The reason I think so many of us are mad at President Obama

[FarLeftFist]

Because although he inherited a financial mess he was also handed the easiest job in the world, and all he had to do was be himself, just stick to his principles. He said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America", and that is EXACTLY what was needed at that very precise moment in history. It was as if fate had taken over and the universe aligned. Finally, someone who WASN'T George Bush AND had a Liberal voting record, and knew the hopes, struggles, and aspirations of the middle-class, just at the very moment we needed exactly that. All Obama had to do was be himself.

Barack Obama DID NOT fuck up this economy, he just didn't fight hard enough FOR this economy. I swear, this may be the only time in American history a President loses not because of what he DID do, but what he didn't DO. Think about it, the only options that were taken for this economy were options that WEREN'T Liberal Democratic principles. We bailed out Wall St, we continued the wars, we dropped a public option, we DIDN'T raise taxes on the billionaires in an attempt to lessen the HUGE wealth gap in the United States while simultaneously lowering our deficit, we didn't initiate a jobs bill or program, we didn't even really try a stimulus being 40% were tax cuts and most states just used it to pawn off their debt onto the FedGov. We're slowly losing workers rights, medicare, SS, etc. NONE, not one Liberal policy, ALL right-wing policies continue. And we wonder why we are so fucked!

The universe was trying to tell us something back on that November night in 2008. There was a small window of opportunity to reverse the course of years of failed right-wing policies, yet, here we are, continuing to let the right-wing destroy America. At this point we might as well soak the rich and end the wars, couldn't hurt anymore. I have a feeling it may be exactly what is needed.
A "socialist dictator" would've rammed through pro-working-class legislation, not sit by idly as the top 1% devoured the nation. Those who say government should be run like a business have never been at the bottom of a corporate pyramid. Shit always rolls downhill.

[pnwmom]

1. The easiest job in the world? With a Senate that filibustered

everything he did?

Garbage.

[flor-de-jasmim]

2. agreed.

[FarLeftFist]

96. The truth is, is that I really like Obama. He's a HUGE breath of fresh air in DC.

And sometimes I feel like he's the ONLY sane one left in DC. My whole point is, is that all Obama had to do was NOT be George Bush. He just had to be himself. The whole country would have had his back and the GOP would be irrelevant by now. In 2008 the GOP was looked at like a cancerous plague. NO ONE wanted to be associated with them. We really needed a Liberal President.

[polichick]

3. The Senate was never even expected to REALLY filibuster...

Let them talk for hours and hours about how they want to screw this county - the Dems in charge don't require it.

[pnwmom]

6. And that was Obama's fault how? n/t

[closeupready]

12. Ever heard of leadership? Or the bully pulpit?

nt

[pnwmom]

28. Leadership isn't dictatorship. And the bully pulpit barely exists in these days of 24 hour cable TV.

A few decades ago, a President would announce he was making a speech and that night he had wall to wall coverage on all the networks. If your TV was on, then you were watching the President. Before then, it was the same thing with the radio.

Those days are long past. A President's message today is lucky to be carried on a single major network, where it has to compete with 500 other stations, plus everything on the Internet. The bully pulpit is a shadow of its former self.

[closeupready]

88. Right, because when I said leadership, I actually meant dictatorship.

:crazy: :crazy: :wtf: You are really really reaching here...

[polichick]

56. I didn't mention the prez - I was responding to a comment about the Senate.

[polmaven]

20. That has been a rule

for a very long time. It did and will again be used in the future by Democrats when Rebublicans are again in the majority. It is not simply because the Democrats felt like it.

[polichick]

57. Things have gotten too dysfunctional for that - it's time to get real.

[FarLeftFist]

4. Was filibuster-proof there for a while buddy.

And by initiating Liberal policies like he promised it probably would have stayed that way for a LONG time. The republicans were public enemy #1 in 2008. No one wanted to dare even be lumped in with them.

[pnwmom]

7. Not for a single minute, pal.

Lieberman was an Independent, having defeated the real Democrat in the general election -- and he used every opportunity to prove his independence.

[FarLeftFist]

95. Lieberman wouldn't have mattered if the President had rallied his base into a frenzy

Lieberman wouldn't have wanted to be seen as the big bad evil guy, which is what would have happened if the Dems had 59 votes. Lieberman would have been scrutinized by every media channel by being "The ONE" person who is blocking legislation. But don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the uphill battle Obama faced, I really like Obama, he is a HUGE breath of fresh air. All I'm saying is, is that all Obama had to do was NOT BE BUSH and the entire country would have fully had his back. I believe to a certain extent what we are seeing is a Bush 3rd time. We all voted for NOT Bush.

[bvar22]

101. That's your excuse?

It was ALL Joe Lieberman's Fault!!!
He was a BIG Super Bully who Beat Up poor President Obama,
and RUINED his Health care Plan.
There was NOTHING Obama could do!!!
It was HORRIBLE!
Poor Powerless President Obama. :cry: :cry: :cry:

You're really going to stick with THAT?


Reality Check:
The White House & The Democratic Party could have CRUSHED little Joe Lieberman anytime they wanted to.



Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[uponit7771]

85. no it was not

[ZombieHorde]

5. The Republicans did not filibuster, they threatened to filibuster. nt

[pnwmom]

8. According to the Senate rules -- which Obama had nothing to do with --

that was all that was required to shut everything down.

We can moan and groan about that all we want, but it wasn't Obama's fault.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Can I see the rule? I asked my Senator about it, and he did not mention any rules. nt

[polmaven]

22. Senate rule 22,

put in place in 1917

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

[ZombieHorde]

24. That says the filibuster is for debate. The Democrats did not make the Republicans debate,

they just rolled over at the mere threat of debate.

[pnwmom]

25. So you think there is no rule? It's all a big lie? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

27. I don't think there is a rule saying the threat of a filibuster needs cloture.

I think only actual filibusters need cloture.

[pnwmom]

29. Cloture is a vote to cut off debate prior to a vote. And it requires 60 votes,

which we didn't have, even for a day, unless Lieberman deigned to vote with us.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Then make them stand and debate hour after hour. nt

[pnwmom]

53. Obama can't make Congress do anything. It's called "Separation of Powers."

[ZombieHorde]

64. I am not talking about President Obama. I am talking about the Senate Democrats. nt

[pnwmom]

73. But the OP is about why people are mad at Obama. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

74. Yes, that is true. I was just making a comment about the filibuster.

The fake filibusters have been frustrating for me to watch.

[GOTV]

92. I wouldn't say it's a BIG lie n/t

[Guilded Lilly]

15. I agree.

When the super majority numbers are NOT there and the procedure is a brick wall, even with a *majority*, there is nothing one person can do. I wished there could have been much stronger liberal outcomes, but it did not happen. I wish Obama could have made deals that benefitted the left without having to compromise with assholes who are out to destroy him AND Democracy as we know it. I can be disappointed, but I am not disgusted/mad.

I can however be very disgusted with the stupidity of those American voters who flocked to Tea Party thugs and Republicans as if that would help the liberal causes in ANY way, ever. Or in retrospect help this country AT ALL.

[ZombieHorde]

26. We could actually make the Republicans filibuster, instead of just threatening to filibuster. nt

[pnwmom]

30. Maybe "we" could have, but Obama couldn't have. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

33. By "we," I meant Senate Democrats. nt

[PVnRT]

78. Then why not MAKE them do a filibuster?

Force their hand and make them hold up bills that were otherwise popular with the electorate? That's all Reid had to do, and he didn't, and the President applied no pressure to make him do it.

[texshelters]

11. Thanks for the reality check

Obama backed down before the fight began in too many cases.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[pnwmom]

31. If you're into "reality," I'd think you'd have objected

to the OP calling the Presidency "the easiest job in the world."

[texshelters]

103. Umm, I wasn't talking about that...

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. In the absence of a filibuster, there is another obstruction technique that the Republicans

employed in the Senate:

It's called a "HOLD." Essentially all a member had to do was place a HOLD or a number of "holds" on pending legislation. He/she could also recall a proposal from committee, place a hold on it, and that hold could be indefinite.

The filibuster and "holds" are only two in a long list of parliamentary rules that the minority party has at its disposal to use to stop legislation or keep it from ever getting out of committee to the floor.

And that's exactly what the Republicans did.

I work for a federal agency, and Republicans placed "holds" on nearly every single one of Obama's major agency nominees, especially at the Big Three (Treasury, State, and Judiciary).

It had nothing to do with Obama. These were congressional rules that Republicans exploited for the last few years.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I am not trying to blame President Obama, I am trying to blame the Senate. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Yeah, but you didn't know that there is more than just a filibuster available

to stall or obstruct legislation.

The HOLD is a very powerful tool in that regard. If you remember Richard Shelby's threat to place an indefinite and "collective hold" on ALL of Obama's judicial nominees, that was the only story regarding Republican obstructionism that received at mainstream media airtime.

Democrats can't do much because it takes ONE Senator to stop everything, which essentially is what a HOLD is meant to do.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Holds are not official, and can be ignored.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold.htm

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Yes, you're right. Holds *can* be ignored, but what typically follows

are filibusters. Again, it only takes ONE SENATOR to invoke a filibuster. HOLD is the informal approach. A filibuster is the FORMAL approach.

[ZombieHorde]

63. Think the Senate Democrats should make the Republicans actually filibuster.

Make them stand there and debate.

[Wait Wut]

98. Yep.

That's about where my brain shut-off. Trying to cut down on headaches.

Easiest job in the world...President of the United States. Good grief.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. The reason that people are angry is:

(1) He has the BIGGEST podium on the earth, and can call a press conference any time he feels like it. He doesn't use it.

(2) He was trashed by the right wing, and instead of being strong, he kept and keeps going to them like a helpless, needy puppy dog, begging to be petted. It's wrong. That's an insult to me.

(3) He forgot all about his base and ignores us instead of remembering what we wanted, what we needed, and at least gathering our strength on his behalf.

(4) He keeps mentioning how much he admires Obama.

(5) As a result, the Repukes think they can do any damned thing with him, and pretend we don't even exist. This is wrong.

[PufPuf23]

10. You made for me a condensed statement:

"Barack Obama DID NOT fuck up this economy, he just didn't fight hard enough FOR this economy. I swear, this may be the only time in American history a President loses not because of what he DID do, but what he didn't DO. Think about it, the only options that were taken for this economy were options that WEREN'T Liberal Democratic principles. We bailed out Wall St, we continued the wars, we dropped a public option, we DIDN'T raise taxes on the billionaires in an attempt to lessen the HUGE wealth gap in the United States while simultaneously lowering our deficit, we didn't initiate a jobs bill or program, we didn't even really try a stimulus being 40% were tax cuts and most states just used it to pawn off their debt onto the FedGov. We're slowly losing workers rights, medicare, SS, etc. NONE, not one Liberal policy, ALL right-wing policies continue."

The only ideological explanation is that POTUS Obama is a neoliberal and hired a neoliberal cabinet and advisors and supports neoliberal policies in domestic and foreign affairs (that are more similar to neo-conservative than New Deal Democrats or democrats or democratic Republicans). Events over rhetorics support such a conslusion.

[Maven]

14. He IS being himself and he never HAD any principles.

Except for looking good and being liked by the establishment.

[texshelters]

16. People blame Congress when Obama fails

but didn't blame Congress when Bush succeeded in passing his agenda with little Democratic opposition in the House or Senate. They blamed Bush for the bad policies. Why the double standard?

The reality is that Obama has been president for over two years and almost nothing has improved.

For better or worse, Obama is president and will and should take the credit or blame for much of the state of the union. And the economic team, the neoliberals that don't give a damn about anyone but Wall Street? Hiring them and excluding the voices of economics was the worst way to start his presidency.

His decisions have gone from bad to worse and Obama's decisions have been his alone.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1950333343/

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[killbotfactory]

19. Congress wanted Bush's agenda, for the most part

And yes, they were blamed. That's why democrats regained control in 2006.

Republicans in congress blocked or stalled large parts of Obama's agenda, and you blame Obama for not being a progressive firebrand, as if that would magically change the motives and political strategy of the republicans and allow him to get his way.

[texshelters]

102. I am talking about people here at DU

who blame Bush for everything that happened when he was President and can't stand to make Obama responsible for anything.

During Bush when Democrats controlled Congress, they didn't use the blocking techniques employed by Republicans today, and thus Bush succeeded.

Fact is, Obama is President. Where does the buck stop, with Boehner?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[SmileyRose]

17. Really good post

I don't know about it being easy - I'm not even convinced it was doable. But I do think he either didn't fight hard enough, or else did, lost and didn't make sure the country knew what the backroom deals were that made America lose to the rich guys.

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. stick to his principles?

He chose his course of conduct and it was clearly pragmatic not principled.

Why the hell do we listen to - much less believe - what perpetually vote seeking candidates and politicians say?

Far better to judge them by their deeds.


Edit to add: The reason I am unhappy with Obama's job performance is because he has not served to advance and protect my very pedestrian needs and interests.

[JoePhilly]

21. The reason so many are mad at Obama is that there is one core

message of attack on him, and two totally opposite framings.

The CORE message is Obama is BAD.

Both the far right and left agree on THAT point. He's the worst ever.

The reasons each gives are wrong, and separated by 180 degrees, but who cares.

The CORE MESSAGE is all that matters ... the media is HAPPY to give voice to both positions. And they do not care which FRAMING one accepts ... just so long as each individual internalizes the core message ... OBAMA BAD.

[Armstead]

40. Well it's a two way street. Your "equivalency is false.

If Obama and his spinners would actually listen to his critics (moderate liberals to progressive populists) and at least allow them to share a seat at the table in a meaningful way, he could (could have) done a lot to mend fences.

If he and his spinners did not regularly marginalize, trivialize and at times outright insult the liberal/progressive base he could have avoided the danger of bridges being burned, and his support being eroded.

Liberal principles are not a "tired ideology" that we have to move beyond.

If he had spent half as much time reaching out and fighting FOR those principles and his liberal "base" as he has placating the GOP and right wing-nuts and Wall St. and Corporate oligarchs, he would have done a lot to justify support from that base. (Especially since the right wing/GOP is NEVER going to reach back to him.)

In an election that is likely to be very tight, you don't tell a significant share of those who originally brung you that they don't matter.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. You are ABSOLUTELY right! When both sides share the same frame,

it is not the right that loses. It is always us. They mobilize around this "Boogeyman" frame. Each time, the frame may be altered in the form of a person (in this case Obama), persons (The Evil Left or the "Lamestream Media"), an ideology (No Taxes!), or a social movement (Pro-Life Movement, Banning Gay Marriage, Right to Bear Arms).

That's the problem with us liberals. When we develop around a certain frame, we don't mobilize to address it or do anything about it. We just sit in our chairs and blog or write posts on some website or forum, thinking that things will magically change; lamenting about a primary challenge; or brooding over some alleged plot or heresay about actions not taken and not explicit in any existing or future proposal or plan.

This is why we lose!

Obama didn't run on a campaign slogan, "Yes *HE* Can!" That was Hillary, remember. She was "Yes *SHE* Can" or Did or whatever it was.

His slogan was YES *WE* CAN!!

This is why we lose!!!

[Armstead]

48. Weeeelllll, I would challenge that assumption

The assumption that people who gripe on a message board do nothing else to advance their principles.

I don't like to get personal online, but I will say that my entire career has been dedicated to creating awareness of liberal and progressive positions on specific issues within the mainstream. And, without tooting any horns, I've been rather successful at that, within my own small little pond.

I would wager that a majority of the people who care enough to post at places like DU also work to advance their beliefs in their own forms and fashion, whether it be in electoral politics, jobs and/or volunteer work.

I would say the same about people who are more supportive of Obama.

One's position on issues does not have anything to do with their level of involvement or non-involvement in the 3D world.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. O.K., I take that point because I'm also a political activist and very involved in

local and national politics. However, I'm making the larger point that The Left doesn't do enough to mobilize and get out there. Not like the Right does. If we did, we'd work harder at the local and state levels, campaigning for progressives, and not just complaining about Obama, but actually working to get progressives elected at the local level.

All of this damage is being done to us at the local/state level. And yet, much of our conversations on this forum are about national politics.

See, Rachel Maddow is a brilliant woman! She is a political scientist, too, and knows very well that REAL change not only begins with us; it takes place at the grassroots level! The local level!! That's how the Teabaggers and Republicans have been so successful over the last few decades. They dominate at the state level, aided by their corporate friends, as well as organized advocacy groups like Heritage and ALEC.

*Collectively* we simply do not do enough.

[Armstead]

60. Collectively, I agree with you.

But "collective" is a commie word (Glen beck told me so) so I'll say on a broad level I agree. :)

[PVnRT]

79. "We" criticize the President to try and get things we want

What are we supposed to do, then? We're not supposed to criticize and "divide the party" or whatever, but "we" are supposed to do things? What, sign some petitions?

I'm curious as to what exactly "we" are supposed to do if that doesn't involve criticism, disagreement, or other action when we don't agree with the direction the President is taking.

[Bonhomme Richard]

23. I think my frustration stems from his oratory skills.

I thought here was a man that could fire up the people and get the country moving in the right direction. That if the right wing was unreasonable they would be called on it publicly. What I actually heard was let's work together and he just kept taking it on the chin. He has the oratory skills to hurt the opposition but didn't use them. When he took the public option off the table I began to wonder who I voted for.
Frankly I feel like a sucker because I voted for a strong leader and what I got was a weak conciliator and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't simply lean to the right.
I never voted for a republican in my life and I will not start now but I don't have to like my choices.

[Armstead]

32. Explained it well -- I'm not "far left" but I totally agree about the lost opportunity

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. The "easiest job," eh? Unrec'ing based on that ridiculous statement alone! n/t

[DeSwiss]

35. I'm not mad. I'm disgusted.

Not just with Obama, but him and the whole fucking system. My disgust with Obama is because he has proven himself to be a liar and a coward.

- And I think we need a revolution to change it all......

[ZombieHorde]

38. So, what do you mean "he was also handed the easiest job in the world"?

Are you saying there is no other job easier than POTUS?

[Rex]

41. I'm not mad, just disappointed.

[DevonRex]

42. The first sentence is so fucking stupid I didn't even get to the period.

:rofl:

[tularetom]

44. I'm not mad at him but I'm really disappointed in him

After nearly three years in office I honestly don't know what the man believes, what he stands for, or what his theory of the relationship between government and the citizens is.

He has sent so many mixed signals that I frankly have quit paying attention to what he says and confined myself to watching what he actually DOES.

During the primary and general election campaigns of 2008 the message was clear and unequivocal - this country needs to change and I'm the guy that can change it.

I haven't seen change on the scale he promised and his message now seems somewhat muted and distorted by his lack of follow through.

And don't tell me about congress and how one man cannot make a difference - because that's exactly what he said he could do when he wanted our vote. He didn't say "This country needs to change and I'll do it if congress lets me".

[loyalsister]

45. Being a candidate is much easier than being a president

The president has quite a few more responsibilities. Or maybe a hell of a lot even.
People seem to have expected that when a person is convincing on the campaign trail they can accomplish anything they want when they actually get there. Campaigns are intended to get people excited about the person getting elected. It is important to hold all elected officials accountable. But it is not realistic to expect standing processes and rules to accommodate an agenda.

[bvar22]

47. In 2008, The American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*A Filibuster-Proof Majority in The Senate

*A HUGE Majority in The House

*A Gasping & Dying Republican Party

*Most Importantly, a HUGE Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and an ARMY Standing in the Streets

Hard to FUCK all that up.
No Excuses.
He could have been the most popular President in recent memory.

[AndyTiedye]

54. Not Exactly

People compare Obama unfavorably with Clinton, but when Clinton tried to reform health care,
they stopped him cold and ran our party out of both houses of Congress for 12 years.
Obama actually got something done on health care, and we at least managed to hold the Senate
in 2010.

*A Filibuster-Proof Majority in The Senate

Nope. One short, because LIEberman votes with the Repigs every time it really matters.
Almost doesn't count. Repigs NEVER break ranks on a cloture vote – the party has some
kind of sinister hold over even its few remaining "liberal" members (Methinks the Murdochs
might know something about this).

*A Gasping & Dying Republican Party

"Citizens United" changed all that, by providing access to unlimited corporate cash.
This not only completely revived the Repiglickins, it allowed the party to be
taken over by its most reactonary elements. They also, of course, continue to
enjoy the undying loyalty of every commercial broadcasting network and newspaper
chain in the country.

*Most Importantly, a HUGE Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE"

And all the Repigs had to do is stonewall and filibuster and say NO to everything,
and everyone got disappointed in Obama and rewarded the Repigs for their obstruction.

[bvar22]

55. I got it.

It was ALL Joe Lieberman's Fault!!!
He was a Big Super Bully who Beat Up the President,
and ruined his Health Care Plan and took away his MANDATE! :cry:
There was NOTHING we could DO!
It was HORRIBLE! :cry:

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Can you imagine wimpy Joe Lieberman stamping his foot telling LBJ, "NO!!! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan?"
:rofl:

Many on this site will tell you that the Presidency is weak and powerless, and can only do what Congress lets him do.
THAT is a pathetic excuse...and just plain BULLSHIT!!!!

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"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

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tgal]

58. Actually bvar22

you DO get it!!!

Great list of what we had, should be a thread on its own.


I still wanna know what happened.

The haves are just fine, it is the rest of too many of us still barely hanging on.


tgal

[AndyTiedye]

59. I Can Totally Imagine LIEberman Saying Exactly That

The insurance companies OWN that state, and they certainly own LIEberman.
There is nothing that Obama (or LBJ) could have offered or threatened
that would shake LIEberman's loyalty there.

[dflprincess]

65. Obama didn't have to go along with selling us out to the insurance companies

We needed reform that would give us access to care (like they have in civilized countries). Instead we got a mandate to keep buying the same old crap from the same old crooks - with no guarantees that we'll be able to see a doctor when we need one or not be driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.

Candidate Obama opposed mandates. It's a pity that guy isn't president.

[AndyTiedye]

66. He Could Have Settled For Nothing, Which is What We Got Last Time

With Lieberman and all 40 Republicans opposed to any measure that bypassed the insurance companies, there was no way it was ever going to get through the Senate.

[dflprincess]

67. Nothing is what most of us got this time

except the requirement to send money to a for profit insurer every month - with no guarantee of getting anything in return.

The little bit of good in the scam (community health clinics, a small extenstion of Medicare) will no doubt be rolled back in the name of the new "austerity".

[AndyTiedye]

68. They Can't Blackball You for Pre-Existing Conditions Anymore

That IS a pretty big deal.

[dflprincess]

69. But they can jack the premium cost up so high you won't be able to afford it

or the copays and deductibles on what you can afford will be so high you still won't be seeing a doctor. There's also nothing in the bill that will make them any more apt to pay claims - and they all deny some claims knowing that most people won't fight it.

There was an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune a few weeks ago about the insurance companies all posting record profits thanks to the increase in high deductible health plans. The article highlighted people with chronic conditions who are delaying or just not getting the "routine maintenance" their conditions require because they can't afford it.

BTW, when does this preexisting condition coverage kick in? I'm changing insurance as of Sept 1 (going from crappy to crappier) and they told me I need to supply a certificate of (past) coverage for any preexisting conditions to be covered. Fortunately, I don't have any but, apparently even if my screening test came back odd after they "cover" me, my claim could be denied on the ground that the condition existed before these crooks started taking my money. I asked the plan about the prexisting coverage, but they couldn't answer the question.

What we got was not reform - it was an insurance company bail out. A way to protect them as the Boomers move from private to public coverage.

[bvar22]

83. It is a nice crumb,

that will benefit a small minority of upper Middle Class Americans wealthy enough to afford the Buy In,
and for that crumb, he gave away the store with enforced profits in the BILLIONS to a predatory industry that
manufactures NOTHING,
provides NO service,
creates NO WEALTH,
and costs the lives of thousands of Americans every year.

What a DEAL!!!! :party:

The handful of "reforms" SHOULD have been brought up one at a time,
in CLEAN, short, individual, Regulatory Bills that the American people could read & understand,
and voted on in a very public manner.
Make the Republicans show their cards.

If they try to block it,
pick one or two of the weakest (like little Joe Lieberman),
use ALL the resources of the White House and the Democratic Party,
PLUS call on the ARMY of "CHANGE" (that was left Standing Useless in the Streets),
and take the battle to their home districts in a very public manner.

If Obama had used his MANDATE for CHANGE,
and called on his ARMY (us),
Teabagger Summer would have looked like a girl scout Camp Out.
THAT is what a "Leader" would have done to save the lives of his people,
and fulfill his promise of "CHANGE".
A Mandate Unused is a Mandate Wasted!

Playing Patty-Cake with Joe Lieberman when thousands of LIVES are at stake?....
I don't think so.

There was absolutely no need to give away Mandates with NO Public Option to get a reform clause for PECs.

You have been Baffled by the Bullshit.





"By their WORKS you will know them."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bvar22]

80. The President & The Democratic Party could have CRUSHED Joe Lieberman

anytime they wanted to. All it would have taken would have been a little "chat" with Chicago Rahm, The Enforcer.
The ONLY reason they didn't is because he was useful to them.

The former Chairman of the DLC, Joe Lieberman, took one for Team DLC
since he had nothing to lose.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

Repeat:
The White House and the Democratic Party could have CRUSHED Joe Lieberman
anytime they wanted to.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AndyTiedye]

94. Not a Chance. AIPAC Would Never Allow That

The President & The Democratic Party could have CRUSHED Joe Lieberman

AIPAC would have protected him, and so would the insurance companies.

[marlakay]

50. I think he thought if he was the nice guy

every one would side with him and he could make the republicans look bad. Instead it has made him look weak for being too nice to him. Kind of reminds me of parents that spoil their kids so much they lose respect for them. Kids respect strong but loving parents that say no firmly.

Obama is that way with his kids but with the republicans he spoiled them and gave them everything they wanted to make them like him and to make everyone in the country see how nice he was treating them unlike how they treat us.

What he doesn't understand is stubborn rebellious people only respect firmness. The more he gave the more they wanted and then whined like the 2 yr olds they acted like in their tantrums. But Obama is to blame also for spoiling them.

He forgot he has other kids (us). Sometimes the good kids get left behind because the parents have to give so much attention to the problem ones....

We need his love and attention too!

[dionysus]

61. i like your post a lot. but why does everyone leave out congress?

when we had a majority, it wasn't really one, we had 6-7 blue dogs, plus lieberman. the GOP fillibustered everything. blue dogs & lieberman said they'd fillibuster a public option.

now we have a teabagger house, can't get a revenue bill through that.

even if we did, it'd get fillibustered.

the govt is hogtied by the repukes.

what i'm personally pissed about is th failure to change the fillibuster rules in the senate.

[Armstead]

70. Congress is to blame too....But as the leader of the nation and party....

a lot of us are frustrated that he did not do more to actually lead Congress using the carrots and sticks at his disposal. He failed to set out a clear direction on policies, and sent a lot of mixed messages, which made the dysfunction of Congress worse.

And when he did lead, it was usually only too late, and to whip liberals in line to support a bad policy that was usually slanted to the GOP position had come up as the result of this lack of leadership. (HCR, tax cut extensions, recent budget debacles, etc.)

So, yes Congress is also to blame, but he could have exercised more leadership -- or at least tried.

[AndyTiedye]

76. None of the "Carrots" or "Sticks" Work on Teabaggers

These teabaggers refuse Federal funding for their own states,
so offering or threatening to withhold same is useless.

Obama has no leverage or influence over them whatsoever.
Neither could any other Democratic President we have ever had.

[Armstead]

84. You should watch this video from Rachal Maddow last nite

Really. It is worth watching the whole segment. It is slightly tongue in cheek, but not really. It does provide one response to your point, as an example of thinking outside the box to get things done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44098678
(Click on Secret Republican Stimulus Jobs Plan video)

I would also add that the Teabaggers were not there the before January, and the dipshit GOP in Congress before that were at least slightly sane -- and hypocritical, as the segment from Maddow points out.

So, yes Congress is a big problem. But many of still have a problem with Obama's performance, and in some cases his gfoals.

[dionysus]

81. perhaps in politics as it used to be. never before have we had a GOP that would fillibuster every

bill, not a teabagging house that would have gleefully caused a default on the debt. these are unprecedented times we're delaing with.

[Armstead]

86. A video I suggest you watch from Rachael Maddow

Really. It is worth watching the whole segment. It is slightly tongue in cheek, but not really. It does provide one response to your point, as an example of thinking outside the box to get things done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44098678
(Click on Secret Republican Stimulus Jobs Plan video)

I would also add that the Teabaggers were not there the before January, and the dipshit GOP in Congress before that were at least slightly sane -- and hypocritical, as the segment from Maddow points out.

So, yes Congress is a big problem. But many of still have a problem with Obama's performance, and in some cases his gfoals.

[Hotler]

62. The man has no spine. No balls. No fight.

I have no hope. I see no future.

[MrScorpio]

71. I'll tell you why so many people are mad at President Obama...

It's because they don't have anything better to do and it's quite convienent just to lay blame (for whatever) at his feet.

It can get quite ludicrious at times for sure.

[Armstead]

72. My God. That is an absolutely brilliant insight! -11111

[Tatiana]

93. That's ridiculous. People have very valid and legitimate reasons.

I'm glad that you appear to be doing well, but the RECORD 45 million families on food stamps... I don't think this administration is working out too well for them.

[HipChick]

75. All the armchair Presidents have no idea what he's actually dealing with..

[Armstead]

89. Maybe a little bit of positive strategizing instead of negative defeatism might help

[JoeyT]

77. I can boil it down to a very short paragraph.

He's the kind of guy that can look at massive unemployment, a rapidly dwindling middle class, declining wages, poverty, and desperation, and say "What this situation needs is MOAR FREE TRADE!!!!!". Even if I allow for the powerless presidency and ignore all the compromise or assume it was a good thing, the policies he holds all by himself frequently suck.

[spanone]

82. because the media keeps telling us he isn't doing anything...very effective

[Inuca]

87. Sorry, but I stopped reading after "the easiest job in the world" n/t

[FarLeftFist]

97. Yup, all he had to do was NOT be George Bush.

That seems pretty easy to me.

[Inuca]

100. Very superficial "analysis", sorry, you are wrong n/t

[JNinWB]

90. More magical thinking!

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

And mind-reading, too! I'm always amazed at how proficient folks are at reading Obama's mind and assessing his motives.

Perhaps our President has issues to deal with that cannot even be imagined. But, carry on.

You can run the most capable President of my lifetime out of office and then complain about the Teabagger replacement. Good times!

[Hart2008]

91. Who in the party has the balls to primary Obama?

Eugene McCarthy's Heir: Who Has The Courage To Challenge Obama In The Party?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x739102

:patriot::toast::patriot::toast::patriot::toast::patriot::toast::patriot::toast::patriot:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[dmosh42]

99. Like Reagan, there will be huge payoff from Wall St when his terms end

Except Reagan got his from Japan.