The left's disatisfaction with Obama's overall performance is crazy

[wndycty]

I'm sitting here listening to the Ed Schultz show and hearing the disatisfaction from some of those in attendance at his town hall meeting.

What strikes me about the Obama critics on the left is their proclamations that Obama is not a progressive, he needs a primary opponent, he has sold us out and his presidency has failed.

To that I say BULLSHIT!!!

The first thing to point out is this the president is not a king or a dictator he is the chief executive officer of a democratic republic. I believe that Obama is holding true to his campaign theme and commitment to change this country. But the one thing we need to keep in mind is that change does not happen overnight, we won't get everything we want and in many cases the best the president, along with Congress can do is move us in the direction of change which will come in time.

Healthcare? we are moving in the right direction and while we didn't get all that we want and its not happening fast enough that we would like, its a lot more than we would have ever considering getting in 2004.

Iraq? Troop withdrawls are coming, not fast enough for us, but they are coming.

Gitmo? Its closing, not fast enough but it is closing.

Limiting the influence of lobbyists? Its happening, just not fast enough, but it is happening.

The list goes on and on. (See vincenzoesq's post on 4.12.10 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x266988)

Obama needs to judged by where things were when he came into office, versus where they are after the four to eight years he has served in office. Somethings will be the same, some will be worse, but I'm confident most things, especially those near and dear to the left/liberals/progressives, will be better.

The change we voted for is dependent on PROGRESS and we are making progress, HOWEVER to achieve that progress we have to build coalitions, be open to compromise and be mindful of the big picture.

Look at Don't Ask Don't Tell: Obama could issue an executive order repealing it, but if he does Congress most likely wouldn't act on it and then the next time their is Republican president he or she could overturn Obama's executive order. Instead Obama is working with Congress to repeal it, it might take longer than an executive order but it would also be stronger than an executive oder.

Obama is deserving of criticism on any number of issues but when it comes to evaluating his overall performance it might be wise to take a long view of the positive impact his presidency will have.

[WI_DEM]

1. The left disatisfaction is largely a myth. In polls liberals give Obama high marks

of almost 90% approval. Not that there isn't disastisfaction among some on the left, but my guess is that they aren't necessarily democrats anyway. Greens are left and I'm sure they don't care for Obama, for instance and probably if given the opportunity to vote in a GE for Obama, the GOP nominee or Nader they'll vote Nader.

[stray cat]

2. So the negativity of DU you think is an exception?

[bigwillq]

8. I think so

I know no Democrats in real life that criticize the president to the extent that they do here on a message board. I, for one, don't mind the criticism on a message board. I don't mind the criticism in real life, either, but nothing I've seen or heard in real life is to the extent as it is here. A message board is a place to vent. I don't take it seriously. If they want to vent, fine. If they want to show their support passionately, fine. Now, that doesn't mean I won't offer my own criticism for or against, but that's my right on a message board.

In real life, most, if not all, Democrats I know are pretty much supportive. Way more than on this message board.

Hopefully that makes sense. I started to ramble a bit. :)

[bvar22]

36. You must have missed the Organized LABOR contingent...

when Obama & Clinton campaigned for Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln.
Very few of those people hang at DU.

[bigwillq]

54. They had very good reason

to be upset with this administration. I still think that the general consensus among democrats towards this administration is pretty favorable.

[yurbud]

149. the people I know in ''real life'' are perplexed by what he does on the big issues

like education, health care, trade, and dealing with Wall Street.

On education, his secretary of education is pursuing the same K-12''reform'' agenda a Republican administration would: union-busting, teacher blaming, loading up on standardized tests, and pushing privatized charter schools to funnel public money into private profits.

On health care, he backed a version that kept insurance companies alive and gave them tens of millions of new customers, pretty much like the version Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts (much to Romney's embarrassment)instead of the more cost effective and coverage effective single payer or public option.

In dealing with Wall Street, he could have used procedures developed over decades by the FDIC to fix broken financial institutions, including firing the top couple of layers of executives, who are responsible for the problems, and moving quickly to break up the firms that were too big to fail and arguably intentionally brought down our economy, and by consequence the world economy, and now we are finding out their financial deception are being used to break some of our European allies. We should be treating the execs at those companies like drug dealers and seizing all their assets pending investigation and trial. Instead, they are still taking tea at the White House.

I could see being corporate compliant in one or two of these areas and using the support of that industry to beat down the others. Frankly, I thought that would be a way the DLC could use their corporate buddies to pass even better health care reform: get all the other businesses to gang up on the insurance leeches. But instead, they chose to curry favor with the offenders.

Obama has done good on some issues like student loans. Oddly, there he applied the logic that is missing from his health care and K-12 education reform: he cut out the private banks because their profits were an extra cost that doesn't actually go to providing aid, so without them in the picture, more students could be helped for the same cost. He could have made that argument for health care reform and against the conservative snake oil that even his secretary of education is peddling on K-12.

If Rahm thinks he can win 2010 and 2012 election with just swing voters and mythical Republican cross voter, and progressives will be forced to vote Democrat because they have nowhere else to go, he truly has his head up his ass.

As those enthusiasm gap polls show, Obama needs to give Democrats a positive reason to get out of bed and go vote on election day, and constantly bashing progressives and pushing conservative ideas is not the way to do it.

[WI_DEM]

18. On DU Obama has many supporters and many critics. DU is not truly a democratic site

it was a site to oppose Bush for the longest time beginning with his stealing of the presidency. I'm speaking about Democrats as opposed to "The left." The media would have you believe that everybody on the left is a democrat but they aren't. Thus we have the constant wars between Obama supporters on DU and others. Among Dems and people who identify themselves as liberal or progressive democrats Obama is quite popular.

[zipplewrath]

42. Technically it is a progressive site

And yes, Obama is quite popular amongst people who self identify as progressives or liberals. Go over to places like the Nation or Mother Jones, where they've been working progressive issues for decades and you won't find the same kind of enthusiasm.

[Bobbie Jo]

62. Technically

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[zipplewrath]

64. Obama is not a cadidate

Skinner already has stated that opposition to Obama's policies and actions are allowed.

[Bobbie Jo]

66. Criticism, yes.

Opposition?

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.


I was originally responding to your previous "technical" claim. Why change the subject?

[bvar22]

72. I will continue to OPPOSE certain policies regardless of WHO is president.

I absolutely OPPOSE:
*Increasing the Power and Wealth of For Profit Corporations.

*Increasing Military Spending (Decrease by 50% immediately)

*Continuing the phony WAR in the Middle East (Out Now)

*A Free Pass for War Criminals and Torturers


I absolutely SUPPORT:
*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

These are values I strongly believe in. I have fought for these values long before I ever heard the name "Obama", "triangulation", or "Centrist" Democrats. I will keep fighting for these values no matter who is in the White House.

It is an "Issues" thing, not a matter of Political Personalities.
When politicians move toward the above, I will support them.
When they move away, I will oppose them.
I don't expect to get everything, but I DO expect some respect for these values,
and a voice in the Party that is asking for my money and support.


"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

[Bobbie Jo]

84. Bravo!

Perhaps the "tone" is the issue?

[bvar22]

85. LOL

I've got a whole bag of "tone" for anyone who opposes immediate "Civil Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYONE."

They can come an get their "tone" from me anytime.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. Who "opposes" Civil Rights?

[zipplewrath]

127. You dropped a word

you forgot the word "immediate".

[zipplewrath]

75. Did I?

I was addressing your characterizaton of this site.

[Bobbie Jo]

82. It wasn't "my" characterization.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[ProudDad]

100. IF they are actually "Progressive"!

Very few of those... :shrug:

[Bobbie Jo]

120. This perpetual pissing match

is getting old. I'll hold up my liberal creds against yours, any day.

Or are you the only arbiter of "liberalism?" This meme is starting to sound like the new "patriotism."

Why do you hate America?

You first....:shrug:

[ProudDad]

133. I am NOT a "liberal"!

As for why I "hate America"?

I don't hate "America".

You can't really hate dirt and mountains and forests and jungles and lakes and rivers...

America is the popular name attached by rapacious European conquerors to the land mass that includes the North, Central and South American continents.

Within that land (most of which is fascinatingly beautiful, most of which is populated by potentially good, decent people) are artificial political entities known as nations or nation states.

Most of those nation states have "governments" that work against the best interest of most of their peoples to the advantage of the very few.

Most of those nation states practice a form of human organization known as a dominator hierarchy. This experiment in organizing a society began just a few years ago (about 10,000) and as accelerated by capitalism and cheap oil can more accurately be called a death culture.

Among those states, the one doing the most global damage, setting the worst example and acting as the strongest supporter of the Industrial Growth Death Culture using the Permanent War Economy and "American way of life" as its justification is USAmerica (or, when it does evil, USAmerika).

So, the question should be more accurately posed as "Why do you hate the USAmerikan Empire?"

And the answer is that if not checked and reversed, its death culture will destroy Mother Earth as a hospitable environment for large air-breathing mammals of any species.

My question to you is "Why do you liberals continue to support the death culture so strongly?"

[Bobbie Jo]

137. Hint

"Why do you hate America?" :sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

141. when my posts can't be refuted using reasoned argument,

I've been accused of "hating America" on this board...

I thought I'd take the opportunity to clarify and edumacate...

[Raineyb]

164. Why do you hate America? THAT is a freeper argument.

Some liberal.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Absolutely.

For example - Dennis Kucinich would win a DU primary, but fails to crack even double digits in real life state primaries, even in his own state. DU is the fringe of the fringe.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[niceypoo]

88. Yes

DU people tend to be a bit better versed in current events than most folks.

[WeekendWarrior]

89. The negativity of DU is merely a handful of

loud voices. And some of them would probably complain if Kucinich was president.

It has taken me a while, but I've finally learned that, for some, at least, discontent often has little to do with outside forces, and everything to do with what's inside.

[dionysus]

124. a huge exception. we're political junkies who are reliably to the left of mainstream democrats.

[quiller4]

130. Yes. It is. If you want an idea of how exceptional it is, go with me

to my next Democratic district gathering. You will be lucky to find one PC in twenty who agrees with the negativity expressed on DU. Even those who agree with some of the criticism do not want to see a primary challenger.

[live love laugh]

93. I agree wholeheartedly. I truly believe a lot of the naysayers are trolls even at the Town Hall. nt

[LWolf]

160. "left" and "liberal" are not synonymous. nt

[Clio the Leo]

3. well said nt

[zipplewrath]

4. You know this stuff has been argued before right?

Health care? we are moving in the right direction and while we didn't get all that we want and its not happening fast enough that we would like, its a lot more than we would have ever considering getting in 2004.

It isn't moving in the right direction at all, unless you literally mean TO the right. Mandates and regressive cadillac taxes are the wrong direction. He established BUYING insurance as an obligation and established no RIGHT to CARE. And we STILL don't have universal coverage.

Iraq? Troop withdrawls are coming, not fast enough for us, but they are coming.

They are reducing. They'll be at 50K. The money is still flowing. And it remains to be seen what happens at the end of 2011. But for some it's already too late. They're dead.

Gitmo? Its closing, not fast enough but it is closing.

No, it's not. It's changing the address. He wants to make Gitmo permanent here in the US, with prisoners that have never had a trial, and never will.

Limiting the influence of lobbyists? Its happening, just not fast enough, but it is happening.

Um, that Health Insurance Industry Stimulus package he got passed, first people in the room were lobbyists for Big Pharma. And lets not even get started on the influence the Banking industry has with Timmy.

[mix]

7. +1

The privatization of the public school system is hardly progressive/liberal either.

Bagram prison is another stain on this administration's record as well.

[Smashcut]

19. +1

Amazing how the same "liberals want a pony" bullshit gets recycled again and again.

[ProSense]

22. Problems with these claims

It isn't moving in the right direction at all, unless you literally mean TO the right. Mandates and regressive cadillac taxes are the wrong direction. He established BUYING insurance as an obligation and established no RIGHT to CARE. And we STILL don't have universal coverage.

A lot of the people complaining about health reform argue that Nixon's was more progressive. Yet Nixon's included not only mandates, but was designed to ensure that HMOs ruled the health care system. Now, what about all the other things in the bill, like ending recission, increasing the MLR, expanding Medicaid, improving Medicare, reducing costs and covering 32 million more people? Those are not moving in the "wrong direction"

They are reducing. They'll be at 50K. The money is still flowing. And it remains to be seen what happens at the end of 2011. But for some it's already too late. They're dead.

You know the remaining 50K troop are scheduled to be withdraw by the end of next year so you're still just arguing not fast enough.

No, it's not. It's changing the address. He wants to make Gitmo permanent here in the US, with prisoners that have never had a trial, and never will.

Gitmo is being closed. Period.

Um, that Health Insurance Industry Stimulus package he got passed, first people in the room were lobbyists for Big Pharma. And lets not even get started on the influence the Banking industry has with Timmy.

The so called "first people in the room" was to carved out a savings of $80 billion. Not good enough for people who wanted a reimportation bill that would likely deliver less. Mischaracterizing the bill doesn't make inaccurate claims true.

[zipplewrath]

38. 2 steps forward, 5 steps back

The over all bill is a net step backwards, if not more than one.

The troops are scheduled to be withdrawn, but that is only because of the SOFA, which is under the control of the Iraqi's and the president. So there is no "guarantee" there and in fact Clinton and Gates were both out days after the announcement explaining that it would be a function of the progress made.

Gitmo is NOT being closed. They are moving them to another facility in Illinois and plan upon still keeping prisoners there without trial. That's hardly "period". It's a change of address.

They were the first people in the room. It was kept secret until Big Pharma threw the White House under the bus. Even most of Congress didn't know of the agreement. It went beyond just re-importation. It was about the odious feature of Bush's bill that prevented negotiation. Obama basically did the same thing with this secret agreement. There was vastly more to be saved than 80 bill over 10 years. That's not open and that's not keeping the lobbyists out when they are the first ones in the room.

[Winston Wolf]

94. "Gitmo is being closing. Period."

Really? Do you have some information or evidence to back that claim up?

And the argument, “Well, Obama said he would do (insert promise made on campaign trail here), so it’ll happen, he said so", won’t fly. I’ve heard far too many promises from this President and seen far too many of them broken.

Send me a link or two if you have them.

If he indeed has legislation in motion as we speak to close Gitmo, that's news to me, and I would be ecstatic to be so wrong.

However, last I checked, Gitmo is not only open, but Bagram is also housing "enemy combatants" and using "enhanced interrogation".

[ProudDad]

102. Problems with your White Wash attempt...

It isn't moving in the right direction at all, unless you literally mean TO the right. Mandates and regressive cadillac taxes are the wrong direction. He established BUYING insurance as an obligation and established no RIGHT to CARE. And we STILL don't have universal coverage.

A lot of the people complaining about health reform argue that Nixon's was more progressive. Yet Nixon's included not only mandates, but was designed to ensure that HMOs ruled the health care system. Now, what about all the other things in the bill, like ending recission, increasing the MLR, expanding Medicaid, improving Medicare, reducing costs and covering 32 million more people? Those are not moving in the "wrong direction"

No one is arguing for Nixon's health plan. We are pissed because the ONLY plan that would have covered everyone, cost over $1 Trillion per year less and gotten us healthier was OFF THE TABLE from the beginning and the only people to try to bring it up were fucking arrested! The plan that 70% of the public and a majority of the medical community WANTED; Single-payer!


They are reducing. They'll be at 50K. The money is still flowing. And it remains to be seen what happens at the end of 2011. But for some it's already too late. They're dead.

You know the remaining 50K troop are scheduled to be withdraw by the end of next year so you're still just arguing not fast enough.

Fat chance it will be "by the end of next year". And even if they leave Iraq, they're just going to that other fucking phony war in Afghanistan (which will soon eclipse $1 trillion in expense) or just across the border to Kuwait where they will remain indefinitely (with their HIGHLY paid mercenary friends); protecting the USAmerikan Empires Oil Interests!?!? Remember, Obama has INCREASED THE WAR BUDGET to heights not seen since World War II. Big fucking improvement -- NOT!!!


No, it's not. It's changing the address. He wants to make Gitmo permanent here in the US, with prisoners that have never had a trial, and never will.

Gitmo is being closed. Period.

Oh yeah? When? And have you ever been in a fucking SuperMax? They make Gitmo look like a summer resort. No bargain for people who haven't even been charged with a crime... And how about rendition. And the other black box secret detention centers. And the abridgment of Civil Rights and privacy here in the USAmerikan Empire against its own citizens. And that fucking phony "war on terra(tm)" rolls along and along and along and YOUR ass could be in Gitmo just because the pResident says so -- he hasn't changed that just "toughened it up". Fucking Demoncrats!


Um, that Health Insurance Industry Stimulus package he got passed, first people in the room were lobbyists for Big Pharma. And lets not even get started on the influence the Banking industry has with Timmy.

The so called "first people in the room" was to carved out a savings of $80 billion. Not good enough for people who wanted a reimportation bill that would likely deliver less. Mischaracterizing the bill doesn't make inaccurate claims true.

Billy Tauzin, the repuke congresscritter who wrote and pushed through the execrable Medicare Part D (which left drug prices untouchable) followed immediately by his resignation and new job as the head of PhRMA (at $3 mil per year) was among the first to be hosted by Obama. In exchange for 'slowing down the price increases for drugs by $80 billion" out of the $TRILLIONS that they will increase over the next 10 years (big fucking deal) the drug pushers are still left untouched. "Note: I heard recently that they "may be unable to keep their promise to lower increases by $80 billion")

We WANTED single-payer. We wanted leverage over the Sick Care Profiteers! Hell, MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY wanted that. But it was "off the table" from the beginning!

Nice try but no cigar!

[pundaint]

123. Do you buy cars from the grocery store? Why would you want to buy healthcare from a financial

institution? The bill is bad because it expands the basic problem with health care funding in America, More than 25% percent of our healthcare expenditures are siphoned off before any healthcare is purchased. No matter what else is done, this ensures America will have a substandard system until I qualify for Medicare.


The reducing promise is not being kept as stated. And the level of America's international lawlessness is increasing on Obama's watch. We continue to create enemies faster than we can kill them, and if we didn't have the biggest military in the world we'd have already been foreclosed - these wars have bankrupted America.


The Administration has argued for and won a fight agains habeas corpus for some of the kidnapped folks imprisoned and tortured at Gitmo


Yeah, the first people in the Behind Closed door meetings, specifically campaigned against by Obama, were Phrma. They were given a chance to make future promises, and before the bill was even voted on, they accelerated their price increases to capture those negotiated away profits before the bill takes effect. So in exchange for getting paid early, Phrma gets to continue selling drugs to Americans at prices far above the world norm. Not only did he do business behind closed doors, he participated in screwing Americans.

You can cover your eyes, and plug your ears, but reality persists even if you wont recognize it.

[boppers]

101. "regressive cadillac taxes"

:rofl:

[zipplewrath]

132. Technically, they are

The fell disproportionately upon the middle class, not the upper income brackets.

[boppers]

161. The rich middle class, how could I forget them!

:rofl:

[bvar22]

158. You DO remember that Obama campaigned against the Cadillac Tax....

...because it was regressive, don't you?
I can post a video of Obama campaigning AGAINST the Republican proposed Cadillac Tax if you must see it.
I paid attention during the campaign.

[polichick]

5. Actually, Obama has not governed like a progressive because he isn't a progressive...

As he has said, he's a "New Democrat."

Progressives want a progressive in the WH and many progressives in Congress - more and more we understand that we'll have to draft progressive candidates. I wouldn't rule out a primary challenge if a viable progressive steps forward.

[VMI Dem]

6. +1.

I don't understand this need to make the guy something he is not.

[polichick]

13. I think there was a lot of hope that Obama would be less corporate than he's turned out to be...

I voted for him and worked for him knowing he was corporate, but I'm still surprised at how much the WH works to water down bills in favor of corporate interests. Some progressives think it'll take a new party; I'm still hoping this party will shift away from corporations. We'll see...

[Captain Hilts]

43. People projected onto him what they wanted to see. That's why Daschle told him to run

BEFORE he had a track record to defend.

The Nobel Peace Prize is just the most obvious example here.

I think he's done well with decisions, but not with processes, if that makes sense.

[quiet.american]

9. If that's the case, then you can count on being part of putting a GOP president in in 2012.

And contrary to "progressive" belief, there will be no "love" for the primary candidate who would split the Democratic vote to make that happen.

[polichick]

14. Progressives, indies and other populists could be successful working together. nt

[quiet.american]

15. Not if the aim is to split the Democratic vote. nt

[polichick]

23. The aim is to elect progressives - we failed in ousting Lincoln...

...but that's just the beginning of what is to come.

Progressives - or liberals, as I call myself - are done working for corporate Dems and no longer care which candidate establishment Dems choose.

[quiet.american]

26. My reference is to the remark about a presidential primary candidate.

And for the record, I felt that Halter was punking liberals/progressives and would have been as big a disappointment as Lincoln if he'd been elected. It seemed to me he garnered much support mostly because he wasn't Lincoln, but a close listening of his positions did not give me any more confidence in him than in her.

[zipplewrath]

44. Progressives knew that

The point was not to reward Lincoln for her actions. Halter would have had to earn subsequent support as well, or the whole process could have repeated itself. And of course if ones intent was to keep the seat democratic, Lincoln was not the optimum choice.

[wndycty]

27. Are you from Arkansas? I ask for one reason. . .

. . .if Lincoln was from Illinois I would BUST MY ASS knocking her off in the primary but I know my state can elect a true progressive like Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, HOWEVER if the Arkansas Democrats want Lincoln and believe she is the best Democrat to keep that seat Blue (purple) and vote for a Democratic Senate Majority leader then I have to support their decision.

[ProudDad]

134. The two parties

are like a "bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror!" Louis Black...

You mean another republican administration would overfund the permanent war economy and global capitalist masters who are ruining Mother Earth even more than Obama did vs. Bush?

Obama's raised the war budget higher than bush -- higher than at any time since WWII...! How can another set of republicans top that???

[ProudDad]

144. Not necessarily...

The Demoncrats aren't "Progressive" either...

As Louis Black so aptly put it, the two parties are "like a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror!" :rofl:

[wndycty]

10. My history with him goes back to the lte '90's when he served as my State Senator. . .

. . .the man is a progressive. You can proclaim him not to be all you want but it does not change things.

It is so easy to sit in the peanut gallery never having run for office, never introducing legislation, never passing a bill, never having governed and say that he is not progressive.

[polichick]

17. What counts is deeds, not words - it is a fact that Obama's WH waters down bills...

...in favor of corporate interests and has kept intact many disgusting Bush policies.

By his own words, he's a "New Dem" and it shows.

[wndycty]

20. They are also passing bills. . .

. . .and there is something to be said about that. But if you want to believe the worst about him, go right ahead.

[polichick]

25. LOL - what I believe about him is that he was truthful in saying he's a "New Dem." nt

[BklnDem75]

50. Got a link to that actual quote?

Not the one coming from Politico sources. The actual words from his mouth. Thanks in advance.

[zipplewrath]

57. He rejects progressive ideas

He considers progressive suggestions "retarded".
He uses opposition to progressives as a shield against being labeled an extremist.
He escalates wars.
He chooses regressive cadillac taxes over progressive taxes on capital gains.

But we secretly know he's a progressive.

Yeah, right, which is why even HE doesn't like to call himself a progressive.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

68. Exactly. Those that say Obama isn't progressive are CLUELESS about the realities of governing.

And to top is off, are just arrogant, judgemental purists who refuse to step outside their Huffington Post Ivory Tower long enough to get a feel for whats going on in the real world of politics.

Nothing against HP, its one of my favorite sites, but I'm just saying.

[zipplewrath]

87. Um, OBAMA says he's not a progressive

I don't understand the need of people around here to make him into something even he doesn't want to be.

[phleshdef]

115. Actually, he said the opposite of that. But keep making shit up. Its fun.

[zipplewrath]

119. He hates those lables.

The same afternoon, he brought members of the House New Democrat Coalition to the White House and told them, "I am a New Democrat." According to Politico, Obama went on to describe himself as a fiscally responsible, pro-growth Democrat who supports free and fair trade and opposes protectionism."

Obama has always steered clear of labels, with good reason. One of the great hopes of his campaign and his presidency is the prospect of a new, post-partisan politics that leaves behind old debates and moves beyond old boundaries. That approach has become all the more necessary in the midst of an economic crisis that demands new answers and eschews rigid ideology in favor of doing what works.

The president is right that old labels don't mean anything, but new labels do—and in Obama's capable hands, the term New Democrat can take on new meaning. As Obama and others have observed, the traditional terms of the ideological debate—liberal and progressive, moderate and centrist, conservative and right-wing—are stale and imprecise. Obama has the opportunity to define a governing philosophy for our time on his own terms.

But just keep making shit up.

[phleshdef]

121. Yet none of that contains anything regarding the lie you told a post ago.

[zipplewrath]

126. Except for him not liking to be called a progressive

But I understand it is very important for his supporters to make him into something he is not, even if he says he's not.

I never do understand why they don't accept what he is, instead of trying to make him into something he does not want to be.

[phleshdef]

129. Horrible fail. Saying you aren't claiming a label is not saying you are not a progressive.

Thats one of the most piss poor attempts I've witnessed at trying to make a case on this board that I think I've ever seen.

[zipplewrath]

131. He avoids the label

He speaks of them in the third person.
He offers other labels.
He takes positions that are contrary to being a progressive.

But he's really secretly a progressive?
He'a a progressive but doesn't know it?

[phleshdef]

136. He speaks of all groups in third person.

He has spoken of African Americans in third person. Do you realize how completely stupid that reasoning is? He has also spoken of members of the male gender in the third person. Does that mean he is secretly a woman. Yes, thats exactly where your logic is leading you. The next time Obama refers to sports fans in the third person, we will all know that he has been lying about being a sports fan.

Progressivism isn't a set of positions. Its a governing philosophy based on the idea of perpetual reform. Learn what it means before you continue to call yourself one. Currently, you are claiming a label for yourself that you are completely clueless about the meaning of.

[zipplewrath]

138. Reform in a direction

It's not reform for reforms sake. Bush perpetually reformed the presidency. Doesn't make him a progressive.

Obama speaks of progressive ideas, and progressives in general, in the third person because he is attempting to distiguish himself from them. It's why he prefers the label "new democrat". He is attempting to distiguish himself from progressives (and liberals).

[phleshdef]

142. This third person crap forever remains foolish.

Seriously, cling to that desperate BS all you want. I don't even have to work to discredit your opinion that way. You are doing it yourself.

[zipplewrath]

148. Great discussion

I'm never quite sure why people come to discussion forums to only listen to arguments with which they agree.

[phleshdef]

150. I have no problem with an opposing argument. But when its weakly founded BS like that...

You shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously. Implying that someone referring to a group in the third person as some indication one way or the other of that person's stances on said group's general platform is as stupid as saying that not wearing a flagpin means you hate America. It really is THAT intellectually deficient. Thats not even clever misparsing.

[zipplewrath]

152. In larger context

In the larger context where he claims to "reject progressive ideas" where he advocates against progressive positions upon which he campaigned, where he actively avoids the progressive label, where he chooses other labels for himself, where he actually resists the progressive efforts of congress, refering to progressives in the third person is additional evidence that he is does not consider himself a progressive.

[phleshdef]

154. I reject that he rejects "progressive ideas".

There are plenty of progressive ideas that have made their way into legislations that he has both voted on and signed into law. He has not vetoed one progressive piece of legislation that has hit his desk, unlike Bush who vetoed a lot of good stuff. He has not threatened to veto one single bill over the introduction of a progressive idea. The notion that he has rejected or resisted progressive efforts is a complete lie based on those truths alone. On top of that, his pre-Presidential voting record in Illinois and the US Senate both are very strong in the progressive sense. Thats an unarguable fact.

Just because the President sais to take something out of a bill because its going to be a bill killer in congress (which is not dominantly progressive enough), doesn't mean he is rejecting progressive ideas. Actually, that means he is being progressive. Allowing a large bill that furthers progressive ideas to die because there are parts of it that do not means that you aren't acheiving anything at all... which means you are not governing as a progressive, you are just governing as a liberal that puts principle before progress towards said principle. This is why I contend that you and many others understand nothing about the true philosophy of progressivism. You think that it means being as liberal as you know how to be at all costs and thats great and all if you are just sitting around talking bullshit to strangers on the internet. But that way of thinking has no place in a multi-ideological country with a multi-ideological government. Its the opposite of progressive governing in every shape and form.

Again with the third party craziness. I've heard Obama refer to progressives, centrists, Democrats, Americans, African Americans, conservatives, human beings, fathers, mothers and any other type of person you can think of in the third person. Of all the arguments you want to make that Obama is somehow not a progressive leader, that one will never stand as anything other than laughable desperation.

[zipplewrath]

155. Again, he said it

He went on Fox and said that he rejected progressive ideas, in favor of GOP ideas.

When you campaign against a mandate, and then put it in the bill, that's rejecting a progressive idea.
When you campaign against cadillac taxes, and then favor it over more progressive taxes, that's rejecting a progressive idea.
When you campaign for a public option, and then suggest you didn't that's rejecting progressive ideas.
When you expand a war, that's not being progressive.
When you make a gitmo prison permanent, that's not being progressive.

It's one thing not to do progressive things. That's just picking and choosing. When you reject progressive concepts in preference to conservative ones, that's rejecting progressive ideas.

The primary features of the legislation he has pursued from the White House, have often been contrary to progressive positions, and he often brags about that to the GOP. From Gitmo, to war, to health insurance, to the TARP and banking reform, he has leaned right, not left. There is nothing about that which qualifies as governing progressively. What you are describing is the "triangulation" schtick of the past. Find what you can pass or accomplish, regardless of the effect or outcome, and do it so that you can claim accomplishments.

Name the progressive concept that he was willing to fight for and risk losing?

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Bullet1987]

103. The realities of governing like what?

Listening to everything corporate America wants? That's a reality you wish to continue to perpetuate? That's a quasi defeatist statement.

[phleshdef]

116. Its the difference between actually getting whats legislatively accomplishable...

...versus sitting around, typing up posts on the Internet to show everyone how more liberal than thou you are and following that up with multiple self high fives and +1 pats on the back while accomplishing nothing.

[zipplewrath]

153. So he's not accomplishing what he wants?

He's accomplishing what other people want? You seem to suggest he doesn't want to accomplish the things he is accomplishing. The objection is over many of the things he is actually doing and accomplishing. I don't understand this theory that somehow he doesn't want to accomplish these things, he's just forced to by circumstance.

At some point we have to actually admit he's against the public option and for mandates.

[ProudDad]

143. You have a bizarre definition of "Progressive", my friend

And it's easy to look and sound "progressive" when you're in a state office from a safe, Progressive district...

Then slip into corporate speak after the big money buys you...and slide into the White House as the newly anointed spokesmodel for the corporate capitalist death culture...

Now he doesn't have to sound "Progressive" so he doesn't bother...

Sometimes, Like in Copenhagen and the other night on TV, he sounds like the slickest form of republican...

But, he's just doing his job as spokesmodel...


On Edit:
By the way, I'm MUCH too busy as a Community Organizer to bother running for an office that would co-opt, corrupt and water down everything I believe in... If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal...

[Captain Hilts]

41. I'm still surprised so many people and media outlets - The Nation - thought so. nt

[zipplewrath]

45. yabbut who?

Really, I can't think of a single progressive politician that will step out and credibly challenge Obama from the left. I don't expect Feingold to try. Kucinich may, to the same result. Bernie? Grayson? I don't expect any of them to try.

[polichick]

48. Who knows? I do know that progressives/liberals are done handing out free passes...

Most likely there will just be pressure on Obama in 2012 to fight for progressive policies, but I could see Grayson going for it at some point. A powerful coalition could be built with progressive/liberal Dems and populists (indie or third party) behind a bold, unapologetic and fearless leader.

[zipplewrath]

49. Build Congress

If there is a strategy here, it is to push Obama with a progressive congress, not try to run a primary challenge.

[polichick]

51. Progressives have been working toward that - you'll notice, Obama fights them...

What will be will be. If some ambitious progressive leader has enough of it, there will be a challenge.

Good move to invite Rachel and Eugene to the WH today - they have powerful voices that will not be silenced by a corporate administration.

[zipplewrath]

55. Yes, I do notice

I notice he "rejects" progressive ideas.
I notice that his CoS considers their strategies "retarded".
Obama considers their suggestions "unworkable in the US".

His hand can be forced, in some senses easily because he don't like no Drama.

[polichick]

65. Yep - at the very least, we have to push him to do what's right...

imo his "No Drama" policy is an excuse for being chickenshit.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

73. Wow - what a personal attack! Liberals approving doesn't mean...

...he is a progressive, which is what I said - that he's not a progressive.

[phleshdef]

79. Yea, whatever you need to tell yourself to defend your fringe BS.

[polichick]

80. LOL - Oh yes, everyone who realizes that Obama is not a progressive...

...is just so fringy!

[phleshdef]

81. "Realizations" based on ideologically purist piety often are.

[polichick]

83. Why does it bother you so much that he's not a progressive?

Doesn't mean he doesn't move the ball down the court a bit.

[phleshdef]

114. That comment alone shows that you have no idea what the word progressive even means.

[zipplewrath]

139. No, it doesn't

Bush "moved the ball", occasionally even in a progressive direction.

The question stands. I don't understand why supporters object to describing Obama as not a progressive. Either his accomplishments are sufficient on their own, or they are not. He prefers other labels. I'm not sure why it is so important to his supporters that they maintain this label.

[phleshdef]

146. His accomplishments and legislative record are sufficient enough on their own.

That isn't even up for any real debate, no matter how much you more liberal than thou, get nothing done in the name of principle, judges of all things progressive would like it to be.

The real point is that you want to insinuate President Obama is an enemy by pretending he hasn't had a dominantly progressive record. You want to ignore history in order to push your petty little agenda... which is sad because all that agenda amounts to is you scoring points with the other isolational liberal purists in your little internet clique.

[zipplewrath]

151. I want what he campaigned upon.

"The real point is that you want to insinuate President Obama is an enemy by pretending he hasn't had a dominantly progressive record. You want to ignore history in order to push your petty little agenda... which is sad because all that agenda amounts to is you scoring points with the other isolational liberal purists in your little internet clique."

He doesn't have a "predominately progressive record". You keep insisting that he does. It is strange that this is so important to you. He has escalated wars. He has pushed regressive features to health insurance that even he campaigned against. HE described it as roughly a 15 year old GOP proposal. He is advocating permanent (indefinite) detention of prisoners, without trial, in a Gitmo like prison. He has flatly refused to stop the explusion of gays from the military, even though the very law he is claiming to want to repeal authorizes him to do so while they do their multiyear study. How you can describe ANY of that as progressive is beyond me.

You can like what he does, but why does it have to be progressive when even he avoids that label and refers to himself as a "new democrat"?

[Winston Wolf]

95. Yeah, Totally the Fringe.

Universal health care? That's so far left it should be labeled communist.

Freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures? The Founding Fathers just put that in the Bill of Rights for shits and giggles. They never really thought of it as a serious issue.

Not torturing "enemy combatants"? How else do expect to teach terrorists a lesson? The only way to stop terrorism is to USE terrorism. Terrorism has NEVER spawned more terrorism. Ever. Not even once.

Gays in the military? Fuck the fuck right off you pinko commie prick.

...

Yeah, it gets reaaal old hearing how those clamoring to restore what were once considered basic fucking human rights have become "the fringe of the left".

[vi5]

11. There's a wide gulf between...

thinking he needs a primary opponent or shouldn't be re-elected, and not wanting to sit around and compare whose callouses are bigger from clapping the most for our beloved president.

He's done some great things. He's gotten some good wins. But the fact is I want him to keep pushing for progressive legislation and I want him to fight harder and to stop starting from a point of concession on the bigger things that have needed to be done.

I'm sorry if I don't have trust in ANY politician to look at their base, see them applauding every single thing he/she does without discrimination, and decide "Hmmm...I better keep working hard so I can keep those people happy!!!". Maybe if he or whoever else is in question as an elected dem is a little concerned that we are going to continue to hold their feet to the fire to get what needs to be done, done then we'll actually get there.

The only reason I ever hear given for not keeping up the pressure and constructive criticism is "He already gets it so much from the right and the media he doesn't need it from his supporters." Bull. Any politician needs it MORE from their supporters than they do from anyone else. I keep hearing how tough he is and never to underestimate him. If that's the case than I seriously doubt he's going to whither like a delicate flower from people pointing out the things he hasn't done right or that he still needs to do.

[wndycty]

12. I support constructive criticism, but most the criticism from the left is not constructive. . .

. . .its folks throwing temper tantrums because they are not getting their way.

[Hydra]

21. And who IS getting their way?

That might be part of the problem, you know.

[wndycty]

24. I don't know, you tell me?

:kick:

[Hydra]

34. Well, isn't the whole point of society to make people's lives easier

And have access to better ways of doing things?

Who, pray tell, is getting that particular benefit?

[ProudDad]

145. The Korporate Kapitalist Masters for one...

They're getting their own way...

And the military, they're getting all the money they want to advance USAmerikan terrorism - over $1.2 TRILLION per year...

And the USAmerican Sick Care Industry -- they just got a huge new shot of cash...

And I haven't heard him discuss cutting off the oil, gas and coal subsidies...just increasing them...

And the ubber-rich are getting richer...

And the poor are getting poorer...

And the Capitalist Industrial Growth Death Culture is rendering Mother Earth uninhabitable for large air-breathing mammals...

[Smashcut]

28. "I support constructive criticism"

No, you clearly don't. Your entire OP is meant to shoot down criticism - it's another variant of "liberals want a pony."

"most the criticism from the left is not constructive. . .
. . .its folks throwing temper tantrums because they are not getting their way"

And that's constructive? :rofl: No, you clearly have no respect for anyone who might have a legitimate issue with what Obama is doing when it comes to healthcare, wars, civil rights, etc. So please stop pretending you and your ilk are the "reasonable" people here just because you can justify everything the man does. That doesn't make you a "pragmatist" either - that's another word that gets used left and right I notice by liberal-bashers. And it certainly doesn't make you correct. It just makes you an acolyte.

[polichick]

30. Well said! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

58. A perfect summary...

[mochajava666]

16. Very well said

I couldn't agree more.

[MiniMe]

29. I agree, but you are wrong on one point

Obama can't issue an executive order to repeal DADT, it is a law, not a policy. Overriding a law by executive order would not be constitutional. And I don't care how bad the law is, I don't support it. That is what keeps somebody like W from repealing RowVsWade. I don't care if it is something DU agrees with or not, a President can't overturn legislated law by executive order. The Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, but the President can't do anything about it. That is one reason that I am glad the HCR was passed and signed, because no matter what the right thinks, it will take 60 votes to overturn it. The next President can't just say we are going to repeal it and then issue an executive order to repeal it.

[wndycty]

31. Thanks

:kick:

[Smashcut]

33. He could have suspended discharges

He and his WH fought tooth and nail to keep repeal from reaching a vote this year. And they're still trying to stop a lawsuit against DADT. So please take the "it's a law, he can't do anything about it" BS elsewhere.

That's why the "compromise" had to be invented, so that Gates and his bullshit study could happen first. Obama dipping his toe in the water.

I'm glad it's finally happening (we hope) but let's not rewrite history. He and his admin were not nearly as supportive as they could have and should have been. If anyone deserves credit for this bill eventually passing, it's Rep. Patrick Murphy, not Obama.

[MiniMe]

90. I agree with you

But that doesn't change the fact that a President can't just "repeal" a law. Congress has to do it. I wouldn't have agreed with Bush repealing it and telling the military to start court martialing anybody who was gay.

[bvar22]

37. Why would the Republicans overturn the

Health Insurance Industry Profit Enhancement Act?
Obama gave them everything they wanted, and got NOTHING in return.

[MiniMe]

91. They are already running on repealing HCR legislation

[zipplewrath]

40. The law itself allowed him

The law allowed him to suspend discharges and investigations. It gave him that authority. He couldn't make the law go away, he could just have stopped it until the military ended their 2 year long (now) study on how to be nice to the bigots as they repealed this law.

[TheKentuckian]

59. I give the gas face to to any and all legal based defenses for inaction

for the benefit of our citizens when the very Constitution that is the source of all legal power and authority in our nation is ignored.

It takes a hell of a lot of gumption to duck behind the law while ordering extra-judicial murder without even a charge in court and maintaining an army operating without Congressional oversight.

Out of context of massive disregard for the rule of law, you have a case but it rings hollow anymore. Enforcement of the law is totally subjective and mostly used as a ballbat against common citizens and invoking the law is now as a defense for inaction is pretty much Orwellian.

The law is a farce until it applies to rich and poor alike and the powerful are just as bound to it as the weak and not only when they can sell excuses to end around it.

Legal???? Make it legal like anything else selected for convenience or gain.

Legal? Please

[Prism]

67. Please stop with this misinformation on DADT

It's wrong, wrong, wrong no matter how many times it's repeated. Why would Speaker Pelosi publicly ask the President to halt the discharges if he did not have the power to do so?

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1671

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted."

[MiniMe]

92. He can halt the discharges, but he still can't repeal the law.

And whoever is President after Obama could change it back just as easily, unless congress does something about it.

[ProudDad]

147. HE CAN HALT THE DISCHARGES!!!

(translation for the hard of hearing)

[90-percent]

32. David Swanson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8572099&mesg_id=8572099

David offers a significant counter point to the OP assertions.

-90% Jimmy

[Political Tiger]

35. K & R! n/t

[ProSense]

46. A complete misrepresentation

Second, I looked at the power of war. Our Constitution wisely placed it in Congress. It is now in the White House and growing ever stronger. President Obama has demanded and received a larger military budget than Bush ever had, plus a larger war budget on top of that, not to mention the secret budget for some of the spy agencies that engage in war. President Obama continues to insist on funding the wars off the books with so-called emergency supplementals. He's put bases into more nations. He's put more troops in the field. He's expanded the use of mercenaries and contractors. He's dramatically expanded the illegal use of drones to bomb Pakistan and other nations, resulting -- among other forms of blowback -- in a man trying to set off a bomb in Times Square, a man whose father's job used to be guarding nuclear weapons. Obama's Pentagon is pushing hard to use drones in U.S. skies as well. Meanwhile, Obama has -- in another badder than Bush innovation -- formally authorized secret military action in dozens of nations. He's formally done away with habeas corpus and established the power to imprison people at Bagram and other sites completely outside any legal process. He's kept our death camp at Guantanamo open. President Obama has continued to assert the power to torture, and torture has continued. He's also continued to assert the power to kidnap or "rendition" people and send them to nations that torture. But, most disturbingly, Obama has largely replaced torture with murder. People we would have sought to capture two years ago, we now seek to murder instead. And Obama has claimed the power to assassinate anyone, including American citizens. And, needless to say, the warrantless spying programs and other violations of civil liberties roll on unquestioned, and Miranda rights may be at risk now too. And one reason to think things may be even worse than we know is that Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors.

That's the problem with lengthy rants, they shroud misinformation in a lot of words.

Bush's budget only seemed smaller because of the accounting tricks employed by his administration. The first thing President Obama did was ensure an accurate representation of the budget, including supplementals.

[arcadian]

77. Well you certainly know alot

about mis disinformation

[spoony]

106. +1

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Captain Hilts]

39. Wow! Someone from Chicago is the OP!!

[NJmaverick]

52. 86% of liberals are satisfied with the President's performance

[pundaint]

104. who is defining liberal, fox news?

[NJmaverick]

111. People were allowed to define themselves in this survey

[wndycty]

112. No one is allowed to identify themselves as liberal/progressive unless certain DUers approve!

:kick:

[jgraz]

53. Are you saying that no one in this country is left of Obama? Or that we should just STFU?

Is it really "crazy" for progressives to voice their dissatisfaction with a center-right Democrat? That's kind of the whole point of a participatory democracy, isn't it?

[scheming daemons]

96. You only think he's "center-right"

From the perspective you come from, EVERYONE is to the right of you.

How you think:

Left-----------------------------------------Right
                ^              ^
                |              |
                |              |
               You           Obama

Reality:
Left-----------------------------------------Right
^               ^
|               |
|               |
You            Obama

[jgraz]

97. Your command of ascii art doesn't distract from the complete BS of your claim.

Have you heard of a place called ... "Europe"? Obama would be far right for most of the civilized world. Even for the US, Obama is to the right of the general population, most of whom want an end to war, single-payer healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy -- none of which we've seen from this president.

[jgraz]

98. While you're at it, maybe you could show where this sits on the ascii art spectrum

White House Flip Flops On Reining In CEO Pay

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8584450&mesg_id=8584450

[TheKentuckian]

56. Evidence of crazy is not a list of excuses and aspirations.

What you presented was your perspective on what you deem to be mitigating circumstances and opinion based on your personal interpretation of reasonable expectations.

What you have is a difference of opinion rather than a case.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Editorializing does not make facts.

The President is opposed to equal rights for certain minorities, based on his selective religious dogmas. He keeps firing people for being gay when he does not have to. He is against equal rights. He has to be shouted at to raise a finger. He pranced into office calling himself every lovely name in the book. He was the Fierce Advocate! If you do not wish to see him held to his own standards, why should I care?
You have your opinions, rationalizations and spin. I have the fact that he shares his religious opposition to equal rights with the likes of Sarah Palin.
Have a nice pontification.

[mdmc]

71. I may bitch about Obama here

but if the AP wanted to quote me in a news article about liberals perception of Obama, I would have nothing but nice things to say..
I don't think Obama is a progressive, but ya need to team up when the pressure is on..

[bvar22]

74. I do the same.

I continue to give Obama the highest marks possible in every public poll I answer,
but privately, I am beyond disgusted with his Republican Appeasement while shafting the Democratic Wing of his own Party.
I never thought he was a Liberal.
However, I believed him when he said, "Everyone will have a seat at the table."
I thought he meant the Democratic Wing would at least finally have a seat....and rejoiced.
.
.
.
THEN, this happened:

The DLC New Team
Liberal Pro-Working Class Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

The first of the broken promises.
Liberals were actually put in jail for trying to claim their seat at the table during HCR.

[zipplewrath]

78. I spend my days defending Obama

I work around a whole bunch-o-right wing nut jobs. I spend all day defending him and his policies from the blitheringly stupid criticism they dream up. Most of them are ridiculous in their substance, if not down right lies. And I am frequently confronting their hypocrisy with respect to the Shrub.

And then I come here and express MY dissatisfaction with Obama based upon an entirely different basis.

Makes for a schizophrenic life.

[salguine]

99. I think it's fucking spot-on, myself. Of course, I'm on "the left".

[pundaint]

105. +1

[opihimoimoi]

107. Soon, even the Pubs will contribute to the CHISEL FUND to add his face to Mt Rushmore

[Jim Sagle]

108. No, YOU'RE crazy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

109. it is not negativity. Obama himself asked us to push

him on policies if we wanted action. When he fails to do so, we are simply complying with his request.

The worst thing we could do is be silent and obedient. That would leave the only noise in the hall coming from the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. When we speak, we take away from their message. When we complain, it shows Obama to be more of a centrist than anything else, and therefore, destroys those idiots' arguments.

[depakid]

113. Apparently, the most ardent disciples have forgotten about that bit

Much like many so called Christians conveniently forget about major portions of the New Testament.

[quaker bill]

110. I concur

as do roughly 86 percent of other "liberals". In that "liberals" make up roughly 25 percent of the electorate, that means about 4 percent of voters are disappointed in Obama from a "liberal" point of view. Roughly 10 times as many voters are disappionted in Obama from a "conservative" point of view.

[Laelth]

117. Yet another attack on the left. Yawn. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WI_DEM]

118. Remember it's not all of the left. Polls indicate that self-described liberals overwhelmingly

support Obama. What you have are people like the Greens who voted for Nader and helped deliver Bush in 2000. They don't care for Obama, of course.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

122. He's getting good things done under difficult circumstances. nm

[JVS]

125. Did he say we'd be out of Iraq by now?

[Enrique]

128. the centrists defending him is stupid n/t

[besdayz]

135. a

please....we can all agree that he is the best option but lets not for a minute pretend that many of ideals have been sold down river....

de-escalation
smarter terror policy
drilling
public option

[moondust]

140. Rewriting Presidential speeches is not helpful.

Any grade school child can sit in an armchair and rewrite a speech plugging in their fantasy wish list and use it to try to embarrass the original while promoting himself/herself. Reality is a bit more tricky and should be left to adults.

[EFerrari]

156. Calling your opponent crazy is not an argument. n/t

[LWolf]

159. I'm quite sane, actually. No need to be concerned. nt

[kestrel91316]

162. 14% of Democrats don't support Obama. 86% do. Per Gallup just this week.

I really don't think any more needs to be said.

We have a few squeaky wheels here. They need to STFU IMHO.

[Warren Stupidity]

163. Obama is not a progressive.

He did not campaign as a progressive, he campaigned on center-right policy positions.
He has not ruled as a progressive, his administration is a center-right administration and has ruled from that ideological perspective.

What is 'crazy' or more exactly either dishonest or delusional is stating that this administration is center-left, i.e. 'progressive'.