Old vs. New Dems - A Poll

[Steely_Dan]

I've been wanting to do this for a long time now. But it will only work if you are honest.

I am of the belief that much of our disagreement with each other is (at least to some extent) generational. This has been stated many times in a variety of ways. This is an opportunity see how true this belief is. Comments, of course, are always welcomed. However, we've been over and over the pros and cons of the Obama Administration. This is more an attempt to gage where people stand according to their age group.

Please be honest. Especially about your age.

I hope that you will participate.

-P

[femmocrat]

1. Just another old, disgruntled dem here.

Actually-- I thought this would be about whether we were old-time liberals (like FDR-LBJ), or Clintonesque "New Democrats".

[Steely_Dan]

2. That would be excellent as well...

Good suggestion. Maybe someone will do that.

[Individualist]

7. I thought the same thing. New Dems implies NDC.

A better subject line would have been Old Dems vs. Young Dems.

[Steely_Dan]

13. Yeah...I suppose that there is a lot...

of different terms. Yours are probably right on. Unfortunately, it is blasphemous to change a poll in any way shape or form. Gotta get it right the first time.

[jailthecrooks]

44. Also I'd like to know - Is he doing too much or is he doing too little

I'm of the firm opinion that all Obama's touted success stories of legislation he has passed have been loaded down with right wing crap and giveaways to corporate interests. I give him no credit for passing financial reform. All it says is that banks have to give you 60 days notice before they jack up your rates sky high. Where was the limit to how high it could go? I didn't see any of that. Just a tiny example. Everything the current congress and WH does is to help the corporations. They're just Republicons in Dems clothing as far as I can see.

FDR, where are you when we need you?!?

[one_voice]

3. Other?

I'm 43, and I'm satisfied with certain things, others not so much.

[Steely_Dan]

5. I understand that this is what makes the poll difficult...

I'm basically having to reduce it down to either a yes or no question. Hopefully the comments section will cover the rest.

[one_voice]

8. Thinking about it a little more...

I'd also like to say, I prefer "old school" Dems, in other words more progressive/liberal..don't know what the right words is there. That being said, it's not just Obama, we need more "old school" Dems in both houses. That starts on a local level. The President needs to have these kinds of people to get what WE want done.

In that respect, we need to push our Senators and Reps to do what we want.

Does that make sense? I'm not very good at writing what I think.

[Steely_Dan]

11. I Understand What...

you are saying. And I agree we need to do it at all levels.

[Renew Deal]

4. Obama has struggled with older people.

And this shows that.

[LWolf]

6. I am 50 years old, and I am appalled by the Obama administration. nt

[T Wolf]

9. I guess old wolves run in similar packs - though my pack is almost a decade older than yours.

Whatever good has come from this administration has been ruined and overshadowed by the compromise-sell out to the rethugs and the absolute throwing away of a great opportunity to make some significant progress on a range of issues.

Not only has progress not been made, he (and they) have done little to even slow the destruction wreaked by georgie and his cronies, with the full cooperation of the "opposition" party.

[LWolf]

18. You are right. And it is, in this old wolf's opinion, a travesty. nt

[jailthecrooks]

48. The benefit of experience: it's harder to pull the wool over our eyes

Unlike the younger folk, who haven't seen all these shenanigans over and over and over again, we have the benefit of having seen it coming for 30 years now. Step by tiny little step. You just can't mistake the purposeful and methodical efforts of the right wing psychos to turn America into a third world country.

Obama is almost as old as me so he has no excuse for being such a dullard. That tells me that he is either supremely unqualified for this job or he is OK with the direction the psychotic right wants to take us.

Anyway, it's nice to see some like minded folk on this board: wolves and would-be executioners CAN get along.

[WonderGrunion]

151. Yeah, no older person bought into that crap about 'death panels'

:eyes:

[Poboy]

73. This age dissatisfaction only underscores or confirms

the lost opportunity.
Young dems have no idea of what traditional, FDR dems are complaining about because they do not know any better, and have not experienced what can/is possible.
I'm in the 35-45 group, but even I see this generational ignorance. They take what we have for granted and it is not appreciated. Wait until they strip away the safety net, Soc. Sec., the health care disaster, etc.
It'll be too late of course, but they will learn. This is why I expect LOTS more pain and catastrophe before anything gets better in this country -if at all.

They have no idea of what we are losing.

[Skittles]

119. absolutely correct

the "new" Dems just DO NOT GET IT

[Renew Deal]

10. Yes, and you were "appalled" with the Obama campaign to.

A lot of the "critics" are recycled opponents.

:shrug:

[HERVEPA]

12. And a lot aren't

[Dappleganger]

34. +10000

[laughingliberal]

109. +20000

[Subdivisions]

14. I'm not a 'recycled opponent'. Indeed, I supported Obama from the

very beginning. I traveled to from Texas to be at his inauguration, a feat for me personally and financially. Today, I'm appalled at what has transpired since Obama took office.

And if this shit continues, he will no longer have my support when I'm sure he'll need it most.

[GreenArrow]

16. Not sure where the problem is with that.

If one was prescient enough to see that Obama was lousy during the campaign, it shouldn't come as any surprise that that same person wouldn't be particularly thrilled with him now.

I voted for Obama, but not with any enthusiasm; he was simply the best of a lousy bunch. It got to the point rather quickly where one of three choices was going to prevail. Obama, lousy, Clinton, lousier, McCain, lousiest. FWIW, the poster above was not a proponent of any of those three.

[Renew Deal]

20. If one was "prescient" enough to see that Obama was lousy

They will do their best to prove themselves right.

[GreenArrow]

26. Alternately,

he is simply lousy. Plenty of us were prescient enough where Bush was concerned; so too, when one is willing to take off the partisan blinders, with Obama.

[zipplewrath]

22. The funny part for me

I wasn't a big supporter initially. By the time the primary came here it was roughly a "Obama vs. Hillary" and between the DLC and just the general "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" situation, I kinda figured Obama was the "better" choice. All summer and into the fall I kept saying that with this vague hopey changey thing there would be alot of pissed off people. I just never realized it would be ME.

[nc4bo]

27. I'm just the opposite. Me, the one who'd never thought she'd go out knocking on doors,

phone banking, contributing $$ we really couldn't afford to contribute for anyone much less a political candidate.

I was Obama all the way from mid-primaries up until the GE.

I despise the corporate influence (among a few other things), feel it does this country no good whatsoever to put corps first and "The People" 2nd or 3rd or as an after thought.

So - yea, I'm feeling pretty gnarly.

[GreenArrow]

81. As a Kucinich supporter,

I didn't have much real choice. I wasn't particularly interested in another Clinton administration - HA! - and McPalin was a non-starter from the get-go, so that left Obama and the the hope that his rhetoric was much more than simply rhetoric; in other words, that the "hope and change" crap was in earnest rather than boiler-plate campaign speak. I suppose I was hoping that his rather rightward leaning positions would be mitigated if he were to win office, and that he would then veer leftwards. I didn't count on that, but it would have been a nice surprise.

I didn't expect much, but he's been much worse than I expected. It's not like the other options were much better. The system itself more or less dictates that.

[FredStembottom]

105. Green Arrow speaks for me.

I continue to wait for a real Democrat.

[LWolf]

17. Yes, I was. I was appalled by his center-right policies.

By Donnie McClurkin. By his hawkish plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan. By his preference for republican education policies. By his insistence on leaving private, for-profit insurance companies "at the table" for health care reform, which in reality meant that they were not only "at the table," they were driving it.

There was plenty to be appalled about.

I did send him a note of congratulations, along with a book about education, on election day. I got it back unopened. He doesn't accept "gifts." Not that the book was a "gift." It was a publication about policy. I know I'm not Chavez, but they might have opened the congratulatory letter and responded to that, even if my offering wasn't as worthy as "The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."

What is the most "appalling," though, is that his administration has actually been WORSE than I thought it would be.

He had to work hard to get to that point.

[jailthecrooks]

50. The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent

Chavez may have thought that Obama would read that and realize the error of America's ways.

Instead, he took it as a "cook book" for how to continue the psycho right's plan to impoverish the American people.

"How to Serve Man."

[LWolf]

Perhaps it's a good thing he didn't take the book I sent him after all.

He's already appearing regularly on "Grill Them! with Arne Duncan."

Who knows where a book delving into what it means to educate, and what it means to be educated, might lead him?

[jailthecrooks]

56. Shudder to think

:shrug:

[walldude]

30. And what about the ones who aren't "recycled critics"?

What about the people who worked for Obama, who went door to door, or answered phones and donated themselves, stood up for him in the primary who are now disillusioned? Are their opinions also not valid? :shrug:

[Dappleganger]

35. Welcome

to the under-the-bus gang.

:banghead:

[emilyg]

29. Ditto. 72 years old.

[Recursion]

15. Maybe those of us who have never known job security

don't mind a lot of the things that are happening as much.

[Radical Activist]

33. True.

[Recursion]

49. It's come up a lot during education threads

Teachers talking about the horrors of the world we're heading towards, in which they could lose their jobs fairly easily, including for office-politics reasons, and get paid based on the subjective assessment of someone who doesn't know how to do the teacher's job; it leaves me scratching my head and saying "that's what every job I've ever had is like".

[Hannah Bell]

91. and never a shortage of folks who imagine pulling every worker to

the bottom will improve their own lot somehow.

it won't; it will make it worse.

[laughingliberal]

110. +1000 nt

[Hannah Bell]

90. you're patting yourself on the back for that, or what?

most people born in the post-war period haven't known job security.

that was a short-lived episode, roughly 1940s-1970s.

[Steely_Dan]

19. We can use some younger participants n/t

[nc4bo]

21. 45+ lady here and going by the present #'s, see I'm not alone in how I feel.

Very much not alone.

Hope you do get more responses from other age groups. Now that you've done the poll, I'm curious on how the younger ones feel too.

[zipplewrath]

23. Time of day

Part of the issue with this poll is that unless it makes it to the greatest page or something, alot of the "2nd shift" won't see it. It will say as much about the demographics of the time of day as anything else.

I was shocked at the current demographics of the responses. More of us old farts than I thought.

[Steely_Dan]

25. Yeah...I think you make a good point.

Perhaps we can kick this later in the and get a larger participation.

-P

[Recursion]

74. Message boards in general skew older

The young conservatives don't hang out on Free Republic, either. The younger crowds get into kos/huff on our side and wherever they all went after LGF imploded on the other -- more "social" sites. Message boards are more like the BBSs of back in the day.

[Bluebear]

171. .

[Radical Activist]

173. I can see the dramatic difference at kos.

It's a little younger on average. I posted something there that was mildly positive about Obama. It would have been flamebait at DU. Most of the responses at Kos were along the lies of, "Yes, that's true, but is anyone really arguing the opposite?"

Besides that, the message board format makes it easier for a small number of persistent flamethrowers to get more attention than they would on another format like Kos.

[Steely_Dan]

24. I Agree...

It is important to have their input.

[Radical Activist]

28. One of the most refershing things about Obama's campaign

is that it was the first Presidential election in my adult life that wasn't about refighting old battles from the 60's. I didn't have to hear endless "debates" about whether someone was fighting on a swiftboat or smoking pot at peace rallies during Vietnam. My generation came of age with former hippies who raised their kids in the suburbs and a Democratic President who championed small government. The old dividing lines have lost relevance and only serve to help Republicans at this point. I notice a sizable chunk of DU who haven't adjusted to current political realities.

And it's very obvious that some people are still fighting Bill Clinton by using Obama as a stand-in. They look for anything that reinforces an outdated narrative they still hold onto. I wonder if some liberals feel so defeated after many losses over the years that they're too cynical to believe anything good can come from a Democratic President.

[zipplewrath]

31. Fighting, and dying

Careful. Some of the people you are talking to "grew up" when people were fighting AND DYING for things like civil rights, women's rights, and ending wars. The battles are the same, even if the names change. There are still civil rights struggles. There are still wars to end. Some issues are eternal, just as some principals are, even if you try to create "new political realities".

[Steely_Dan]

32. Excellent Point...

Thanks.

[Radical Activist]

37. careful?

What does that mean? Am I supposed to step softly to avoid disappointing my elders? lol
I'll promise not to repeat any famous 60's cliches like "don't trust anyone over 30." Or Bob Dylan's attack on his elders after receiving an award.

The issues haven't changed for all of American history. But it's also important to move beyond outdated tactics and battles when they're no longer relevant. Experience is an asset but it can also be a crutch if it prevents someone from recognizing how things have changed.

The revolution has always been in the hands of the young. The young always inherit the revolution. - Huey Newton

[zipplewrath]

58. Make sure you understand who you are addressing

You can complain about them, but you may realize they accomplished more than you ever will, and at a price you might not be willing to pay.

[Radical Activist]

64. Respect your juniors.

"but you may realize they accomplished more than you ever will"

That's not an attitude that any mature activist should express unless they think everything is about "ME, ME, ME!" and how wonderful their generation was. Every generation should hope that the next accomplishes more than theirs ever did. I've already accepted than Gen Y is going to be a stronger force for change than my Gen X, and I'm excited about it.

The rising generations will have to accomplish more as we deal with climate change, a problem left to us by previous generations. We had better accomplish more than previous generations or modern society as we know it will cease to exist.

[quakerboy]

174. And therein lies the problem.

You dismiss us to failure before battle is joined. And then wonder why we are not overly enthusiastic. We have not yet hit a point to find out what price we are willing to pay, nor what we may accomplish.

In the mean time, I would suggest that we look at who accomplished what. I never had a chance to march with King or vote for FDR. But then again, I wasn't there to elect Regan. I wasn't there to chose the presidents who chose the justices who selected little Bush, nor to let slip into power the companies and factions that handed him a second term either.

[Hannah Bell]

100. what, precisely, has changed?

[Common Sense Party]

120. I want a new drug. One that won't make me sick. -- Huey Lewis

& The News

[Jennicut]

36. Nah, they want to still rehash stuff that matters little to us. I mean, why should Gen X matter at

all? It is not like some of us in that generation are over 40 or anything....LOL. Will they finally get that we grew up a long, long time ago? I think the baby boomers will still be rehashing Vietnam until they die. I am 34. I want to move on. My first President that I voted for was Bill Clinton. The point of view of someone my age is very different then someone who grew up in the 60's. I think Obama has made mistakes but I don't feel like comparing him to Presidents and a way of life that existed in 1965.

[Radical Activist]

39. I had a conversation about this with a leftie boomer friend of mine.

After a while he laughed and said, "you know, I remember saying the same thing when I was young about World War 2. Every issue they talked about always related back to WW2 and I was sick of it because it was nothing like Vietnam."

LBJ wanted to be the next FDR. I think one reason he stayed in Vietnam too long is because he was stuck in an outdated narrative. The New Deal was compatible with a war that liberals supported. He thought the same thing could happen by pushing the Great Society and winning Vietnam. He was fighting old battles instead of adjusting to new realities.

The best activists encourage new young leadership and know how to make room for it. The movement isn't going to grow by fighting yesterdays battles.

[Jennicut]

41. I agree but they don't want us. This thread makes that obvious.

Unless you remember Watergate, Vietnam and the civil rights battles then you mean nothing to them. My own parents are ultra conservative and consider my opinion to be meaningless. I think it truly is a generational thing regardless of politics. I own a house, I pay taxes. I have two kids and 17 year olds think I am old. Will they ever let us join the big adult table? Do our opinions mean anything to them? I have younger friends in their 20's whose opinions and feelings I value very much. I can't imagine not listening to them just because they are 10 or more years younger then me.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. We are close in age

I'm 37. I'm NOT satisfied with this Administration on some things. Other things I am.

The number one thing I'm dissatisfied with? Their compromise with pols on the right. It's like they are collectively Charlie Brown and the Boehners of the country are Lucy - holding the football and taking it away as the Admin kicks.


I'm more of a Dem that worships at the altar of FDR. He was an imperfect person - but he showed leadership that did not fear 'hate'. I believe he said he welcomed it.

At some point this Administration needs to understand that the folks on the Right, the Tea Partiers, etc. etc. - They are neveeeeeeeeeeeeer going to vote for them, like them, see things our way, meet us half way.

I'd feel GREAT about this administration if they got right in their face and dared them to impeach him. TOLD them to hate them. TELL them they are not the people who put them in office - so their opinions are neither required nor desired.

[Jennicut]

47. I totally agree with all of that. The Rethugs are a total waste of time.

As is fighting in Afghanistan. I have plenty of things to criticize Obama about, I just don't feel like comparing this time period or this Presidency to the 1960's or earlier. No one can deny the damage that happened from the 1980's and that the country shifted to the right. Just trying to get it back to the center freaks conservatives out.

[Angry Dragon]

115. I really like what you wrote

[LWolf]

57. My sons don't remember Watergate, Vietnam, or the Civil Rights battles.

They do know what those things meant, and still mean, to the nation. They are in their 30s, and while they don't have personal memories, they know the events that helped shape their lives. Their personal experience is growing up in the Reagan era, so it's not surprising that they see the similarities between that time and this.

Younger people mean nothing to us? Bullshit. When we see the writing between the lines, when we're fighting the current direction the nation is headed in, who do you think we're doing it for?

I know that I don't expect to see the changes I believe in during my lifetime. I just hope to be part of the fight to provide it to future generations.

[Radical Activist]

65. DU is dominated by boomers.

That reinforces itself. Why would people who embrace the "No Drama Obama" campaign ethic put up with the hysteria around here?
Threads about climate change and student loans tend to sink. Many act like those are secondary issues while they demand everyone care most about social security and medicaid. Young people are going to other forums.

[janx]

69. Hold on, now, Jennicut--

I'm a boomer, but I'm 52, and I'm delighted that people in their 20s and 30s are aware and involved. I'm also very excited about the current administration. It's the first time someone has been elected president who is around my own age. The Boomer generation (I hate the term and the media for exploiting it) spans the years from 1946 to 1964, so there are plenty of boomers who are ten years older than I am. I was little when Viet Nam, Watergate, and the civil rights battles were going on, but I remember the civil rights battles the most.

Don't ever think that you are unwanted. :hug: I think it's less of a generational factor than this thread is trying to indicate.

[Recursion]

70. +1

Same age, same feeling.

[Hannah Bell]

92. yes, knowing anything about history would be a big mistake.

[LWolf]

38. Yes, because Obama never said

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

[Radical Activist]

42. And your point?

I hope you're not about to trot out that ridiculous spin that Obama wants to adopt Reagan's agenda.

I wrote that Obama doesn't keep fighting the old battles of the past. That doesn't mean he has never spoken about history or formed a sense of historical perspective. I agree with Obama's perspective and that's probably typical for liberals in my generation.

[LWolf]

52. Obama seems quite a bit like a Reagan Democrat to me.

I won't "trot it out," because I just got done trotting out my 2 yo filly on a trail hike, and I'm done trotting for today.

Privatization, union-busting, and more concern with the top than the bottom; a familiar tune.

[Radical Activist]

62. Reagan pushed deregulation.

Obama just regulated every sector of our economy (banking, insurance, credit card, mortgage, and energy is next) reversing the Reagan/Clinton/Bush legacy of deregulation. Whether we like all the details or not, it's clear that the trend is reversing. That's called a change of trajectory in a way that Clinton never accomplished. I don't see a rational way to believe that Obama is a Reagan Democrat while he does the opposite of everything Reagan believed in.
Scare tactics about what Obama MIGHT do in education don't convince me because neither of the RTTT grants have yet to bust any union. In fact, Obama empowered unions by requiring states to include them in the planning process. That's a fucked up definition of union busting.

The fact that 2/3 of voters under 21 went for Obama is also the kind of transformational change that will impact the political world for decades. That's what Obama was talking about and he's delivering.

[Recursion]

75. Reagan didn't push anything very hard

If you look at his accomplishments you pretty much have intermediate-range arms reduction, canning the flight attendants, and tax simplification. SDI looked like it was going somewhere but died. He took shit from the right just like Obama is now from the left, but he drastically altered the political landscape -- it was basically a different country when he left. As I said below, here's hoping.

[Radical Activist]

125. They both worked on nuclear non-proliferation.

They have that in common.

[LWolf]

77. What it MIGHT do.

Obama has already applauded the firing of an entire staff in Rhode Island.

He recently accused opponents of RTTT to being "resistant to change" and "comfortable with the status quo," which is, simply, NOT TRUE.

We are resistant to HARMFUL change, and RTTT is just that.

[Radical Activist]

78. So he said some things

but has yet to actually bust any union. I'm not going to argue with you about disliking what he said, but it's an important difference to recognize that no unions have been busted by Obama. Reagan actually busted a union. Obama merely commented about something that happened which was beyond his control. Equating the two is unfair.
Obama significantly strengthened TEAs hand in TN, a right to work state, and it has the same effect in states with anti-union Governor's who might otherwise ignore them.

[LWolf]

80. RTTT is based on Duncan's work in Chicago.

Arne Duncan staffed "turn around" schools with non-union employees.

During his years as "Chief Executive Officer" of the Chicago Public Schools, Arne Duncan had not simply been anti-teacher. Duncan had created the largest network of non-union privatized public schools in the USA prior to the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, which gave the Bush administration the green light to bust the New Orleans teachers' union and privatize a large part of the New Orleans public schools. Beginning slowly in 2002 with the closing of Dodge, Terrell, and Williams elementary schools, Duncan embarked on a carefully executed strategy of scapegoating public school teachers for all of the problems of urban America, and firing the teachers who had long served in the nation's most challenging segregated inner city public schools.

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=809§ion=Article

With Duncan and Obama already applauding the firing of an entire staff, and based on what is written into RTTT and into the proposed changes to ESEA, I feel quite comfortable in categorizing the Obama education agenda as one of union-busting.

from the mouth of Duncan:

"Race to the Top taught us that competition and incentives drive reform," said Duncan. "So even as we continue funding important formula programs like Title I and IDEA, we are adding money to competitive programs that are changing the landscape of our education system."
http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/02/02012010.html

[Hannah Bell]

103. the whole turnaround/charter model busts unions. you don't get it.

[Radical Activist]

122. There are charters with unions.

And then there's the union planning to open a charter.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/09/teachers-union-charter-schools/

[Hannah Bell]

137. oooh! a union opening a charter! well, i guess that settles it, then.

nevermind that the overwhelming majority of charters *aren't* unionized, & in most of those that are they have to form their *own* union & can't join the locals, nevermind that the turnaround/charter model is designed TO GET RID OF UNION PERSONNEL & BUST CONTRACTS.

No, as long as there's one charter school run by a union, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the bush-obama ed plan isn't about union-busting.

[Radical Activist]

144. You're disrespecting the efforts of your union brothers and sisters like Chicago charter teachers.

“Charter schools have been too successful for the unions to ignore,” said Elizabeth D. Purvis, executive director of the Chicago International Charter School, where teachers voted last month to unionize 3 of its 12 campuses.

Unions are not entirely new to charter schools. Teachers at hundreds of charter schools in Wisconsin, California and elsewhere have long been union members, not because they signed up, but because of local laws, like those that extend union status to all schools in a state or district.

Steve Barr, the founder of one large charter network, Green Dot, said his group operates its 17 charter schools in Los Angeles and one in the Bronx with union staff because it makes sense in the heavily unionized environment of public education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/education/27charter.html

[Hannah Bell]

150. lol. chicago is the city where charters can't join the chicago teachers'

union -- they have to make a charter-only union. you know, because charters are special & have different rules. and because if the ctu could organize charters, something bad might happen. like charter school teachers might want the same protections.

The powerful chicago charter school teachers' union -- with its less than 200 members.

bringing the man to his knees.

see through you like water in a glass, rad.

[Hannah Bell]

101. obama is also pushing it. you just can't see it, maybe due to lack of historical perspective.

rttt grants have indeed busted union contracts & protections.

[Radical Activist]

121. Let me know what union local at which school in DE or TN was busted as a result of RTTT.

And let's not play word games. Breaking and renegotiating a contract can be a bad thing but that doesn't equate to busting a union.

What do you think about Obama strengthening the hands of unions, even in right to work states with conservatives Governors, by requiring that they have a role in the planning process?

[Hannah Bell]

138. lol. you're the only one playing word games, breaking contracts is indeed union-busting.

so is firing people in violation of contracts. so is setting up an alternate non-unionized workforce.

only apologists parse the language to turn it into "strengthening" of unions.

obama hasn't strengthened any unions or their hands. oooh, he's "required" that unions have a "role" in "the process" of busting unions through rttt, well, that's so generous.

rttt is all about union-busting. there's no option in that piece of shit legislation that *isn't* about union-busting.

[Radical Activist]

141. So no answer on my request for specific examples. I didn't think so.

"there's no option in that piece of shit legislation that *isn't* about union-busting."

That must be why unions in several states have endorsed their state applications. Yeah, I know, you've got a tortured explanation for that one too.

[Hannah Bell]

142. i gave you specific examples. you simply continue to pretend you don't understand.

but we know you do.

[Radical Activist]

143. Name the school and union local Obama busted.

I'll ask again since you claim to have answered. I don't know what examples you imagined providing but there are none in your last comment.

[Hannah Bell]

147. straw. it's all you got. aft & nea are national unions.

every contract broken, every work rule given up, every charter school opened, every michelle-rhee-style firing of 5% = union-busting.

thanks to rttt.

[Fumesucker]

53. Since the battles of the past were never settled..

It's basically impossible to get past them without one side or the other totally capitulating, this country is deeply divided and is almost certain to remain that way.

A lot of us suspect that Obama plans on capitulation on many issues, that's why he's being viewed so negatively by about 70% of the people voting in this poll.

[Radical Activist]

63. Wow. What.

"It's basically impossible to get past them without one side or the other totally capitulating."

Umm...no. There are very few issues that have ever been solved with either side totally capitulating. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a huge step forward. But it was a long, long way from solving all of our racial and economic discrimination problems. We moved beyond official segregation but neither side totally capitulated, did they?

I'm sure Obama will compromise on many issues. Framing that as total capitulation strikes me as being in total contradiction to how progress has been made on nearly every issue in American history.

[Radical Activist]

43. dupe

[Recursion]

72. He said that to make the Clintons' heads explode, mostly

And it worked; unfortunately it also really pissed off a lot of people from the Clintons' cohort.

Reagan was a President who:

1. Didn't accomplish very much concrete his base wanted him to, but still
2. Drastically altered the political landscape of the country

Here's hoping.

[EFerrari]

84. Outdated narratives like should prohibition continue and is militarism killing our country?

You and the president need to rethink those "old battles" because unless you are referring to some other country, they are still very much being fought.

[Radical Activist]

86. More like,

"we're going to attack Kerry's military record because we're still angry that he testified to the Senate during Vietnam."

Or the latest analysis of how the upcoming election is just like '66 or McGovern, or how it all goes back to the '68 convention. yawn.

[EFerrari]

87. The fact that you cannot contextualize events doesn't mean

the context isn't important.

[Radical Activist]

94. Ugly assumption but there is a difference between contexualizing events

and being stuck in the past.
Did you really enjoy 2/3rds of the '04 election being about what happened during Vietnam?

[Hannah Bell]

108. "stuck in the past" - it's all about the denigration. it was the gop pushing that crap.

maybe you're confused.

glad you lost the che icon, though.

[Radical Activist]

116. I'm glad you're a fan of Saul.

Although I would have thought you'd consider him a sell-out enabler since he wasn't a Marxist.

Do you know why Che thought trying to start a Cuban style revolution would be a waste of time in the US?

[EFerrari]

157. Not an assumption. You talked about prohibition and militarism

as if they had been resolved. And for 2004, you're confusing a PR campaign with being stuck in the past. If people really were stuck in the past, the GOP wouldn't have needed to hire flaks to come up with the frame.

[Radical Activist]

172. It's ugly to suggest

that I'm incapable of contextualizing history.

And no, I didn't write anywhere that militarism isn't a current issue. I did write that "The issues haven't changed for all of American history."

If you want to get beyond generalized insults then respond to comment 39

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8955483&mesg_id=8956079

There's a difference between learning from history and fighting yesterdays battles.

[Hannah Bell]

102. uh -- that was the other side.

[laughingliberal]

112. I'm more than willing to believe something good can come out of a Democratic President

but it isn't going to happen by following the failed trickle down, 'free market' economic policies that have driven down the working and middle class to a mere shadow of what it was in the 60's.

I'm not fighting anybody. Not Clinton or Obama. But I am fighting center right policies that are never going to solve the economic conditions in which we find ourselves.

If we want to see good results for working and middle class Americans, we might need to take a look at the last time they were doing well and embrace the policies that made that possible.

[Radical Activist]

123. Trickle Down?

Obama just raised taxes on upper income brackets and lowered taxes for the middle class. That's the opposite of trickle down.
He also spent many billions in the stimulus bill on direct job creation like energy efficiency projects and infrastructure. That's the opposite of trickle down.
He pushed to extend unemployment and aid states to keep their public employees in their jobs. Once again, the opposite of trickle down.

Your comments don't match up to what Obama is actually doing. I don't know how to explain that. Speculating that you're still fighting old battles about trickle down is one guess. Maybe you've been convinced by pundits who exaggerate the bad (like bank bailouts) and ignore the good (like his anti-trickle down policies). I'm open to hear you explain why you accuse someone of trickle down when he's doing the exact opposite.

[laughingliberal]

168. Giving $800 billion to the banksters (which he supported) & then having 'limited resources' for jobs

programs is trickle down in spades. No requirements that the banksters and WS billionaires do one damned thing to help the real economy. The bad in the bank bailouts has not been exaggerated. It has been seriously downplayed. We hear only about the just under $800 billion given over in TARP. We hear nothing of the $4.6 trillion in secret loans the Fed has made to the financial sector. And the White House lobbied to water down the deep audit of the Fed so we will never know just who got how much. All we know is we didn't get it and there has been a $5 trillion transfer of wealth to the top which we will never see again.

Please explain what taxes Obama has raised on the upper brackets. As for the middle class tax cut, it was a Republican requirement for passing the stimulus bill and it diverted 40% of the already too wimpy stimulus. The tax cuts in the stimulus bill had very weak stimulative effect and used money we needed for programs which would have provided a lot more stimulation of the economy. Not saying cutting taxes on average American is a bad thing but it shouldn't have come out of a stimulus bill that was already barely over half of what was needed.

I have noticed and applauded President Obama's efforts, of late, to push for extension of UI benefits and get the bill to save jobs in the states passed. I will note, though, I was not amused that the WH threatened to veto the bill when the House wanted to offset some of the cost with some of Arne Duncan's RTTT money (which is way more than any other dept has) and suggested the money be taken out of Food Stamps. I don't think taking the money from the very poor is exactly a progressive policy.
Nevertheless, it does appear that sometime in the past couple of months President Obama (along with Ben Bernanke) did wake up to a fact many economists and progressives have been trying to tell them for a while which is that this 'recovery' is teetering and if Congress doesn't get some money flowing we're going to be back in recession. I'm glad they've seen the light. I wish he'd seen it a year and a half ago.

And we're still getting beat to death by the deficit hawks (who he has been catering to all along) who are insisting that any stimulus is offset.

[mmonk]

40. Pretty definitive so far.

Any questions as to why?

[Steely_Dan]

45. I don't think...

we're going to have too many surprises here. There is a post above that starts to touch on why there is a generational divide politically. I'm waiting to see how many we can get to participate so that it at least starts to be representative.

-P

[mmonk]

51. Well it is a good way to confirm or deny.

[EFerrari]

85. It's pretty representative of DU.

Last time they did a poll, the average DUer was a middle aged white suburban woman. Although, it may be time to do another poll to see if 2008 shook things up at all. :)

[Steely_Dan]

89. Wait....I need to check my gender identity. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

106. i don't see the big generational divide.

currently every age segment polls "dissatisfied" but one, & that's just by three votes, a 1% difference:

I am between 25 and 35 and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (13 votes, 6%)
I am between 25 and 35 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (10 votes, 5%)


wow, yawning generational chasm here at DU.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

114. Update: there is currently a massive generational divide visible.

Under 25: ???17%??? satisfied (there are not enough answers to make this statistically significant at the time I post)
25-35: 56% satisfied
35-45: 26% satisfied
45+: 20% satisfied

Posted at 7AM GMT, 17th Aug

[Hannah Bell]

118. update: the only segment that's majority "satisfied" is 25-35, & not by much.

I am between 18 and 25 and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (1 votes, 17%)
I am between 18 and 25 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (5 votes, 83%)

I am between 25 and 35 and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (14 votes, 56%)
I am between 25 and 35 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (11 votes, 44%)

I am between 35 and 45 and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (13 votes, 27%)
I am between 35 and 45 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (35 votes, 73%)

I am 45 years or older and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (30 votes, 20%)
I am 45 years or older and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (152 votes, 80%)


the generation gap starts at 35, those born 1965-175 = not boomers, but gen x.

[Radical Activist]

126. I bet that makes you really happy.

[Hannah Bell]

128. i bet you're wrong, but nice job of baiting. good thing you changed that che avatar, btw.

totally inappropriate.

[Radical Activist]

131. Do you think that got more clever than the last four times you brought it up?

You know something. No matter how self-righteous you are, you don't get to decide who is leftist and who isn't. It's not up to you to tell others that they aren't allowed in the left club just because they don't share your belief that Obama is only slightly less evil than Satan.

[Hannah Bell]

134. do you think the bullshit about hating obama gets any cleverer the 2000th time you

post that phoney straw man?

i don't decide who's left: your own words tell the tale.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

148. i note the personal attack & blatant namecalling. so sorry your arguments have so little merit

that you're forced to resort to that kind of bullying.

[Hannah Bell]

136. update:

I am between 25 and 35 and I am satisfied with the Obama Administration (14 votes, 53%)
I am between 25 and 35 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration (12 votes, 47%)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

149. Sure, but 56% is very different to 20%.

I think it's fairly clear that as a demographic younger DUers are undecided on Obama's presidency, whereas older ones are heavily disatisfied.

Whether that is any indication of how a more representative sample of American voters would feel is another story, of course.

[Steely_Dan]

54. It Appears That...

...feelings start to change in the 25-35 age group. This where they feel that the Obama Administration is satisfactory.

Of course, we have yet to hear from the younger Dems. Hopefully they will chime in.

Of course, with such a small sampling, this couldn't be positively representative.

-Paige

[bvar22]

55. Anyone younger than 45....

...would have no living memory of what a REAL Liberal "Democratic" President sounds like.
Here is an example:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

When is the last time you heard a "Democratic" President STAND UP and say something like THAT?
LBJ was almost as good during Medicare and Civil Rights.
Carter...love him, but he was NOT from this Liberal & Proud mold.

I was born in 1950, and so I have no "living memory" of FDR.
What I do have is the memory of my Union/Working Class parents love of FDR and what he represented.
I DO have living memories of LBJ, and THAT President Standing Up for What was RIGHT despite the political consequences.
I also chanted:
"Hey, Hey, LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?"
so those memories are not of a "Saint".


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Individualist]

59. Excellent point, bvar22.

:thumbsup:

[Jennicut]

71. That is true. All I remember as a kid is my parents worshipping Reagan.

Carter was looked down upon severely. And seen as way too liberal. Ironic, isn't it? FDR is what my Grandmother remembers and has fond memories of. But I have not found that many people my parents age (early 60's) who voted for a Dem.

[Hannah Bell]

104. well, they did. more than voted for republicans in that age group.

so maybe it's your circle of acquaintances.

[EFerrari]

88. That's why Grayson seems like such an outlier to younger people.

They don't remember a time when he would have been considered simply an active Democrat.

lol

[Mimosa]

139. FDR is a hero to me too, also Eleanor R.

BVar said:


"I DO have living memories of LBJ, and THAT President Standing Up for What was RIGHT despite the political consequences.
I also chanted:
"Hey, Hey, LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?"
so those memories are not of a "Saint""

BVar, I'm a couple of years younger but I was in the streets too chanting the same words.

[Radical Activist]

160. Maybe part of the reason is that young people aren't looking for something else.

You make an interesting point. They aren't looking for another LBJ to muscle something through Congress. They aren't expecting the style of another Kennedy. Obama is not likely to satisfy those who have a certain idea from the past of what a liberal President should be like.

I see Obama bashing Republicans in speeches and making a bold denunciation of the Reagan/Bush philosophy of government. Then I see pundits and bloggers complaining that Obama never does those things. I know some of it is the corporate media but I think there must be other reasons for the disconnect.

[divvy]

60. Maybe another couple terms of Karl, Dick, and George?

Things could be a whole lot worse. We forget that.

[deacon]

79. The GOP made me a Solidarity Democrat. They are NUTS and need another election beating. n/t

[sad sally]

61. As a senior senior citizen who watces a lot of daytime tv cable news,

seems like he's almost over-exposed, as there he is - on the tv - giving a speach somewhere almost every day. Now, you could say that the President is just working very hard to explain what he's doing, but seldom if ever are the words him just talking to us. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but since we know he's very very smart, reads a lot, and are told listens and asks questions during various meetings, I keep waiting for him to look into those cameras and talk to us not just read a speach from a teleprompter - like he really believed in what he was saying...petty complaint, huh?

[MerryBlooms]

67. I think the political climate now

is driving the WH to combat the bs daily. Our instant access to info, whether it's legit or propaganda, is 24/7 - times they have a changed.
I don't feel our President is over-exposed, I think it's just the way the political game is played now days.

[Barack2theFuture]

66. well this certainly helps clarify things. . . .

[Blue_In_AK]

68. I'm almost 64.

I've been an activist for over 40 years, and I thought we'd be much further along by now.

[mmonk]

76. We're throwing it into reverse actually on some things.

[Ferretherder]

82. Older than forty-five, but I'll not tell you it's by nine years,...heh.heh..

Uh, crap, I just DID tell you. shit. Oh well.

Me, I don't like no folks whats not got sense ta poor piss outta' a boot,
with the gosh-danged instrukshuns writ all over tha sole.

Now I likes me some obammer, but he's about as librul as the bartender
at the joint down the road when I ask him to give me a 'Liberal' dose
of the chosen buzzmaker in my next drink. not too.

But, beats tha shit outta McCan't and 'will-quit-bafore-ah-hafta'(butlookgooddoinitwrappedinanamericanflag)


Juz mah thawts.......ferret

[Steely_Dan]

83. LOLOLOLOLOL!

[Kaleva]

93. The Depends Generation is a cranky bunch.

[Cherchez la Femme]

95. Hey you! Get off my lawn!

*shaking feeble, age-spotted fist* :D

[Kaleva]

96. As I run (hobble) away to my car parked in a handicapped parking spot.

[Cherchez la Femme]

107. Wheezing

:D

[Kaleva]

97. The old Dems were in bed with the Southern racists.

As long as people like FDR turned a blind eye towards segregation & racism, the Solid South, which hated the party of Lincoln, Grant & Sherman so much they'd vote for Adali Stevenson instead of Ike, could be depended on.

[McCamy Taylor]

113. You are talking really Old Dems.

Blacks abandonned the GOP after Hoover sold them out.

[Radical Activist]

129. Hey the Roosevelt Dems voted for Obama nearly as much as boomers.

They kept the country from going totally off the right end in previous years when the boomers were voting Republican.

[Hannah Bell]

135. you keep repeating that slur when it's been pointed out to you multiple times, with

documentation, that it's false.

the boomers were the least likely of all age groups to vote for reagan.

the roosevelt age bracket the most likely.

the fact that you keep repeating this slur tells the tale.

[Radical Activist]

140. It must really burn you that boomers voted Nixon over McGovern when the voting age was lowered.

I remember your stunning mental acrobatics when you first denied it when I pointed out that boomers voted for Nixon and then you tried to explain it away by bringing up the Reagan tangent. Even with Reagan you couldn't support your claim that they didn't vote for him. A majority did. You had to change it to the claim that they voted for him less than other generations. Pathetic. Sometimes its easier to just admit you were wrong.

A majority of boomers voted for Nixon and Reagan.

1984 ages 30-44. Voted Reagan 57%-42%.
Even ages 18-29 year olds went for Reagan that year.

These are facts no matter how uncomfortable it may be to you. You might as well come to peace with it.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

[Hannah Bell]

146. i remember how you just make shit up. boomers = born 1946-1961.

1972: Boomers most likely age group to vote mcgovern.

Most boomers began their political lives as considerably more progressive than their elders, more likely to call themselves "liberals." Liberals usually vote Democratic, and sure enough: In 1972, George McGovern (D) essentially split 18-24-year-olds with President Richard Nixon (R)”- the only age group that McGovern came close to carrying.

http://www.theboomermagazine.com/features/larry_sabato/oct_09.html.


1976: Boomers most likely to vote carter.

18–21 (1954-1958): 48 carter, 50 ford
22–29 (1947-1954): 51 carter, 46 ford

30–44 (1932-1946): 49 carter, 49 ford

45–59 (1917-1931): 47 carter, 52 ford
60+ (pre-1917): 47 carter, 52 ford



1980: Boomers least likely to vote reagan.

18–21 years old: (born 1959-1962): 44 carter, 43 reagan, 11 anderson = boomers
22–29 years old: (born 1951-1958): 43 carter, 43 reagan, 11 anderson = boomers

30–44 years old: (born 1936-1950): 37 carter, 54 reagan, 7 anderson = 28% boomers

45–59 years old: (born 1921-1935): 39 carter, 55 reagan, 6 anderson "1/2 fdr dems"
60 years or older (born pre-1921): 40 carter, 54 reagan, 4 anderson "fdr dems"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980



1984: Boomers least likely to vote reagan, most likely to vote mondale:

18-24 (1960-1966) 39 mondale, 61 reagan
25-29 (1955-1959) 43 mondale, 57 reagan
30-49 (1935-1954) 42 mondale, 58 reagan
50-64 (1920-1934) 39 mondale, 61 reagan
65+ (pre-1920) 36 mondale, 64 reagan



http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_84.html

[Radical Activist]

159. All of those numbres confirm what I just wrote.

That a majority of boomers voted Nixon over McGovern and Reagan over Mondale. Thank you for agreeing with me and proving my point is accurate.

[Hannah Bell]

164. let's review what you wrote:

129. Hey the Roosevelt Dems voted for Obama nearly as much as boomers.
They kept the country from going totally off the right end in previous years when the boomers were voting Republican.


False: the boomers were the age group *least* likely to vote republican in those previous years, & the fdr generation *most* likely to.


140. It must really burn you that boomers voted Nixon over McGovern when the voting age was lowered.

False: Boomers went half for mcgovern, half for nixon: they were the group *least* likely to vote for nixon: "In 1972, George McGovern (D) essentially split 18-24-year-olds with President Richard Nixon - the only age group that McGovern came close to carrying."


In the landslide of 1984, boomers went for reagan, but were the age group *least* likely to do so.

In 1980, a minority went for reagan: again, the group *least* likely to vote reagan


you just make shit up. and you keep repeating it over & over & over, like a propagandist.

[Hannah Bell]

165. .

[Bluebear]

98. It's always funny, the DU polls are something that the flaming blue links of frustration can't hide.

[Bluebear]

169. kick

[old mark]

99. 63. My idea of a Democrat is Harry S Truman, and Mr. Obama could not

carry his fucking briefcase.

mark

[Radical Activist]

127. Truman started an unpopular war of choice, dropped the A-bomb, bustead the railroad strike, and

he couldn't get civil rights or most other legislation passed through Congress. I'd say Obama is doing a hell of a lot better so far.

[old mark]

153. Korea was certainly not a war of choice, and I think he was right to drop the bomb ending the war.

He also ORDERED the US military to integrate at a time that this was wildly unpopular, and this paved the way for the later civil rights acts from LBJ.

I stand by mo opinions.

mark

[McCamy Taylor]

111. I am 50, and he is about average for a Democrat. Anyone who expects miracles from our

privately funded election system is very naive.

The Republicans--Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr.----were all fucking fascists, so the Dems have been much better.

[Angry Dragon]

117. And that does not say much for this country

So all the right has to do is go as far right as they can so the left looks out of touch

[woo me with science]

124. Based on this poll, we can safely conclude that

DUers are old. :wow:

Which is especially funny since so many of the discussions bring to mind this picture:

[Radical Activist]

130. Yep.

[eridani]

133. I say "dissatisfied" here, but would never say that on a telephone poll. n/t

[H2O Man]

145. I'm an oldy & moldy

who is rarely satisfied by politicians.

[TheKentuckian]

152. I'm only 37 but might perceive a bit older because I started paying attention earlier than most

One of my earlier memories was the 76 election night, funny thing is I was sad that Ford lost but I think he reminded me of Fred Wyche "The Weekend Gardner" who was my favorite person in the world at the time.

I started paying attention to the news, reading, and asking questions from then on.

By the time 1980 came I knew Ronald Reagan was who he turned out to be. I was never fooled and tried to warn my older sisters, mother, grandparents, the people they went to church with, anybody but people don't listen to kids on such matters.

I'm in the pivot generation X here and the Obama demeanor and rhetoric were very appealing and I certainly identify with his background (if not the locations) but that doesn't hold up to the reality of conservative, not regressive government. He is supply sider and yes a trickle down acolyte. He and his economic team have too heavily depended on putting the money in the hands of the wealthiest and depend on them to spread the benefits. Their economic philosophy has no room for ground up fiscal solutions. Workers are not the focus point but rather capital in the plans to restore prosperity.

"Stakeholders" opinions, needs, and desires are paramount and regular people, workers in the fields, and experts with a different perspective are on the outside looking in or even taken away in cuffs as not to disturb the "adults" and their overriding directive to leave profit centers intact.

Honestly, it seems clear to me that our "reforms" are just efforts to claim change while leaving underlying systems in place and fundamentally unchallenged and the flow of money is still set on up.

I'm jumping around with my whole life running through my head right now but I'm displeased and feel the Reagan paradigm has not been changed and reinforced on many, if not most levels. I think people a little older to me and younger have no living basis of comparison, all we have known is fascists and and corporate friendly Democrats and have only worked in the shadow of declining earning power and potential for security. They know instinctively that this is an awful state of affairs but see these conditions as the existing order rather than extremism.

Maybe that is the division really. Rejection or acceptance of the paradigm. Is Reagan to be worked from or to be overturned. I'm firmly in the overturn/smash it down camp. There is nothing of this way of doing business worth retaining. It is an oppressive yoke to be thrown off, not to be carried another step.

I probably should have waited for some sleep or at least some caffeine before trying to respond so I'm sorry for any rambling incoherence but I felt sort of compelled to reply.

Old battles are fought because they are unresolved and still impact the present. The real frustration is refighting settled issues.
Why in God's name are we debating birthright citizenship, free practice of religion, and habeas corpus is my concern. If the civil rights era seems far removed, then the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights must seem like before time began but it must be dealt with.

[nc4bo]

156. Perhaps it's nothing more than a diversion and we fall for it each and every time.

Just as soon as The People (in this case the middle class and poorer amongst us) begin waking up out of their stupor and the grumbling begins it's climb to a roar, it is time (for the richer amongst us) to stamp it down with the divide and conquer tactic. All of it so they can retain their place at the top of the food chain.

Hey, it works. It's always worked. It's always been about wealth and power and how "they" can keep it.

Tired or not, I enjoyed reading your post, understood what you were trying to say, very well. I wish I could put my thoughts into words 1/10th as well as you have.

[TheKentuckian]

162. Thank you. I'm glad it read a little better than I figured

[dembotoz]

154. truly sad both over 45 and not satisfied

think i will go home from work sick

[saltpoint]

155. I'll be voting blue this fall and for all falls thereafter

whether or not the world is perfect by the first week of November.

Anybody wants a ride to the polls, call me.

[nyc 4 Biden]

158. I am between 25 and 35 and I am not satisfied with the Obama Administration.

my age group seems most satisfied with the POTUS. i wonder why?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

161. Thanks for this poll Steely Dan. I've wondered the same thing. I did a similar poll

about the escalation in Afghanistan and the results were very similar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6798889


Personally, I cannot be disappointed with Obama because except with the brief bit of hope while voting for him against my better judgment, he has proved me right about him. When did that become crystal clear? When he selected Rahm as his COS.


BTW.... I'm in the majority of this poll, age 58.

[Stoic]

163. Maybe because those of us of a certain age remember REAL liberal gov't.

You WISH you had leaders today like LBJ and Humphrey and Robert Kennedy and many more. Whatever you might think of LBJ, his domestic triumphs were phenomenal.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

166. I agree entirely.

[MissDeeds]

167. I'm over 45 and not satisfied with the Obama administration

At all.

[ibegurpard]

170. 42

very unhappy

[DFLforever]

175. I'm an old fairly happy Dem

The first president I voted for was John Kennedy. I have a higher opinion of Pres Obama than any other I've voted for. And so far, he appears to be the most successful.

But then I remember when the Democratic party was full of cold warriors, labor was fiercely opposed to environmental protection, segregationists controlled the Senate, leftists were called Communists and there were no women governors, justices of the Supreme Court or Senators. So as far as I'm concerned, there's been a lot of room for improvement. I miss nothing of the old days.