Can we **please** moderate the moderation?

[Stinky The Clown]

We won an electoral landslide. We won an actual majority of the votes. We **gained** seats in both houses. We even won the longest of longshots with Senator Franken. (Say **that** one again!)

The last election was a mandate. The man charged with being the most liberal in the Senate was elected president.

The Republicans were running for the exits. *They* know the deal. They didn't just lose. They got their asses kicked. Big time.

And what do we have now?

Moderation. Making nice nice with the other side. Bipartisanship.

I'm sorry, but this is not what I voted for.

I wanted the liberal agenda moved forward. I wanted universal single payer health care. I wanted the criminals prosecuted. I wanted the effects of unfettered republicanism set back.

I've posted on a number of the cabinet picks. Some of you agree with me, while others .... not so much. That's okay. We can differ. But I won't see it your way just because you say I should. But if that's the case, defend your views. Convince me.

Do you oppose Universal Single Payer Health Care In Your Lifetime?

Do you oppose Prosecution of the torturers? The war criminals? The liars? The brigands and scoundrels? The looters of our treasury?

Do you?

Because it would appear that we not be prosecuting anyone. And we will have Sanjay Gupta **selling** some halfway measure that preserves the interests of BigMed and BigPharma.

Yeah, some half way measures can be seen as real victories. I have no doubt that Gitmo's "prison" will be closed. But I am just as sure that we will be in Iraq for a very long time. At a lower level of heat, probably. But there nonetheless.

Do you support the ability of George and The Dick to earn huge bux giving speeches, even as we **all** know they BROKE LOTS OF LAWS?

I want fire breathing lefties running things. I'll settle for mainstream Liberals.

If you disagree with me, make sense, not excuses.

And fuck that 'chess game' bullshit. We can all see the same things.




Edit to add: I **still** plan to be ON THE MALL on January 20, cheering and crying from joy.

[tblue]

1. Agreed. Except I believe Obama is a moderate, unfortunately.

But we as a nation voted the right wingers down. We owe the 'other side of the aisle' absolutely nothing.

[RiverStone]

118. And Obama is obviously to the right of DU, and DU is to the left...

Of mainstream Dems.

I share the OP's frustration and most definitely, the rightie wingnuts never sought to find middle ground - they just tried to shove their fundie BS down the throats of America.

Thankfully, I believe America finally woke up a see the pukes for what they are and what they have done! I would not be surprised if we only have Dem presidents for the next 20 years (or more).

[Systematic Chaos]

2. Thank you for so succinctly summing up a huge chunk of what has had me so depressed lately.

A hugh :kick: & Rec from this disappointed far-leftist.

Seriesly.

:(

[Lance31]

50. Agree, hanging is to good for them...

Blowtorches and dull knives and televised would be my choice.

One can dream, sigh

[The Doctor.]

102. "Burning's too good for 'em...

they should be torn into little bitsy pieces, and buried alive!"

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. If we had a veto proff majority we could be partisan.

We don't. To get anything done we will have to flip a few republican votes. Sadly that's the way it works.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Do we know they won't flip?

You think the Mainers' constituents don't want Single Payer?

You think Nebraskans don't want Single Payer?

You think Floridians don't want Single Payer?

[CTyankee]

8. Go for it Husb! Absolutely. Obama needs to hear it.

We all need to get behind this thing. Kick butt all we can.

I love it. MORE!!!

[asthmaticeog]

58. "Obama needs to hear it"

HELL YEAH! If we all just post on the internet as hard as we can, President Magic will suddenly stop being the moderate that he campaigned as and turn overnight into Dennis Kucinich! LET'S KICK SOME ASS, DU! These keyboards of ours aren't gonna bring about socialist utopia by themselves!

[Lorien]

10. This Floridian wants Universal Single Payer health Care, and I believe

that if we got it we would never, ever want to go back. No politician in Britain could survive if they suggested taking away the "socialized" health care system there. If Dems did manage to give us something similar there's a good chance that we might see a permanent Democratic majority in Washington. No one would ever want to turn back the clock. I think that scares the hell out of the GOP AND the DINOs out there.

[backscatter712]

33. Don't you mean filibuster-proof majority?

I doubt that Democrats will have to worry too much about presidential vetoes from Obama unless they're being extra-extra-douchey.

Republican filibusters OTOH...

[Daemonaquila]

55. Oh dear gods. There is no such thing as a 'veto proof majority."

The political game is about making it work ANYWAY. Waiting for a mythical veto-proof majority is a cowardly excuse to do nothing. It's also a great way to prove that there is little difference in a democratic-led and republican-led government, and make the democratic platform and liberal ideals irrellevant.... incidentally preventing the election EVER of a veto-proof majority because the democrats will have proven their ineffectiveness over and over.

Why yes... the rethugs can decimate the constitution and the country without a veto-proof majority, but the dems can only whimper and simper under the same conditions? Puhleeze!

[Le Taz Hot]

61. This is such a tired old argument

and has been shot down ad nauseum. I don't even know where to begin but to point out that the Republicans never had a majority and they got everything they wanted passed -- including a fucking war that a good number of Democrats voted for. This is not cowardice, it's complicity.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. Why is the republican party...

the only one capable of getting anything done? They never had a filibuster proof majority, and the few times the dems threatened to do it our "Leader" backed down. Now they are in the minority, and still manage to bully the dems. Damn, we need some real leadership in congress.

[defendandprotect]

99. Exactly -- Repugs in power no matter numbers--!!! How...???

Well, I watched as Sen Geo Mitchell handed the majority DEM Senate over to Bob Dole --

At that time courtesy, non-partisanship simply covered up these facts --

few noticed --

[sarcasmo]

4. "Who moderates the monitors"?

[no limit]

5. You voted for Dennis Kucinich?

I voted for Obama, but I knew when I voted for him he wouldn't get many of the things you mentioned done. He was simply the lesser of 2 evils. Kind of sucks but that's just how it is.

[truedelphi]

7. Dear President Obama - I got the feeling that once elected

You would not be the sort to forget us little people.

You had me fooled, and I wish you had remembered.

Wasn't there a time when you were a community organizer, well aware of how the Corporate viewpoint is not the best viewpoint?

When you thought that maybe the Wall Street billionaries might not be the best people to be given a BailOut. Especially not one without any oversight.

When you thought that using a telephone service provider's services should not cause you or any other individual to be spyed on.

But you voted for the BailOut, and you voted for FISA, and your new cabinet picks reek of the status quo of the Corporate Wolf.

Either you are much less aware than I thought you to be, or you promised a great deal to the Powers Behind the throne or possibly both.

I must hold on to those little sparks of optimism that I still have left, as without those sparks my day to day processing of reality becomes too bleak.

But disappointed I am, and third party uprisings I will seek.

Your once upon a time ally,

the Delphic one

[MelissaB]

9. Yep! Kick ass and take names.

Proud member of

The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

Now, give me some real liberals.

[Sparkly]

11. Kickin' -- cuz I like to see our dinner conversation in print!

:rofl: :kick:

[Political Tiger]

12. Ummm, Obama is not president yet

so maybe we should wait until he actually starts his job before passing judgment.

[NashVegas]

14. Obama Said He Was a Blank Slate. His Own Words

That gives progressives and Democrats every reason in the world to leave our imprint.

[Lex]

15. His appointments and his choices of "allies" so far do speak volumes.

nt

[Night_Nurse]

17. Lex, I like your avatar :-) nt

[Political Tiger]

18. Impeach! Impeach!!

Impeach Obama now!
:bounce:

[Lex]

20. ????

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

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

[bvar22]

29. Obama started work on Nov 4th, 2008.

!

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Maybe. So tell us why. Specifically and in detail

Why? Why wait? He is making appointments and statements everyday. What is gained by waiting? Explain. In detail, the positives gained from a servile silence. Share with us what you see as the reasons for Americans to pretend they agree with that which they do not agree with? In short, you ask others to lie or be silent. That is a huge thing to ask, huge. You need to give reasons, show your work. Stun us with the logic of your strategy.
If you can not tell us why, and what is to be gained, you 'maybe' is just a maybe. And I say maybe not. That is easy. Maybe? Maybe not.

[madmunchie]

101. Thank you! Unbelieveable, he hasn't even taken the oath of office and we already are getting full

scale rants.....

As far as appointments, who is he supposed to choose?

[frylock]

128. lets give it a few years..

wait and see what happens, eh?

[Hun Joro]

13. Amen to everything you said!

I voted for Obama in the primary only because it was essentially a race between two candidates at that point. I like him, and I cried tears of joy (and relief) on election night, but I fear he will not bring the kind or degree of change this country so desperately needs. He will, I hope, undo some of the damage that has been done over the past eight years, and that in itself is huge, I guess.

[tritsofme]

16. You voted for a centrist who pledged to govern as one.

Why are you disappointed?

[dana_b]

24. can't someone express their

worries or frustrations without being questioned about this? Yes, a lot of us knew that he was a centrist but voted for him anyway as we didn't want our vote to be inconsequential or we didn't like the more liberal candidates or maybe we do like Obama on a few things but not all. If the OP had voted for Nader or McKinney that would be okay because it more closely coincides with his/her personal values? Or would this person be ostracized for being stupid, a moron, an idiot(pick a word)?

I'm sorry if this comes off as rude it's just that I've seen this same question in so many threads and it always irks me. People can and will be disappointed and frustrated. Obama did appeal to the left and maybe the left weren't listening closely or maybe Obama is just really good at playing people. We'll find out soon.

[iconicgnom]

44. "centrist" = way to the right, in these days of transition from W.

After 8 years of very extremist Republican policy, a "centrist" route which looks to balance the aims of those extremists with a new admin is identical mainstream (center right) Republicanism. I think most Dems voted for a Dem and expected Dem leadership, not a continuation of Republican rule.

For most people that's what the words "change" and "hope" meant, leading up to the GE, and it certainly IS disappointing that "change" and "hope" were immediately dropped in favor of appeasing the extreme right. As if the Dems were still in the minority position.

[cascadiance]

57. He ran as a "flexible" centrist. Hillary ran as more of a "firm" centrist. She LOST!

Centrism didn't win. Progressives chose the one candidate that would possibly bend to what they wanted. He ran on being "flexible". We EXPECT him to be flexible, not a firm DLC or Blue Dog leader. Now I'll wait to see what happens, but I expect that a wise Obama will discover that he will need that mandate of "flexibility" to survive a second term and move more to the left as an increasingly suffering country DEMANDS that he does something like what FDR did earlier.

[Greyhound]

21. Agreed. Right now, in these dire straights, moderation and preserving the perversity

that brought us here will result in our undoing.

There is no way to fix health care and preserve the corporations that deny the care and suck up all the money.

Allowing the greatest crimes since the Khmer Rouge to go unpunished will only ensure their continuation and expansion.

Letting the Wall Street Banksters that brought the economy down to dictate economic and tax policy will ignore the hemorrhaging of money and jobs until we envy the Great Depression and make minimum wage The Wage for most of us.

And if, after almost thirty years hasn't taught us that there is no compromise possible with these reich-wing fuckers, whatever party they sign up with, we deserve what we'll get.
:kick: & R

[tkmorris]

22. What you said

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

[ihavenobias]

23. K & R, your best post yet. n/t

[Critters2]

25. He was really clear about being a centrist from the time of the Iowa victory speech.

That's when I started worrying and being depressed. It's why I voted for Edwards in the primary. We didn't elect a progressive. His cuddling up to Warren, his choice of Sanjay Gupta and Vilsack, etc, make me realize he's even further to the right than I expected. We won't get single payer universal health care under him or other things one would expect from a progressive. Because we didn't elect a progressive.

I'd like fire breathing lefties in charge of things, too. But this is what we have. *sigh*

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Me either

Twenty-eight years of Democrats caving in the name of bipartisanship is part of what brought us to this mess.

No more excuses for inaction and timidity and bending over for the conservatives!

Hey Dems, if Karl Rove is blackmailing you, just fess up, and he'll have no more power over you.

If you're corrupt, give the money back and tell the people who bribed you where they can stuff it.

Remember that we "far left" types were right about the financial system, right about Iraq, right about the stolen election, right about welfare reform, right about labor rights, right about Central America, right about everything.

Your country needs you.

No more excuses.

[Hawkowl]

27. Moderation will make it worse

I don't think Obama understands that "moderate" economic remedies will prevent the Bush Depression. Or what is his position on "moderation" of torture? Or "moderate" views on prosecuting war criminals?

We have RADICAL PROBLEMS brought on RADICAL POLICIES. We will need Radical Solutions. When you are driving 100 mph at a brick wall you don't slow down to 70 to lessen the impact! You swerve the damn car and/or mash the brake pedal to the floor.

If Obama doesn't embrace his inner radical, he'll be a one term president. Not because us leftists won't voter for him again (we're suckers), but he will lose the moderates because his moderate policies failed! (This is known as irony and is used by angry gods to bring down cocky mortals). Moderates lack an ideology and simply vote for what works.

[hootinholler]

28. Damn Stanky, give him 'til the end of Jan won't ya?

I hear what your sayin, I actually agree, but I want to see where things shake out over the next 6 months.

Yeah, a Democratic vendetta would be great, but it's not Mr Obama's style. I think he wants actual court of law constitutional justice. Justice is best served cold, steeped in fact.

I don't have a date certain for it, but I hope there will be a grand jury convened early in the year to look into at least the war crimes.

We shoulda planned a DU Ball for the 20th.

-Hoot

[bvar22]

30. "Centrism" is for people ....

....who are Half Republican.

I am ALL Democrat.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican HealthCare Plan (Mandatory Private For Profit Insurance).

I am NOT interested in a Half-Republican approach to the Economy and Budget.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican plan for our foreign occupations.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican for the needed economic stimulus.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican plan for jobs in America.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican plan for affordable Education.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican Plan for Social Security.

I am not interested in a Half-Republican Plan for re-regulating Big Business.

I am nit interested in a Half-Republican Plan our Social Safety Nets.

I am not interested an anything that is Half Republican.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[pleah]

48. I couldn't have said it better.

:)

[QueenOfCalifornia]

60. Hurray!

I wish I could recommend your post! :applause:

[MessiahRp]

68. I wish I could rec this!

And the worst part is DU has been infiltrated by a whole hell of a lot of Half Republicans lately too.

Rp

[MissDeeds]

114. Agree completely

And thank you for saying it, bvar22. I don't think the voters were hoping for half Republican ideals when they voted Democratic in 2008. The last thing we need is a watered down Democratic approach to governance. Half Republican is half wrong. Period.

[Fearless]

31. No thanks,

I don't believe in RW philosophy. The if you're not with us your anti-American deal is over and done with. Have a nice day.

[Fire1]

32. I agree and I'm going to support him and take the 'wait 'n see'

approach. But, like you, I was all fired up for 'fire breathing lefties,' if not in the oval office, per se, at least in the cabinet. I feel like the air is slowly leaking out of the balloon.

[meowomon]

34. I Agree

But Obama was never a "lefty" anyway. My judgment sucks though; I voted for Edwards.

[orleans]

35. and then reid was talking shit--saying, in essence, the senate

wasn't going to be a fucking rubber stamp for obama!

great....

WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T REID BEHAVE THAT WAY WITH BUSH???

NOW harry's talking tough?

(KILL ME NOW!)

[Fire1]

126. Cause at that time, Reid was outnumbered OR he was scared of

Shrub. LOL!

[smiley]

36. I agree

But he is not in office yet. Granted some of his appointees may raise questions but he hasn't made one single policy decision yet. Give him a couple of months and I guarantee I'll be right there beside you bitchin' up a storm.

[snot]

37. k&r'd

[G_j]

38. Chess? I thought we won..

:shrug:

I agree

[Jamastiene]

39. K&R

Now, THAT is what I've been trying to say. Thank you.

[anitar1]

40. K&R

Thanks for a great post,Stinky. I got the message quickly. I did know he was a Centrist, but actually had some hope for a bit of change. Well, one good thing happens. I don't have to see or hear Bush very often anymore, I hope. Just observe and detach. Glad I am old.

[BR_Parkway]

41. Thanks for saying - Where the hell's the change we voted for?

[tom_paine]

42. Well said. And I no longer plan to be on the Mall on Jan 20th.

Obama dried my tears by getting down on his knees before the Republics ALREADY, while they laugh their asses off at his Liberal Weakness and prepare the Date Rape, metaphorically-speaking.

Why bother going there for just another Bushie Placeholder like Clinton, if that is indeed what Obama turns out to be, and it's looking more like that every day?

I am gonna cheer and cry for THAT? Nuh-uh! Not while it is by FAR the most likely scenario based on available evidence.

Let me say once again that I am NOT making a "final judgement" on Obama. None of us should, because he has not governed a single day.

But the signs are VERY BAD. On a scale of 1 to 10 so far, I'd give him a '2' in serving the bottom 99.9% of the American People and an '8' in serving the top 0.01 of the American Part of the Global Aristocracy (and they are NOT Americans, they have long ago emigrated their money and their sould out of this Third-World Country).

I hope I am wrong. I hope I am mistaken. But it smells like January 2007.

Time for the trusting naive Liberal Weaklings to get rolled by the Big Strong Bushies.

But only because our Toady Leadership LETS IT HAPPEN EVERY TIME. To use the metaphor of Charlie Brown and Lucy is far too tepid an example.

Obama has spent vuirtually ALL his pre-inauguration time seeking the approval of the Billy Kristols and NONE seeking the approval of those who voted for him (as usual from our DLC Party).

It is beginning to look like "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

God, let me be wrong!

[cali]

43. Here's some sense:

1) The best way to beat the repukes is NOT to announce your intentions to do an end run around them. That should be obvious to anyone.

2) Did you fucking listen to Obama? At all? Even one word:?

[Hepburn]

45. I totally agree ~~ and I am NOT the least bit interested in what the enemy wants.

This bullshit about "reaching across the aisle" is done and over for me. When the Repiggies can put people before Big Business, I might reconsider. Until then? Fuck them.

JMHO

[GeorgeGist]

46. It is a certainity that the last 8 years of US government ...

were a grevious and painful loss for insanity.

Nonetheless, most Americans, like Obama, have yet to accept that sanity is winning.

[pleah]

47. K&R

:thumbsup:

[sazemisery]

49. All that and a big thank you.

Stinky, you hit the nail squarely on the head on all points. K&R

[leftchick]

51. obama has always been a 'moderate'

A DLCer in a liberal label.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Daemonaquila]

53. Oh hell yes.

K & R & clapping hands. This is exactly right.

Speaking of appointments, have you seen the pick of Tom Perelli for associate attorney general? Yes, the sleazebag who's been representing the RIAA's attempt to stifle the Fair Use doctrine and has been suing people right and left for copyright infringement without a shred of evidence will now be in prime position to continue those habits in the DOJ. Great. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)

[Zodiak]

96. That is horrid

The RIAA is destroying music as we know it. You cannot replace good musicians and a fervent desire to make great music with lawyers and lawsuits.

We are dealing with issues like this on youtube right now...the record companies are removing videos left and right without the tiniest consideration for "fair use".

It's just stupid, and the industry is cutting its own throat.

This guy that was appointed, Perelli, is a scum-sucking pig. His $1000 an hour job is not only destroying the lives of the little people, but it will eventually destroy the companies he represents. This is the kind of parasite I want to keep as far from a federal agency as possible.

This is not change....this is a full-on capitulation to the WORST elements of the corporate world.

[cascadiance]

54. Obama a "moderate" will last one term... Obama, a "progressive" will be two terms...

"Moderates", "centrists" or whatever you want to call yourselves, you need to face the facts! You NEED progressive voter support to continue having in Obama in office, if that's your true wish, and not bending our system back to Republican rule. And if you want progressive support, you NEED to change the status quo and REALLY change the system with new ideas, etc. that haven't been tried since FDR, that worked when we faced similar problems we face now, not just speak empty words of "change" that don't mean anything.

Yes, the markets may trash themselves at times when we go through some of these changes, and hopefully we'll find ways to keep them stable. But the bottom line is that the rest of this country is on life support, and the markets aren't the only thing that's at stake now.

Progressive voters aren't going to continue staying in a party that keeps using them and pushing them aside forever, especially when those supporting our viewpoints are growing every day in the country, despite the corporate media's efforts to stop this from happening. Either get on the populist grass roots chain, or it will end this party soon.

[dmallind]

56. If bipartisanship and cooperation is not what you voted for....

Why did you presumably vote for a guy who promised it, clearly, distinctly, and forcefully, many many times?

[cascadiance]

59. If he hadn't, would you have chided him for making McCain president...

... and he working more against his wishes.

Face it! We weren't given any valid choice!

Early on many of us gravitated towards John Edwards, and it was obvious he pulled out for OTHER reasons than his stances on issues, etc. Had he not been tainted with these other problems, he'd probably have been more of a power broker and forced the hands of Obama (or Hillary) to be more progressive. As it stands given the split of votes between Kucinich and Edwards, and Edwards in effect disenfranchising us when he pulled out, we're left without representation.

We made the best of what we could. And Obama didn't run as a center/right Democrat. He ran against the war, and for bringing ALL sides together, not just bringing "centrists", and the "right" together, which just gives us more of the FAILED status quo.

[dmallind]

62. Possibly, but more than that.

Not that he would have made McCain president of course - the far left who are disappointed in Obama loom large in DU, but not in the overall electorate.

But to complain about what you KNOW you were getting seems disingenuous. Yes by all means say you wish Obama were further left, or perhaps more relevantly, say you wish a far left candidate had a chance in hell in winning. It's perfectly OK to be left of the president (or PE) and say so, but what gets me is the idea that this was in any way a surprise, or a betrayal, or dishonesty. The guy preached bipartisanship from the start and never wavered. He never ever ever promised to be the American George Galloway or the second coming of Eugene Debs. Never even hinted he would consider becoming such a politician. Why then blame him for not being.

I am not on the fgr left of course, but I can understand the idea quite well. If the only two people who had a chance of becoming president were Pawlenty and Inhofe you bet your ass I'd vote for Pawelnty and then complain he was too far to the right, because the alternative would have been much worse and he would be too far right. But I wouldn't pretend like I expected him to push a left or even center left agenda, or that he owed me that kind of governance because I voted for him when he never promised it.

[cascadiance]

65. Umm.... we're not all "far left" communists as you seem to claim us to be...

Many of us want simply "left of center" policies that have been unused for so many years and right wing or so-called "centrist" (which I would equivalence to "corporatist") have been what has failed us.

The overall electorate are paying more attention to the personality glitz at this time, than anything else more substantive like who he's appointing, and aren't looking beyond M$M's rationalizations that Obama's using "experience" to help him right off the bat. Once they discover the effects of "centrist" leadership, if that's what he follows through on without any left of center change, then more people will discover that he's not doing what they want when they're pushed out of their houses or lose their jobs, etc. in the coming year. Just like the sentiment against the war started to turn once more people had personal contact with more kids dying over there and felt that pain for what they subsequently discovered were lies and misrepresentations, it is quite different now than it was before the war, where only folks like us that tried to stay informed and were looking at the details were protesting it then.

I'm not surprised at all about this. I've always been on the fence with Obama. It is PRECISELY why I supported Edwards earlier, who was more specific about policies that we could support instead of preaching nebulous "change" messages that seemed intentionally noncommittal in order to get our votes (where a "committed" centrist or right of center campaign, would have turned many folks off). I voted on a "chance" that he'd be someone we could lobby to sensibility, rather than the other choices that were more inflexible towards any meaningful change in their campaigning. And THAT is why folks like me aren't going to shut up, whether you "centrists" like it or not. FDR also had to be lobbied too, and that tradition must be maintained.

"Bipartisanship" isn't campaigning on compromise between the right and the center, even if that's what you want. "Bipartisanship" implies working with EVERYONE, including those of us on the left, that many of you want to try and marginalize as "far left". Folks like Teddy Rooswevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans, would also be labeled "far left" by some of these definitions. Until he works more with the left as much as he is the right, he's failing on his "bipartisan" commitments in my book. Then again, I'm not going to get overly hyped up until I see him govern. But I am going to speak my mind on what decisions (appointments, etc.) he's done so far. There's no time for "silence". He's not running for election now. He's supposed to be getting ready to lead the country and be not only your president, but MY president too.

If we had a choice between Pawlenty and Inhofe that didn't allow for choices that represented around 75% of America's viewpoints, then many of us would see a completely failed system, and likely would not worry about elections, but more on how we would launch a revolution instead. Fortunately, I don't think we're at that point yet, but we can't even afford to be a little that way now, with the problems facing this country now. The reason it is in the trouble it is in, is preciesly because we've had failed leadership that pushes out those that could provide meaningful changes, but which would threaten the protected elites.

[dmallind]

70. Putting words in my mouth

Is it the far left that is most disappoiunted with Obama within the Dmeocratic party or not? I can't see how it's wrong, but willing to be corrected. Whether that makes any individual who complains about him far left is a silly question. I can no doubt find some actions of his to complain about for a start and I sure as hell don't qualify. Certainly didn't mention communists or call anyone one. I'm sure of course there ARE communists on DU - in fact I've seen some proclaim it - but they are a tiny minority for sure.

In what way is Obama NOT including the left? Leaving aside for a moment the fact that he has submitted no budget and signed no law, where does the idea that the left of the Democratic spectrum is not included come from? Note I'm not saying included as much as they would like. I'm sure Dennis K for a renamed Peace Secretary and nobody who ever voted for any tax cut or any deregulation or any way funding in any role whatsoever would make people really happy on that side, but only on that side. In the realm of working with everybody, and being able to work with everybody, we only have cabinet picks and some pragmatically irrelevant ceremonial roles to go on. And the inauguration that includes regressive Warren (of whom you can be sure I am no fan any more than most here) also includes a rather progressive to say the least Lowery. The cabinet that includes Gates includes Solis too. How is this NOT being able to work with everyone and how is this excluding the left completely. It may indeed exclude the very fringe left completely, but it also excludes a good chunk of the spectrum right of Gates too - which of course it should since Dems won.

What exactly would it look like to be included? How many and how far left (bearing in mind 46% of the country voted for McCain and no doubt consider Panetta and Emmanuel and Vilsack et al top be left) would be good, if you consider again how Obama campaigned and that he DOES have to represent various places on the spectrum?

[cascadiance]

77. I don't care about the "far left" communists. It is the *left* that isn't being heard!

So is Howard Dean "far left"?

Was Teddy Roosevelt, who championed a living wage, and an end to corporate power in government also "far left"?

Was Dwight Eisenhower, who warned us of control by the military industrial complex over the government also "far left"?

You are living in a Fox-deluded set of adjectives. The above folks cared about the same things that I do. And many of the policies (taxation, jobs creation, social security, etc.) that FDR started to get us out of our depression. I don't consider those "far left". Not even "left". But AMERICAN, when we care about all people who live in this country, not just the elites at the top. That is also what the Democratic Party is SUPPOSED to be, despite what you say, or what other DLC types say.

I consider Dennis Kucinich FAR MORE mainstream than someone like Rahm Emmanuel, who really is more about getting corporate money than he is about representing the rest of us. That's why he didn't like Howard Dean, who challenged the party on these sorts of notions.

I DO consider how he campaigned. He campaigned that he had an open tent for us. But it's not been opened so far! It better open, or we'll close it and go someplace else. And people like you who try to claim a mandate of "centrism" over what we feel is needed don't have any mandate either. Now if you voted for Clinton and she won, you might have a point on this. But you didn't, and Obama won on a platform that was supposed to INCLUDE the left, not only support the right and the center.

And the right, center, and left labels are also tiresome. Many "left" issues the power elite don't care about, and LET us as a party champion, as they always have in the past. But on the important issues such as campaign finance reform, renegotiating NAFTA/CAFTA, tax policy, health care, media reform, etc. they always hold the line on that, and don't let us have any voice on change on these fundamental issues. These are the fundamental issues that need fixing if we want to get the crooks in corporate America out of power and avoid a severe depression that might be worse than the last one. The clock is ticking...

Emmanuel and Vilsack are NOT left. Panetta I'm happier about than someone like Jane Harman getting the nod (who I think DiFi was pissed about not getting the nod), so I'll give him a break there, but would have loved to see him skewer DiFi and say, OK, so Panetta as a CIA director is not good, and you want an "intelligence professional"? Fine, I'll put in Ray McGovern instead! I would have LOVED to hear how DiFi would have responded to that! Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to give the left that much. I'll take Panetta though. If the rest of his picks were more middle of the road and not skewed towards the right like they have been, I'd be complaining a lot less now and be waiting more to see how Obama governed later.

When he puts people like RFK, Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Ann Wright, or others in positions of power, then I'll accept the more right of center folks like Gates being there too. But that hasn't happened yet. And we will remember how much we have to yell before those appointments do happen, and if they do happen or not, all the way to 2010 and 2012...

[dmallind]

100. Not true

Obviously we disagree on where the left is.

If 46% of the people voted for McCain how far to the left of Republicans is the center? 4% right?

So are you saying that ALL of Obama's nominees are in that 4% that is not Republican and not left of center? Would their voting records bear that out do you think? How much of a difference is there do you think between their voting records and a standard of left but not far left of your choice?

The problem with many DUers is that they define left and right by reference to themselves, not to the electorate as a whole. Not suire if you are falling into that trap or not so please explain how every single memebr of the Obama cabinet is somehow not left ewhen there is so little room between the median and Republican.

[cascadiance]

103. What I am saying is not ALL of those 46% that voted for McCain want corporatist power either!

First of all, Gates is the same person who was working for the Republicans, so that's one part of your cabinet that IS in the group you could call Republican.

What I am saying is that "the center" referring to voters doesn't really exist. It is a name politicians give to themselves, so that they can play both sides of the "left" and "right" fence, but be more firm on the real core issues that matter to corporations that are their main supporters and enablers for their power. Of course they don't want to draw attention to these corporate issues, as not only do Democrats reject most of them, but as I noted there are many Republicans that reject many too. It's just that they tend to vote more for the *other* "left" and "right" issues that like I said before corporations don't really care about, since whether they go one way or the other, it won't affect them or those that own them much. These "left" vs. "right" issues that are more meaningless to them, are used to distract the rest of us from focusing on the core issues where they hold power over the people. If the issues surrounding corporate power (aka corporate personhood/free speech rights in the courts, media reform, campaign finance reform, trade agreement renegotiation) got more attention and the attention they deserved as being the main culprits for our problems now, those on "the right" and those on "the left" might put aside their priorities that they've given to these other more "corporate meaningless" issues where they have differing opinions on them and unite together to focus on bringing down corporate power. That's where the "center" lives in both parties. And that is what Obama now is not fending off like he should if he's really working for the people who elected him for change. And I would suspect many even on the Republican side might support him there too.

Obama has his name as a cosponsor on public campaign finance bill that has been buried in the senate. Why hasn't he talked about that at all? If he doesn't want to talk about it and throws off public campaign financing, why did he even cosponsor it to begin with? Maybe, because his centrist bosses want him to ignore it, and it's just "there" to help him rationalize that he's for public campaign finance reform if someone looks, even if he's not doing anything about it?

[dmallind]

115. Well for a start buzzwords like "corporatist power"

Indicate a pretty far left position to begin with, but absent that you are then positing that either:

a) There is no political spectrum for anybody to be the median point of (if the spectrum exists, with some people more or less right or left than others, then there HAS to be a middle point which is by definition centrist. To say centrism does not exist is to say left and right have no meaning.

or b) a significant number of people wanted left of center politics but voted for a candidate inarguably much further to the right, both socially and economically, than the other viable alternative.

What other option do you have?

Gates by the way is not a Republican. He was nominated by one. To my knowledge he has never expressed a party stance, but happy to be corrected if so.

[cascadiance]

119. So you are saying that those following Huckabee are also "far left"!

That's implicit if you label EVERYONE who objects to corporate control over our government (which you are BLIND if you say it doesn't exist), is a "far left" liberal. That is pure and simple "labeling" attempting to marginalize those that see what's going on and want it to stop.

What are "centrist" values? There are many different issues. You could have people theoretically "in the center" that disagree with everything between each other, because one person agrees with one set of issues on the right and others on the left, and another takes the opposite stances on those issues. Then those "centrists" have more in common with those on either extreme than they do with each other.

My contention is that the so-called centrists aren't joined together to promote "middle of the road" values, since that spectrum is way too wide for it to exist in a cohesive fashion, but it is a code word for saying they all support issues that help out corporate power over our government (aka "corporatist"), since they know that that is currently the power train for them to gain power in the system. They care less about the issues and what's done on them than gaining and maintaining power and an upper hand over privileges and resources over the rest of us. They say they are in the middle, so that they can keep the power staying "in the middle" by bending to either side on the issues that don't matter towards maintaining their power, even if the tide turns against the right or left being in power, like it just has.

it is the "centrists" that are the leaches that have been creating the many problems that are destroying this economy, etc. we are facing now.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. He said " you are the change"

He said " we will change this country, and change the world."

Is that really a message that says "you should not voice opinion, and we are very careful and moderate"? Is 'change the world' a message of a moderate? Really? Change the entire world, but just a tad?
You can play label games all you want. He's in process of ticking off the AARP crowd. Do that, you are done. That is not DU, or 'far left'. That is just older people who know exactly what they were told, and exactly why they voted as they did. There will be no hair splitting allowed by them. You can pretend that America was listening to the footnotes of Obama's speeches, but we all know what was spoken and what was heard in the meat of those speeches- change. From the bottom up, change the world. He said he'd try to work with the GOP, he did NOT say he would work only with them, or give them everything, or refuse to hear from their counterparts on the liberal end. He said he'd be everybody's Preident, not just theirs. They did not vote for him, and won't.
Pretending that Obama ran as a conservative is disingenous. His lexicon and rhetoric was liberal and sweeping. He called for big change, and he got a response to the call. We all know what he said. In fact, it is all a matter of public record. Anyone can read those texts. Anyone. Feel free to use actual quotes from Obama. If you can. Your post is all characterization of Obama and of other people's point of view. Not one quote from Obama to support your editorializing. Not one. Namecalling and labeling, sure. Quotes in support, zero. None. Nothing.

[MessiahRp]

74. How would you know that the "far left" as you call them, doesn't loom large in the overall

electorate?

1. Before Keith and Rachel and besides them now, does anyone give them a credible voice to be heard in the MSM?

Lets face it aside from those two examples who have pretty high ratings, the media which is financially connected to the interests of the GOP and Centrists, derides Progressives and Liberals as enemies of the state constantly without giving them a chance to be heard. It's not that there aren't a ton of intelligent voices for the left, it's that the media refuses to put them on because they know they'll school the screaming idiotic blowhards who are factually wrong on every point but do the bidding for the corporations that own the media outlets.


2. Do they ever get someone to vote for?

In nearly every Congressional or Senate race, if there's a liberal running the DSCC or DCCC will recruit a Centrist Democrat or wealthy Republican (who they'll convince to switch parties, although not ideologies) to run against them. With the political machines of the DSCC and DCCC and the incredibly daunting financial advantages they have the liberal gets railroaded out of the race before it ever really begins. The media plays along by making the Centrist/Republican candidate the only serious primary candidate in their coverage and everyone involved plays up the perception that money = better candidate.

If you need an example of this see the Minnesota Senate Race a few years back. Ford Bell was whooping Amy Klobuchar's ass in the debates because she didn't have a serious policy stance on anything and came off as wishy washy. But she was controllable and Chuck Schumer and the DSCC loved that (plus Bell was a liberal), so they marched in the DSCC, had big time Democrats do expensive fundraisers (I believe including Obama) for her BEFORE the Democratic primary was over and basically made her the defacto nominee... forcing all other candidates out of the race.


In the Presidential race only Dennis Kucinich was a liberal this last time around and he had been marginalized so badly in the media since 2003 that liberals knew he had little chance of winning.

And that's the point... the media, the big time fundraisers and the heirarchy of the Democratic Party purposely works against progressives and liberals... not because their ideas aren't better but because they know that liberals and progressives will take money out of their pockets and their benefactors pockets.

That's really what it comes down to.

Americans may have voted for a guy who said he would reach across the aisle but they mostly voted for change and going with the status quo that has ruled Washington for 30 years is NOT change.

And just as people were pissed off when they saw the 2006 Democratic Congress, also elected to change and fight Bush, do NOTHING.... they are going to be really pissed when they see a Democratic Majority and Mr. Change Agent Barack Obama doing more of the same.

Then of course the media will say this guy was a liberal so his failings are liberal failings... even if we know he's nowhere near a liberal.

His Health Insurance Giveaway, er, "Health Care Reform" will fall flat on it's ass... and we'll get to hear how the "socialist health plan didn't work". In reality a REAL Government funded, Insurance Companies disbanded Single Payer Health Care plan would work and would finally fix the system. But Obama is not the change agent he proclaims himself to be and he lacks the spine to challenge Big Insurance and Big Pharma head on.

So WE liberals we'll be blamed once again for another Centrist scheme to line the pockets of their benefactors (the Insurance Industry) and our way will once again be passed over.

Someday America will wake the fuck up and stop worrying about the labels the liars in office and the liars in the media push onto people... they will understand that the last 30+ years has been about a country that has been desperately wrong and realize if our empire dies it dies based on Political Greed, Media Manipulation and Incompetence of the Voting Populace. By Incompetence I mean believing that someone is not really in the race because of money and power of their opponents even when you agree with what that supposedly no chance candidate has to say.

See: John Edwards and then Barack Obama as places liberals were forced to go when they knew Kucinich was never getting a fair shake and when they didn't have a candidate of their own.

The Left has been correct on practically everything... but hey let's ignore them because the Right Wing and the Right Wing Money Brokers in the Democratic Party fear them and want to marginalize them as soon as they could possibly be heard by an agreeing populace.

Rp

[JTFrog]

63. If only we could have had the guy that actually co-sponsored and promoted the IWR with Lieberman.

That would've been real representation.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[jgraz]

81. I voted for a guy who said he wants citizen participation in government

We're just giving him what he asked for.

[dmallind]

116. Participate away

Heck complain away. The guy gave you another venue for that even. I'm no Obama messiah disciple and have no doubt he will make what I consider to be many mistakes too. Just don't be surprised or claim betrayal when he governs exactly how he said he would - by including a wide range of opinions.

[L0oniX]

64. I don't believe the Obama is going to do what he said he would do but then...

I don't believe any politician anymore except for Kucinich and Waxman. Wake me up when your ready to go out into the streets and bring this country to a halt until they do what we want and need. "Only massive civil disobedience will bring about change " Howard Zinn.

[cascadiance]

66. Even Waxman failed us when he earlier promised to get Sibel Edmonds on the stand...

Was hoping that Kucinich would take over for him for the government oversight committee. Too bad, but I guess we got Towns instead...

[MadHound]

69. More and more people are coming to the realization

That the two party/same corporate master system of government is still in effect here. Sure, Obama, much like Clinton did, will present a charismatic, likable face of that government, but the fact of the matter is that it will still be run for the benefit of the few elite, while the rest of us can go rot. UHC? Publicly funded elections? Other sensible liberal programs? Their not going to happen in this administration, or any other, unless we the people take our government back over, possibly by force. All we're going to get is pious mouthings, polite excuses, and an ongoing shafting that benefits the few over the many.

[LiberalHeart]

78. That's what bothered me during the campaign. It was clear it'd turn out like this.

I know how people around here hate Edwards, but he was the one talking about the issues that mattered to me and he was the one telling us he wasn't going to play nice with people who don't appreciate niceness. Obama's hope didn't connect with me, his reaching across the aisle didn't make sense. There's too much to undo, too much that needs to be done, to waste an administration on trying to make us all friends.

But, yes, I voted for Obama. But only because he was my last and only real choice. I wish this time could have been truly ours, the moment in time when the progressive agenda would have seen the light of day. It was clear throughout the campaign that Obama wasn't the one who'd bring that about.

[Redneck Socialist]

72. "...this is not what I voted for."

"Moderation. Making nice nice with the other side. Bipartisanship.

I'm sorry, but this is not what I voted for.

Yes it is.

Obama's whole shtick was why can't we all just get along and the Republicans just need a nice hug.

Why people seem surprised that he is doing exactly what he said he would during the campaign baffles me frankly.

The only bipartisanship the Republicans understand is the Democrats caving in and giving them everything they want. Unfortunately Obama seems to be under the impression that the Republicans will actually join him in an attempt to fix some of the country's problems. That is a pipe dream at best, at worst, it's dangerously naive.

[Alcibiades]

73. I want to win in 2012

How is it that the Republicans have won so many policy changes since the Reagan administration? Because they have given their leaders the chance to represent them when they have won. What do Democrats do? Find a way to lose. What happened to us in 1980? Did the nation suddenly turn Republican? Was it the hostage crisis? Maybe--but I also look at what everyone seems to have forgotten, which is that Senator Teddy Kennedy, dissatisfied with Carter's record as a moderate southern Democrat, ran against him as a liberal, leaving a severely weakened Carter to lose against Reagan in the general election. I also remember how congressional Democrats failed to back Clinton's universal health care proposals, which hamstrung Clinton's efforts, and cost the Democrats the majority in Congress.

History is repeating itself again, once again as farce. Here, I see a whole bunch of people, many of whom supported someone else in the primary, so goddamn mad at our guy before he's been inaugurated. OUR guy, our Democratic president elect. Every day becomes another occasion to express dissatisfaction with the best hope we have had to push forward a liberal agenda in my lifetime.

Don't be confused: bipartisanship does not preclude universal health care, prosecuting Bushco, etc. Obama is redefining the center of American politics, and helping to redefine the Republican Party as a fringe party with limited regional strength. FDR and LBJ were perfectly capable of operating in a bipartisan way when it suited them, and I think Obama has enough historical sense to emulate that model. Obama is not going to get a liberal agenda accomplished for you. What he's going to do is to rebrand the liberal agenda as the American agenda, as the only sensible thing to do, and I think he's going to do it, in part, through moderation and bipartisanship. We can then take credit for that, as liberals, and use this record to build not just a mandate for one electoral cycle, but an enduring Democratic electoral majority for our children's lifetimes.

[MessiahRp]

75. You're hopelessly wrong on this...

How would he "rebrand the liberal agenda as the American agenda" if he refuses to take up any liberal causes or refuses to seat liberals at the table while he hands all of the levers of power in his Administration to DLCers and Republicans?

No chance does liberal ideology turn out better because of this. The RW is going to succeed at labeling everything Obama does as "liberal" and when he fails on many of them including his health care plan which is likely not to work since it includes the Insurance Industry, then ALL liberal ideas about how to do Universal Health Care will be dealt a blow as it will appear that "socialized medicine" failed.

And just because he's "OUR guy" doesn't mean he should be allowed to cozy up to the Republicans and sell the liberal wing of the party out, the same liberal wing that was the entire reason he was our nominee in the first place (liberals for the most party weren't voting for DLC Hillary).

Read up on Jefferson and our Forefathers. They'd be a bit disgusted at the inference of blindly, unquestioningly following our leaders.

Rp

[Alcibiades]

86. I've read up on the founders

To include Jefferson and, more importantly, Madison. The political philosophy of the enlightenment is a special interest of mine, and I have an earned doctorate in political science, though, of course, you never stop being a student.

I am partisan in a way the founders themselves would have understood, but deplored. They were the original "post-partisans." More relevant to our current situation than even our own founders are the writings of Machiavelli, who wrote that sometimes you have to be the fox, and sometimes the lion:

“A prince must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those that wish to be only lions do not understand this. Therefore, a prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by so doing it would be against his interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist. If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them.”

I don't follow Obama unquestioningly, and supported Edwards during the primary until he dropped out, largely because of health care. We should keep on Obama, and our MC's, to institute true, single-payer universal health care, and to prosecute the Bush criminals, and to accomplish the rest of our agenda. Obama is canny as hell, and that he has mainly played the fox: if we do not unite behind him as a party, as Americans, he'll never have the chance to play the lion.

You should reevaluate your premise that Obama will be successfully labeled a liberal. He's going to govern from the center, and that's precisely why such efforts on the part of the right to paint him as a liberal will fail: also helpful are the many complaints by liberals that Obama's not being liberal enough.

I will take your advise that I engage in further study under advisement. Might I suggest a few relevant books to you as well? See Rockman & Waterman (2008), Genovese (2008), Zaller (1992), Cox & McCaubbins (1993), Erikson, MacKuen & Stimson (2002), Krehbiel (1998), Flanigan & Zingale (1994), Lowi (1986), Maltzman (1997), Rohde (1991), Loomis (1998), Jacobson (1992), Fenno (1978), Gimpel (1996), Campbell & Herrnson (2004).

[NJmaverick]

91. A voice of reason in a sea of insanity. Thank You!

[relayerbob]

76. Not a landslide. Minimal mandate.

Sorry but 47% of the country voted for the other guy, and more than half of the Dems don't agree with us on some sort of leftist agenda. The majority of the country wants STABILITY and JUSTICE.

Being as purist as the Goppers were on the other side will only lead to more trouble, more chaos. Should prosecutions follow? Absolutely. But that's not "liberal" or "progressive", that's the law of the land. But, a "liberal" agenda, as defined by you, and not the majority of the nation? Not gonna happen. We have huge troubles, and need to work together to fix them.

Whiners, take a number. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[cascadiance]

82. Many on the right voted on issues like gay marriage, women's choice, etc.

but if you polled them, many of them also cared about things like getting screwed by corporate power as well. That is why Huckabee started out the gate well in places like Iowa. Because he ALSO championed some of the issues that were about fighting corporate greed that many of you will call part of the "far left" philosophies that should be avoided, and out of favor of Americans. He drew them with his more right leaning issues on religion, etc. that matter to them. That is also why the corporate serving GOP "centrists" also found ways to marginalize Huckabee too, for the same reasons. They don't want people in to challenge corporate power, be they from the left or the right side of the fence.

If you poll people just on things like the war separately, corporate power and corruption, health care, etc. you'll find that a lot more Americans support these issues than you are giving credit for. You are surmising that because many of these voted for Republicans they were voting against issues, instead of their slanted views on things like gay marriage and abortion (which I would say governed their ill decisions more). But you can't extrapolate that they aren't in favor of many of these policies the left is trying to bring into play that would solve some of the problems we're facing now. It's just that they have misplaced priorities.

The problem with centrism, is that the way it is used these days, it is used to support heavily issues that support corporate power, and push aside other issues as being "far left" or less important that confront their power (by having the media ignore them, etc.), and them emphasize the issues that manipulate voters to the polls that they don't really care about (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and help them push voters to their corporate serving "centrist" candidates with heavily financed campaigns. A better word than "centrist", would be "corporatist", since I would argue that this kind of cherry picking issues to support that don't fall on "the left" or "the right", but definitely support the corporate elites, is more corporatist than any notion of serving some "center" group of Americans (if those set of Americans even exist as a group that have any sort of common ideas).

[Sebastian Doyle]

111. It was an electoral landslide

And electoral votes are what counts. Or so the Repukes kept telling us in 2001.

[wryter2000]

79. Hear, hear!

K&R

(At first, I thought the "moderation" in your title meant moderating at DU.)

[jgraz]

80. K&R. Couldn't agree more.

:thumbsup:

[KG]

84. not many on this board want to hear it, but to look to the ballot box & by extention, the dem party,

as a vehicle for chenge, esp progressive change, is a total waste of time, energy and resources.

[treestar]

85. We voted for the best we're going to get in today's political climate

We're lucky it has improved since 2004, so soon after 911 (in historic terms).

I wish Kucinich could be President of a Congress full of Feingolds, but that won't be realistically happening in the forseeable future.

I ain't gonna complain. If I think I am going to, all I have to do is think President McCain, VP Palin, or Gods forbid, President Palin. And another Repuke Congress. The wars, the economics disasters, the active attempts to wreck civil rights for whoever doesn't fall into lockstep, the invitations to "leave if you don't like it" and "get over it." I may not even turn around and treat them the same as they treated us.

[peace13]

87. OK we voted you in now use your power of communication to

get the work done by telling nay sayers to go to *ell while making them happy to be on their way! We can all do this together.

[pnwmom]

88. The problem with your reasoning is that the reason for the landslide

is that the "we" includes millions of moderates who were turned off by extremism on the other side -- but not necessarily drawn to the most progressive values of many of us.

Obama has quite a tightrope to walk.

[deaniac21]

89. Dream On!!

:party:

[quidam56]

90. CHANGE IS COMING,

We can do it ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[kestrel91316]

92. K&R. But I always knew Obama was a moderate.

I'm STILL thrilled he will be our president. And I prefer to see the cup as half full.

[ourbluenation]

93. Yo. There are plenty, as in millions, of moderate/centrist democratic americans.

Obama is off to a fine start as far as I'm concerned.

[zipplewrath]

94. Who is "we"?

The common problem after a competition like this is that folks presume it was their issues that prevailed. Many people voted for these candidates and they don't all share your preferences. Quite possibly, a majority of them don't. But more to the point, the margins of victory were relatively slim such that a small minority can "flip back" and your preferences won't come close to representing a majority of the country. You are advocating the classic "over reach". Politicians will explain to you that you still have to sell your ideas, even after you win.

[ooglymoogly]

95. KR NT

[jobycom]

97. The majority voted for a man who promised to be nicer and more bipartisan.

So that's where he's going to at least create the appearance of governing from.

Interestingly enough, they voted the same way in 2000, when Bush promised to be nicer and more bi-partisan (he lied, obviously) and in 92, when Clinton promised it, and in 88, when Bush Daddy promised it (sort of, anyway, with his "kinder, gentler nation" lie).

That's how people vote. They always vote the one leaning most toward the center. It's not because most people are centrists, it's because those voters in the center are the ones who fluctuate between parties, so both parties have to get them to win.

That's the beauty of a message like "Change" and "Hope." All people want change, all people want hope. They just define them differently. That's why Obama campaigned as he did. He listed all the bad stuff that was happening--the nation agreed it was bad--and said "Hope. Change. Yes we can!" And people filled in what change they hoped we could accomplish, based on Obama's words.

We got the hope and change. He's a left-leaning moderate. He's very left on many social issues, he has the keenest and most personal insights of any president into our societal and cultural problems, having lived amongst the worst of them, and worked with people afflicted with the worst of poverty and injustice. On that I trust him, and believe he's on the left. When it comes to corporate dealings, and the economy, he's more centrist, at least in practice, and that's okay, because he's going to have to work with the corporate world to get any of his goals accomplished. They have the money. They create the jobs. They draw a lot of water, in the words of the fascist sheriff in "The Big Lebowski." Like Clinton, his leftist ideals will be tempered with financial, corporate realities.

But it's all good. He's a left-leaning president who will steer this country in the right direction. He may not get us all the way there, but he's going to at least try. I'm outraged with some of his picks, and with his support of Warren. Gupta is a silly pick, showing a desire for theater. Gates should have been dumped before Obama's hand was withdrawn from Lincoln's Bible. And though I love Clinton and still wish she and not Obama had won, I don't like her as Secretary of State, for reasons I won't go into. Heck, I hate Biden as VP, for that matter. Sometimes Obama seems to make his picks to make people happy, rather than to assemble a team that can accomplish his goals.

But no one will ever be happy with every little decision, or even every big one. My happiness and warm, fuzzy feelings come from the big picture. We've got someone in office who respects us. This president wants much of what we want. His priorities are where ours are. He drinks from the same trough as us. Yeah, he's probably drinking spritzer flavored with mint and essence of pomegranate, but at least he won't dump it on our heads just for a chuckle.

We are part of a team, and of course we will fight. But we can do great things together, even if we don't agree with each other all the time. We can move this nation back towards the goals it has always claimed it was founded on--equality, opportunity, justice, human rights. We will be better off in four years than we are now, and in eight years. We will never live in Utopia, but we can at least start remodeling this place to closer resemble it. Yes we can.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

98. I agree with a lot of what has been said here

HOWEVER I have a gut feeling that Obama is going to pleasantly surprise everybody and nothing he has "done" so far incontrovertibly says nor proves to me that he simply plans to be a "kinder, gentler Republican". He is an admitted centrist/moderate no doubt about THAT but I honestly don't believe that he is simply going to seek to preserve the status quo-although I doubt that he going to be quite as "in your face" about it as we tend to be here. Remember, chess NOT checkers.

I don't really know how to explain my optimism and hope suffice it to say that if he (and his team) run the country the way that his amazing campaign for POTUS was run then I think that things should be MUCH better within the next 4-8 years. As for how far he should move in a particular direction, I don't think that he will be able to successfully lurch the country onto a more progressive/leftward path all at once and Bush has created so many catastrophes and clusterf***s that it will be nearly impossible for him or anybody else to do anything much until the country is stabilized. I think of our country as being in a state of critical condition and we need to stop the bleeding and get it stabilized first before we can perform the kind of surgery/treatment that our country REALLY needs and I believe that Obama is aware of this and which is why we may not see significant/wholesale change right up front but I believe that it will be forthcoming.

[bluescribbler]

104. Here's the problem:

Any Democrat who dares to run for President is tagged by the GOPigs with the "liberal" label, regardless of his or her actual positions on the issues. John Kerry was tagged as, "the liberal Senator from Massachusetts." Al Gore was a liberal despite Tipper's position with the PMRC, advocating music censorship. Bill Clinton is still called a liberal, despite having signed off on the execution of a mentally retarded man, and having signed onto welfare "reform". It doesn't matter how you vote, the Repukes will still call you a liberal if you are anywhere left of Gengis Kahn.

[NorthCarolina]

105. Hell ya...wish I could Rec a million times...great post

and spot-on. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[bluethruandthru]

106. I couldn't agree more!

Are we still worried about "keeping our powder dry"??? The repukes have had no interest in working together or bipartisanship. They rammed through everything their greedy little hearts desired. It's time to tip the scales back the other way. I'm all for working together..but first..let's at least get back to some sort of balance.

[PatrynXX]

107. I voted for someone who would get the job done.

Right now is not the time for extreme left or extreme right. We need to get stuff done. Early on I voted for Obama because he was liberal, but then I began to think. He wants to get stuff done. You can't if none of the Republicans vote your way. I don't quite see him as the next JFK. I seem him more like the Democrat version of Reagan. Get the job done. Had 8 years of a government unable to get the job done because we had a coup. Yes I would consider myself extreme left. But there comes a time when I have to calm down and at least get something done. We the people can't run if nothing gets done.

Take Israel and Palestine for example. Israel says Hamas won't participate with the cease fire negotiations. Probably because Israel won't either. I'd rather not head for Civil War Part deux. Kinda like I'd rather not fight this Prop 8 issue. It causes way too much hate on both sides of the isle. We just need to let the courts figure it out. I'll abide by whatever they decide. Country needs to heal and to fix the problems from Bush. It doesn't need to injure itself swinging completely the other way or we'll lose in 2012.

[mod mom]

108. This NPR Fresh Air interview will calm your nerves:

Phillipe Sands on Prosecuting Torture.

PS....I agree with you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358

[Brucie Kibbutz]

109. The OP makes a good observation. K&R

[MUL98]

110. It's too late to moderate the moderation....

...because the country voted for a moderate!

"I wanted the liberal agenda moved forward. I wanted universal single payer health care. I wanted the criminals prosecuted. I wanted the effects of unfettered republicanism set back."

Me too - that's why I didn't vote for Obama in the primary or the general. Anyone who had their eyes open could have seen this coming I don't understand all the liberals who thought this guy was one of them. He never claimed to be.

We got what we voted for.

[ElboRuum]

120. Really.

Who'd you vote for in the general?

Just curious...

[MUL98]

123. Vote in general....

...Brian Moore.

[Laurab]

112. If you're posting about the Presidential Election, I can't agree with you.

Obama basically ran on a platform of bipartisanship. I consider you to be an educated voter - you had to have heard Obama's numerous speeches about that very topic. If you voted for Obama, you didn't vote for a far-left liberal agenda. And he certainly didn't hide his thoughts about it, so I can't understand why anyone would be surprised now.

I can't speak to any Congressional or Senate races you might have voted for, but with Obama, you are seeing EXACTLY what you voted for.

Obama has done a few things and made a few choices thus far that I'm not all that happy with, but what I expect from him as President (which we seem to forget he isn't yet), is to give us our country back. I also am guessing his administration WILL be somewhat more liberal, but I don't expect him to change into a far left liberal now. He didn't RUN as that, he wasn't elected as that, and that isn't what I expect from him. I expect an open government, with a President who realizes he works for the people, and an administration that listens to the people who elected them.

I am still So relieved and happy that Obama/Biden will be taking over on 1/20, and I can't figure out why some people now expect them to be something other than they said they were.

[FlaGranny]

113. You folks are a real gas.

God knows why I click on these threads. Fire breathing liberals huh? Sure way to get NOTHING accomplished. Certain way to get real resistance, and not only from Republicans, but from Democrats in Congress, and from the American public at large. You want to try to get to the front of the line by pushing and shoving? Good luck.

Impeach, impeach, impeach, just like one poster said. We must do it now before Obama ruins everything as so far he has broken nearly every promise!!! He hasn't accomplished anything! :sarcasm:

For God's sake nobody knows how he will use these people he's choosing, but I believe most posters here think each and every one of his cabinet choices will be running things totally on their own. It's not a point of whether ANY of these people "deserve" an appointment. The point is, what can they do to accomplish Obama's goals? Does everyone believe Obama is too stupid to have asked each one of these choices whether they were willing to carry out HIS agenda?

Edit: Spelling.

[HughMoran]

117. The liberal tag was BS and you know it. You voted for a moderate pragmatist

This sort of thread is very appealing on DU and gets lots of "votes", but turning around the ocean liner will take some time. This country is loath to change rapidly and you know it. The drubbing the Republicans took was as much a repudiation of the Republicans as it was an affirmation of Obama's leadership abilities. It'll take time to change the minds of those that voted for change against Bush, but aren't necessarily ready for socialism (an exaggeration to make a point, don't take it literally.)

[tclambert]

121. It is high time for post-Republicanism.

If political science is to become a real science, politicians and voters must recognize the supremacy of experimental data. The data is in on trickle down economics, supply side economics, and most other traditional Republican policy positions. They don't work.

The fundamental policies of the Republican party have been proven unsound. The scientific thing, the right thing, for Republicans to do is to modify or abandon their old hypotheses. No amount of faith in their old beliefs will make them right. At the very least, Democrats should embrace these experimental results, and insist on respecting them.

One key thing to remember: tax cuts for the rich and for corporations directly have proven to NOT stimulate the economy. To stimulate the economy, we need more money for CUSTOMERS, also known as workers. Either middle class tax cuts or rebates, or creating lots of jobs is the way to stimulate a national economy.

[davefromqueens]

122. Vociferous but Patience

He has yet to be inaugurated. Let's make our voices heard but let's see what gets done.

The big picture.

[derby378]

124. If you're going to be on The Mall on January 20...

...you need to wear this stuff to show the world exactly how you feel:

http://www.cafepress.com/nopardonforbush

[John Q. Citizen]

125. Tough love, baby!

[Geek_Girl]

127. I has hoping Obama would be a liberal but he's not

I don't think he ever was. He compared himself to Ronald Regan during the "Primaries" for christ sake. That should have been a major clue that he is not nor ever was a liberal!

I wish he was but he's not. I think deep down I was hoping the loony fundamentalist right wing nut bags were right about him being an extreme lefty liberal. Well like everything else they were wrong.

[MasonJar]

129. The trouble is that the label, "most liberal" was a GOPer ploy. Obama

is far from the most liberal. Kerry and Clinton are both left of Obama. Feingold and many others eclipse Obama by light years. Just look at his selection of Rahm Emanuel, who made Howard Dean's job much harder, and all Dean wanted to do was help the country and the dems.

[Sparkly]

130. We knew that.

I think I can speak for H2S when I say we weren't ecstatic over anybody in the primaries, for various reasons, and we saw Obama as "reaching wayyy across the aisle," speaking about religion beyond our comfort levels, and other things. We did see Edwards, Clinton, and Obama as having essentially similar policy stands and proposals, with Obama being further right than the other two, particularly on healthcare.

Nevertheless, we were hopeful that much of Obama's rhetoric was about winning the election. But rather than dialing it back, he's going well beyond it, and it's disappointing.