I'm going to say it and hide it if it's out of line

[madokie]

If our first Black President, President Barack Obama would have come in office doing what many of us wanted him to do, try the dick and w and company for war crimes, there would have been a modern day lynching on the White house lawn within the first 100 days. The political climate that the man came in on was so toxic that the man simply had to walk on thin ice to keep from being driven from office and yes because of the color of his skin. Not because of what he wanted and tried to do but because he didn't fit the mold of an American President. Old white man.
Look what they did to Kennedy cause he didn't fit that mold by being young and vibrant plus of a religion other than Protestant.
In the grand scheme of things I think our first black President has been most wonderful and good for our country as a whole even though he was having to walk a mean narrow path while doing it.

Just in case anyone wonders I'm an old mostly Caucasian/Cherokee male Vietnam Vet.

[Sherman A1]

1. I don't completely disagree with your assessment

however, I believe that we could have done better that what we have seen over the last few years. Yes, there were a tremendous number of balls to keep in the air and things could have resulted in far worse, yet they could have been better.

[madokie]

3. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion

And I gave mine. Keeping in mind the climate that President Obama came into what more could the man have done

[eggplant]

17. He's sure doing a better job at it than I ever could. n/t

[bluerum]

51. Well, he did have a democratic majority in both houses when he came in.

It was then, or as it turned out, never.

ACA cost a lot of time and politikin.

[DonCoquixote]

102. to be honest

That majority turned out to be smoke and mirrors as many of these "Democrats" that got elected were Blue Dogs.

[Ineeda]

122. He only had a 60 seat Senate majority for FOUR months.

Hardly enough time to accomplish anything of substance, and yet he did.

[ashling]

183. He neverr had a solid 60 seat majority.

The party may have, but not Obama. And the party was so discombobulated that I hesitate even to say that they had one. It was dependant upon Lieberman to start with. And Ben Nelson was less than solid. And that was just the start.

Does anybody seriously think that that twit (her name escapes me for some reason), or Evan Bayh would have held together with the Dems for the kind of "substance" that is being called for? I respectfully suggest that if they do, they are somewhat deluded.

I too have been more than a little pissed at Obama preaching bipartisanship till the cows come home rather than stand up and fight. But I also think he has done a great job with what he had.

[kardonb]

56. everyone

I could not agree with you more ! It is so sad that all the prejudices are still alive and well in our great nation.
We must all work together to disregard our differences . Our president is doing a great job , despite all the averse circumstances .

[AllyCat]

134. Good to see you post again.

Sad indeed about the prejudices and yes, he is doing a great job. Imagine what he could do with a second term!

[Sherman A1]

162. I would have liked to see

more effort made towards single payer for one thing among many. I understand that you rarely get everything you want, but I would have liked to see the negotiations to have started a bit further to the left of center on many topics. I believe that ground was given far to quickly, even when the Democrats controlled the House.

I don't mind losing battles, I just wanted to see some better efforts made.

[pasto76]

44. I dont think it anything could have been better at all

I feel strongly that he has, in fact, done every single thing he could. Everything that the republican controlled house will allow. Want him to do more? then -WE- have to hand him a democratic House this year

[Flying Squirrel]

54. Lol

I bet if you gave us both houses with 62% majority in each we STILL wouldn`t get much accomplished. We Dems just suck at herding cats.

[drm604]

167. That kind of cynicism will get us nowhere.

If we controlled the house and had a filibuster proof majority we might very well accomplish something. We won't know unless we try and negativism and "lol" won't get us anywhere.

[magical thyme]

153. of course he could have done better

in the sense that hindsight is 20/20 vision.

But I do believe (or at least hope) that he's learned on the job, has positioned himself to fight to win, and now will continue to do better and better.

Personally, I felt he played the "bi-partisan" attempt far too long. But in reality, wtf do I know? I do think the gloves are off now, he's had the time he needs to get to "know the enemy" and can now do much of what desperately needs to be done. Time will tell.

Bottom line is that changing the course of the Titanic, without sinking it, is not a simple task. We were headed full steam into a massive iceberg. A lot of people below deck were already swimming for their lives. Careening too hard one way or another could leave a lot of people falling into the open waters.

And despite being President, he's had to fight for control of the helm every step of the way.

At a personal level, I was going under and grabbed at the only rope within reach. That turned into a trap that nearly pulled me under again; his income based student loan repayment was another life rope. It's not a final solution, or a happy one, but it's bought me some time.

Although those on the higher levels are only just feeling it now, it's not an easy situation for anybody who's not in the 1%.

[Sherman A1]

161. You may believe the gloves are off now

I believe it's an election year.

[magical thyme]

169. that's entirely possible

Only time will tell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. I don't disagree ...

at all with the OP's assessment.

And I agree with what you wrote:

however, I believe that WE (emphasis added) could have done better that what we have seen over the last few years.

Which is completely different from, and in my view more accurate than, "I believe that HE could have done better ..."

Us liberals must face it, WE didn't do/haven't done very much to support President Obama ... other than bitch and moan about what he didn't do fast enough.

[Sherman A1]

202. However,

Did not WE accept his application for the job by voting for him? So I believe there is a significant portion of HE in the mix as well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

205. I respectfully disagree ...

In our form of government, the president has the power to ask, beg, cajol, and even threat, congress to advance his agenda ... But that is it. He does not have the power to MAKE Congress write the laws or vote in he way he wants.

I've used the follow analogy before:

Getting angry at President Obama for the lack of legislation on {pick an issue} is a lot like getting angry at your friend because his wife won't lend you her car. Your friend can ask, beg, cajol, and even threat his spouse to get her to loan you the car; but in the end, it is her discussion to make.

That's where WE come in. It is OUR job to pressure OUR legislators to vote for President Obama's agenda.

And all the b!tching and moan and "disappointment", expressed on these boards are wasted, if WE don't do our jobs!

[madokie]

204. You got it.

first thing he told us was WE are the CHANGE we are looking for and that he was more than willing to lead the way but WE had to at the very least have his back. I've solidly been in his corner from the first speech I heard him give and I'm still solidly in his corner. As soon as he was inaugurated for a while there when I'd come home, DU, it seemed like I was in a different universe by the post that would be posted about all the dissatisfaction that first one then the other poster had that he wasn't doing enough for their personal pet peeve. I realized from early on that it was going to be along hard slough (as the dick used the word) getting us from where we were when Presiden Obama took office to where we all wanted to be. As I said in my OP being that he was a black man in a white mans world that he had a fine line that he could walk all the time knowing full well that line was drawn on thin ice.
I love our President and in my 64 years I believe with all my heart, he has already proven to me that he is the best we've had.

[1StrongBlackMan]

206. +10,000 ...

Many here wish to ignore the racial component ... the very real racial tightrope ... that President Obama has had to traverse. And his journey is not just for himself or the nation as a whole; but how he handles this trailblazing, will set the tone for every Black person that aspires to such a position.

America has not, yet, advanced to the point where a Black man (or a woman of any color) can flat out call a white man on his B.S., regardless of his (her) legitimate or positional authority.

Reality has it that if he (she) does, there will be article and OpEd piece upon article and OpEd piece decrying his (her) "lack of executive timber", claiming, "See, I told you those people just don't have the executive temperment for such a high office!" and, sadly, THAT would become the story, not the legitimacy of what he (she) has said.

And even more sadly ... many of the critical cries will be from those members here that have called for him to "show some balls."

[madokie]

207. You make me proud to be a fellow DU'r with you.

You've said it as it should be said.
May peace and love always be at your side every step of the way throughout your journey though life.

[Siwsan]

2. I still hold my vote for Barack Obama to be the best I ever cast

We all have 'wish' lists and some people may still be wishing. But, as a veteran, myself, I am so glad to finally have a POTUS who honors both the active service, reserves and veterans of the armed forces, AND their families. Also, equal pay for women, striking down DATD, endorsing marriage equality, doing more for national security than w ever thought about doing.

I truly believe a re-elected President Obama will be even more aggressive towards making this an even better place to call home.

[madokie]

19. I too am most proud of my two votes I gave him

[Honeycombe8]

60. Me, too. When we're super old, we can say proudly say that, yes, we voted for him. All three times.

We recognized him from the start. We played a part in his historic Presidency, which is what I think history will show it to have been.

[cantbeserious]

4. Yes, The Last 3 Years Has Proven That Racism Lives In America

eom

[Meiko]

21. somebody white

must have voted for the man or he wouldn't be in office. I get the feeling that most people like the President and could care less about the color of his skin. The problem is that the ones on the far right are screaming so loud about him they are drowning out everyone else. The President has done a very good job considering how crazy the world is right now and having to deal with the nut jobs on the right.

I am sorry to say that I have to agree with you that racism still lives, who knows it may never completely die. Even with racism we are going to continue to have black presidents, congressman, mayors and governors. It's the only way for us to survive. Everyone has to be given an opportunity to participate. Maybe someday we will have a woman president or even a gay or transgendered president, wouldn't that be something? In the mean time we have a lot of lessons to learn.

[LibGranny]

131. My brother-in-law says

he "voted for the white Obama"! That's a good argument for those who say they wouldn't vote for him because he's black. I say they wouldn't vote for him because they're STUPID!

[AllyCat]

135. Amazing how our people can only see white if it is "white enough", huh?

If someone is a quarter one heritage and three-quarters another, somehow, that makes them all the one quarter if it suits the objector's needs.

[tomp]

133. obama is too far right for me to vote for him based on politics.

but i will vote for him strictly because of the open threats against him and against democrats in general. this needs to be opposed.

[DevonRex]

5. I'm in total agreement with you.

hell, he can't even do a good thing without getting called horrible things and people threatening him.

[RKP5637]

6. This country has a lot of bigots and racists. Over the years I thought

we had matured, but apparently not. I'm amazed at the hatred in this country. Obama came into a horrible situation in this country and certainly being a black man IMO made a horrific job he had to handle a lot lot worse.

Often, I wonder how he stands up to it all. IMO he's an extremely resilient and strong leader.

I wish he had had a more democratic congress. IMO a lot of supposed democrats in congress are fakes. Let alone the republicans, I think he has met overwhelming obstacles from his own party. Often I think some of the democrats in congress are more republican than some republicans.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. Often I think some of the democrats in congress are more republican than some republicans.

Not so much anymore. The DLC closed it's doors and a lot of Blue Dogs lost in 2010.

The Washington Villagers were going on and on about how the two sides are now more "polarized" as if it's partly the Democrats fault for being too Liberal and unwilling to compromise.

Ain't that a hoot?

[calimary]

26. Man, no kidding. And it is indeed a marvel how he stands up to it all.

[freshwest]

39. He's got more vision than his detractors to see him through. They couldn't take the abuse.

[RebelOne]

27. I am 73 years old and grew up in the South during

the racist years of the '50s and '60s. I went to segregated schools. I remember the separate bathrooms and water fountains for whites and blacks. I was a racist during that time. I was married at a very young age, and my husband and I went to New Jersey where he grew up. And I was horrified to see blacks in the movie theaters and restaurants and even more horrified to see mixed couples.

My two nieces are married to black guys and have children, but it is accepted nowadays/

My, my, how things have changed since then. It took a long time to overcome my bigotry because I was raised in Miami.

But I voted for Obama and will vote for him again in November.

[Booster]

48. I'm 70 and remember all those things also. We may never totally rid this country of racism, but we

really have come a very long way from what it was back then. This country was so racist that it was really embarrassing. I really love Mr. Obama and I especially love Michelle. When Republicans stand up at a microphone and tell everybody listening that they are going to block everything the man tries to do to make sure he has only 1 term, to me, that's as close to treason as you can get, and, again, its really embarrassing. Mr. Obama certainly has my vote once more. And, if he wins a 2nd term, I just wish the Dems in Wash DC would back him up a whole lot more than they have. Grow a spine, for God's sake. Re: your niece's children, I bet they are just beautiful.

[japple]

58. I, too, wonder how he stands up to it. His family holds him close and that's

a big part of why he is so strong. Another thing is that there are so many people out there who are in his corner, who have his back...so many people are really looking at this man and thinking about greatness, thinking about Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and others...

Hold this great man in the light. Be grateful that we are here in this time with him. It's a wonderful time to be alive.

[TheDebbieDee]

78. He stands up to it because he was raised not to allow anyone

to push his buttons...............His feelings aren't hurt by the name-callin' and other rude behvaior. The man could never have gotten to where he is if he sensitive and allowed himself to fly off the handle everytime he got pissed off.

President Obama has remarkable self-restraint and focus and he's just what this country needed after 8 years of irrational neo-con rule..........

[treestar]

138. Amen, when was the filibuster used routinely before?

Just one of the many signs.

When was an opposing party Speaker of the House, ever before, openly saying all he cared about was the President losing?

[randome]

7. I think Obama came into office with his eyes open.

I have no doubt he has his own wish list of things to accomplish but butting his head -and expending political capital- on trying to do things he knew would not get done would not have served anyone's best interests.

I think you're right that he should be judged for what he is, not what some want him to be.

He is fully aware of the current climate and his place in it. He doesn't have some starry-eyed desire to start a revolution. He was elected to be President. He is being Presidential.

[AtomicKitten]

8. The political climate is worsening, and that's not his fault.

Generally speaking those bellyaching the loudest are the wingnuts (which is to be expected) and those that walked away disappointed from the 2008 primary. The latter group appear to operate under the pretense that 'somebody else' would have been more progressive when in truth the progress made was really a f***ng miracle under the circumstances.

[flamingdem]

152. Agree 100% - a f**ng miracle the Obama administration got so much done

under these circumstances

[SoutherDem]

9. No doubt.

I know a lot of rethugs who still love W as the best president we have ever had. They think he did no wrong.

[pinboy3niner]

10. More than that...

...the Congress would have been so absorbed with that that it would have been virtually impossible for the new President to pass his policy objectives even during the 'honeymoon' period. Talk about something 'sucking the air out of the room'!

The decision to 'look forward, not backward' was a reluctant--but realistic--political calculation.

And our only difference, bro, is that I'm not Cherokee.

[rhett o rick]

11. I dont disagree that he has had to walk a tight rope, however,

there are some issues where I am totally confused. Like why spend so many resources on persecuting medical cannabis? Why did he put so many Bush guys into various positions? Like Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE to the jobs council.
He appoints Michael Taylor, vice president of Monsanto as senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. The list goes on and on.

That's not walking a tight rope.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. I guess you missed the part about "we are not Red States & Blue States, we are the United States?

Not everyone sees the world through your jaded partisan lens.

[rhett o rick]

46. Oh hi. Maybe you can explain why Pres Obama chose Jeff Immelt to head the jobs

council? GE is one of the worst at shipping jobs out of the country. I sort of understand the unwritten agreement that the Pres wont charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes, kinda like "I dont prosecute you, and you dont prosecute me."

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. You'll have to ask the president. You know the one who's presided over the growth of....

4.25 million private sector jobs in the last 26 months? Are you saying there would have been more had he not appointed Immelt? Or is this just an image thing for you?

"Businesses have created more than 4.25 million private sector jobs in the past 26 months. Learn more ..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/jobs

[rhett o rick]

62. So you dont have an answer. I hope you dont think that Jeff Immelt helped

the President create those jobs. Wow, that would be interesting how he would do that while at the same time, shipping jobs out of the country as fast as he can. Maybe Jeff wants to keep his zero tax bracket.

I am going to support the reelection of Pres Obama, I am just soooo curious why he appoints conservatives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. I'm sure the link I provided may be able to answer your questions. I'm sure the president made....

a statement when he made the appoinment? I'd do a little research, if I were as "curious" as you seem to be.

[rhett o rick]

67. I am disappointed that you would assume that I hadnt done any research. Projection I guess.

But all I could find was conjecture that the Pres appointed Immelt because he wanted to reach out to Wall Street. If your research found something else, plez share.

What bothers me is that you dont seem to care why the Pres seems to only appoint conservatives when the middle class and the working class are struggling so.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. What "bothers me" is talking points. Again, you're talking about "image". I didn't do.....

any "research" on this topic, because you're right, it didn't "bother" me. Like the president, I am hopeful that someday, party identity doesn't preclude one from participating in government. And I certainly hope that Mitt Romney, if elected, won't go that route. I want some Democrats included in some of the top spots in a Romney administration.

I'm sorry, but like the tea party extremists, people with your desire for ideological purity is making this country suck. It's why everyone is scared shitless to work across party lines to make life better for all of us. They know it's political suicide, 'cause there's thousands of blogs and radio shows dedicated to "keeping them in line".

And just for the record, because I don't agree with your purity test administration, in no way means "I don't care".

[rhett o rick]

80. I find that fascinating that you want some Democrats to be included in a Romney admin

more than you want some Democrats in a Pres Obama administration. I am certainly not asking for "purity" but would settle for one or two Democrats. Maybe you dont understand but Romney would never have a Democrat in his admin. After what the Republicans did to AG Holder, you still want to be their friends??

You want to paint me as an ideological purist. So tell me what issues that I support that you dont. I support single payer health care, no wars, no torture, killing the Patriot Act and domestic spying, ending Bush tax breaks, etc.
So which of those do you think is extreme?

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. "Democrats in a Pres Obama administration"?

Your arguments are becoming more and more unhinged. Are you serious? Are you suggesting that there are no "Democrats in a Pres Obama administration"?

The kicker is, we probably agree on most issues, we just disagree on how we arrive there. And we most definitely agree on the level of shrill on arrival. I'm all for incremental progress. You obviously want some Arab Spring type ideological revolution, where only progressives get to participate in government. Nice pipe dream, but that's not the real world, nor should it be.

I support single payer, and happen to think that ACA is a way of eventually getting there. Wars? Not anti-war, but anti "stupid war" (like the president and his SOS). No one should be tortured, but I've seen some pretty specious definitions of torture here, so we may or may not agree there. As for the rest, I leave that to the multitude of libertarians who dominate this place.

[rhett o rick]

98. I find it interesting that you would accuse me of wanting a purity test. Projection again.

You, the one that would have everyone here Tombstoned that dares speak out against any of the Pres policies. I have witnessed your "swarms".

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. I know, you're the "bully" catcher. I really wish you would drop the victim act. It's tiresome,

and at this point, a bit boring. "Bullies", "swarms", "packs" seem to people who disagree with you. As I am posting on a "democratic" message board, I thought it would be okay to champion our "democratic" president. I know that pisses some people off here, but that just makes it all the sweeter.

[sendero]

123. Obama couldn't do anything about jobs...

.... they would have assassinated him. Everything Obama did or didn't do was because he couldn't or they would kill him.

All I can say is "wow".

[rhett o rick]

132. So you are saying is that there is no hope because "they" control everything

he does via the threat of assassination? Forgive me if I got that wrong.

[treestar]

139. Maybe the guy made a good advisor

He shipped jobs out, so he knows why it happened. I am not going to convict Immelt of cynically taking the job just to somehow make his lot better (if that job gives him the power to do that) without proof.

[rhett o rick]

146. Are you serious? You rationalize that the Pres should appoint those that are tearing the

country apart because they know how it's done. And you wont convict Immelt of shipping jobs overseas even while working for the President. By your rationale Adolf Hitler would make a great adviser.

I am not sure you realize that we are at war trying to save the middle class and the working class and our democracy. Jeff Immelt is not trying to help our side. His company is the most egregious of the corporations that are shipping jobs out and not paying any taxes. In fact we pay GE subsidies.

Dont you think it would be better if the Pres appointed someone that was interested in saving American jobs?

[treestar]

147. Maybe he is interested in saving American jobs

Your desire to punish people for running companies is run amok. Most Americans don't hate people just because they ran a company and found it cheaper to ship the jobs out. The problem is keeping the number of jobs here, not worrying about who else works.

The President shouldn't appoint people who know less just to punish those who know more, or why this is happening.

You are making it about people, not solutions.

[rhett o rick]

151. Regulations are absolutely necessary to prevent chaos.

Regulating corporations is not punishing them or their CEO's. Corporations are entities that seek profits. If they can gain profits by bribing the government to give them subsidies, lower their taxes, and/or let them rape the environment, they will. If they dont, another corporation will. It is the duty of our government to represent us the people and not corporations that are not people.
We need stop encouraging corporations via tax incentives to move jobs out of the country. Jeff Immelt isnt the man to do this.

[treestar]

155. I agree with that

I just don't blame Immelt personally for the conditions that led to his outsourcing, and don't see how that means he actually desires outsourcing and wants to undermine the stated goal he is helping Obama with - avoiding that.

Outsourcers may be trying to keep their company in business. It is not always a deliberate act designed to hurt the American worker.

[rhett o rick]

156. Blaming Immelt has nothing to do with this. He is trying to make

as much profit as he can as CEO of GE. Morality isnt involved. He will push the envelope as much as we let him. It is our responsibility to keep him from causing damage to our country and make him pay his share of expenses of running this country. His goals are counter to the goals I want for the President and the country. His goal is to make GE more profitable and our goal is to keep America free and have a vibrant middle class and working class.

Why would Pres Obama choose him over others that might share our goal?

[treestar]

157. Why can't President Obama get his take and his experience?

And his taking the job means maybe it is not his "goal" to deprive Americans of jobs. There is no reason GE being more profitable is absolutely against the goal of making American have a healthy working and middle class. If every corporation failed, there would be no middle class. This irrational hatred of "corporations" and CEOs fails to account for the fact that the middle class exists because of them. You want more jobs, yet hate that the corporations exist, are profitable (which they must be to provide jobs) and are the ones that provide jobs, along with smaller businesses and government.

And we know nothing of what Immelt has said or done in the position the President appointed him to.

[rhett o rick]

158. I guess you decided that you were at the end of your rationality

and resorted to putting words into my mouth. "You want more jobs, yet hate that the corporations exist, are profitable (which they must be to provide jobs) and are the ones that provide jobs, along with smaller businesses and government." I didnt say such a thing and shame on you for trying to put those words into my mouth.

Why should I pay my tax dollars to GE so they can move jobs to China?

I dont hate corporations and I dont hold them responsible. I hold those responsible that are willing to give the wealth of the middle class to the corporations. These people are corporatists aka. fascists.

If you cant discuss this issue with intellectual honesty, then the discussion is over.

[treestar]

163. You don't want more jobs?

As long as corporations and CEOs suffer, that's the natural conclusion to take.

Again you have no proof Immelt actually wants to move jobs to China just to screw the American worker and is using his position Obama appointed him to in order to do so. In fact, Obama appointing him to the jobs council would tend to indicate Obama does not think that's Immelt's goal. You were the one who believed Obama is wrong merely to appoint the guy just because his company outsourced jobs. You gave no further thought to the matter. You still have not proven Immelt in evil incarnate and has no helpful knowledge or good intent. You just trash him and his appointer for appointing him.

Government cannot just spurn all business leaders. Not going to happen until the Marxist Revolution; good luck with that.

[rhett o rick]

164. I would like to point out that corporations are making their highest

profits in decades. And they are doing so at the expense of flesh and blood people. In the last 30 years the top 1% has multiplied their wealth 400% while the middle class families have lost 40%. And you worry about the poor corporations. This transfer of wealth from the lower class to the elitist 1% is not sustainable. Hello.

It's weird to be making this argument to a Democrat. I usually make this argument to Republicans.

Corporations exist at our pleasure not the other way round.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Why are only private sector jobs important?

Don't public sector jobs count?

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. You wanna rephrase that?

[MannyGoldstein]

74. Yes. Do you want to answer the question? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. I would, but your question made absolutely no sense. Not surprised, but if you'll pose a

rational question, sans the word salad, I'll be happy to answer.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. I updated it, but here's a copy:

Why are only private sector jobs important?

Don't public sector jobs count?

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. The original question was why Immelt? I posited that I don't know, and didn't much care.

You and I know both know why "public" sector jobs are being slashed by the thousands. Or did you miss the tea party midterms? While folks like you were screeching on boards like this how "disillusioned" we should all be, the tea party was about the business of getting their extremists elected to congress, governor's mansions, and statehouses across the country. They immediately set out to make the dreams of Grover Norquist come true. You know Grover (shrink government so small you can drown it in a bathtub) Norquist, right? Jane Hamsher's BFF?

Don't ask me rhetorical questions, it's beneath you.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. "You know the one who's presided over the growth of....

4.25 million private sector jobs in the last 26 months?"

Why only private sector jobs? Is it because it's a number that's more favorable?

By any objective measure, the economy has been awful under the tenure of Barack Hoover Obama. He's followed Hoover's policies, and gotten the same outcomes, and is proud of it: seems like you're OK with it too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. Extremely "OK with it". Considering the number of jobs created in the last administration.

Give it up Manny. I'm not the one!

[RC]

68. So you are OK with a Democrat appointed Republicans to his Cabinet?

That didn't really unite us, US very well. now did it?

[Hissyspit]

181. Yes. We are a nation of LAWS.

"Jaded partizan lens." Interesting choice of words.

The whole of this thread is amazing, pathetic cowardly rationalization.

Sad.

[Hissyspit]

185. Yes. Lost the argument.

Like I said, sad.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Wanting the previous administration tried wasn't as popular as people think.

Sure, we would all have loved it, but most at that moment wanted to move on from them and never look back.

[NYC_SKP]

13. rec#23

kick

[freshwest]

14. Agreed, all. I've posted on why trying BushCo., although I wanted it, just ain't gonna happen.

Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2012, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I emboldened the reason. No standing government does this to past leaders:

The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.

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

When I thought it through, knowing from history what the conditions of Germany was after WW2, I knew that was the end of the matter for me. The collapse of the United States government that the right wing wants, does not guarantee justice, either.

Thanks for the thread, madokie.

[zeemike]

15. I mostly agree with you.

And this actually goes back to the civil war...after we won we started reconstruction and black people were allowed to vote and run for office....but Johnson killed that and allowed racism to take back the south...and the Jim Crow era was began...and they lived to fight another day in the 60s...and we did not win then either because they just went underground and are with us still.

And I don't believe they would allow any president to live if he did not play ball with them...and that game is rigged to where they win if they lose...yes he must walk a fine line and I think he knows it.

And I do think it is good for the country...perhaps it will make us face the truth this time and perhaps become an active member of society and vote them out.

[Art_from_Ark]

104. (Andrew) Johnson didn't kill Reconstruction

It ended in 1876, at the end of what had been the most corrupt administration up to that time, US Grant's, because the Republicans decided that they would rather steal the election of 1876 from Samuel Tilden than continue the farce that had been Reconstruction.

[zeemike]

121. Well that is one way at looking at it.

But Johnson made reconstruction into a farce through corruption...but reconstruction was the right thing to do sense the war that the south started deserved to be done to eliminate the corruption of the southern slavery stance.
And US Grant was solidly against the southern racist....about as much as anyone of that day could be....and yes the Grant administration was corrupt but not because Grant was for it...but because he was a political novice.

[Art_from_Ark]

126. Reconstruction was nearly a total farce during Grant's administration

While some "carpetbaggers" might have actually had some altruistic bones in their bodies, and wanted to help the freedmen and get the South back on its feet, the majority were looking for some way to profit from the South's plight, or rub the Southerners' defeat into their faces, or both. For example, a lot of former plantations were bought dirt cheap by Northern speculators, and a huge number of Southerners were disenfranchised for years, often derided as "traitors" or even worse. Southern state governments were nearly completely controlled by Republicans, and as today, election theft became a problem (see for example, the Brooks-Baxter War for the Arkansas governorship, and the Election of 1876, including Florida's role).

On top of that, the South was not given much of an economy, and poor whites ended up competing with freed blacks for the small number of low-paying jobs that were available, which led to a lot of resentment. And the old plantation system simply reinvented itself as the sharecropping system, with both whites and blacks working for essentially "slave wages" for large landowners (many of whom were Northerners who had bought former plantations). In 1876, when it became obvious that the presidential election was being stolen from Samuel Tilden, Southerners agreed to recognize Rutherford Hayes (another Union general) as president, in exchange for the North ending Reconstruction. And electing yet another former Union general from Ohio (the 3rd in a row) as President in 1880 did little to assuage resentment in the South.

And while Grant himself might not have been corrupt (and I have a hard time believing that, given the men he surrounded himself with), he certainly didn't seem to do much to stop the corruption, especially considering he had made a career out of keeping people in line as an officer in the army.

[zeemike]

166. Not exactly so.

He busted up the KKK and passed the 15th amendment...

As president, he enforced Reconstruction by enforcing civil rights laws and fighting Ku Klux Klan violence. Grant won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment; giving constitutional protection for African American voting rights. He used the army to build the Republican Party in the South, based on black voters, Northern newcomers ("Carpetbaggers&quot and native white supporters ("Scalawags.&quot As a result, African Americans were represented in the U.S. Congress for the first time in American history in 1870. Grant's reputation as president by 1875 was at an all time high for his previous veto of the Inflation Bill, the passage of the Resumption of Specie Act, and Secretary Bristow's successful raids that shut down the Whiskey Ring.[3]

[Art_from_Ark]

195. "He used the army to build the Republican Party in the South"

Using an army to "build" a political party is akin to installing a military dictatorship.

Sure, the Grant administration might have enabled some freemen to get into politics, but the way that Reconstruction was carried out, especially by an increasingly corrupt, army-backed political party that ended up stealing a presidential election, bred a deep resentment among white Southerners and ensured that the effort would ultimately be unsuccessful.

[zeemike]

199. Well the resentment would have been there no matter what he did.

Short of just letting them go back to the way things were before the war.
Just as surly that there is resentment now against Obama and nothing he does will change that....it is the human nature of people who have no heart and soul to feel resentment even if they have to make shit up to do it.

[Art_from_Ark]

200. Well, gee, how would you feel

if your home and/or livelihood were destroyed, you were disenfranchised by an occupying army that kept telling you you were a traitor and had to be punished, and you had to live with the corruption of the government installed by the occupying army? I think you might feel a little resentment, too. And to add insult to injury, the so-called "reconstruction" gave the South no sort of real economy, just a destroyed plantation system that evolved into a sharecropping system that wasn't much better, and poor whites and blacks, including children, competing for the very few paying jobs.

[freshwest]

109. I've read the assassination threats against Obama were so strong, that he and Holder both...

Had to walk a very fine line. That it was even talked about, not out of fear for their lives although that's natural and proper, but because of what would happen if ot the nation if it occured.

The RW wants civil disorder, all they do to an outrageous extent is to push it as hard as they can everywhere. We've had assassinations directly tied to radio and internet hatemongers. And crimes against those who are identified as Democrats and minorities at a rate I haven't seen since my childhood.

We've got to get these people to see that they are not going to get away with this... discourage them however we can.

This not necessary to 'save the country,' it's being used to further the wealth of plutocrats. Enough, we aren't going to let them kill us for those guys.

[zeemike]

124. I heard someone say that Clinton said to an aid

That asked him why he did not do more that he did not want to wind up like JFK.
And I remember the warning he was given by a senator that he had better not go to any South Carolina military base....a clear public warning the way I see it...And I remember Jimmy Carter saying that he was surprised by how little power the president has.
That all adds up to me...the presidency has been captured by the oligarchs.

[raccoon]

140. Can you give us a link, about Clinton? nt

[zeemike]

165. I wish I could...but can't remember where I heard it.

Probably somewhere on YouTube...and there were no details of who it was that asked him that question....so it could have just been bullshit for all I know....but it is something I thought was possible considering the facts of JFK's death and the in the open cover-up of it..

[Chorophyll]

16. Yup. I think you're right.

And I think he's done a good job considering what he's up against. Much of the hatred I've seen out there doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the president is DOING. It's all about what he IS.

ETA: A great many people in this country seem to be projecting their primal fears onto him. It's interesting to see, but it's ugly as hell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

209. +10,000 n/t

[SunSeeker]

18. K&R

[PBass]

20. I don't think there would have been a 'lynching', but

NOTHING would have been accomplished. There may have been enough votes in the House to impeach Bush (debatable) but the Senate would not have convicted him.

I think the calculation was made that they would prefer to try to accomplish some positive things, rather than attempt to punish people for past outrages (and ultimately fail).

And yes, I do believe that is an "either/or" choice (you can't do both): Does anybody remember all the legislative accomplishments we made, during the Clinton impeachment? How about all the forward strides the country took, during the Watergate scandal. Yeah, me neither.

[bahrbearian]

22. The time was right to do it in 2009 , we had the people behind it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Which "people"?

[Doctor_J]

84. the huge majority that voted for him, and all of their children

who weren't old enough to vote.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. You have any scientific data to back that up? Or this just a hunch?

"Huge majority"?

[Doctor_J]

92. Scientific data

the Bush Doctrine, and all of its minions, were thoroughly repudiated in the 2008 election. He promised change, including a public option for health care, a closing of Gitmo, an end to torture - to do a 180 from the disastrous Bush years. People were ecstatic about the promise of his presidency. He could have had more than 100 million people in the streets on his side. He hired wall street crooks, invited health care thieves to the discussion, and refused to investigate any of the crimes of Bush & Cheney. Bush pushed through all sorts of radical legislation with a smaller congressional majority and without winning the popular vote. Obama quite simply didn't try, and no amount of revisionist history can erase that fact.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. So the answer is no?

[Doctor_J]

97. You asked an either/or question.

Such questions are seldom answered with a yes or no, at least by me.

Are you that dumb, or is it the late hour, or are you just pretending to have a teabagger-level intellect?

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. More evasion? You could simply have chosen to say I don't know. I realize that's....

difficult when you think you know it all, instead you filibustered what was a simple question. Perhaps it is late, or you've chosen to display your own "teabagger-level intellect"? You made a broad sweeping statement that there was some overwhelming desire by Obama voters to exact revenge on Bush/Cheney, and I merely asked for "scientific data" to back that up.

It's obvious you didn't have that data, and now you've resorted to insulting me because you weren't able to get away unchallenged. I've got pretty broad shoulders, so I understand. When you come up with the requested proof, I'll be over here.------------>>>

[PBass]

100. So, Obama should have rammed through radical legislation, the way that Bush did?

Wasn't that one of the most awful things about the Bush presidency? Personally, I thought so...

So why would we want President Obama to do that --- because it's only okay when "we" do it?

Anyway, your posts are not making sense. The whole "he's not trying hard enough" thing is (in my opinion) totally disconnected from the reality of how our government actually works.

If 100 million people would have been in the streets to support Single payer, then where were they? Why did they never show up? That was Barack Obama's job... to lead civil disobedience?

Let me pose the question this way... who led the Civil Rights movement... Lyndon Johnson? (he signed the bills, but he was certainly not a leader of the movement). Do you think it's the president's job to rally the public around Single Payer? Because that sounds like a fantasy scenario.

Check out the famous "make me" quote from FDR.

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. If I could rec a reply, yours would be it!

[GodlessBiker]

23. On Thursday, the guy behind me on an airplane actually said into his phone, "I don't hate black ...

... people, I just hate Obama. I thought he would be assassinated by now." I was in shock. I looked behind me and looked at him to make it clear I had heard what he said. He just gave me a crooked smile.

[Chorophyll]

42. Jeezus!

I can't believe people say shit like that out loud, in public. I'd be ashamed.

[spanone]

24. k&r...

[orpupilofnature57]

28. I've been disappointed ,and wouldn't vote for anyone else

in the world .

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. The voters like GUTS

They don't like wimps. They want a strong leader, especially when they're scared.

By backing down in the face of Republican opposition instead of putting them in their place and blasting back with both barrels, Obama looked weak.

[madokie]

31. You lost me

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. You do know that not everyone agrees with your "opinion", right? Your interpretation of "weak".....

may not fit the general populace.

[1StrongBlackMan]

210. Yes ...

Many here would rather have President Obama "putting them in their place and blasting back with both barrels" in order to not look weak; but accomplish nothing other than not looking weak.

Others, care far less about perceived weakness or strength, when getting something done.

[marlakay]

30. My husband is convinced Obama was threatened

not to do anything or they would hurt his family. The way he acts you would think so.

[madokie]

32. I've often wondered it that is true

but being the intelligent person that he is I can see how he possibly could arrive at the conclusion as he has to take the road he's traveled due to the political climate he came in to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. A hearty K&R!

[jaysunb]

34. Good post

Having been black for nearly 70 years, I can attest to the fact that, being the "first " black to do anything--let alone be President--in this country, is probably, the most mentally and physically uneviable position to find yourself in.

I think most thinking people-- and especially black people, were braced for this when it became a reality....but there could be no better person to take up this challenge than Barack Obama. A man of his time.

Thanks again for the post. It should be "required reading" for every progressive.

[madokie]

38. Thank you for understanding

President Obama is the man we were looking for for so many years and in my eyes he's lived up to all my expectations and then some. I simply love the man and his family. They make me proud to be an American. Something a few years ago I couldn't honestly say I was. I was disillusioned to say the least during the dick and w's reign of terror.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Great post jaysunb. Your post describes why black women were initally afraid to back Obama,

my older sister included. They were convinced that someone would assasinate him, and their fears weren't completely unfounded. It's the reason he had to have early SS protection. Unlike some, I saw the president going out of his way to ensure a nervous white electorate that he wasn't the radical black liberation caricature that was being portrayed by some.

Some of us know, from our own personal experiences, what it means to be first. Jackie Robinson knew. Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall knew. Rosa Parks knew. Being first comes with much celebration in some quarters, and much derision & anger in others. I think the president has played it just about right. Let's be honest here, POBama probably owes his current position, in part, to his white heritage. That, and the fact that in most situations, he really is the adult in the room.

The fact that he hasn't pitched a "progressive" hissyfit has made him a centrist traitor to some, but the rest of us know the truth as so aptly laid out in the o.p.

[PBass]

101. I'm shocked. So, you don't think the priority of the first Black president

was to take the partisan divide in America under Bush, and convert it into a huge, un-mendable canyon, by making his main priority to discredit the last president?



Because that's actually what some people are saying in this thread.

[DevonRex]

159. +1. nt

[SidDithers]

35. DU rec...nt

Sid

[demgrrrll]

36. Great post

[MagickMuffin]

40. The hatred is twofold: his skin color and his party affiliation

The other side would have shown hatred no matter which Democrat won. Hillary would have received the same hatred.

It's just who they are, they can't help themselves. They better hope the Jesus truly forgives them before entering the Pearly Gates << reference to Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)>>

[GoCubsGo]

47. Yup. But, there is also a third element.

The President gets an extra dose of that hatred because of his skin color. Hillary would have caught extra shit because she is not male. However, there is also the matter that they were rejected in favor of people who they consider inferior (i.e., ANY Democrat). They just can't stand the fact that a majority of Americans told them that they suck.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. Absolutely postitively correct.

+infinity and K&R and thank you!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. Frankly, I don't see the surprise

I knew Obama was a moderate at the beginning. His mentor was Uncle Joe and he had the longest timetable for pulling out of Iraq. He had no intention of doing anything about the prior administrations crimes or anything about NAFTA. If McCain had gotten in we would be talking about year three of our invasion and occupation of Iran and Palin would be hailed as a fashion icon wearing millions while smashing champagne bottles on navy ships being launched including the USS McCain and the USS Palin. The economy wouldn't even be mentioned no matter how bad it was and the focus would be on how "Democrat" talking points sound just like the terrorist's talking points,....oh,....and Ronald Reagan would have been carved on Mount Rushmore....

As you can tell, I supported Kucinich.

[Rhiannon12866]

63. Agreed, he's centrist, just like both Clintons.

I've liked them all, figure it's the best we can do right now. But Dennis was my candidate, too, since 2003.

Welcome to DU, Spitfire of ATJ! It's great to have you with us!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

66. Thanks. Then again,...there WAS this other guy that comes to mind...

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Smeagol_announces_his_candidacy.mp3

Damn shame this happened....

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Smeagol_does_dean_scream.mp3

[WheelWalker]

52. I couldn't agree with you more.

Blessings.

[The Wizard]

53. Another Caucasian Vietnam vet

saying roger that. The bigots are still fulminating. Remember the douche bags who showed up with high powered rifles threatening violence, albeit veiled. Plain and simple, teabaggers/Republicans are abnormal. There's not a sane one left.

[heaven05]

197. if

if it comes to some kind of right-wing armed insurrection, it will only be because of limburger, beck, o'reilly, hannity, and the lack of fight, for the last three years of the Democratic Party leadership. I pray we are smarter than to loose live rounds at each other. Won't solve a thing.

[unblock]

55. i generally agree with your sentiment, but i think you're meaningfully wrong on a couple points.

first, although there certainly was, prior to the election, some hay made out of the fact that he was catholic, and yes, he was young, i've never heard any historian remotely suggest that the opposition he faced during his time in office and/or his assassination really had much, if anything, to do with either his religion or his age. there were many other issues at play, and certainly by the time of his death, he had created many enemies based not on those factors, but based on what he (and bobby) were trying to accomplish.

second, the hatred obama isn't so much because *he* is black, it's because he represents blacks, as does the entire democratic party. remember the hatred bill clinton faced, remember the crap they dumped on kerry, gore, dukakis, etc. and think of the crap they continue to dump on pelosi and hillary and others. imagine if hillary had won. or any other democrat, such as kucinich, for that matter. do you seriously think they would have afforded them any more respect? sure, there would have tailored their barbs to the individual, but the republican party and the radical right-wing have done essentially the same to any democrat.

after all, white democrats are nothing but black sympathizers. at least that's the way a lot of republicans see it.


but as for the sentiment, i agree. notwithstanding that i remain amazed that a black man somehow became president (at least we can thank shrub for SOMEthing), i agree totally that he's had to walk on thin ice, knowing he faced a toxic environment, and knowing that he was going to get crap dumped on him no matter what he did.

[Gothmog]

57. I agree with the OP

I am a Jewish American living in Houston. Racism and hatred is still very present. Look at the idiots in the tea party who want to take our country back. Look at the birther crap and the obstructionism of the GOP. If President Obama had tried to try Bush and Cheney, the country would have melted down and nothing would have been accomplished. As is, President Obama has some great accomplishments from his first two years

[JonLP24]

61. I've been thinking

and it isn't this issue I'm referring to even though it reminded me of others (I felt trying BushCo for crime's ship sailed long before he was elected) but I keep thinking there are many issues that are brought up and shut down based primarily on how the Republicans will react. I can't ever imagining the Republicans shooting down proposals because it would fire up liberals.

If feel this one area where we're weak.

[dionysus]

64. i agree. what many people don't seem to get is, the penalty for war crimes and treason

is life imprisonment or execution. the mere idea that you could get the country behind that is laughable.

even the attempt would;
A) start a civil war
B) have the GOP try to indict democrats for treason until the end of time

even if he was white the result would be damn near the same.

[murielm99]

69. They would have done to him

what they did to JFK, and they may do it yet if he wins too many more victories that can't be spun, like ACA or Bin Laden, or if he is reelected.

I just won't say it out loud or type it.

[Doctor_J]

86. so you're saying the president to has to appease the enemy

because he's afraid for his life. Wow. That is really an insult to the man. He's willing to do less than his best, less than what's needed for 330 million Americans, because he's being threatened. You have a low opinion of his character.

[murielm99]

91. I didn't fucking say that.

Can't you read?

[Doctor_J]

96. I can, and that's what you said

Unless you mean that YOU think he shouldn't fight the right because it might result in his assassination. The OP said that the president had to adopt Republican policies or he would have been lynched. Then the OP brought up the spectre of the JFK assassination. You repeated that. SO someone thinks he's appeasing the far right in part because the crazies will kill him if he doesn't. Is ot you, the OP, or the president himself?

[heaven05]

70. true

concise and to the point. refreshing in this mean spirited season

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. "mean spirited season"

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

[Voice for Peace]

82. hide it? I love this president, I think he's done an amazing job so far

considering all you've described, well said. I was expecting your post
to make me feel bad but I'm smiling instead.

I think there are a lot of people who may be somewhat politically
"undecided" but who will vote for a second term specifically
because he IS the first black president. That alone represents
such an important shift in America, we don't want to lose and
go backwards.

[Doctor_J]

83. if you're going to be hated and threatened anyway, why kiss up to the terrorists?

your statement is nonsensical

our first Black President, President Barack Obama would have come in office doing what many of us wanted him to do, try the dick and w and company for war crimes, there would have been a modern day lynching on the White house lawn within the first 100 days

There was anyway, DESPITE the fact that he didn't prosecute Smirk, didn't pardon Siegelman, didn't insist on a Public Option, and so on.

By bringing JFK into the discussion, you are implying that Obama is acting in an appeasing manner because he's afraid for his life. If this is true, he should resign immediately and tell the nation the reason.

Wish I could unrec

[Zalatix]

114. Unrec? Oh please.

If Obama had done what you said, the Reich Wing would have started a civil war already. Most likely starting with an assassination.

It falls to US LIBERALS to have Obama's back more than we have.

[OnyxCollie]

154. Failing to prosecute war crimes

which have cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is OK because he's our guy and he's black.

How nonrational.

[Zalatix]

190. Ok so who are you voting for in 2012?

[OnyxCollie]

191. None of your business.

Does privacy mean nothing to you?

It apparently means nothing to Constitutional scholar Obama, since he's expanded Bush's domestic surveillance program. Senator Obama even voted to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies who participated. Did the Republicans force him to do that, too?

When you cast your vote for Obama, you say, "I consent to increased domestic surveillance, drone strikes, indefinite detention, assassination, attacks on Occupy groups by DHS, tax cuts for the rich, deep sea oil drilling, etc."

"Forward!"

Edit to add: "Ok so who are you voting for in 2012?" Ok? Ofuckingk? Your offhand dismissal of war crimes sheds light on what it means to be a "Good German American."

[Zalatix]

194. I'm voting for President Obama. Oh, no, my privacy has been compromised!!!

When you cast your vote for Obama, you say, "I consent to increased domestic surveillance, drone strikes, indefinite detention, assassination, attacks on Occupy groups by DHS, tax cuts for the rich, deep sea oil drilling, etc."

And if I vote against him, I am saying "I opposed to increased domestic surveillance, drone strikes, indefinite detention, assassination, attacks on Occupy groups by DHS, tax cuts for the rich, deep sea oil drilling, etc."

NOT!!!!!

If I vote against Obama, or I just decide to stay home and not vote, I am saying that I want all of the above to get worse.

[OnyxCollie]

196. Keep "hoping" for "change"

and other nonrational things.

Make a wish on the first star you see tonight. I've heard that's very effective.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. "Wish I could unrec". I'll bet you do.

Oh, and whenever you get the chance, I'm waiting for that data to substantiate the claim you made upthread. You know the one I mean.

[BlueJazz]

88. I can only say... You tell it like it is. Good Post.

[CakeGrrl]

89. Rec'd

[malaise]

90. K & R

You may just be right

[Surya Gayatri]

95. Couldn't agree more, madokie...thanks so much

for daring to expose yourself to a barrage of criticism from the Obama haters.

We are so fortunate to have this wonderful man at the helm at such a critical juncture in US and world history.

[Skip Intro]

99. Yeah, it's all about race.

Nothing else could possibly explain opposition to ideas and theories from the left.

All about race.

[Initech]

103. I like the way Bill Maher put it on his last special:

"You can't change the world in a day but you can at least get the smell of stupid out of the room."

That about sums up the first term - but the stupids are regrouping and coming back crazier than ever.

[99th_Monkey]

105. Great post. thanks, but

I do question the reasons you posit for JFK's assassination.

-he was going to 1) pull out of Viet Nam (which had only been
a few thousand "advisers" prior to his being killed), 2) virtually
disband the CIA, or at least curb it's dog in a big way, and
3) had his eye on replacing the Federal Reserve with a nationalize
Federally-owned and controlled Bank.

he "had to go" for these reasons I think, not his religion or being
young and vibrant.

[madokie]

112. As I mentioned early on

I think we all have our opinions and you are entitled to yours as I am to mine.
I remember when JFK was elected and he was hated by many because of his age, good looks and his religion. Couple that with what you said and you have a toxic mix that he didn't survive. He didn't fit the mold of an old white man and to many at the time that was reason enough. Plus because of his age a lot of people thought he was too young to know the ins and outs of running our country.
Personally I believe that bush1 had something to do with his assassination. I'm not in disagreement with what you said I'm just adding to it some more of the history of the moment.

[99th_Monkey]

175. All of the above, agreed. ~nt

[Larry Ogg]

171. Your right, JFK had to go pronto...

And it was because he was a liberal, and a huge threat to the PTB, but to make matters worse, he was warning the American people about the secrete society groups that had undue influence within the government.

In effect, he was making war on white color criminals, i.e. the capitalist, warmongers, and banksters.

It is magical thinking for conservative democrats, to put a conservative Obama into the same category as a liberal Kennedy.

Dennis Kucinich is more like Kennedy, and Obama is "no" more like Kennedy, then is the Ronald Reagan that people say, was more liberal than Obama.

[BlueMTexpat]

106. K&R and I will proudly be casting my vote for President Obama again in November 2012! eom

[lamp_shade]

110. I've got his back. K&R

[Zalatix]

113. +1. Obama got handed a shit sandwich and no condiments and no chefs to help.

[chknltl]

116. um...didnt know POTUS had power to impeach anyone

Thought that had somethin to do with a different branch of our three supposedly co-equal branches of government, that being Congress. Although my memory gets worse daily it seems, I don't recall holding President Obama accountable for something the House of Representatives, imho, should have done during bush's second term. I may have wished that the Houses judiciary started an investigation into bush administrations war crimes...still do but after Speaker of the House Pelosi took impeachment off the table I pretty much knew that their war crimes were likely not even gonna see the light of day in our media.....much to our nations deep shame. I am sure those who suffered due to the bush administrations war crimes
have forgiven and forgotten
the citizens of America, in regards to those crimes.

I always wondered what it would be like, to have a conversation with a citizen of Iraq, you know an ordinary guy who lost a loved one, a non-combatant during the war or after, someone who had to watch the the babies being born suffering from the ravages of depleted uranium poisoning. Someone who knew that that poison was to remain in his ground, poisoning everyone for thousands of years and knowing that poison was put there by forces under control of the bush administration. I have honestly wondered what I could tell this guy....could I say that I was sorry...well no, it wasn't directly my fault. I am but one single American. And yes, this is that same America that is supposed to be the home of democracy, you know, a government of by and for the people...but in the end, I guess my people didn't really care so much, hell, I guess there was not enough of us who did care to make a difference. Still aren't I guess.

I have also wondered what many of you, my fellow Americans, would say to a guy like this. I know what Representative Jim McDermott would say because it was he who first alerted me to this war crime and its nightmare consequence. For his fight to help the Iraqi citizenry as both a congressman and an MD , and for his fight in the halls of congress to get medical attention to our own troops wounded by this WMD, and for his attempts to bring it to our attention, Jim McDermott, has attained the rank of highest personal hero status in my eyes. Not many like him left these days...guess I got nothing more to say on this.
chris 'chknltl' chick
First of the First Armored Cav., First Armored Division '73-74

[fasttense]

117. Obama has done a few liberal things since he took office.

But he has done much more corporatist things.

I'm not even talking about punishing war criminals and other RepubliCON criminals. I'm talking about NOT doing NAFTA on steroid trade agreements. I'm talking about not leaving helicopter Ben in the Treasury. How about NOT working out sweetheart deals with criminal banks? How about NOT making secret agreements with corporations. How about not forcing us all to buy crappy overpriced health insurance and backing out of any real health care reform. How about NOT throwing ACORN under the bus with an illegal law. I'm talking about how he is always taking tiny little minor progressive steps, tiny little baby liberal steps, while taking big giant steps toward fascism. When is he going to learn to walk like a real liberal adult? Why couldn't he act more like FDR then Herbert Hoover?

It's not because I'm racist that I dislike his policies and legislation. I attended Martin Luther King's funeral. I find Obama as a person and his beautiful family to be quite likable. But as a progressive or liberal president, he is far from the mark.

That said, I will vote for him because I have no other real choice. Besides, I live in East TN and we vote on those rigged election machines and it wont matter how I vote anyway. It just gives me a momentary illusion of democracy. This whole election is just a momentary illusion of democracy.

[agent46]

208. The few "liberal" things he's done

The few "liberal" things he's done have cost him nothing politically. Other than that he's moved forward with strictly corporatist economic and foreign policies. He's thrown a couple of bones to the left to make us think he's really one of us, just stymied by those darn Republican obstructionists.

[hedgehog]

118. I agree.

Revolutions are nice to talk about, but hell to live through or die in. He is walking a very narrow path to get us to a better place.

[GeorgeGist]

119. The political climate is far more toxic today ...

than it was when Obama was inaugurated. I'm 65.

[great white snark]

120. Kick for the Sunday morning crowd.

Great post.

[DCBob]

125. He is still "walking on thin ice"..

Maybe even thinner.

Good post.

[Enrique]

127. you are imagining he had any inclination to do so

folks on the left and right both have various fantasies about Obama which don't have any relation to the actual person, and often involve race.

[Iggy]

128. it's Not Just About Obama Being

black POTUS.

MIC policy is just one more example of several major U.S. policies which never change- regardless of who
is POTUS, regardless of the political "majority" in congress. politics is more or less irrelevant.

the automatic off the hook approach to what past presidents do is part of the "accepted" policy.

[JHB]

129. What about working up to that?

"Big ticket" prosecutions like W and darth deserve take some perparing of the ground, politically. And the main way to do that is to marry their names to lesser charges father down their totem pole.

We saw this in action in the 90s. As much as the wingnuts hated Bill Clinton, even they couldn't have drummed up "centrist" acquiescense to impeachment proceedings it they hadn't spent his entire term pumping one bullshit scandal after another. It put a cloud over his presidency that they pointed to and said "where there's smoke...", despite it mostly being the fogbank of steam rising off their own great heaps of bullshit.

With Bush, there's no need for fakery. War contractor fraud and abuse provided plenty of opportunities to send clouds over their heads for legitimate charges.And with every charge you pound the point that this profiteering was allowed to happen while they put our armed forces in danger on false pretenses. And that this fraud and abuse contributed to the danger they were in. A constant stream of those swings perceptions around that going after B&C isn't just a poitical act of revenge, but the rightfu prosecution of an administration of crooks.

And while all this is percolating, working the "guilt by association" angle with congressional Republicans would have at least opened up a "second front" in directions they had to cover their ass -- not just the most rightward angle -- to work towards cracking their lock-step voting bloc. How would the Administration's efforts on other fronts have gone if "block everything at all costs" was a lot less viable and congressmen could see up close some real costs to following it?

And the worst part is, this isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. They made it clear from the get-go that they'd simply blockade, and their track record supported this. Bill Clinton didn't get any cooperation for not vigorously investigating the many Reagan/Bush scandals once that pair were no longer in a position to obstruct information provided to investigators. The Republicans just took it as their due and when right to pumping their bullshit out.

[TNLib]

130. I disagree

Obama is a moderate hawk, always has been always will be and I believe he was not even thinking of trying his predecessors for war crimes. In fact he pretty much left intact the policies of the Bush years when it came to Iraq and he expanded the war effort in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying President Obama is a bad president I'm just saying he's not the liberal anti-war president that the media sometimes paints him to be.

When it comes to foreign policy, social and economic policy he strikes me as moderate conservative. The only issue that I felt he showed true liberal ideals was on gay rights.

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. And he never claimed to be "liberal anti-war president", not when he was running, nor since.

And he's certainly no hawk, or Iran & Syria would've been popped by now. Candidate Obama told us he was not anti-war, but anti "stupid" war, which is how he characterized Iraq. Oh, and he ran on ending the war in Iraq, and "expanding the war effort in Afghanistan", so it's not like he pulled a fast one.

[treestar]

137. I've talked to nice, Catholic people

Who seem pretty nice, but expressed the evil sentiment that they thought Obama would have been assassinated by now. One said she voted for him because she trusted Biden, who she thought would be President by now! I kid you not.

Obama may lose that element of the vote for his second run. Good riddance.

I agree, I get impatient with the condemnations of the administration over not trying the "war criminals" which would be difficult to prove, dominate the news cycle, lost political capital (and often from the same posters demanding he get more out of Congress than he can) and set up a backlash where every President gets tried by the subsequent President if of a different party. Heck, I was expecting every single one to be impeached after Clinton, and fortunately that seems not to have become a habit.

[raindaddy]

141. Or Maybe We Elected A Black Man Who Was Way More Conservative Than Many Of Us Thought

It sounds like you're saying by electing a black man we need to lower our expectations because if he made decisions based on what once were Democratic party ideals he would've been so demonized by the Republican party and the corporate media that he would've been driven from office.
So does that mean we can continue to expect trade agreements made in secret that hand corporations even more power to undermine workers and the environment? A continuation of Middle East wars and occupations, killing of innocent people and the continued erosion of our civil liberties, etc because Obama walks on thin ice?
Just maybe if Obama would've followed more in the footsteps of pre-Reagan Democrats and held the banksters responsible for their crimes, fought for a robust stimulus bill, pulled our troops from Afghanistan, etc, the groundswell that elected him would've overcome whatever "lynching" the corrupt racist segment of our population had in mind. But we'll never know.
Sorry, but I tend to agree with liberal black men like Cornell West and Harry Belafonte who are disappointed in the Obama presidency and have stated so in public. If anyone understands racism it would be these men and they're not aren't making excuses, because they understand the severity of the time we're living in.

"Barack Obama and his mission has failed because it has lacked a certain kind of moral courage, a certain kind of moral vision that we are in need of."
-Harry Belafonte

"Mitt Romney is a catastrophic response to a catastrophe, whereas Obama is a disastrous response to a catastrophe. Is disaster better than catastrophe? Yes it is. I wish we had a third candidate who could actually do something, but we don't at the moment,"
-Cornel West

[kpete]

142. I think

i love you

peace, kpete

[Overseas]

143. I wanted the Democrats to start the impeachment or Truth & Reconciliation in 2006

as soon as we had the majority. I wanted Speaker Pelosi to put it On The Table and keep it there.

How different would the beginning of his presidency have been if the country had been engaging in a very sobering review of the many ways in which the Bush gang violated the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg principles?

Even Truth & Reconciliation would have clearly demonstrated how far off track our country had gone.

Then perhaps the subsequent financial fraud would not have been as easily bailed out and smoothed over.

Perhaps the people would have been given our one sentence healthcare reform-- Medicare eligibility age is now 0. -- As an appropriate amelioration to our being bankrupted by financial fraud on such a massive scale.

And an immediate moratorium on foreclosures.

[rudycantfail]

144. If this is true

that the Democratic Party leadership cannot challenge TPTB for fear of being killed even when they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress, then the game is over. Furthermore, with the party leadership knowing that it is game over, they continue to sell the illusion to the rest of the country that fundamental change and hope are still possible. That is a terrible thing.

[lonestarnot]

145. K & R!

[CleanLucre]

148. Acting like his race has anything to do with anything is BS.

[DevonRex]

160. That's what the Tea Party and Republicans say

too. You find yourself in interesting company. That's the kindest thing I can say to your post.

[CleanLucre]

172. Giving him a pass because he's black is racist

Do they say that too? IDK I don't associate with them. They've made it impossible to watch most "news."

The OP is wishful thinking if he was gonna come into office and couldn't "do what we wanted him to" because of his skin color. That's lame and I've never heard it before either.

I've looked at him based on "the content of his character" from the start. So save your insinuations.

[DevonRex]

189. No. I call it as I see it. When a lib is blind to racism

I wonder. Every single time. It takes a whole lot of deaf and blind not to have heard and seen blatant racism and actual threats against this man that NEVER occurred with any of our previous presidents.

So, I wonder just as any thinking liberal would at the denial of racism that has been at the fore in every dealing the GOP has had with President Obama. Not hidden, mind you. Not subtle. They don't even have the sense to act with dignity, that's how blinded they are by their racist hatred. Jan Brewer ring a bell?

I stand up for what I believe in, to whom I must - even on DU.

[CleanLucre]

193. Oh please

I responded to a single point and you changed the subject. "Blind to racism"

but I edited my first post before posting and may not have been clear:

"If our first Black President, President Barack Obama would have come in office doing what many of us wanted him to do, try the dick and w and company for war crimes, there would have been a modern day lynching on the White house lawn within the first 100 days."

I do not beleive the reason he didn't do differently is because of his skin color.

[jaysunb]

177. Actually, your post is "BS"

It's ALL about race and even Ray Charles could see that and he's both blind AND dead.

[CleanLucre]

192. "It's ALL about race"

what does that even mean?

[RevStPatrick]

149. In my little fantasy world...

...either before or shortly after Mr. Obama was inaugurated, "they" came to him and sat him down. "They" showed him this scene, but shot from a completely different angle:

Then, "they" explained to him that he would not rock the boat too much. "They" were happy for him that he was the first African-American to be elected president, but "they" were also going to be watching him closely...

[Larry Ogg]

173. If you haven't seen other videos of the execution, then you need to watch this movie...

It's called evidence of Revision.

Fast forward to 17 minutes and watch it for a few minutes, there was a video taken from the other side of the car facing the grassy knoll.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=666048701355447870

[4th law of robotics]

150. Wow. Because he's the first president to face a rigorous opposition

from the other side?

Clinton would have been amused to be told that the only reason he was being impeached is that he's black .

[HipChick]

170. K&R!

Because he was so pissed at McCain/Palin -

[Blanks]

174. I wasn't an Obama supporter in 2008.

I saw him on the campaign trail and I've seen just how bogged down a president can get when it is finally their turn.

I didn't expect that he'd accomplish the things he talked about; he just seemed too green (as in too young not too environmentally friendly). Having said that; I think he's doing a good job.

As far as going after Bush & Cheney; we don't do that here. It doesn't matter how the president feels about anyone else who has ever occupied that office. The president respects all former presidents. Period.

It is an extremely important part of our democracy to have a respectful and consequence free passage of power.

Sure they can go after underlings and if the underlings point their fingers at the big dogs; that's different.

There are things that I believe are valid criticisms of Obama and despite the fact that I think he's doing a good job; he could have done a better job, but going after the previous administration really never was on the table.

[Hissyspit]

180. The President respects all former presidents for WAR CRIMES?

And unprecedented attacks on the Constitution?

And all of Democratic Congress has to do that, too?

And all of DOJ and the AG?

What a pathetic rationalization.

This is a nation of LAWS.

[Blanks]

187. I probably disliked Dubya's more than most...

...and that it isn't appropriate to go after him (and especially not Cheney) is extremely disheartening.

But, yeah, if the former president is going to be tried for war crimes; it has to come from somewhere else.

We send these people to Washington to do the people's business, and going after the previous administration looks a lot more like a partisan witch hunt than it looks like doing the people's business.

Unless the people are screaming for action (both sides). I just didn't see that. A few voices here and there at best.

I'm glad that Obama moved on from the past. Bush will be judged by the historians. It isn't fair to the people who suffered (and continue to suffer) but life's not fair.

[Hissyspit]

188. Nonsense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

211. +1

I see and hear people in their "outrage bubble" reinforced by the sound of their voice bouncing off the choir pews ...

But not realizing that their voice is a mere whisper outside of their church.

Without a great out-cry from a maority of the people; not just a majority of liberals, going after the previous administration would be (have been) a bad idea.

[StarryNight]

176. like Bill Clinton didn't get "lynched." nt

[stupidicus]

178. or use that as a reason not to

that many can buy into.

I've always thought it was more about avoiding our collective shame and preserving the tired and unearned concept of "american exceptionalism" than any real threats to his personal safety. There was some discussion about fears of a revolt from agencies tied to that vast "military indistrial complex" and that repubs would use it as an excuse for strict obstructionism, but as we know about the latter, his being a black dem was all that was required for that.

Does the same thing apply to his efforts to shut down the efforts of others as well? http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/02/wikileaks-obama-administration-secretly-worked-to-prevent-prosecution-of-war-crimes-by-the-bush-administration/

It's doubtful in any case, that he was fearful of a "lynching".

[madokie]

179. I don't think I implied that he was fearful of a lynching

If I did I didn't realize it.

[McCamy Taylor]

184. CIA woul have "removed" him from office. They love the Bushes and would never allow

one of them to be indicted.

[JoeyT]

186. It's not like not indicting for war crimes is the only,

or even the biggest complaint.

I agree with you about the indictments, I'll even grant that it was possible that we couldn't have gotten HCR without a mandate, but many of the complaints are stuff he's done entirely on his own, and the Republicans aren't even forcing him to do it in any way. The free trade deals and drone strikes come to mind. The free trade stuff isn't even good for the party. A lot of people *still* haven't forgiven us for Clinton's. They're wildly unpopular with everyone that isn't ultra-rich.

[Blanks]

198. The free trade deals are a necessary step...

...toward social justice in the parts of the world where we have children working in sweatshops.

It isn't good for the short term American economy, but it is good for the long term world economy.

I don't believe that our next economic boom is going to be brought on by 'bringing the manufacturing jobs back home' anyway; I believe it's going to be alternative energy and agriculture.

If we installed enough solar panels on roofs in the next ten years to provide excess energy for enough households; it would create an income for retirees. This could take some of the burden off the social security administration and provide a lot of work for small businesses. It would also give us more energy security since more people would be generating their own electricity.

If a family could have their utilities paid and have an income; how many families could and would go from a two income family to a single income family. There would be less construction needed on large centralized coal fired plants, and more control over the environment in the hands of individuals. If we put more supports in place for locally grown agriculture we could reduce the food imported into this country and fuel consumption due to food transportation.

Free trade agreements don't hurt any of that kind of progress; but it opens up foreign markets to us. I'm sure the president is making an informed decision based on the best information. I think once everyone accepts that the future economy will not look like the current (grovelling for manufacturing jobs) economy things will fall into place and more free trade will seem like a good idea.