A recent DU thread that really needs to be studied:

[pnorman]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x544500

And I'll repeat: I wonder just how much Corporate $$$$$ is being funneled into the "Dump Obama in 2012!" movement.

[Tunkamerica]

1. Truthfully, it looks like a standard DU thread of late

I've been surprised and disappointed with posters a lot in the last month or two.

[pnorman]

4. Not really. The greater bulk by far lately here on DU ,

seems to close variants of the: "I TOLD YOU SO!" variety.

[jefferson_dem]

2. It's not fair but any time I see someone promoting a primary challenge...

I automatically think "troll". ...because there's no way such an exercise would be anything but destructive to our party's chances in 2012.

[rucky]

3. I agree we're setting ourselves up for an astroturf takeover

of PUMAtic proportions.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. No money needed when stupidity does the work for you. I've said we...

need a new hero, but I won't even think about a destructive primary fight. No new heroes on the horizon, so we work with what we got.

We had calls for primary fights over sitting congresscritters some didn't think passed the purity test, too, but how did that work out?

Nope, the last time a weakened President got primaried we ended up with Reagan. I dread the thought of what we would end up with this time.

[pnorman]

6. That reference to "$$$$$$" was offered with NO verification whatsoever.

It was added mainly as an attention-getter. But I recall that similar charges were hurled against Ralph Nader in 2000. That still pisses me off.

[stray cat]

7. Very little on du warrants any study of du threads - go to the source and really get the facts

[Ikonoklast]

8. And how many 'Progressives' will take that money.

The enemy of my enemy is *still* an enemy if he stabs me in the back first chance he gets.


But some don't get it.

They'll do the Fifth Column thing and carry water for the Republicans, luxuriating in their version of 'purity'.

[XemaSab]

9. Hi, I posted that thread

It's all the things on the "WTF has Obama done" site, and though it may look somewhat hefty all posted on one place, I was pretty underwhelmed with a good percent of the things on the list.

Let's see:

He provided funding for children with disabilities as part of the recovery act, yes, but he signed the Reeve Act as part of the omnibus public lands bill that enjoyed widespread bipartisan support.

He has done a few things for the GLTB community, but they don't seem to be too thrilled with him overall.

He came out against cigarettes (how nontroversial) and raised tobacco taxes to provide children with health insurance. He repealed restrictions on stem cell research, which is good, and he also expanded medicaid. But the so-called health care reform was a joke from the word go.

He added a bunch of money to the VA, and eased previous restrictions regarding dead soldiers.

I will give him a gold star for women's issues. :)

Stimulus, financial reform, blah.

Is appointing a Latina to the supreme court supposed to be groundbreaking? Giving minority-owned businesses preference in federal contracts is ok, but easily gamed.

The START treaty is good; everything else he's done with the WOT and the military is really underwhelming.

$18 billion for scientific research is good. Killing NASA is bad. Appointing the first Chief Technology Officer? Who cares?

Credit cards and student loans are still horrible. Pell grants are good.

Increasing the average fuel economy starting in 2016 is his big environmental accomplishment. The funding increase was just for the parks and not the forests, and the parks still have a budget shortfall.

Disclosure of visitors is good. Serve.gov is okay, but was it really needed? Finally, why are we still punishing Cuba at all?




Of the 38 things listed, the big ones are health care and the recovery, and it seems like the rest has a lot of icing and not a lot of cake. Also note that this is one listed item for every 20 days in office, which is not a very aggressive pace when trying to roll back 8 years of failure. (Only 5 of the list items are overtly rescinding Bush-era policies.)

If the next two years are on pace with the last two years, he's going to have a totally forgettable presidency... at best.

[pnorman]

10. here's another evaluation of Obama, from Rolling Stone:

The Case for Obama
The charges are familiar: He's a compromiser who hasn't stood up to the GOP or Wall Street. But a look at his record reveals something even more startling — a truly historic presidency
.
.
.
But if the passions of Obama's base have been deflated by the compromises he made to secure historic gains like the Recovery Act, health care reform and Wall Street regulation, that gloom cannot obscure the essential point: This president has delivered more sweeping, progressive change in 20 months than the previous two Democratic administrations did in 12 years. "When you look at what will last in history," historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells Rolling Stone, "Obama has more notches on the presidential belt."

In fact, when the history of this administration is written, Obama's opening act is likely to be judged as more impressive than any president's — Democrat or Republican — since the mid-1960s. "If you're looking at the first-two-year legislative record," says Ornstein, "you really don't have any rivals since Lyndon Johnson — and that includes Ronald Reagan."
.
.
.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013