Obama "lacks courage" because he caters to Republicans

[ProSense]

In conversation with Helen Thomas at the Commonwealth Club

Obama “lacks courage … to do the right thing,” a charge that drew a gasp from some members of the audience. Thomas, author of the just-released Listen Up, Mr. President, had a few partisan words of advice: “There is no such thing as bipartisanship.... Stop catering to the Republicans, because they're not going to help you!” she insisted.

Yup the President sits around all day picking his nose waiting for Republicans support.

Signed a memorandum expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees

Iraq: U.S. closed 100 bases, reduced contractors by 34,000 since Jan., pulling 4,000 more troops out

US undertaking largest withdrawal of troops and materiel since Vietnam

House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[spoony]

22. Hmm, someone's itchy for a fight.

Seems like there's a word for people who just post looking to stir people up.

[redqueen]

26. Look around GD for a bit, and compare time stamps.

You have your itchers mixed up... this was a reaction someone had been practically begging for.

[spoony]

32. I think that makes it worse, frankly.

I'm of the opinion that if someone has a reply to make, they should do it in the thread(s) they're replying to. Starting new threads, then five minutes later when the desired effect hasn't been acheived kicking it to encourage the initiation of conflict (and, really, what else could an OP like this be bent on generating, especially given the context you've provided?) is behaviour fitting a certain term I can't use lest this post be deleted. It spreads, rather than contains, any OTT commentary they're objecting to. I'm not so convinced that this poster is as much a fan of Obama as they are of in-fighting.

[hfojvt]

37. Why should it be conflict, though?

If there are people here who seem to constantly push the message "Obama sucks" and the message "the Democratic Party sucks" as a constant negative, negative, negative message that the glass is always almost empty. Some people want to push back against that, not because they wanna fight with the naysayers, as much as they want to push what they see as both a more positive and a more accurate message.

As for posting that in a negative thread, that is more likely to have two bad consequences. One, is that the rebuttal to the negative message is way downthread, and is probably neither read nor seen by as many people as the OP (or an OP), The second effect is to kick the OP back to the top of the front page, where it is likely to be seen and read (and perhaps absorbed and believed) by more people. To post in a thread is not much of a pushback.

[Arkana]

2. ProSense, I'm really glad you're around to inject some sanity

into this madhouse.

[redqueen]

3. +1

[jonnyblitz]

21. you have *got* to be kidding. are you sure you didn't mean

INSANITY? :crazy:

war is peace, i suppose.

[ProSense]

30. Let's measure the political courage of the last two Presidents

Clinton signs DOMA and DADT and repeals Glass Steagall.

Bush illegally invades Iraq

Political courage?

I know Helen Thomas called out Bush, but did she call out Clinton?

[DJ13]

4. Helen is an old fashioned liberal

You know, the FDR and LBJ kind.

By her standards she's right, Obama is too concerned with the political cover that comes from always seeking bipartisanship.

She wants assertive bold leadership, is that so bad?

[ProSense]

8. "By her standards she's right," So you're saying

that those agreeing with her are "old-fashioned liberal"?

"Obama is too concerned with the political cover that comes from always seeking bipartisanship."

You just made the same bullshit point.

Some of the same people who slam Obama's efforts at peace are nothing but a bunch of intolerant and hypocritical assholes (and I'm not talking about Helen Thomas).

[DJ13]

10. Not everyone is absolutely in love with Obama like you are

You need to understand that some people see him not as an icon, but as a man with a hard job who may or may not be what we expected.

Those who dont agree with you all the time arent bad people, they just have different ways of measuring Obama's success than you do.

[ProSense]

12. In love with Obama? And what the hell does that have to do with the fact that the point is BS? n/t

[blm]

16. I agree with Helen's goal...but, to be fair, she never let Bill Clinton's lack of courage become

an issue. Hell, Clinton dropped healthcare like a hot potato after the big pushback and never brought it up again.

Helen accepted Clinton's need to have a war room for his personal political battles while ignoring the need to go to the mat for Democratic principles and issues.

[redqueen]

17. Thats interesting.

But as she is apparently considered infallible, I'm sure there simply must be a good explanation.

I'd like the explanation for the shocking secrecy in the Obama WH... the likes of which she'd never seen before. That one just beggars belief.

[blm]

33. Yeah - she didn't exactly hound Clinton to release documents Bush1 withheld on BCCI/CIA drugrunning

did she?

[redqueen]

34. I don't remember her doing that, no. Maybe she didn't consider that to be important enough

to hold anyone's feet to any fire over.

[Swamp Rat]

5. k&r

[Jane Austin]

6. Don't forget net neutrality.

That's a crucial issue.

[ProSense]

31. Yes and Census, Republicans lining up to support those. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

7. I love Helen Thomas

But she's wrong. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6776056&mesg_id=6776056

[gateley]

9. Look, I am really supportive of Obama and realize he has to make decisions

based on things I can't even conceive, and I totally agree that he's done plenty of good things without worrying about what the Republicans would think. His brilliance and strategies continue to amaze and further impress me. I REALLY am glad he's our President.

But I do agree with Helen that at times he's a bit too conciliatory. I can't think of any other reason why "sources" are indicating that he'll probably take the 'middle road' regarding Afghanistan. Can you think of a reason?

Anyway, Helen is tough on all Presidents, and maybe "lacks courage" wasn't the best way to phrase it, but people here are piling on her as though she's constantly demeaning Obama (like O'R), and that's just not true.

We don't need to kick her around -- we should be appreciative that she's practically the lone journalist out there who's willing to ask the tough, REAL questions.

Just my unsolicited opinion. :)

[ProSense]

15. "maybe 'lacks courage' wasn't the best way to phrase it"

It was completely ridiculous.

[gateley]

19. I'm guilty of being far more "ridiculous" in some of the things that I've said.

Her word is not law, it's her opinion. She's just like the rest of us, we say the wrong thing at times. :shrug:

I just think very highly of Helen (and hope I'm as sharp at her age!) so I kind of knee-jerk react when I think she's being unjustly vilified. Not that that was your intent, but that's how I reacted to this entire incident.

(I'm used to it -- I'm a Biden supporter :))

[ProSense]

20. She is a member of the MSM, her opinion is open to criticism like the rest of them n/t

[gateley]

29. Yep. I'm totally fine with that, but as I said, for a few people I just want

to jump in and defend them (IF I disagree with the sentiment being expressed -- I don't always.)

[Fumesucker]

11. Bribepartisanship... Unrecced..

DU loooooooooved Helen when she stood up to bushie and told it like it was.

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites..

[ProSense]

13. So she stood up to Bush gives her a license to make a bullshit point?

Where the hell are all the people who slam Obama defenders as locksteppers?

[Fumesucker]

14. Bullshit is often in the eye of the beholder..

And perspective makes a huge difference in perception.

You think it's bullshit, I don't.

We differ, get over it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. I hear Glenn Beck's losing a lot of advertisers recently.

Maybe she's pushing for his job.

[Romulox]

35. LOL. This is where we are at DU: Helen Thomas = Glenn Beck.

I now believe the poster I'm responding to is a performance artist. There is no other explanation.

[MarjorieG]

23. If we didn't have such bought and paid for Dems, we could at least have cloture. Then there's

Lieberman. I think Obama is massaging all options to get cloture and public option. Medicare lowered maybe next budget?

[Bluenorthwest]

24. While a handful of federal employees temporarily have acess

to benefits, which is great, Obama also fires an average of 2 Americans a day for merely being gay and wanting to serve their country.
Just some balance. He fires people for being gay because he is afraid to take a stand and do what is right. It is that simple. If he were less fear based and conciliatory, hundreds of people would still have their jobs and benefits instead of discharge papers.

[lillypaddle]

25. Why do some people think everything is so black & white???

If you've ever been in a position of leadership, you know that you have to walk a certain line. That's just the way it fucking IS. Obama is the President of EVERYONE. Can you even imagine what he has to fucking deal with????

Sheesh. I don't think he is god. I don't think he is perfect. I think he has had his ass handed to him in a handbasket and he is doing the best he can in 10 FUCKING months.

[ProSense]

27. He isn't God or perfect, but guess what: neither is Helen Thomas.

I think her statement was bullshit. What does Obama being perfect have to do with that?

[lillypaddle]

28. You're right

Guess I got carried away. I have the utmost respect for Helen Thomas. She is a jewel, and she is doing her job, a job no one else seems to be able to do.

Just get tired of all this sometimes. She is right to question him. And I bet he appreciates it.

[Echo In Light]

36. "Lacks courage?" or is simply doing the job that his admin was allowed election 'victory' for?

Remember, there are very powerful RW elements in this country that, if they so choose, going by Gore/Bush, and Kerry/Bush, can rig an "election's" outcome any way they see fit, counting on an obedient, paid for M$M, and establishment punditry, to help solidify the un-reality to make it the consensus "reality" most Americans unquestioningly abide.

So, given that, why would the real owners of the country green-light a Dem admin that actually posed a genuine threat to its basic intere$ts?

They wouldn't ;)