86% of self-identified liberals support Obama - My question is why?

[no limit]

When you identify yourself as a liberal you must have some strong feelings about liberal issues. These issues include healthcare, our foreign policy, the enviroment, equal rights, civil liberties, government transparancy, as well as a host of other issues. No liberals will agree on everything, but by large they will agree on most core issues otherwise they wouldn't call themselves liberals. Yet outside of a few areas where Obama threw liberals a bone I really can't think any core liberal issues that he fought for during his administartion.

Health Care

- Never mentioned single payer, not even as a barganing chip. The CBO never even scored it.
- Threw the public option under the bus.
- Included a mandate which he himself originally ran against in the primaries when Clinton was proposing it.

Enviroment

- Wanted to expend offshore oil drilling
- Keeps pushing the fraudulent idea of clean coal to the point where the coal industry was using him in advertising.
- Supports nuclear power without explaining where he will store the waste

Foreign Policy

- Won't get us out of Iraq by 2011 as promised
- Expended the war in Afghanistan
- Has supported a certain country in the middle east which I can't say the name off pretty much unconditionally when it comes to actions.

Civil Liberties

- Against legalizing same-sex marriage
- Against legalization of marijuana
- Doesn't want officers to have to read miranda rights
- Continues wireless wiretapping
- In favor of killing american citizens without a trial even if they are found outside a war zone
- Continues to deny detainees in military custody rights to a trial, including american citizens
- Continues the practice of rendition

Government Transparency

- Arrested whistle blowers
- Fights legitimate freedom of information requests on a regular basis
- Continues to use signing statements
- Lobbyists continue to have a role in his administration
- Refuses to investigate torture, the invasion of Iraq, and countless other crimes of the Bush administration and actually helps burry those investigations by withholding information he has access to.

These are just the things off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more issues that Obama betrayed us on. I know the standard response here is that he still has plenty of time, but many of the things I listed he outright said he will never presude. And nobody has to agree with each of these to be considered a liberal but you gotta feel strongly about atleast a few of them.

And I know that I'm the one that is "f-ing retarded" since 86% of self-identified liberals support Obama and apparently Gallup polling data is all we need to make an informed decision, but I honestly just don't get it. Maybe someone can help me out here. What actual liberal policies has Obama fought for or atleast committed himself to? DADT is one, nationalizing student loans was another. But I can't think of any other true liberal issues that this administration stood up for and those 2 certainly don't make up for that.

[dionysus]

1. i guess they aren't as pure as you.

:shrug:

[no limit]

4. You must be a fast reader. You read all that in what? 30 seconds? Wow!

[KittyWampus]

91. It's a basic laundry list of negative crap with NO MENTION OF THE POSITIVES.

I'd list the many, many positives Obama has accomplished. But you're in denial.

[no limit]

122. What positives. Quick, run to politifact and get the list

nothing on that list is significant enough to excuse the list I made in this thread.

But my point was that the guy didn't even bother to read what I posted before responding, only read the title. You think that's a smart thing to do on his part?

[YOY]

2. Because he was better than the doddering old man and the imbecile.

Although not by as much as he presented himself.

I personally don't like being used. And consider the current path a continuation of our self-destruction...question in my mind is "Is it better to to let a guy who you hoped to fix it but did not or people who are going to do it and wave flags and do it?"

George Carlin was right...

[no limit]

3. Self-delete

[Scuba]

5. Because they're frightened to death of the other side.

[Overseas]

130. I certainly detest the other side, splintered now between Right and Super Right .

I am afraid of our being splintered at this point.

If we hold together, even though we criticize the President's pro-corporate, old fashioned "New Democrat" moves, will we see the final shattering of the hard right?

[Scuba]

137. That's the 'hope' part, at least for me.

[SocialistLez]

6. They are not paying attention....

[cliffordu]

7. Maybe because they live in the real world and not

in some theoretical wasteland of perfect ideas and infantile footstomping when they don't get all the attention they believe they deserve??

:shrug:

[Laelth]

10. Is that just another way of saying he's better than McCain?

Or are you an Eisenhower Republican who can truly say that you are pleased with the President?

:dem:

-Laelth

[cliffordu]

25. I'm not pleased with more than HALF of what he's done.

But I ain't stupid either.

There's a whole lot of room to improve, but on the balance he's done pretty well making souffles out of the shit sandwich he inherited.

If he did what I wanted him to,

he would spend a trillion dollars on a nationalized grid of solar arrays to get us the fuck off the oil teat,

Cheney would be underground for fucking good by now,

Cars would be GONE in the next decade.

Companies that move out of the US for cheap labor would NEVER make a dime selling here.

ALL corporations would pay their fair share of taxes.

Small organic farms would be subsidized, megafarms, not.

Spanish would be a mandatory second language.

BP execs would be in the genpop of the Cook County Jail. Just for shits and giggles.

there's more......but maybe you get the idea.

I don;t think he'll do ANY of that above stuff.

But I don't think he's a failure cause he won't.

[Laelth]

32. OK, then. It's a way of saying he's better than McCain.

I respect that, and I agree.

:dem:

-Laelth

[cliffordu]

37. Please don't shit on what I say just because your ideology

is purer than mine.

You mean exactly the same thing to the powers that be that I do.

You don't mean shit.

[Laelth]

47. Your hostility does not serve you well.

Ultimately, we are on the same team.

Peace.

:dem:

-Laelth

[KittyWampus]

92. Is "ivory towers" or "glass houses"? Myself? I live where you get stuff done bit by

bit when faces with unrelenting competition.

[Larry Ogg]

107. Maybe they live in the real world as portrayed by the M$M

And we all know how well the corporately owned conservative biased M$M portrays the real world don't we sports fans?

Political paradigms, revised reality and boogie-men, what more does an informed electorate need? They need to know who to vote for, and we can count on the M$M too hand pick and insure that we vote for someone who supports social predators such as the status quo minority who is outsourcing American jobs and using our military to bomb the hell out of defenseless countries in order to further enrich the status quo.

That's some monolithic real world they live in, but the illusion as to how good things are works best on those not affected by reality, and the minds of most Americans live in a propaganda bubble, not the real world; nice try though...

[treestar]

132. +1

[Laelth]

8. They aren't paying attention, and he's better than McCain.

This liberal is paying attention, and I am not very happy with the President.

:dem:

-Laelth

[abluelady]

9. He's Better Than the Alternative We Had. eom

[Birthmark]

11. I pretty much agree with you.

I'm disappointed not in the what's done or undone, but by the mind-set of this Administration. It's definitely a (welcome) change from the previous Administration, but far, far short of real, meaningful change.

[msongs]

12. one can never get the best if one never asks or demands it nt

[bullimiami]

13. i see obama much like clinton. corporate democrat. wired to work w others and seek compromise.

not my first choice but on balance he is decent enough.
its a baby and bathwater thing.
what we can do is push for policy we support and call him out on what we dont.

our system only gave us 2 choices in the end. Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin.
the alternative would have made us much more miserable.

[Laelth]

16. I agree, but that doesn't mean that I am happy about it. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Oregone]

14. Maybe they don't understand the philosphy of liberalism

Obama is on their self-identified team. He's their man. Thats all they need. He doesn't sound like a 3 year old when he gives speeches. Makes them happy.

[Romulox]

15. Read these boards--the new trend is for "moderates" to try to appropriate words like "progressive"

and "liberal"--for instance, how can one be truly "liberal", and support escalating war, bailouts for multinational corps, laissez-faire economics, and all the rest of the crap that Obama supports? Answer, you change the definition of "liberal".

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[nc4bo]

28. That is one revealing thread ya got there.

My goodness. Since when did "moderate" = "liberal" or "progressive"? Answer = when you change the definition indeed.

So basically any one who's not 100% on the O bus is considered to be one of them far out, wacky doodle left wingers?

:+ Just wow.

[tekisui]

34. And, a hater, of course.

[Romulox]

54. Wow. Can't believe that was deleted. I appreciated the link nonetheless, tekisui.

:hi:

[Individualist]

77. You're exactly right.

:thumbsup:

[Joe Fields]

84. Bingo!

[G_j]

17. self-identified liberals?

Love Me, I'm a Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[bobbolink]

127. Great lyrics. Says it all. Thanks.

[Turbineguy]

19. Because under the circumstances

he's better than the alternative. If you don't support Obama, you may very well get Palin. We have room to move forward with Obama. After at least 30 years of increasing right wing nuttery, I don't expect somebody to wave a magic wand.

In the meantime, stick to your guns. This will take a while.

[SidDithers]

20. Because real liberals are also realists...nt

Sid

[no limit]

24. I see, so all the things I mentioned when it comes to government transparancy,

civil liberties, and all the other things aren't possible in the real world? Right, Obama must keep locking up whistle blowers, it's impossible to do it another way.

I don't think most "real liberals" asked in this poll are realists, the word is apologists.

[BzaDem]

27. The justice department is charging people who illegally leak classified information.

That is very different than simply "locking up whistle blowers." A whistle blower who commits a crime still committed a crime.

[no limit]

33. Except for all those laws that protect whistleblowers.

[BzaDem]

36. If laws allow whistleblowers to leak classified information

then those "whistleblowers" shouldn't have anything to worry about, should they?

[no limit]

39. The laws protect them if crimes were broken. And they were

yet the Obama admin is going after those whistle blowers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/obama-whistleblowers_n_609787.html

[BzaDem]

42. You are missing the point.

If the law protects them, then they have little to worry about. It would be dismissed. If the law doesn't protect them, then they committed a serious felony, and it is their job to prosecute them.

[no limit]

45. So lets throw you in jail, force you to buy a lawyer, and then defend yourself in front of a judge

if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

[BzaDem]

69. I think my point is that they actually did violate the law, and that is why they prosecuted them.

While there may be whistleblower laws, they likely did not cover the crime in question.

[treestar]

133. Intelligent realists

who, if they protest, can make signs without spelling errors

[jp11]

21. Sorry what is my option, support him or don't support him right?

So if I don't support the man I voted for because he isn't doing everything right, and or hasn't taken a hard line on some issues that will hurt his ability to do other things in the future and embolden republicans legitimately instead of the BS they are riding on with the Tea baggers I guess I'm not liberal enough? Not supporting him just plays into the MSM showing he is hated and the country is turning on him, his base doesn't even support him yada yada yada.

Am I happy with everything he's done, the way he's done it, of course not but he hasn't gone nuts to the right yet so I still support him.

For your consideration:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Have fun.

[no limit]

26. You were making a good point until you brought in politifact

The problem with that is under promises broken it seems to miss a bunch of things. The big one is the insurance mandate which I mentioned in this thread.

[jp11]

40. It is a tool, one I'd use as that, to help find things you can't remember or want to lookup

nothing is absolute or worthy of blind unquestioning trust on the internet.

Edited: to add that I don't say 'use it to see what he did right' but 'use it lookup whatever you want, wrong/right etc.'

[no limit]

44. But the point is they leave out promises he broke which makes the entire thing unreliable

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Because there are millions of Americans listening daily to Faux News and Teabaggers. If you feel

betrayed than you did a poor job of examining the candidates in 2008. I would have never described Obama as a 'liberal'. He never claimed to be.

[BzaDem]

23. You could have put this in the actual post you are replying to, but I guess I'll reply here.

"Never mentioned single payer, not even as a barganing chip. The CBO never even scored it."

Actually, the John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich withdrew the single payer amendment in part because of how badly it scored. They blamed it on bad assumptions by the CBO (which is what everyone who disagrees with the CBO blames the resulting score on).

"Threw the public option under the bus."

Obama did not throw the public option under the bus. He knew the public option required 60 votes, and he had at most 59. Lieberman would have happily killed healthcare with a public option. Unlike many here, who ignore facts and math, Obama looked at the facts and the math and realized he couldn't get a public option. Using your logic, Obama will suddenly turn into a conservative if Republicans take over Congress. That's silly logic.

"Included a mandate which he himself originally ran against in the primaries when Clinton was proposing it."

The reason he included it was because without it, people would only buy insurance when they were sick and premiums would have to cover all medical costs (which would be several thousand per month per person). The public option would have collapsed without a mandate even if he could get such an option.


Part of the point of the other thread is that you don't get to define what "liberal" means for everyone. In fact, if 86% disagrees with you, you definately don't get to define what liberal means for everyone. From a purely relative standpoint, Obama is the most liberal president since LBJ on some issues and FDR on others. If that isn't liberal enough for you to consider him liberal, maybe that is a reason your concept of liberal is so divorced from the other 86%.

[no limit]

38. None this explains to me how someone making $10 /hr can afford $100 a month

The CBO scored single payer? When? Certainly not during the healthcare debate last year.

Obama could have pressured Lieberman on the issue, he didn't. In fact Liberman revealed that Obama never even asked him to support the public option. Aka he threw it under the bus.

You can make all the arguments you want for why a mandate is good. The fact remains candidate Obama blasted such an idea. He was right back then. A great argument on his part was that if a mandate makes sense then we can fix homelessness by requireing everyone to buy a house.

All this distracts from what I am asking you. No matter how you cut it the healthcare bill was not liberal, it was middle of the road at best. Middle of the road is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

[BzaDem]

49. Then explain to me how they can afford $220. Because that is what you want them to pay.

Yes, the CBO scored single payer, during the debate last year. Kucinich and Conyers didn't release the score because it was so bad.

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2837&Itemid=1

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies."

"A great argument on his part was that if a mandate makes sense then we can fix homelessness by requireing everyone to buy a house."

Obama was trying to score political points. But the argument itself is incredibly stupid, as he later admitted. If you can go without insurance until you are on your way to the ER (and then drop it as soon as you leave the ER), then why in the world would you buy insurance before and after going to the ER? Seriously? The mandate is needed because there is otherwise NO WAY to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, unless you want premiums to be thousands EVERY MONTH. Buying a house could not be any more unrelated to this question.

If the bill had a public option, it would either go BANKRUPT within months or would have to charge thousands per month in premiums.

You call the bill "middle of the road" because your definition of liberal is at odds with almost everyone else's definition of liberal. Of course if your definition of liberal is wrong, your definition of "middle of the road" would be wrong. One objective way to look at this is to realize that independents are against the healthcare bill by margins ranging anywhere from 10 to 30 points depending on the poll and how the question is asked. Democrats are almost all for it, but independents are much more against it.

[Radical Activist]

106. Obama also mentioned single-payer

in a nationally televised town hall in which he gave a very positive description of what it meant. It's my understanding that the provision was kept which allows states to set up their own single-payer system if they choose.

There were a few other false statements in the OP I'm not bothering with but I wanted to reinforce what you wrote.

[WCGreen]

29. You really think you can elect Samantha Stevens...

That the democratic president just has to twick his nose and all will be well?

It's extremely difficult to change the status quo.

It's a hell of a lot easier to promise people everything and requiring nothing in return.

I support president Obama because he's all we got at this time.

He picked his battles. I voted for him not because of his dream but because he seemed capable of setting realistic goals that lay a good foundation for lasting change.

[laughingliberal]

30. I think it's 2 things: He's better than the other guy; People hear the talking points and are not

as tuned in to the details of the above issues. I seriously doubt most of those polled would be aware of even 10% of what you highlighted in your post.

I'm thinking we are starting to see a slight shift to the left, recently, and am crossing my fingers it will continue.

[depakid]

31. If you're going to buy what Gallup is selling- you'll believe in Guardian angels, too

after all, according to Gallup- 74% of Americans do!

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

43. Yes, truly it can't be that Obama bashers on the left are really

a fringe minority inside their own party! After all, you all know everything and are right about everything!

[depakid]

56. Like I said- if you want to be a sucker- and ignore the reasons why Republicans are poised

to take back the House- be my guest.

Please, by all means- be stupid.

[geek tragedy]

66. Of course. It's because Democrats don't do what you want them

to do and you're not only always right, but if people did what you want them to do they'd be extremely popular.

I bow at your genius.

[depakid]

102. Gallup says something- and suckers jump up and dance to the tune!

Without even questioning!

I think it's pretty funny actually- been watching people do that -and get manipulated for years. One reason why Ms. Depa and I don't live there anymore.

Far too much stupid to handle on a daily basis.

[closeupready]

35. Here's the thing about these polls: Obama has always been and always will be likeable.

I like him. I bet everybody on this board, if they are being honest, will admit that he is likeable.

His job approval ratings are quite another matter.

[BzaDem]

50. Um, the 86% is his job approval among liberal democrats. Not his favorability number. n/t

[BurtWorm]

55. I'm sure that poll reflects reality absolutely.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[lunatica]

41. Because you can support someone without having to agree with everything

Because for some the glass is half full now when it was empty before. Others just see that the glass isn't full yet and want to throw tantrums.

[Yuugal]

63. This isn't a half-empty half-full thing

The glass was filled with piss during the Bush yrs and we wanted pure drinking water for a "change". Obama is giving us half piss and now we are being told that is just as good as water and we should be happy to drink it. Purity does count sometimes.

[lunatica]

125. Sorry, but I disagree

I see him going in the right direction. That was all I hoped for because it took them 30 years to destroy everything and it could to take that long to undo their damage and then progress beyond that. Progress is a process. All the progress we ever had was built on something already there before.

[Hansel]

46. Because they are realistic that after 3 decades of right wing rule

and media propaganda it's going to take more than a couple of years to move the country back to the center. They also realize Obama is trying to move us in that direction but he is not a king or dictator and that he has a big problem with a goose-stepping opposition and DINOs.

Liberal <> Idealist. Some of us have been there, done that and realize we get no where with it. If we want to move toward a more liberal political climate we are going to have to bring a lot of people who have been brain washed for decades to vote against their own best interests with us. The same people who can't say the word Liberal without looking like they have a piece of sh*t on their upper lip. It's going to take time and persuasion and trust to make this happen.

The United States did not turn into this nightmare overnight. It's not going to change back in that time either. The best thing that Liberals can do is can the emotional overreaction to everything that is said and done, and instead keep their eyes on the prize.

[MineralMan]

48. Yawn...I'm not going to respond to all the claims in this.

I support President Obama because he's trying to implement policies that are on the very edge of what can get through Congress, and he's succeeding. That's a major accomplishment.

Unrecced.

[BzaDem]

52. EXACTLY. +1.

[MineralMan]

58. Thanks.

No President is going to do the things in the OP's list. They're all impossible to get through the current Congress. I'd rather not be promised unattainable things. I'd rather see work being done in the direction I think we need to go.

Insisting on what cannot happen is not leadership. It's something else, and should be done by people who are not trying to get things accomplished. Otherwise, we get zero movement.

Anyone who thinks there has been no positive movement in this country since President Obama took office is not paying attention. There's more to come.

[no limit]

59. Obama does not need congress to end wars. Obama does not need congress to not arrest whistle blowers

you are apologizing for his crap with bullshit excuses. When he needed congress for such issues as the public option we found out he wasn't actually trying to get anyone in congress to vote for it.

[MineralMan]

60. Yes, yes...I heard you the first time. Thanks.

[no limit]

62. And you ignored me then and you ignore me now.

[MineralMan]

64. I do ignore you. That is my privilege. You may ignore me, as well.

Ain't DU great!

What I won't do is put you, or anyone else on ignore. I will read what you post, and I will reply as I choose.

[no limit]

65. Saying it is your privilege is an excuse. Obama doesn't need congress for any of that

nor did Obama try to pressure congress on such issues as the public option.

So your originaly excuse that it's the fault of congress isn't totally accurate, and yes, you are free to ignore that fact just as Sarah Palin is free to ignore any facts she chooses to. It is a free country after all.

[MineralMan]

68. Not an excuse. An explanation.

I do not answer to you, Mr./Ms. limit. I choose my own arguments. You can ask me to participate, but the decision is mine. And I promise not to ask you to argue against whatever I choose to write.

As I said, ain't DU great?

[no limit]

85. As I said, your argument that this is the fault of congress is simply not true

but you are right, you get to decide which of your opinions you will defend and which ones you won't when you are called on them. Have a nice day brah.

[BzaDem]

72. Obama didn't try to pressure Congress because he knew Lieberman would kill it.

Obama was RIGHT not to pressure Congress on a part of a bill he KNEW he would never get. You want to know the easiest way to get Congressmen to move away from you and not risk their neck for you? It's to get them to take a touch vote that ends up losing in the end.

[no limit]

81. He didn't even ask Lieberman to support it, why?

[Raineyb]

112. Because he wasn't really interested in passing it.

Of course those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of criticism will deny this but it's the only logical explanation.

[BzaDem]

128. Because Lieberman said he would TANK THE WHOLE BILL if it was in there.

Do you think Obama should waste time asking Boehner if he would support the public option? If not, then why do you think Obama should waste time talking to Lieberman? In fact, with Lieberman it is even more waste time because Lieberman is doing it partly because he has a grudge against the liberals in the Democratic party.

[no limit]

146. How hard is it for Obama to get on the phone and tell Lieberman "Hey, can you support this for me?"

Obama didn't pick up that phone. Why?

[dhpgetsit]

51. When 86% of self-identified liberals say they support Obama, they don't have to agree with everythib

Are you saying that someone who disagrees with Obama on one point or another should now be regretting his vote and wishing he had voted for McCain?

[BurtWorm]

53. My question to you is why do you put so much stock in a poll about opinions?

If someone were to call me and ask how I felt about Obama, do you think I'd tell them exactly what I actually think? I wouldn't. I doubt many would. If you're a conservative, no matter how groovy you may feel about Obama's kowtowing to you and your ilk, you won't tell a polllster, "It's a mixed bag, Mr. Roper." You're going to say he's a fucking commie and leave it at that. Same deal with liberal Democrats. You're not going to give the pollsters the satisfaction of hearing "it's a mixed bag" or even "he disaappoints the shit out of me." You won't unless you're naive enough to think pollsters deserve to know what your measly opinion really is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Because he's being graded on a curve. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

80. Yup

The curve is measured against his predecessor, who would make RIchard Nixon look like a liberal.

[LWolf]

67. I suspect that there is not a standard, unified agreement on what constitues a "liberal."

Just as "progressive" is a vague term that covers a lot of ground. Zogby categorizes "progressive" as "extremely liberal." Yet the centrist DLC's think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute."

To be "progressive" means to want to move issues forward. Those issues don't have to be at all "liberal."

Those two terms have been so corrupted I prefer to use "left" instead.

What percentage of self-identified leftists support Obama? I'll bet that's not a poll question that will ever be asked. It's more clear-cut, and the results less open to manipulation than the ambiguous "liberal."

[MineralMan]

70. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Don Pardo will tell you what you've won.

[LWolf]

75. I hope it's another source of income.

Since I've taken 3 large paycuts in the last 12 months.

[NYC_SKP]

73. Thank you, LWolf.

It never seems to go well for those of us who generally support the same set of values to try to define terms like "liberal" and "progressive".

We're more alike than we are different, and if we lose sight of that the other side always seems to get an advantage.

:patriot:

[LWolf]

76. You're welcome. nt

[no limit]

86. So liberal now means moderate? I guess your point is it does to some

my argument is those people are not liberal and don't understand what liberal is. Leftist is liberal to me. The fact we have to come up with a new word for liberal because it's been hijacked by the so called moderates is insane to me.

[LWolf]

89. Liberal means whatever it means to the person using it.

For too many, "liberal" means more liberal than right-wing fascism. It's subjective, based on where the person using the term happens to stand. You can be far to the right of center and still be more "liberal" than those to the right of where you're standing.

I'm glad to know that there are still some who prefer to stand "left." Although "leftist" in the U.S. is still not comparable to the rest of the world.

[inna]

114. +1

The U.S. is unique among developed countries in the way how the socialist left has been systemically eliminated. Anti-socialism is deeply ingrained in US propaganda.

I agree with you that the term "liberal" is subjective and has been corrupted, and I prefer to identify as "left" rather than "liberal" at this point.


P.S. I appreciate your posts, btw! :hi:

[LWolf]

129. Thanks. nt

[jwirr]

71. We liberals have been in this position since Jimmy Carter's term.

RR gave liberals a bad name and we have had to fight for anything we got since then which was very little. We also do not have enough support to start a viable third party - one that wins more than an occasional seat at the table - so we are left with several choices: support what we can get, support a third party we know is not going to win or not vote at all. The last two do not help anyone.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. You've summed it up pretty well there

But "what we can get" doesn't seem to be very much these days, especially for someone like me who can remember the Carter and Johnson years.

[jwirr]

82. I hear you. Those of you who do not remember the real liberal era

must really be feeling helpless. In the last 30 years we have had to wheel and deal to get anything we want and then it is usually watered down. Also pugs these days are not playing fair. They will do anything to win or delay or destroy what we want to do.

One thing I wish is that we Dems could find a way of deciding exactly what we want and go for it. The HCR bill was a blind fight in which President Obama wanted us to trust that whatever came out would be good. Neither he nor the congress paid any attention to the public wishes - public option. If we cannot begin to fight together we are going to get a lot less than we want. I don't mean just us supporting the President but him starting to listen to us or at least in plain language explain why he is not listening to us. He could have said, "if we put in the public option we cannot pass the bill" and at least I would understand why thinks he is compromising with the pugs.

[Hannah Bell]

139. it seems to be nothing. or winger policies dressed up & labeled "progressive".

[Zorra]

78. Because he is more liberal than most republicans, and is the only

real choice we were permitted when we voted for president in '08.

Since RW corporate media deliberately controls the minds of a substantial segment of the American population to varying degrees, we have to do the best with what we are permitted to have, or dangerous, ignorant regressives like George W. Bu$h will end up "leading" our nation.

Subcomandante Marcos puts it this way:

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. he great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel..."

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

The wealthy power elite that control world finance and politics just ain't gonna let us have an unfettered, truly democratic acting POTUS.

President Obama, regardless of what he personally may or may not wish to do, is restricted by the dictates of powerful wealthy private entities. If he doesn't do what they want him to do, they can easily destroy him politically, in a heartbeat. All they really have to do is threaten that his family will suffer an "accident" if he doesn't act within the framework of their guidelines.

So we do the best with what we have, until we somehow create something better. I'd love to see an unrestricted Dennis Kucinich in the White House. I hope to see the day that something like that happens.

Until then, I'll support the "lesser of two evils" and hope at some point that President Obama goes rogue.

[WI_DEM]

79. must steam you up that not all liberals/progressives agree with you that Obama has been a failure.

[no limit]

83. Not really. I just don't understand how people consider themselves liberal when they dont care

about liberal issues. It's kind of odd to me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

94. I missed the meeting when we elected you Grand Liberal

:shrug:

Liberals may share ideas, but we certainly disagree about how to accomplish our goals. Some people on here believe that we should vote Republican and "burn the house down" and that out of these ashes will rise a glorious liberal world. I think that's bunk. But we both want the same end.

[no limit]

96. Strawman much? I dont know anybody here that think we should vote republican

I think you just pulled that out of your ass.

Nobody elected me grand liberal. But liberal is a word with a meaning. I guess if conservatives started calling themselves liberal that would make sense to you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

97. You haven't seen the posts saying a Republican win would be beneficial in the long run because

the whole system would collapse and we could start over? I saw one just yesterday. You must not get around on DU a lot.

Liberal is a word with a meaning, but who says it's yours? I think liberal people can have the same goals, but disagree on how to achieve those goals.

[no limit]

100. And what are those goals? And no, I never saw anyone advocate voting republican here

I've seen people advocate not voting, but never voting republican. And I'm here often. Does it happen once in a blue moon, maybe. But not enough for you to try to make it seem like it happens all the time, it doesn't.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

103. We all want to move the country in a more progressive direction

I, and others, believe that the best way to do this is to reverse course as quickly as possible without losing steps. That is why I support Democrats.

Other people believe that the only way to move the country in the right direction is for Democrats to lose and Republicans to win (either by not voting or voting Green or whatever) so that the country gets so bad the demand for liberal ideas will increase.

We believe in the same goals: equal rights, strong unions, protecting the environment, choice, etc. The question is if the best way is an incrementalist approach or an all or nothing approach. If it is an incrementalist approach, it is entirely conceivable that people approve of decisions that move us in a progressive direction although taken alone and in a vacuum, the decisions are not progressive.

[no limit]

108. Is gay marriage an equal rights issue? Because Obama already said he doesn't support that

How about rendition? Is that a human rights issue? Because Obama continues that. You say we believe in strong unions, yet the Obama administration is saying things like the unions flushed 10 million down a toilette when they wanted a candidate that supported their views. So maybe you can point me to what Obama is doing to accomplish those goals.

You say the goal is to move the country in a more progressive direction. But by the same token you say you can't define what progressive actually means. That makes little sense to me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

120. You clearly have no interest in an actual discussion, but I'll try one more time

Ending DADT and DOMA moves the country in a progressive direction and a direction that is closer to the goal of equal rights. I believe it certainly moves us towards that goal faster than a protest vote or no vote that gives us a Republican administration.

A labor secretary like Solis moves the country in a more progressive direction than a protest vote or a Republican administration.

Your definition of liberal is all or nothing and most people do not see the world like that. I believe we can use centrists like Obama to make progress.

[no limit]

123. I have no interest in an actual discussion? This sure seems to me like a actual discussion

The point of this thread is not that Obama is a republican or that we should vote republican. The point of this thread is that Obama is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, DADT and DOMA are great. But the fact remains on the other huge civil rights issue of gay marriage he is on the wrong side of that.

So my question continues to be why 86% of liberals would approve of his job when he hasn't taken up very many liberal causes. There is something seriously wrong with that number in my opinion. Your argument that he moves the country slightly to the progressive side so that's why liberals support him is a valid one, but if that's the case liberals sure have shitty standards. Many of what he has done do not move us in the progressive direction, they move us the other way especially when it comes to government transparancy and our foreign policy.

So you point out a few issues where he is left but I point out a bunch of issues where he is in the political center or even worse in the total right wing side. And yet 86% of liberals approve of his job. That's crazy to me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

143. You're right. That was an asshole thing to say, I'm sorry.

I was having a bad day and I took it out on you. I apologize.

[no limit]

145. No problem.

[amborin]

87. *many* people are too busy struggling to get by to probe beneath the MSM pablum

and too distracted.....and they succumb to the nonsense threat: "look what you'll get if you criticize....the other side is way worse"

[HuckleB]

88. A challenge for you.

Will you list the positive things Obama has done in office?

If you're only listing the things you disagree with, then the perspective is off.

(PS -- I've done it before at DU. And I've no need to spend the time to do it again. It's summer, and I am enjoying my family. This is really something I am asking everyone to do for themselves.)

[NJmaverick]

90. 86% of liberals are more practical and are willing to be fair in their assessment of the President

they appreciate the limitations of Presidential power. They appreciate all his historic accomplishments (saving the nation from economic meltdown and historic healthcare reform, to name just two). Most liberals don't operate in echo chambers where criticism is repeated and amplified over and over again until all sense of balance is lost.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. Because you don't get to define "liberal" for everybody in the United States.

I know it's a favorite past time for certain segments of DU to declare everyone that doesn't agree with them a Republican, but that isn't how the real world works. Sorry.

[thelordofhell]

95. Because 86% of Liberals don't read Democratic Underground

14% of Liberals bashed Clinton

14% of Liberals bashed Carter

14% of Liberals bashed LBJ

The beat goes on.

:tinfoilhat:

[Larry Ogg]

98. I have never been under the illusion that

Obama was anything but, more conservative then liberal.

I see it like this; Right Wing Authoritarian conservative extremist nut job wackos have completely taken over the of the Republican Party 100%, if this is the best we as humans can come up with the human race is doomed.

As to the state of the Democratic Party, I would say that 90+% of the elected democrats are slightly less than extreme and mostly moderate conservatives; that does not make them liberal just because they don’t call themselves Republicans; conservative is a character trait, not an ideology. But, IMHO, a very small but insignificant handful of elected democrats could be what some people like to call liberal because their character traits do not coincide with conservatives, also I don’t like to use the word liberal because I see its usage as some pejorative condemnation by conservatives, towards individuals whose world views are premised by a combination of a higher endowment, i.e. a nature given above average intelligence, a greater sense of objective reality, sincere honesty, selflessness, compassion and conscience; traits that become foreign and aloof according to how conservative ones mind is, i.e. conservative is the antithesis of intelligence and conscience, and they do not recognize the natural gifts of nature as such…

Did you know that sociopaths are conservative?

More too the point: As a whole the Democratic Party could be called the lesser of two evils because there are amongst its members - some fringes of the left - a handful of individuals who posses the above mentioned higher endowment and they work for the majority of Americans i.e. the working class taxpayers, aside from them, there is only a facade of significant difference between the two Parties, but looking closer, there is not enough difference between the two that we could legitimately or objectively say their is a second Party. And it doesn’t make Barak Obama a liberal because he is less conservative then John McArmageddon, although the world might be a little bit safer. Unfortunately no one is stemming the tide; as the Right Wing Authoritarian conservative nut job extremist who erroneously believe that liberal democrats are in control, it's to bad that they are preparing to empower the next worst leader in human history, someone that might take the human race back to the Stone Age or even worse.

All this just because someone thinks Barak Obama is a liberal when he is not, all this because when Democrats gain control they invariably allow their conservative republican criminal counterparts to go scot free, all this while the non-conservative intellectuals seek justice, alas the liberals are not in control and Obama is not a liberal…

End of story!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. The "lesser of two evils", "not as bad as Bush", effect

It still works for most "moderates" and "liberals".

[Vickers]

101. At first I thought the headline said "self-inflicted liberals" n/t

[TheKentuckian]

104. A lot, a lot of folks stupidly believe in the failed Reaganomics/free trade

If you embrace those kind of principals in general then you can accept about anything and most problems would be back burner.

Think about it if you've internalized Raygun and buy free trade then the health care bill is either as you'd hope or close enough, Wall St bonuses and soft touch regulation is fine (probably with some concern about going too far), didn't have a giant issue with drug reimportation, you functionally would have to be huge on Pax-Americana and see the wars as a necessary part of projecting power and ensuring the free flow of trade which would mean self policing state willing and capable of trade would have to be set up, and the environment may get lip service and tug at heartstrings but that has to come behind the flow of currency.

My guess is such folks have some problems on the civil rights area but expect they will probably get addressed at some point.

Unfortunately, I don't think even a sizable minority of people really care about civil liberties at all and certainly not passionately. Most see civil liberties as too pie in the sky and ethereal. Most want carve outs where they don't apply. Most seem to be shooting for equal treatment well before fundamental rights
Apparently Bush and Cheney won this one, if you talk civil liberties you are seen as a crank, a wingnut, a dreamer, unpatriotic, a tin foiler, or a friend to terrorist and the worst criminals.

Shit, people on here think Anthony Kennedy is a moderate so they probably see themselves as liberals pretty easy even if they are in the Reagan area of the spectrum on economics and foreign policy if they can point out other differences.

[Radical Activist]

105. You're leaving out liberal things he has done on each of those issue areas.

Create a list showing what he accomplished in each area and you'll understand why. In many cases the accomplishments are far more significant than the failures.

I know finding that information is difficult because the corporate press (and liberal pundits who want to push Obama left) usually ignore the good he does. It's a shame that finding information about his progressive accomplishments is many times more difficult than finding the failings.

I wonder how popular Obama would be if people were presented with a complete picture of his actions on a regular basis instead of only hearing attacks from both sides.

[no limit]

109. Such as?

[Radical Activist]

111. You're smart.

You can google. In fact, you can just search DU for several responses to this exact question. I made one a few days ago.

[no limit]

113. Instead of asking me to google why don't you just sum it up for me

I summed up my thoughts, you can write down yours fairly quickly.

[Radical Activist]

115. Because this list is so much longer than yours it would take me much more effort.

Don't be lazy. Research. Here's my last response to this lazy request:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8563594&mesg_id=8565237

Is your post new enough that you can go back to edit and include his environmental accomplishments, which are far more significant than your negatives?

[no limit]

117. You think those accomplishments excuse the fact he is for offshore oil drilling

for nuclear energy. And for the fraud that is "clean" coal?

They are good accomplishments, but they won't do anything significant to lower our greenhouse gas emmissions and certainly don't excuse the things I mentioned.

[uponit7771]

118. No, no adults are call Obama perfect jus workable...what have YOU done to get him the resources in..

...congress he needs to implement more progressive policies?

TIA

[Radical Activist]

119. No new nuke or clean coal plants have been built since Obama took office.

Stopping mountain removal is real. The new megawatts of wind and solar are real. Important energy efficiency investments are happening. Mileage standards and high speed rail are the response we need to the oil leak.

No, you don't know what the big stuff is. You're ignoring extremely important accomplishments and attacking Obama for things that haven't even happened yet. You seem like someone who cares more about taking pot shots than you care about real issues.

[no limit]

121. You act as if I am making stuff up. I am going off what Obama said

So yes, new nuke plants will be built (which I actually support when you tell us where you will store the waste). New deep water oil rigs will be built. And clean coal plants will never be built because they are a fantasy but that doesn't excuse that Obama uses coal industry talking points which will lead to more dirty coal plants.

Mountaintop removal has not been stopped and won't be, nothing this administration has done would result in such an outcome. They installed some minor limitations on what they can do, but for you to suggest they stopped this practice or will stop it is absolutely false.

What megawatt solar power plants are you talking about?

Mileage standards are a plus, absolutely.

High speed rail would be great if he actually invested enough money to take that seriously, he didn't.

So again, there are some ups here. But the downs are much much bigger and as a result this president could hardly be considered a champion of liberal causes, he's about as moderate as they come. That's my original point and it has nothing to do with me wanting to tear down the president. You accused me of ignoring important accomplishments which I'm not doing. But then you turn around and ignore what this president has proposed which is very right wing by saying "well, it hasn't happened yet" eventhough the president promises it will.

[uponit7771]

116. Pay even partial attention...

[old mark]

110. He is in office right now and the alternative is terrible-and there are NO

real progressives or even liberals who could win election in the US now.

Most people seem to think Obama is an extreme leftist...other than real leftists who think he is a republican.

mark

[and-justice-for-all]

124. "You can't always get what you want..." Rolling Stones

I am a realist and I do not glorify politicians and Obama is no acceptation. Obama was elected to play the game and play it he does, but I am confident that his heart is in the right place but achieving our goals is not going to be an overnight sensation. I also do not think of Obama as a miracle worker either, Obama is not the liberal President we all hoped for, but I dread the thought of Old Cooter and falin in the WH; which would be a complete fucking nightmare.

[bobbolink]

126. " I'm sure there are many more issues that Obama betrayed us on." Poverty and homelessness...

but that never makes it to any of these lists anyway.

:grr:

[treestar]

131. Because they are reasonable people

And they know that Congress has a role, not everything can be done by reconciliation or executive order, and that the filibuster is a reality and that progress is being made.

[ncteechur]

134. Then don't vote for him.

He didn't betray you--you just don't like that he is not exactly the president that YOU wanted. For many folks he has made remarkable difference in their lives. You don't like him, vote for Dennis Kucinich or sarah palin or whoever else you want to vote for. If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I expect that you will support him. You may not like it but you will. If you don't, then you need to get off DU.

[scheming daemons]

135. Because 86% of liberals understand that Obama is as liberal a President as we'll ever get

This nation simply won't ever elect anyone farther left than where Obama is.


There's a reason why Dennis Kucinich gets 3% in Democratic Presidential primaries.

[JHB]

136. A more nuanced breakdown would be helpful in answering that...

My criticisms of Obama are in the same basic ballpark as yours, yet if I were answering a Gallup poll, I'd be counted as supporting him. Because that's the way that sort of poll works.

Take a look at Bush -- both of them in fact: in the run up to the 1991 war, when polls asked people what they though should be done only a small percentage advocated the course Poppy Bush was taking. But when asked "do you support the president?" 80-90% said "yes". Pretty much the same happened with * after 911.

No mystery to me why Obama benefits from a "rally 'round" effect. Just look at the Republicans.

[SeattleGirl]

138. Because they (and I include myself in the "they" group)

understand that Obama cannot do it alone.

He doesn't MAKE the law, Congress does.

And believe it or not, it's the same way regardless of WHO is in office.

Frustrating? Yes?

Unrealistic? No.

[warren pease]

140. Summers and Geithner are still employed; he backed Bernanke and...

... campaigned on behalf of Lincoln and Specter.

As to HRC, LBJ would have twisted Lieberman's arm so tightly that ol' Joementum would have needed traction and a cast. Rather than fight for his own proposals, Obama was more than willing to "keep his powder dry" and let 40 lousy GOPers in the senate -- along with Lieberman, Byah, Nelson and the aforementioned Lincoln -- run the country.

How are any of these actions "liberal?"


wp

[Art_from_Ark]

141. You got that right about LBJ

None of this Kumbayah shit with LBJ-- he most definitely would have twisted Lieberman's arm 'til Lieberman cried uncle, and taken those other "Democrats" to the woodshed.

Damn, I miss the Great Society.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

142. Hey, he's not Palin!

But other than that, yeah, pretty much a disappointment.

I didn't expect much, there wasn't a hair's difference between him and Hillary at the end of the primary season. A choice between centrist "A" and centrist "B". BFD.

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

144. Yeah, he slaps me around, but he said he loved me once. Besides, I have nowhere else to go

When you appeal to the cringing, serflike mindset of hope and passive trust, people often act like victims. I'm sick of the feeble keening that he's the best we could ever get, but I also try to appreciate the many positive moves, however slipshod they may be. Then again, I also don't ignore the extreme danger that can be caused by dragging the party to the right, playing with religion and making quasi reforms that don't really solve problems, yet still cost lots of money and bring discredit to the left.

[KonaKane]

147. Because we dont want to see the GOP back in power in 2010?

Apparently you do.

[Hekate]

148. Maybe because 86% of self-identified liberals have more sense than the rest give them credit for.

Whaddya say?

Hekate

[FrenchieCat]

149. Cause we're not so arrogant to say we care about policies,

when all that we do is add to the pile-on that will eventually lead us to
republican policies.

We've seen that movie before....and we'll be damned if we watch it play out again.

Nothing about being right personally should trump making progress in the direction
that this nation desperately needs to continue to go in....and based on our present
circumstances called a stacked deck and fucked up politics/media......
this thing we call progress ain't fucking easy to come by.

[dtotire]

150. You Have To Compromise To Get Things Done

That's how Ted Kennedy operated. He was willing to take half a loaf now, and work for the rest later. That's what Obama should do.