If Obama's successes/accomplishments were acknowledged by his progressive critics, I'd feel. . .

[wndycty]

. . .better about their criticism. But quite frankly many of Obama's progressive critics have been rooting against him and looking for a reason not to support him.

The very folks who constantly say: "If Obama does/doesn't do ___________ I am not voting for him in 2012" say that all the damn time.

When progressives who support Obama, like myself, list his accomplishments/success we are quickly told that his successes are watered down, he compromised too much, came too late, etc.

As an Obama supporting progressive I have some criticisms of his administration but I am loathe to ever join with his progressive critics.

[TomClash]

1. So what are his MAJOR progressive achievements?

I don't really see it at all.

And please don't cite the health care bill or the Professor's love for civil liberties. If you do, I'll :puke:

[wndycty]

2. ^^^^^^^ TomClash ^^^^^^^ proves my point. . .LOL

:kick:

[johnaries]

3. Yep, perfect example. "There are none so blind...." nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Bobbie Jo]

10. Right out of the gate.

:think:

[jeff47]

20. Only if you could have answered the question

So what major progressive accomplishment does he have?

Health care bill? No, that's the Republican bill from the 1990s. It can only be considered "progressive" when compared to the "If you get sick, die quickly" plan the current Republicans propose. To claim it's "progressive" is to define progressive as "not Republican".

Stimulus bill? Asked for about 1/4th of what he needed, got that butchered with tax cuts, and then has spent the next 2 years pretending it was perfect. Economy's still terrible because the White House won't consider any progressive solutions. They claim they can't get them through Congress, but that doesn't mean they can't ask. Heck, if they had been remotely intelligent they would have spent the last two years pointing out the Republicans are blocking job creation, and 2010 would have turned out quite differently. The Republicans couldn't have used "jobs" as their issue.

Repealing DADT? Calling that "major" is defining major waaaaaaaay down. Plus, they still haven't managed to pull it off despite the ball being entirely in the White House's court. Getting rid of DOMA would be a big deal, but the president has repeatedly come out against "gay marriage".


Sure, there's a laundry list of accomplishments. But what of them are both major and progressive?

Vote for his re-electin? Well, I've got nowhere else to go. It's vote for the guy with an unhealthy obsession with the "Grand Bargain", or it's voting for true insanity.

But don't pretend that's some sort of "victory". Being less insane than Bachman is not something to cheer about.

[wndycty]

30. It would be a waste of time. You guys will not acknowledge any of it

:kick:

[daa]

54. Becuase there is nothing to acknowledge nt

[jeff47]

79. Considering you can't even try to answer it, should you be surprised? (nt)

[Hand_With_Eyes]

93. You are dodging it

...or so it seems

[wndycty]

96. I'm dodging it? I have posted his accomplishments a number of times in the past. . .

. . .only to have them dismissed by many of you. Also, there were a few threads posted this weekend that listed his accomplishments and they have been responded to as expected. Why waste my time. . .we already know what your answers will be.

[jeff47]

101. We've been asking for _major_ accomplishments.

Not ProSense's list of every bill that has passed.

Even under the most productive presidents, that's not a long list. Yet you've been unable to list any that are both major and progressive.

[wndycty]

103. Saving Detroit, health care reform, repealing DADT. . .

. . .you will dismiss/diminish their significance/dilute his involvement in all of the above in . . .5, 4, 3, 2, 1. . . .

[jeff47]

106. Considering the easy targets you set up, yes.

HCR: Ties us even more to the insurance company. The "progressive" elements such as public option and Medicare buy-in were stripped. Also doesn't fix the underlying heath _care_ problem. Solves some heath _insurance_ problems. The best that can be said of this bill is it provides a framework in which some future president can implement a progressive solution.

DADT: Repeal only passed after the law was already ruled invalid. (The recent ruling is the second time DADT has been ruled invalid. The first judge stayed that ruling because of the repeal legislation.) It's a little hard to declare that a major accomplishment for the administration when the actual accomplishment was done by the federal courts.

Detroit: Was mainly a bail-out of GM and Chrysler's creditors. Would have been better to make Wall Street eat their losses, and then use the public funds to shore up the companies. The deal, as it was, nationalized the risk and privatized most of the reward. If we completely ignore the financial side, saving all those jobs sounds like a great progressive accomplishment. But why should we ignore the financial side?

I'm not saying Obama has had an easy presidency. Nor am I saying he has done nothing. I'm saying Obama's obsession with a 'grand bargain' that transcends party politics means he can't accomplish anything that's both major and progressive. Because he demands the Republicans be on board with anything major he does.

[TomClash]

58. Exactly

Good post.

[TomClash]

57. Uh, not really

You didn't eactly anser the question.

[JoePhilly]

4. DADT.

And .... I along with my 15 year-old Niece WOULD count the health care bill .... because after having cancer at the age of 2, she now gets full coverage.

See, for the years after the cancer (from about 4-15), she was only covered for the most basic illnesses and injuries. They would not cover her for anything that might in any way be associated with the prior cancer or its treatment.

Now she's covered again ... and, if she has issues in the future that relate to that prior cancer, she's going to be covered.

That's pretty progressive to me.

But who cares that kids with a prior cancer can now get health care coverage.

:shrug:

[The Big Vetolski]

17. Mandated health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions is

a definite plus. Unfortunately, there are ZERO cost controls on the HMOs for providing that coverage, only mandates for American citizens to purchase PRIVATE health INSURANCE. Obama did nothing to reform health care, only mandated private health insurance coverage and ordered the insurance companies to cover everybody who is now required to pay.

Sorry, but why should the cost of my health insurance coverage triple to cover your niece? Which it has already. Obama could have pushed for a public option and gotten it. He didn't even try. I believe it should cost your niece and her parents NOTHING but taxes to pay for her care. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share in taxes to guarantee that. I am NOT willing to be unable to pay my rent because of mandated health insurance premiums to FOR-PROFIT-CAPITALIST BASTARDS to pay for your niece's health care.

And there's the rub. Like it or not, that's reality. Dude.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[The Big Vetolski]

50. Well, next time the Eagles play the Cowboys, Go Dallas...

Thank you for the welcome. Even though it seems like welcome to DU, now FU! At least, that's how it appears. Now, line by line. A Big Dog is here.

You have no idea whether I'm overweight or not. What possible difference does that make. BTW, I've got a beer belly, but I'm not HUGE.

I never said your niece tripled my coverage. The health insurance corporations did. I have nothing against your niece. And she should get all of the health CARE she needs, at no additional cost to her or hers.

I actually AM considering dropping my health insurance. I, and no American, should be REQUIRED by law to pay a private corporation anything for any service.

Lieberman? By twisting his arm. Blackmailing him. Destroying him. Whatever it takes. LBJ did it. Why not Obama?

By nationalizing AETNA. Screw 'em!

And DESTROY the national health insurance companies! Obama could have done it! Don't say he couldn't. He could have. He chose not to.

Don't get me wrong. I wish your niece, and all the others like her, the best. I don't blame her at all. It's not her fault. It's capitalism's fault. Health care should not be a for-profit enterprise. Period. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't go into the health care field if you want to get rich. And, if you do, you shouldn't be able to get a license to practice medicine.

[JoePhilly]

66. Interesting response ....

You said this initially ... "Sorry, but why should the cost of my health insurance coverage triple to cover your niece?"

And now you say this ... "I never said your niece tripled my coverage."

I do enjoy this response ... "Lieberman? By twisting his arm. Blackmailing him. Destroying him. Whatever it takes. LBJ did it. Why not Obama?" You are the 2nd person to recommend that the President BLACKMAIL a member of congress when I asked how to get Lieberman to vote YES. So, congratulations for being the second to make that insane recommendation.

How exactly does Obama "Nationalize Aetna?" ... or "DESTROY the national health insurance companies! Obama could have done it! Don't say he couldn't. He could have. He chose not to."

Really ... the President can just "destroy" an industry?????

Can you provide the details of how a President does so ... I took lots of civics classes and I don't recall that part.

And so I have to ask, what country do you live in??

Its clearly not America.

[The Big Vetolski]

81. "Its clearly not America."

Like Reagan didn't destroy PATCO? Doesn't matter.

If the President can deploy the armed forces overseas without Congressional approval in what he decrees is the national interest, as Obama has done in Libya, they why can he not deploy armed forces internally to take over an industry if he decrees it is in the national interest?

You walk a fine line, my friend.

[JoePhilly]

69. Back to the overweight part ....

I'm not referring to YOU specifically.

You don't want your premiums to cover my niece. Why should my premiums go to cover the overweight, or smokers, or those who ride motorcycles, or those who drink, or women, because as a man, I can't get pregnant ... and so on.

The point of insurance is to spread the health risks that we all take across the total.

If a kid who had cancer can be dropped, then they can drop any of those I list above on similar grounds.

[The Big Vetolski]

84. No. You do not understand. Health INSURANCE should never be

the issue. That issue should never, ever, have even been allowed to exist in the first place. It's health CARE that is the real issue. Your niece, my daughter(who has some serious issues, BTW), my ex-wife, my stepson, should all have the RIGHT to all of the health care they need for FREE. Paid for by our tax dollars. Tax dollars spent on constructive things at home rather than imperial wars overseas.

I believe that health care should be a right for all Americans. It should not be a for-profit business. Capitalism has no place in health care. If we had a system like that, like say, the Cuban system, we would not be having this conversation. Premiums shouldn't even exist. That is my point.

That is what I believe in. You are free to disagree, but if what I believe in was reality, as it is in many other countries, your niece would have been taken care of from the day she was born, no questions asked. I have no objections to paying slightly higher taxes to care for people like your niece. I do have objections to paying taxes for a bloated military budget and to bail out Wall Street banks.

Do you understand me better now?

[JoePhilly]

92. Obama didn't invent the current health care system.

And he can't make it go away by himself.

But he has done a great deal to improve it.

And that's my point.

[jeff47]

24. DADT is still not done, despite being 100% up to the White House now. (nt)

[jenmito]

41. It has been repealed and will go in effect in a matter of weeks. n/t

[jeff47]

80. And the delay is because........

Once the repeal was passed, it was entirely up to the White House to decide how fast to implement it.

They've chosen to go very, very, slowly.

Boy, how inspiring.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. It's because the Pentagon agreed to go along with it

And in return they agreed to do it at the snail's pace the Pentagon wanted to do it at. Frustrating for sure. But also in the long run, it's better than Clinton's strategy, which resulted in the top brass waging a PR campaign against a President who had never served.

[jeff47]

100. The pentagon works for the White House

If the generals wish to make a fuss, Obama can re-introduce them to the concept of "chain of command". Perhaps remind them of the end of MacArthur's career.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

68. So its not going to end?

[jeff47]

78. It was entirely up to the executive branch to end as soon as Congress passed the repeal

Why the WH is taking it's sweet time, I haven't the foggiest idea.

[JoePhilly]

90. Then you aren't paying attention. nt

[MadMaddie]

74. The military has just said they will follow the most recent court ruling

Pentagon suspends DADT in wake of court ruling


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/military-DADT-Pentagon-court-ruling-070811w/


It's up to the military finish it now.

[jeff47]

77. The military works for the White House.

Ergo, DADT could have been done shortly after Congress passed the law. The WH seems to feel no urgency on the issue...at least, they stopped feeling urgency after the repeal gave them some cover from the court cases they lost.

[ruggerson]

104. A Federal Court ruled it unconstitutional

It's toast and is unenforceable. The Pentagon has already said it is complying with the Court's ruling.

[jeff47]

107. A federal court ruled it unconstitutional _again_.

It was already declared invalid before the repeal passed. The repeal bill was offered as an "orderly way to transition", so the first judge stayed the ruling.

You are talking about a more recent case where a second judge declared it unconstitutional.

If the courts are the ones doing the heavy lifting, it's not Obama's accomplishment, is it?

[Drale]

5. How about everything on this site?

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[JoePhilly]

7. You and your "lists" of "accomplishments" ....

I've found that most of the folks I encounter who seem to be blind to any accomplishment Obama has had, are very pissed off about something very specific.

They may scream about anything and everything (Obama Bad, Obama Bad, Obama Bad), but there is one (or maybe two things) that are the core of their anger ... and then everything else he accomplishes becomes "nothing" in comparison.

And ANY compromise he makes reduces any related gain, to "nothing" as well.

[Drale]

8. People who are pissed about one specific thing

are no better then one issue voters.

[jeff47]

14. One issue voters

still vote. Tossing them aside as irrelevant is stupid.

[Drale]

15. I didn't say they where irrelevant, I said they where stupid. /nt

[jeff47]

21. Calling people stupid is a great way to get their vote. (nt)

[Drale]

25. Well lucky for me, I'm not running for an office. /nt

[johnaries]

31. I used to think single-issue voters were all Republican.

I guess I should change that to "either are Republicans or might as well be".

[JoePhilly]

37. Me too.

I always thought that Democrats and liberals had something like this ...

Imagine a bar chart on which the x-axis has a list of issues. The y-axis reflects progress on that issue.

With that picture in mind, you determine (a) where the bar is now, (b) where I want it to be, and (c) where it will probably go with each candidate.

All of the bars matter.

[The Big Vetolski]

22. So what? None of that has done anything to improve the Dude's

standard of living. Lily Ledbetter Act. Oh, please. So women have the right to sue for gender discrimination If and only if they can afford a lawyer. Big deal. Oh, he's done a few things I like. But so did Bush. So what? Guantanamo's still open. We still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere with no end in sight, not to mention a brand new and improved war in Libya! My health insurance has gone UP. My salary's flat. Food and fuel prices have gone UP. Wall Street banksters are just "savvy businessmen," and yes I DO begrudge them their success! They should be at least imprisoned. Glass-Steagall is still repealed. EFCA was thrown away. BP was allowed to be in charge of cleaning up the worst oil spill in American history.

I voted for a man who presented himself as FDR II. I got a President worse than Herbert Hoover, because Hoover really had no freakin' clue about what to do, but Obama DID, or should have, and ignored the advice of people like Paul Krugman and made Geithner Secretary of the Treasury and Summers head of OMB!

:puke: on your lists.

[Drale]

26. Unless your joking

you just proved the original post's point.

[The Big Vetolski]

33. I'm not joking. And the OP has few points other than some weird

cult of personality stuff. What has Obama done for ME? From where I sit, not very damned much. Get real, dude, that is the question American voters will ask in November 2012. I'm not gay, I'm not a gun nut and I'm pro-choice, but that takes a backseat to finances. I'm anti-interventionist on foreign policy most of the time. I want to see a REALISTIC opportunity for my standard of living to improve and for my kids to be able to live a better life than what I have.

On that score, Obama has done NOTHING. Well, the payroll tax reduction netted me $14 a pay check. Whoop-dee-freakin'-doo. Bush did better than that. Get real.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[The Big Vetolski]

47. ME? A right-winger? No, it's not just about ME. It's about 90% of

the population. And I'm no "right-winger." I proudly voted for Walter Mondale in 1984. I'm concerned about me and people like me. And I don't like this kind of slur aimed at a member of the working class who is proud of being one. You are so flagged, dude.

[nosmokes]

48. The question was*major* and progessive* acheivement and Obama's average

for that category is 0fer.If there were a number less than zero then that's what I would enter. His environmental record is atrocious and there are now huge patches of this nation where a woman can't even exercise her right to get a a simple medical procedure. I'm sorry but there are major crises happening and the president seems more concerned with being known as the great compromiser(pronounced loser) than actually fighting for known workable solutions.

[Tx4obama]

51. Under Obama the dems had 60 votes in the Senate for 49 days.

Put the blame where it belongs - at the feet of the GOP.

And are you saying that the legislation that some STATES have passed regarding abortion is Obama's fault? THAT is ridiculous!

Perhaps you could study up on what a president actually has control over, and the differences in what the House, Senate, and States can do and not do when dems no not have a 'real' majority and are controlled by the GOP.

[nosmokes]

62. If you think the office of POTUS doesn't carry any sway thein I suggest you

take stock of the world around you. Obama's silence on Abortion and Wisconsin was DEAFENING! I'm not even saying he should have necessarily jumped in w/ both feet, but he certainly could have pitched in a dime's worth, ya know, as leader of the nation.And I don't need any studying, thanks.I'm aware of how things get *done.*

[TomClash]

59. So I open this and get

Dodd-Frank. Wow.

[jefferson_dem]

52. Was your goal to illustrate the very point of the OP?

Either way, you did just that.

[TomClash]

88. Uh, no

I was an Obama supporter, before you probably.

[MadMaddie]

73. Here ya go

http://obamaachievements.org/

[roguevalley]

82. don't you know? His healthcare that will kick in in 2014 and

will only cost you an arm instead of both arms and a leg.

[Bobbie Jo]

9. Recommended.

:kick:

[Schema Thing]

11. I'm with you. It's as if they refuse to acknowledge that the word "progressive" has it's roots

in the word "progress".

[derby378]

64. But being progressive implies PROGRESS, not INCREMENTALISM

I refer you to the ancient parable of Achilles and the Tortoise. When is incremental change just as bad as no change at all?

[guruoo]

12. knr nt

[Bluenorthwest]

13. I am always suspect of those who launch into sermons on the

failures they see in others. Always. The spreading of dissension and division is almost always done out of pure self interest, it is a kind of a tantrum, all sound and fury, significant of nothing.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. that's a very interesting statement

you have made.

[bvar22]

28. ...more than interesting,

it is positively dripping with hysterical irony!
Best laugh of the day!
:rofl:

[Tx4obama]

16. Here's long partial LIST of what Obama has done since January 20, 2009

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

p.s. Each item has a citation link

Enjoy :)

[woo me with science]

18. And....another OP about DU instead of

what is happening to our country. :eyes:

[ruggerson]

19. I've seen plenty of support and acknowledgement

when he does the right thing.

You must be reading selectively.

[The Doctor.]

23. Any exercise in ignorance detracts from credibility.

Obama supporters don't seem to be unwilling to acknowledge his failings. His detractors, otoh, seem incapable of acknowledging anything he's done right. Hence the rallying of the unrec brigade at evry non-anti-Obama Obama thread.

K+R

[ruggerson]

29. you have arbitrarily divided folks into "supporters" and "detractors'

which, in and of itself, is an example of a non-constructive and non-illuminating, binary viewpoint.

[The Doctor.]

49. Yeah, right.

:eyes:

I'm so fed up with the righteous sophomorisms of people who are more interested in wagging fingers than engaging in constructive discussion.

Let me give you a hint as to why I 'divided folks into "supporters" and "detractors"'; because I'm only talking about the two groups to begin with. In my example, a 'detractor' is someone who deliberately ignores any of Obama's accomplishments.

I know, I should have brought in Firemen, the Learning Disabled, Farmers, Zoologists, those with Hepatitis 'C', Hyper-intelligent shades of blue, and any number of others that do not somehow fall into either 'category' of supporter or detractor.

I also should have perhaps filed an addendum about how 'supporters' can 'detract' and 'detractors' can 'support', but then I would also have to clarify that the particular 'detractors' I'm referring to are those who do not support as the quality of being at all 'supportive' makes one not a detractor, but merely 'one who sometimes detracts'. In that case, they would still be a supporter even if marginally.

If you are an Obama supporter who simply detracts on occasion, hey, no biggie. OTOH, there are plenty of people who have never chosen to express their support of his policies, positions, or actions, but are well-practiced at criticism only.

It's easy to criticize, so I'll ask you; what would be a non-binary way to discuss those who support Obama, and those who do nothing but criticize? I'm open to suggestions.

[ruggerson]

55. We're probably better off

discussing ideas and strategies. I'm just as guilty as you of occasionally labelling groups of people here at DU. But I think our time is better spent talking about issues and how Obama should navigate the headwinds going into 2012. Of course this is a political internet discussion board, hence much of the discussion is going to be invariably about people, not substantive ideas. Do I find those discussions valuable? As idle entertainment, yes. As anything more than that, not really.

[The Doctor.]

61. Oh, fine...

But still with the sophomorisms?

Discussing people's actions and behaviors in the context of ideas is in itself a discussion of ideas. It might be speculation, and it certainly isn't always 'enlightened', but it is the why of it that is under discussion as much as the 'who' or 'what'. As the sophomorism goes; "Small minds talk about people" generally means 'specific individuals' (think tabloid). When going into demographics, the lines between discussing 'people' and 'ideas' get pretty fuzzy.

As for 'detractors' and 'supporters'; yes, it was a simplification where no more should have been required. The notion of it, to me, was about motive. Though now I can see how it could easily be taken as judgment or admonition. Either way, I wasn't merely looking for a discussion so much as a crucible to get to the heart of a specific thing. It detracts from the purpose to discuss the mechanism, but then we would be talking about the idea of the thing after all. ;)

Unfortunately, talking about the issues is something of an exercise in futility if we aren't willing to fully recognize the political topography and concentrations of influence. Right now, Obama appears to be on track for re-election. I have the feeling that even the election-rigging apparatus is going to stay in 'sleep' mode this time around. I think the biggest, baddest threat to the powerful insurance industry has been put aside, and the rest of the powerful groups don't have enough on their radar to feel threatened at this point.

Now, if Obama starts standing up and screaming "Equal Marriage Rights!", "Higher top marginal tax rates!", "Regulate Wall Street/Oil/Banks!", well then... he can kiss it goodbye.

That's why I'm willing to wait.

[ruggerson]

85. and generalizing about

Obama "supporters" and "detractors" is non-sophomoric, eh? ;)

I agree that Obama is on track for re election, barring a double dip or some exogenous world event that no one can foresee. But, I don't think anyone expects him to start "screaming" about marriage equality or big oil. Regarding marriage, I regard it as a small victory that he's finally stopped responding to the question with some deliberate obfuscation about his religious beliefs. Of course he's replaced that with some unfortunate, inane garbage about state's rights. Politicians on our side, especially Obama, can at the very least start learning to frame the issue intelligently and make the flyover crowd understand that the issue is solely a civil one and has absolutely nothing to do with churches or religion.

[Logical]

32. This is 100% pure bullshit.....

I am as progressive as they come. Many of us here are. And I worked and made phone calls and donated $2000 to Obama in 2008.
I was EXTREMELY excited about Obama winning. I knew he would end these wars (he has not). I knew he would realize the patriot act was a over the top reaction to 9/11 and remove the extreme parts of it (he has not). I knew he would START with single payer, even if he didn't get it (he did not). I knew he would investigate Bush's crimes (he has not). I knew he would dig into the financial crisis and put those responsible in jail (he has not). I thought he was a fighter who would call out the GOP idiots when they needed called out. (he has not).
So, I am disappointed in Obama. I will vote for him over any GOP idiot in 2012 but I will not longer work my ass off to get him elected. That takes a level of expectations I no longer have.

[wndycty]

34. This IS NOT 100% BULLSHIT, take your ball and go home.

LOL

[wndycty]

35. What gave you the idea he was going for single payer?

Huh?

[Tx4obama]

36. You should have been listening to what Obama said during the 2008 campaign

1) Obama said that he would not push for single-payer. He said MANY MANY MANY times at his town halls that single-payer was NOT a viable option unless we were starting from scratch which we weren't.

2) Obama said MANY MANY MANY times that he would INCREASE the troops in Afghanistan and stay to fight the fight there.
(And regarding Iraq Obama HAS pulled out the majority of troops from there just like he said he would do.)

I have seen many folks bring up those two issues and for some unknown reason they 'thought' Obama would do something that he did not actually say - it makes no sense at all.

[JoePhilly]

45. +100

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

67. You are trying to change the subject. We were talking about what Obama 'said' he would do. n/t

[TomClash]

60. These are my sentiments

Well said.

[OhioBlue]

75. How did you know he would do those things

when he never said he would? Candidate Obama never said he would go for single payer and said he would increase the troops in Afghanistan. He also never came across to me as a fighter against the GOP - he campaigned as someone willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to get things done. He said time and time again that he would listen to all view points.

[graywarrior]

38. Rec'd

[jenmito]

40. K&R. And if they don't say the things you said they say, they just ignore the

threads that tout his accomplishments. THOSE threads are usually ignored by the very people you're talking about.

[polmaven]

91. Well, some of those threads include

....THE LLLLIIIIST

AAARRRGGGH! :hide:

[toddwv]

44. The sheeple have been told by the MSM (corporate-owned btw) that they MUST hate Obama.

I agree with you, ALL Presidents are and should be open to criticism and I have plenty of criticism for President Obama. Some, however, are simply falling hook-line-and-sinker for the right-wing spiel and they don't even know it.

[obxhead]

46. Sorry, getting the girls a puppy doesn't balance out

giving guaranteed billions to big insurance/pharma to continue to deny healthcare.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Real unemployment is more than 15% and increasing

Poverty is increasing.

Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket.

Those are the things that count.

[AverageJoe90]

56. I feel pretty much the same way myself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. The list of his achievements is a mile long and one sixteenth of an inch deep. n/t

[polichick]

83. He does what he can, as long as he doesn't have to engage in conflict or...

...threaten the corporate power structure in any meaningful way.

[Peacetrain]

70. I hear you on that..

[polichick]

71. They are acknowledged - at least here - at the time they happen.

[Skittles]

72. they have not been enough

not by a LONG SHOT

[OhioBlue]

76. What if this is as good as it gets?

I look at Ohio under Gov Stickland... I worked for him in '06, knocked doors, made phone calls, donated, etc. and I liked him... supported him... but felt kinda let down... things didn't move fast enough, he seemed pretty cozy with the former R Gov, worked across the aisle and had kind words for the Repubs.. I didn't like the budget cuts he made, didn't like his keno proposal, didn't like his so-so position on charter schools, the list goes on... In 2010.. I voted for him and volunteered for a couple days... donated a few bucks. We lost everything statewide and in the few months since the Rs have controlled everything, we have regressed 30 years.... it will take us forever to undo the harm this admin is doing.

The Right is so much better than the Left at messaging and propaganda. They have a military like structure in place for propaganda. i truly believe Pres O could have been soooo much more progressive if it weren't for all the propaganda (tea party stuff, "main stream media", talk radio, other conservative outlets, think tanks, etc.) And... a Dem party fighting the messaging back home, sprinkled with conservadems only to switch to an uber right wing house 2 years in.

Until we as the Left or Progressives can rival the right with messaging, I truly think this is as good as it gets. The Democratic Party in States like Ohio and at the Federal level is our stop loss. If we let the Republicans win, they destroy the economy, start wars to feed the MIC, pass things to favor the rich and entitled, hammer anyone they can find as a scapegoat - gays, hispanics, women, unions, blacks, welfare recipients, etc.

What we need is an organized left that works for, campaigns for, Democrats AND messages for progressive issues. Once we can have several years of Democrats leading the nation, the country will start progressing. it just can't happen overnight. Strickland came in after 16 years of Republican rule... the State was acclimated to rightwing messaging and I do understand that he couldn't turn the State on a dime in a progressive direction. I do believe that had he been given 4 more years, we would have seen progress, and then hopefully elected either Rich Cordray or Jennifer Brunner - either of them with Dem majorities in the State legislature would have been transformational for Ohio.

I see Pres O in much the same situation as Strickland was... in an environment where the populace is center-right after being brainwashed for a number of years... Sure on issues, we have a majority behind us.. but not when legislation or proposals go through the political spin... we have a populace that is primed with right wing talking points and emotional buttons. We need a better messaging infrastructure and a few years of elected Dems in office to truly move this country. In Ohio we took 2 steps forward in '06. In '10 we took seventy-two steps backward.

[ZombieHorde]

87. I have been a critic of President Obama, but I have acknowledged his accomplishments. nt

[Dawgs]

94. +1. Hurts there message so they just ignore what they don't want to see.

[RandomKoolzip]

89. You're gonna have to learn to get past that, then.

Because the number of people who are going to be criticising Obama is going to swell astronomically in the next few months and you won't be able to simply say "Oh, they're just PUMAs" or "Oh, they never loved him!" anymore. It's past that point now.

Seriously, it's time to take your head out of the sand and realize that this president is NOT progressive, and things like refusing to raise taxes and proposing cuts to SS and Medicare and continuing to force the US to fight unnecessary and unwinnable wars are NOT actions a progressive president would take. The country is near collapse and this guy is doing NOTHING to help - in fact, it looks more and more like he's in collusion with the Republicans to hurt working people, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed. It's obvious he doesn't give a fuck about jobs or the lack thereof. A lot of people are going to be homeless and starve to death, and the already poor are going to be even poorer in the near future, and Obama and the Dems in congress don't seem to give a shit whether we live or die. Believe me, the fault is not with Obama alone here - but he's not doing himself any favors either.

You know, sometimes a lot of people are really critical of someone or something simply because that person or thing has been behaving in a way that is worthy of criticism. We're not ALL former Clinton fans or PUMAs or stealth Republicans, you know. Maybe it's time to stop shooting the messenger and start actually LISTENING to what Obama's progressive critics are saying. Because digging in your heels and pretending there's not problem is not going to get anyone anywhere.

[Dawgs]

95. I'd feel the same way if the apologists would acknowledge some of his weaknesses.

And many of us critics have acknowledged his accomplishments. I, for one, do it all the time.

[wndycty]

97. A few thngs:

If you acknowledge his accomplishments, guess what? This thread isn't about you then, is it?

Also, in the OP you will notice that I acknowledged that I do have some issues with the Obama administration.

[Dawgs]

98. Bullshit. The OP said his critics, which I am certainly one, so it's most definitely about me.

You could have said some, but you didn't. You included all of us.

And acknowledging "some issues" now without giving specifics is not the same as acknowledging why us critics have issues with him.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[CrazyBob]

102. Did he do the most he could do?

That's the real question. Did he put in a serious effort to accomplish all that was feasible?

NO. Not even close.

[VeryConfused]

105. There are many that would rather be right than do right