surprised that a Black man would become president in my lifetime, I shouldn't have

been. Our society has a fast-growing minority demographic - one I wasn't paying attention to, as most people in this country hadn't been paying attention to - and President Obama is a master-campaigner (and turns out to be an incredible president as well). Those two combined made his presidency possible. I don't see the same dynamics for Senator Sanders or Senator Warren. Neither have the charisma to win the White House, and with that deficit, they're easy targets for lying but well-funded attack ads by the GOP's money-masters.

I am anything but a defeatist, nor do I have a defeatist attitude. I'm a realist and a Democrat who wants to keep the White House in our column with my eye on SCOTUS and three potential seats that will become vacant in the next decade. I don't want a Republican president filling those seats. It's like standing principled and upright in front of a 300 lb, six foot six bully; standing up for what's right...only to get your arse handed to you before you black out. What do you gain by that?

At any rate, if staunch Liberals don't want to compromise on their principles and their view of how this country should be, I suggest they get off their behinds and hit the pavement to promote stronger liberal candidates. By the way? I could've used their help back in 2012 when we had a choice between a moderate Dem like Dianne Feinstein and a true liberal like Mike Strimling. In the end, he got LESS votes than nutty Orly Taitz. Did I pout and throw a tantrum that he lost in the primaries? No. I held my nose and voted for Feinstein because I've got enough brains to realize that even the most horrible Democrat in Congress is still better than the best Republican in Congress, imo.

[cui bono]

157. Yeah, you're right about the charisma, but perhaps people are starving for someone who

will really take this country back to the days where the middle class grew and there was a lot less income disparity, where we value education instead of spit on it, etc... OF course the party needs to come along for the ride, a president can lead but can't do it alone.

Honestly, I think even being a realist right now will thwart that effort. I disagree that Obama is a fine president because I don't think center-right is good enough for us. Corporations and banks are still the ones who are getting everything and the people are still the ones who are paying for it.

I don't know how we can do it, but we really need to get money out of politics. I fear that only that will bring us real change.

Not sure why you brought up pouting and throwing tantrums when talking about liberals.

[bigwillq]

32. K and R

[FiveGoodMen]

34. Jettisoned is the word I'd use

[Cha]

36. I call bullshite on the headline.. I am part of President Obama's grassroots and he hasn't

"lost touch" with me or anyone I know and care about.

[michello]

38. So am I

And he hasn't abandoned me nor any of the people I know.


I think that there is some ole divide and conquer going on with these posts.

I stopped really posting on this site because of that. Back in the day your ass would be banned if you made a trolling ass post such as this.

[Damansarajaya]

102. Really. What has the Obama White House asked you to do specifically?

What grass roots activism has it pushed?

I keep waiting for the memo . . .

I got the first one about the "national day of service" back in January 2008 when Candidate Obama hadn't been sworn in yet, and my pals and I cleaned up a park and made the evening news.

Since then, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. But then ...

you and anyone you care about are clearly celebrity struck 3rd-way spineless authoritarian lackeys.

[Cha]

42. I consider the source of those who are name calling their little insults. I am in good company..

GallupNews ✔ @GallupNews
Follow
51% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of #Obama... http://on.gallup.com/1Dq9iLn
1:00 PM - 18 Feb 2015 38 Retweets 17 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/02/19/president-obama-announces-new-national-monuments/

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. That's not going to improve your DU favorability rating! n/t

[Cha]

125. Oh, you mean those who are so brainwashed they can't acknowledge all the Progress that has been

made.. and can only whine "republicon"?

I don't give a **** what they think.. I consider the damn source.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Yep. n/t.

[cui bono]

123. Well then I guess you were expecting Republican policies to be enacted by him.

Some us expected Democratic policies. And I for one feel he left us behind.

Don't forget Emannuel telling the left to STFU; Obama not allowing single-payer at the table yet having secret meetings with big pharma; Obama putting SS on the table.

I'm sad that people on a Dem board think that's okay. It has moved the Dem Party even farther right so now it's center at best. That's not good enough if you are a liberal.

Of course, if one never stood for what the Dem Party purports to stand for, it doesn't matter.

[wyldwolf]

41. Fascinating reactions in this thread

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

When Hillary (not really) criticized Obama last year: WITCH WITCH WITCH HOW DARE SHE!
When Bernie criticizes Obama: DITTO DITTO DITTO RIGHT ON YEAH!

[Cha]

43. Not from me.. equal time. They can criticize all they damn please but it better be about facts.

[cui bono]

124. But DUers are not allowed to criticize when it's about facts...

just Bernie and Hillary?

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Oh. You noticed that? n/t

[dilby]

51. I like Bernie but there is no way I will vote for him till he puts a D next to his name.

So I will vote for the person who is going to represent the party and if that is Hillary she has my support 100%.

[GummyBearz]

58. Good use of your vote

Base it on logic and principles? Fuck that. Just put the right letter next to your name. That's how we do democracy in murica. Its worked so far and look how good things are for 1% of us. Hell yea

[dilby]

61. because splitting votes will be so much better for us.

The worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican. If Bernie runs as an Independent he will be the Ross Perot of 2016, he wont win and he will make it a shoe in for the Republican candidate.

[JonLP24]

66. He said awhile ago if he does run

It will be through the Democratic party. He specifically said that he wouldn't be "spoiler" candidate.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. Actually, this past weekend, Senator Sanders isn't all that sure he'll run as a Democrat.

From Dailykos 2/22/2015:

Sanders didn’t mention the presumed Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, by name in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” but said, if he decides to seek the White House, he isn’t sure he would run as a Democrat.

“The fact that I’m in Iowa, which is a caucus state, maybe speaks for itself,” he said. “But I haven’t made that final decision. And I got to tell you that a lot of my strong supporters say Bernie, ‘Stay out of the damn Democratic Party. Run as an Independent.’”

If he's already waffling on that, what confidence will we have that he'll keep his promise not to be a Nader-style spoiler?

[JonLP24]

89. He hasn't decided if he is going to run

He mentions a lot of his strong supporters say stay out, run as an Independent and completely cuts off the context from there and the link -- and I even copied link address is Politico.com. I don't know why it is disguised politico.com/.... but its just politico.com/

[BlueCaliDem]

91. Yeah, I don't trust Politico.com, either. So I looked up the video on YouTube:

When asked if he would run as a Democrat, he answers: "I don't wanna say that." (FF to 1:50)

Please remember that last year he said he would not run as an Independent because he will not be a spoiler - and should he run as an Independent, according to his own words, that would make him one.

[JonLP24]

92. "I don't want to say that. I'm in Iowa, a caucus state -- that should speak for itself"

Points out he hasn't made a final decision yet.

ABC could have asked better questions after that rather than "Is it true you have a Eugene Dubbs..?"

It is interesting the way he choose to say that since it could be interpreted several different ways. I interpreted as he would run as a Democrat -- if he decides to run. For some reason, he didn't want to say it publicly at-the-time, hence the Iowa mention. The strong supporters mention is more difficult to speculate on but I think the "speak for itself" -- didn't want to alienate those strong supporters possibly. It don't see an edit so it appears the reporter moved on to a stupid question right after that.

It wasn't that I don't trust Politico, the link went to the front page. Put still the posting left out significant chunks of context.

On edit -- ballot access issue. The Democratic Socialists in the US aren't an active political party but an activist political organization that supports the "more progressive members of the Democratic Party". I couldn't see him joining the Green Party over the Democratic Party to solve the ballot access issue.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. Reporter: "How, in practical terms, would a Sanders candidacy work? Would you run as a Democrat?"

Senator Sanders' answer: "I don't wanna say that."

But you could be right. I also didn't get the sense that he wanted to publicly say he'd run as a Democrat since so many strong supporters begged him to stay "outta that damn Democratic Party". If he runs as a Democrat, he will lose their support. I don't know how that would affect his chances of winning.

But were this a perfect world and we'd get a President Sanders, what can he hope to get done with a barely left-of-center Congress? If we don't give him a liberal Congress, he'll be a lame-duck president and a one-term one, as well. Americans are unforgiving when it comes to lackluster performances - even one imagined, as was the case with President Carter. I wouldn't want to wish that on one of the greatest liberal voices we have today. It would demean him.

[JonLP24]

100. The Iowa Caucus & speaks for itself comes immediately after the "I don't want to say that"

I'm unsure what kind of support digging operation Bernie Sanders has going but he has been in Iowa a long-time now, going back to the "Harkin's steak fry" or what it is showing him but has given every indication if a serious chance exists (this could maybe mean 3rd place in the primaries) signs of the type of "unprecedented grass-roots" support needed to give him a chance. I couldn't see him running as an Independent if his fact-finding operation shows a 2% of the vote scenario.

That is another issue but Sanders is very interested in solutions & getting things done. He ranks in the top 5% in working with the House. He had a heated loud argument with McCain over VA reforms but still worked out a compromise on a bill that actually made it. It is very unproductive but I don't think where he stands on the issues is a problem. I remember one Republican at one point said this is becoming ridiculous, mentioning Obama had more circuit court judge nominations blocked in 1 year during Bush's entire first term.

Republicans won't be very helpful but I'd have trust in Sanders in the kind of compromises & policy negotiations. Mainly it is executive actions that trouble me when it comes to Obama. I don't even know if Sanders would bring true reforms in that department. Even the better domestic economic policy guy throughout 20th & 21st century continues cold war & post-cold war foreign policies.

[JonLP24]

67. (not really)? Clinton during '08 made a lot of unfair criticisms on over meaningless issues

"You can't choose your family, but you can choose your pastor", Bill Ayers

"I was fighting against those (Republican) ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Politifact rated it as "Mostly false" -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/25/obamas-rezko-connection/

Bernie Sanders actually is much nicer to Obama than Hillary was & his criticism are based in reality & speak to issues that really matter.

[wyldwolf]

70. The conversation is about PRESIDENT Obama, not CANDIDATE Obama

[JonLP24]

71. You brought up criticisms from Hillary Clinton

In any case, you weren't specific as to what the criticisms are & reactions you're referring to.

Even if hypocrisy exists, I can only speak for myself in what I believe is unfair criticism & fair criticism. If Obama's approval numbers are down leaving office, I imagine Hillary Clinton (if she is running) will run an anti-Obama campaign with his approval. Politics behind closed doors are very different than the politics in front of the cameras. I don't even have complete faith & trust in Elizabeth Warren though her Senate voting record is more liberal than Bernie Sanders.

[wyldwolf]

73. yes I did. Funny you're the only one who is (pretending to?) missing the context.

Oh, is this part where you insist I meant something else? I have all morning to counter your bullshit so let's do it.

[JonLP24]

74. Pretending to?

I didn't realize there was an important distinction between criticisms of Senator Obama as opposed to President Obama, reactions to the criticisms based on your description which would be an accurate description in 2008. I gave my explanation.

Yours? I still don't know the specifics of what you're referring to because you haven't explained yet. "you insist I..."? "counter your bullshit"? Is this where you ask me what my next move is based on an assumption?

On edit - the context is actually President Obama from Campaign Obama given Sanders mention of the grass roots support.

[wyldwolf]

75. Yeah, after I clarified to you the context of the discussion, you're still arguing your point.

Which means you're either pretending not to "get it," or your insisting you can read my mind and that I really meant something else.

[JonLP24]

77. I offered an explanation, a clarification

as to why I was possibly mistaken. All this post is further explanation since I feel the need to further clarify myself.

My point, which I didn't argue given that you still haven't clarified as to what the criticism was & what the reaction was but I completely lost interest in it, was the criticism from Hillary Clinton & criticism from Sanders & the difference in reaction is understandable given what the actual criticisms are. I'm far from the most articulate person out there but all I was trying to do is to explain where I was coming from & asking what the criticisms post-Senator Obama were but completely lost interest or even care anymore because this discussion is derailing.

The only one insisting anything is you, maybe I wasn't clear but based on those only two possible explanations you misunderstand what it is I was trying to say and your context clarification is misleading given that Bernie Sanders mentions Candidate Obama's grassroots support & where he is now. Hillary Clinton's 2008 criticisms fits within the context of the thread which you claimed I was the only one that missed it. "Lost touch" refers from 2008-present
'

[wyldwolf]

78. An explanation of what? No explanation was needed. It really is quite simple

1. Hillary said some things last year that many 'progressives' construed as criticisms and she caught hell for it.
2. Sanders criticizes the president and 'progressives' act like it's the gospel.

[LondonReign2]

79. Still pulling a Limbaugh and trying to make the word progressive a slur?

You deserve a massive raise for your kick ass job of making Clinton look bad.

[bvar22]

163. He certainly eliminates himself from the group he derisively calls "progressives".

Now where dos that put him?

[JonLP24]

80. An explanation to why I referenced 2008 criticisms

explanation to my motives & where I was coming from given the "get it" & bad faith motives questions. "Pretending"

That is an explanation of my explanation in response to your: An explanation of what?

On to your points: All I know is what Bernie Sanders said here is something a lot of people already believe to be true. A variation of this criticism was made a long time ago by many people going back to & before Jon Stewart and his "Candidate Obama debates President Obama" clip in 2010.

[99Forever]

53. The first step we must take to have President Bernie Sanders...

... is to stop buying the lie that he can't win. They used that same lie to try and stop Governor Ventura. He proved that its a lie. The "mainstream (corporate approved, bought and paid for) candidates" are the problem, President Sanders and the political philosophy he LIVES is the solution.

[JonLP24]

68. All mainstream candidates use populist rhetoric during campaign seasons

National elections, they can't win without the votes of the 99%. Hillary Clinton went from "foolish anti-Wall Street rhetoric" to "taking on big business" during her book tour/mid-term campaign rally tour.

Embracing Wall-Street doesn't gain more votes, it just makes it harder to tell the politicians apart and Obama's "change" campaign was very convincing with the implication as far more than a change from Bush. Economy & "Change" were the dominant themes of his campaign. Pretty much anything Obama changed his mind on or didn't fulfill was something further left than what he actually did. Transparency, Habeas Corpus rights to detainees, etc. He didn't campaign on "they keep us safe".

Bernie Sanders is at his best when he speaks. Demographics have already slipped out of the GOP's favor during national election years and with him in on the ticket, the media will have no choice but to let him speak. He will demolish whoever it is the Republicans send out there but given the fact he hasn't made the campaign or the potential of a campaign run not about personalities--he'd probably be the only one in recent history not to have a specific anti-whoever as part of their campaign & genuinely believes in the populist rhetoric he preaches. That recent video "terrifies Koch brothers" the woman who saw him in Iowa indicated she was convinced & believed Bernie Sanders when it came to an issue

[L0oniX]

56. The oligarchy had other plans.

[Bonobo]

60. It's the economy, Stupid, and we SHOULD have 99% on our side.

In theory, that is.

I know it doesn't work out that way with all the other issues such as religion, guns, gays, pot, etc, but still....... it should be closer.

HTF did it get this bad?

[NCTraveler]

82. Not sure that is a fair assessment of Obama.

Obama clearly campaigned as the peoples President. Anyone watching his campaign closely knew that. Some of his positions weren't even remotely liberal. Some of his positions were liberal. The main theme of hope and change was not based in ideology. Many speeches he gave during his first run were completely void of ideological thought and simply catered to the masses. I do think he was fooling himself as were those around him when it came to what would happen if he won. Probably the best campaigner I have ever seen. He is by all accounts a very pragmatic man. A great man.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. I concur 110% with your post. That's how I see it, too, NCTraveler. eom

[TBF]

90. If anyone read "Audacity of Hope" in which Obama talks about

the trade-offs one makes to get into office (paraphrasing loosely) then I think we know he was never really in touch with any grass-roots movement to start with. What we had was a fairly slick campaign run by very smart folks who knew they could win.

I volunteered in '08, served as co-precinct leader, and was thrilled to see him elected. But you have to consider the circumstances. We were sitting w/George Bush, inept fuckhead in the oval office, and just prying him out of there (or rather prying Cheney out) was a job in and of itself. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when he actually got in the helicopter and left. That inept buffoon was very dangerous. Obama on the other hand is an administrator. He's not particularly in tune with the working class but he isn't out to gut us either. He helps us in small ways if it doesn't piss off the wealthy. Historically I believe the legacy will be Obamacare and that may well morph into a single payer system that helps many.

But I don't think he was ever an idealistic young lad who was led astray. Obama and his campaign were not naive in the least.

[Damansarajaya]

101. EXACTLY RIGHT! Pardon my all caps, but

Sanders totally gets it.

ObamaForAmerica had something like 2 million subscribers on its mailing list. We were asked for a "national day of service" before Obama even took office, and we did it.

Then he was sworn in, and the great silence took place.

We heard nothing.

The implication was shut up and sit down--let the very serious people in Washington handle this.

[Fumesucker]

110. Yes, that's my perspective too unfortunately.

[Teamster Jeff]

104. Lost touch? No he actively worked to diffuse grass roots movements.

[Agony]

115. Opportunity Lost that never really was ...

Hey you can dream, right?

good to see this in USAtoday.

Kick
Rec

[BeyondGeography]

151. What grass roots movement is that?

One of them, all of them? Who are them?

There are the teabaggers, who are often motivated by hatred, fear and anger. Did Barack Obama neglect them, too?

Obama spent much of his life organizing and trying to organize people. He knew what he was up against in terms of sustaining grass roots enthusiasm for his presidency and his policies. He drew his own conclusions on what he needed to do in order to win the White House twice and how he needed to govern. He won 11 of 12 battleground states by slim margins in 2012 because he turned out his voters in numbers that shocked his opponent. The time, money and human effort involved just to get people to vote is enormous. It is also unsustainable when you move to governing and mobilizing people around specific policies. Americans have to do more of their own political lifting if they are going to be heard; Presidents can't and won't do it for them. Could Obama have done more? Absolutely. But so could the people he was always trying to help. They could have voted in midterms for starters.

There is one bit of truth at the end of the article. Bernie says that in order to get elected President, "you need serious money." Of course, he wouldn't take "big money" donations, if he runs. Which means he will never be President. Not in this environment.

[Euphoria]

152. His mistaken belief that he could please the "insiders"

Is, IMO, very strong. He wasn't yet politically seasoned.
Nonetheless a big, huge, costly, tragic mistake.