Does anyone think it possible that if he wins in 2012, Obama might begin to act tough with the

[Cal33]

Pubs? He'd be through with political life in 2016 anyway, might as well take the last chance to
redeem himself with the people who elected him. Also, he might like the idea of having history
portray him as one of the greats, who surmounted the unbelievable difficulties left behind for him
to resolve by G.W. Bush.

[DURHAM D]

1. No - its not his nature.

He is a bargainer.

[Joe Bacon]

29. Look at his record.

Nope. He keeps giving away orchards to the Republicans and he doesn't get a single rotted apple back in return.

[msongs]

2. past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior - always look at actions, not words nt

[Cal33]

3. The incentives I mentioned (in a broad sense you can put it under the "profit motive") should also

be taken into consideration. Human motivations are very complicated matters. Always
try to expect the unexpected.

[DCBob]

4. Possibly on certain issues on which he feels the GOPers are dead wrong..

But generally, I think he still wants to be the transformative President he talked about in the campaign to help bridge the divide between the red and blue states.

[Cal33]

6. If so, he is in the right place, but at the wrong time. Today, too many of the Neocon

and Partier leadership are psychopaths, and psychopaths are not capable
of changing -- especially not when there is such a large bunch of them working
together. He would have had a better chance of succeeding, had he been
president 50 years ago. There isn't the slightest chance of it today.

[DCBob]

12. I think the President is not so quick to give up on nearly half the population of the United States.

Most of them are not "psychopaths" and thats the ones he is trying to reach in hope of silencing the actual psychopaths.

[Cal33]

14. I agree. Most of those who vote "Republican" are not psychopaths.

Many of them are the people who have been dumbed down by the Neocon leadership's
decades of propaganda and lies. They aren't even aware that the Neocons have
taken over and kicked out the old-timer Republican leaders some time ago. These
people still think they are voting "Republican."

[DCBob]

21. That's the God awful truth..

They have been fauxified.

[ladjf]

5. No. He is who he is and nothing will change that. nt

[Tesha]

7. No. (NT)

[Phx_Dem]

8. Oh please.

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. Not a chance in hell.

[harun]

41. +1

[sagesnow]

10. No. Like Clinton before him...

I predict he will use his second term to join hands with Republicans and sign legislation unfavorable to the working class. Clinton signed NAFTA, a Defense of Marriage Bill and enacted Welfare Reforms that hurt working class and poor constituents to this day. Likewise,it will not surprise me that Obama will join the Republicans to pass legislation that will end Medicare and privatize Social Security. Democrats and Republicans both work for the same masters.

[provis99]

11. no, he will become even more compromising.

In an effort to secure his "legacy".

[QC]

13. No. n/t

[Safetykitten]

15. No, and even more, he will be more compliant with their wishes.

[William769]

16. This answer your question?

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Bake]

17. Oh sure, it could happen!

And monkeys could fly out of my ass ...

Bake

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. He needs no redemption. I get so tired of the far left insinuating that they...

singlehandedly elected this president. This president put together a coalition of left, right & center. And he has lived up to my expectations, and if you're "disappointed", then that's your problem. You do realize that this president's life won't end if he's not reelected, right? But what you'll get in his place, might very well end ours.

[Pisces]

22. +1000

[Cal33]

23. Oh, I'll vote for Obama, you can be sure of that. I just can't see myself voting

for anyone of the Repubs. they're offering today. With Obama as president, we'll at least
have some form of a democractic government operating for a while longer.

If one of the Neocons or Partiers wins, democracy will be finished this time. G.W. started
to dismantle the Constitution, and this time they'll make sure of finishing the job. They'll
also make sure that the Dems. would never be able to elect another president again. Like
Stalin said, voters don't matter, it's the people who count their votes that do.

[Politicalboi]

19. I have thought that

I hope he does. I hope he uses the power that Bush got to do what he thinks is right for the American people. But I guess we'll see.

[emilyg]

20. No.

[Hawkowl]

24. No.

He is an enabling ass kisser.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Only if he has enough elected Democrats with a spine to support and push him.

[damonm]

38. THIS.

This is the HUGE factor everyone overlooks.
Why haven't we closed gitmo? Spineless Congressional Dems refused to fund the prisoner transfers.
Why don't we have better HCR w/ a public option? Blue Dogs wouldn't support it.

Just to name 2 examples...

[Cal33]

39. Here's another: If Nancy Pelosi had waited until January, 2009, (when Dems. had the majority in

both houses) to start impeachment procedures against Bush, the impeachment
could have succeeded. And today the Repubs. wouldn't have been as arrogant
as they are towards the Dems.

Bullies respect strength and become afraid when their victims fight back.
They are openly contemptuous of those victims who take the bully's BS lyibng down.
And this spinelessness makes them bully their victims even more.

Dems. don't have such leaders in either house of congress -- and now is exactly
the time when leaders with spines are so desperately needed!

During WWII we had FDR, and the Brits had Churchill -- the right people in the
right places, and at the right time. We seem to be out of luck today.

[LiberalFighter]

47. Blue Dogs for the most part of worthless.

[golfguru]

26. Fool me once, chalk it off to experience, fool me twice

then I must be gullible & dumb.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. No, he's just not that way

Either he wants to be liked by the Republicans more than he cares about the country or he secretly agrees with them.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Presidents generally don't accomplish squat in their second terms

LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt are semi-exceptions because their second terms were actually the first terms they were elected to in their own right, so it's a bit different. FDR's second was vital in the realm of foreign policy, but on the domestic front it was pretty weak.

I'd like to see Obama take on some things in his second term that he can make at least some inroads with via executive order. These would include: gay rights, the war on drugs, and the Cuban Embargo. If he makes any vital changes in any of these areas in his second term, I'd call that a successful second term.

[BlueIris]

30. No.

But then again, I don't believe he will even be renominated in 2012.

[Cal33]

32. Well, no Democrats are challenging him so far. Of course, we still have17 months to go.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. If you insist on voting for Blue Dogs/Corporatists in the House and Senate, then NO!

Listen, legislation has to first get through both chambers of the Congress. Why is that so difficult to understand here at DU?

When we start to work hard at the grassroots level, electing MORE progressives to local, state and congressional offices, then we should complain about the president. But continuing to vote for Mary Landrieau and Max Baucus won't get us anywhere because ONE SENATOR can block legislation!!!!

The president is but ONE MAN who isn't in charge of the ENTIRE government.

You folks surely failed Civics 101, didn't you?

[Cal33]

33. We can look at things from another angle. In the Deep South, an out and out

Progressive Democrat would have no chance of becoming senator at all.
Landrieu at least votes Democratic occasionally. Does the saying
apply, "Half a loaf is better than no bread?"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. Well, as long as that is the case, then why blame the Executive Branch?

If Obama is the most progressive of the Democrats that we can get, and Mary Landrieau and her allies are the most conservative/corporate of the Democrats that we have, then shouldn't we accept that we have to work within those boundaries as they currently exist?

For now, I say yes. However, it will not always be this way. We can observe the changing demographics of many states in the American South, such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina--hell, even Texas!! The Obama campaign is now trying to put Texas in play due primarily to those demographic conditions.

The Republicans know this. That is why they are bending over themselves trying to make it more difficult to register and vote.

But, if we show up, if we get busy, they lose. When we don't show up, we lose and Obama cannot enact more progressive policies with a bunch of Blue Dogs and DLCers, not to mention Republicans who will do anything to destroy him.

We must wake up and face this reality. Accept the conditions on the ground as they are, but don't give up on trying to change it.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Maybe

[bigwillq]

35. Possibly.

We will find out. If he does, it'll be a typical political move since he doesn't have to face the voters again.

[CakeGrrl]

36. Blah blah blah...wait 'til you see

what it actually looks like when Republicans ACTUALLY get what they want.

Sorry he hasn't filmed himself throwing Republicans off of AF1.

:eyes:

[Cal33]

37. If the Republicans do "get what they ACTUALLY want," it will be too late. They

want to be the lords and masters of the whole country, and the rest
of us to be their servants and slaves -- you know, back to the good
old days of FEUDALISM. We'd have nothing more to say. Period.

[bertman]

40. "Act" tough. yeah, that's about it. He sure as hell isn't going to BE tough. Period.

[craigmatic]

42. No because he'll have nothing left to lose and let's be honest here he doesn't like risk.

He hates risking political capital on something that might lose. The only way he'll go left is if we win back the house and senate next year then he won't have any other choice.

[Cal33]

45. Because of the Republicans' recent blunders, quite a few Republican-voting seniors

have finally begun to understand a little of what they are about. If
this trend keeps on, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Dems. should
win both houses in Nov., 2012.

The Dems. must work hard at pointing out what the Repubs. are really
about, though. They should also keep in mind that unless they do
something really effective, the Repubs. will simply increase the
number of fraudulent votes in 2012, as well as their other dirty
tricks.

I sure do hope more progressives will be elected to both houses of
Congress. We need them badly.

[Jakes Progress]

44. Change? Doubt it.

[silverweb]

46. Yes.

[GSLevel9]

48. depends on if he has any power... a pub controlled House and/or Senate will control HIM. nt