The left is slowly drifting away...

[kentuck]

...and some don't give a shit.

Those in the Party that are the most passionate and most active are treated like a piece of dog crap on the bottom of your shoe. They are blamed for losing the 2010 elections to the Repubs. The truth be known, they probably voted in larger numbers than any other group of Democrats?

They are threatened that they will be blamed for losing if they don't get in line and vote Democratic, no matter what the Democrat might stand for. It doesn't matter, if he has a "D" by his name.

There is no effort to try and understand where these folks are coming from. They have given their heart and soul to the Democratic Party and their loyalty to the Party is questioned.

Instead of working together to change the Party, some act as if that is a mortal sin. It cannot be forgiven. We have to accept Democrats as they are, even if they are corporate whores. At least, they are our corporate whores.

If each side is standing on its principles, then I would suggest that one side has principles that are stronger and superior to the other. And one side is playing with fire. "Those that stand for nothing will fall for anything", as the old country song says...

[Hawkowl]

1. +1 nt

[vi5]

2. I never thought I'd say this...

But the "party before principle" contingent in the Democratic party during this Democratic presidency is much worse than the Republican one was during Bush's 8 years.

[tridim]

3. Our party is worth defending, theirs isn't.

Sorry you don't understand that.

[ixion]

7. There won't be anything left after you get done 'defending' it

you're alienating anyone who isn't a third-way dem or blue dog.

[nashville_brook]

56. you'd think that the people who claim to have the most invested in Obama would behave

in a way that brings more people to the table. but sadly, that's not the case. their approach is to browbeat everyone to the right. and they wonder why it's not working.

[Mimosa]

131. Nashville, please PM us or post a topic explaing.

I was the most energetic Obama supporter. Somehow I believed he understood the larger economic issues whic are hurting even the middle class. I belived he would fight for us, for the future.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

356. Same here. I canvased for him in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I was thrilled

when he won. It was when he started pushing offshore drilling that I knew we were screwed. When he and his administration started openly mocking liberals I knew we were REALLY SCREWED.

[rhett o rick]

298. You Conserva-Dems are afraid to tell the rest of us where you stand on the issues.

Either you are ashamed or have no principles.

[JDPriestly]

342. I've noticed that too.

When I ask the Obama supporters here to explain why they support Obama, I just get that boiler-plate list of "accomplishments." There is no explanation about why they like the policies.

I sometimes wonder if some of them are simply paid to propagandize for Obama but that they don't really believe in what they are advocating.

I would like an explanation of the fundamental values that drive their support for Obama.

I've never seen that.

They explain why he compromises. They seem to justify their fear of real change with a kind of realpolitik argument. Well, Obama is just facing reality, they say.

I think that some of the Obama supporters are frightened to criticize Obama because he is an authority figure to them, perhaps a role model of some sort.

I think some of the Obama supporters have the mentality of opportunists. They don't assess things based on values but rather just based on "the possible" or "the advantageous" for themselves.

I wish they would explain their value system.

If the choice now is between Obama, a Republican at heart, or say Romney or Michelle Bachmann, that is only because Obama has narrowed the choice by embracing the traditional Republican values and Republican institutions instead of embracing the traditional Democratic ones.

And that is why I do not understand how any true Democrat can back Obama at this point.

If anyone can give a values-based explanation as to why they favor Obama please post it.

[DeSwiss]

387. That last thing: "no principles." Yep. In that, they're just like Obama..... :-/ n/t

[rhett o rick]

300. I was solidly behind Obama in 2008. But he gave us Rick Warren as a warning of things to come.

THen Alan Simpson, Geitner, and Jeff Immelt. These are fighting words, yet you are content to get in line and follow like a good soldier.
Well you cant bully me into getting in your line.

Obama made the choice and it didnt include the left. His failure to win reelection rests on his shoulders.

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

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

[connecticut yankee]

337. Would you rather

see a Repuke as President?

[Ken Burch]

350. That has never been the only alternative

n/t.

[rhett o rick]

385. The war isnt between Dems and Repubs. If you think it is, you are being misled. nm

[DeSwiss]

388. That's all we've had since Carter. n/t

[rhett o rick]

400. Plez stop using that idiotic meme. nm

[hay rick]

367. I mostly disregarded the Rick Warren flap at the time.

I thought it was an awkward choice but dismissed it as a rookie mistake that signified little. I was surprised to see the emphasis that choice was given here at DU. In retrospect, the concern shown here was not overblown, like I thought- it was prescient. Rick Warren was an early marker in the downward/rightward trajectory of the Obama presidency.

[awoke_in_2003]

375. "Rick Warren as a warning of things to come"

yep, and when people brought it up at the time, they were told to chill out- he is just reaching out to the other side. When you reach out to these bastards, expect to draw back a stump.

[chervilant]

443. A bloody,

ragged, IRREPARABLE stump...

[xxqqqzme]

142. RW dems are doing the same thing

to the Democratic Party, that the rabid religious right has done to the rethuglicans.

[dflprincess]

78. Without principles, there is no party to defend

The party has to stand for something and the candidates need to support the party platform. Someone putting a "D" after their name doesn't mean they're a Democrat.

[SusanaMontana41]

201. "The party has to stand for something."

Sure wish I knew what this Democratic Party stood for. The standard-bearer makes my head spin.

[indurancevile]

314. +1

[DeSwiss]

389. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[pocoloco]

242. Our party sucks!!

Party over principles.

Learn that from the repugs??

[frylock]

250. no, it really isn't..

sorry you don't understand that.

[SavWriter]

284. That sounds a bit too much like

The asinine arguments from super patriots through history. They're the ones who claimed that my country is always right. Only you're in essence making the argument that the party is always right which is impossible. Or that it's my party right or wrong, which is juvenile.

In 2003 Hillary Clinton made headlines, and we all cheered when she told Bush in no uncertain terms speaking for millions of us that we have the right to Disagree, and to debate with this, or any administration.

Only now, the administration is different. Now, we aren't supposed to disagree, or debate with this or any Democratic Administration.

One of the thorns under my blanket (I have a number as a vast majority of the principled Progressives here do) is Guantanamo Bay. We loved that President Obama campaigned on closing it. We cheered when he was elected partly because of it. We celebrated when our President signed an executive order to close it the day after taking office. We've become disturbed and frustrated that this torture facility that illegally holds dozens of people kidnapped by US is still in business because our President didn't have the courage to follow through.

We are still in the business of Rendition. Kidnapping people, and transporting them to secret prisons where they can be tortured until they confess to whatever the CIA says they are supposed to.

So it's my Party, right or wrong. Or is it my Party is always right. Where does the principals that we champion fit in? What do we campaign on for the next election? What do we stand for, or against. What do we tell people through this nation that we stand for?

[tridim]

292. No need to quaify it, I meant what I said.

Our party is worth defending, theirs is not.

In general, we are good people.

[awoke_in_2003]

376. "we are good people"...

sure, WE are. It is our "representatives" who appear not to be.

[tridim]

418. The vast majority of the Democratic party is made up of people, not politicians.

[awoke_in_2003]

423. It is still our party...

when the people we elect to run it do not represent us?

[awoke_in_2003]

424. make "It is" "Is it". too late to edit. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

377. Okay, I'm Abraham Lincoln. No need to defend my point. You just

have to believe it's true.

[SavWriter]

378. Ok, so we should defend it.

What should we defend? Should we defend the Guantanamo Bay torture facility? The crowd goes wild in support of torture. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10226

Perhaps we can defend the Blue Dogs who screwed us out of single payer health care like the rest of the civilized world. Perhaps the thing to cheer is how Speaker Pelosi (I always think of her that way) Harry Reid, and President Obama failed to get our own party in line for the two years we had an open field and a total majority. Now we can complain about the Republicans holding us up. What excuse did we have then? Nothing but weakness in our party.

Perhaps the thing to defend is our ability to follow through on ending our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. No, that's not going so well. Well, at least our Imperialism is Democratic Party flavored.

That's the problem I, and judging from the posts, many of us have. We aren't willing to accept moderated corporate imperialism as a good thing. To us, The Military Industrial Complex led by GE is a slap in the face we aren't willing to ignore. Putting Jeff Immelt in charge of the Jobs Panel when he's cut tens of thousands of jobs, putting tens of thousands of hard working Americans out of work, to move entire divisions to China is insulting beyond my ability to describe.

Sure, we're nice people. You and I are nice. A vast majority of the members, posters, on this and dozens of other sites are good and decent people who care. The problem is we're told we HAVE to support a system that is corrupt to the core. The Republicans sell out to Halliburton. That's bad. Our guys sell out to GE, that's fine? :wtf:

We tell the Corporations through HCR that they have to start doing the right thing by their employees. A watered down version of what we all fought so hard for. Our elected and appointed leaders promptly issue more than 1,000 waivers. That's one thousand corporations that are screwing hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people we fought so hard for.

We are good and decent. We care, we see the solutions. We donate time, energy, and our scarce dollars to candidates who tell us they care too, and they want to fix the problems. We vote, and talk others into voting. This time we say, this time we will fix this problem, or end that abuse.

Only it's not fixed. Instead those very same people we voted for, campaigned for, donated time and energy to, tell us that we have to do it all over again, often right after they're sworn in, so they can fix it next time, or the time after that, or the time after that.

I'm 43 years old. All my life, I've heard this story. We'll fix it next time, be patient. In 1988 I voted for Dukakis as I cast my very first ballot. In 1992 It was Clinton, and after voting for Democrats faithfully, I've yet to see anything fixed. On the campaign trail, I see them talking, on the job, they aren't doing.

We want them to start doing. We're out here fighting the good fight. We're arguing with people, friends, neighbors, relatives. Talking up our party, and the vision most of us have for our world. In town halls, they tell us how much they agree with us, and we contribute our dollars that are too few these days, and once in office, they sell out before they are sworn in. Next time we're told, they'll climb off the corporate jets owned by their good friend Jeff Immelt, and they'll do whats right.

We save General Motors, and General Motors repays us by refusing to fix a design flaw in their cars. They'll spend more on legal fees than they would just fixing the stupid Impala's. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSTRE77I61F20110819?feedType=RSS

So why are we supposed to back our party again? Oh yes, they're nice people too. You just can't tell it by looking at them. We're saving pennies eating Raman noodles every day to pay my house payment every month, while they're eating Kobi beef. Oh they care, they can't wait to tell me how much they care while they're asking me to donate more time, and money, to keep them in office. When we ask, where are the things they promise, we're told that we have to be patient.

I'm sorry, after twenty five years, I'm running a little low on patience. I'm representing my Party, it's past time that the party represent for me. When I was in the Army, I learned that you were supposed to be as loyal to your soldiers, as they were expected to be to you. When are our Leaders going to show us just some of the loyalty we've been showing them?

[truedelphi]

446. Great post. Unfortunately a lot of people

Are indeed being reached by the media. And that media is definitely letting people know it is either Obama's way or a Highway with Sarah Palin or Perry standing on it.

Yesterday I almost hung up on a close friend, never a very politically well informed person, who called to tell me how evil Perry is and how we all need to think about his demonic-ness 24/7 and do whatever we can to keep Obama in office.

She conceded that Obama hasn't solved anything, but she emphasized at least he's not Rick Perry.

She had listened to 20 minutes of a NPR radio segment, about Rick Perry, and so now she feels she totally understands everything about the political situation.

[swilton]

311. What about our party is worth defending?

The values as articulated in the party platform of 2008 went under the bus long ago.

[totodeinhere]

318. Our party is only worth defending if it stands up for core Democratic values.

If it doesn't fight any and all cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, then it is not worth defending.

[RC]

323. +1000

[humbled_opinion]

359. BINGO.... that about sums it up perfectly....n/t

[peace frog]

439. But but but,,,where else can we go??????

You know the Third Way'ers are cynically convinced they have progressive Dem votes locked and loaded because "what else is there?" Can't vote for Republicans so we have no choice but to vote for Democrats no matter how far RW they may be, just to make certain the whackjob R's are not elected. It makes me furious and sick that they take us so completely for granted, but welcome to world as ruled by corporate money and power. We are sunk, ladies and gentlemen. Get used to it.

[Faryn Balyncd]

328. The most effective way to DEFEND the party is put put principle ABOVE party.

...(and perhaps it is the only way to save the party.)

[sabrina 1]

431. What a novel idea!

You are correct, but I've learned over the past three years, that I was wrong to think the 'left' was not like the 'right' and would not support wrong policies simply because their party was in power. Now, I wonder if the anti-war 'left' was really just anti-Bush after all.

[JDPriestly]

335. tridim, what specific things about the Obama version of the Democratic

Party do you feel are worth defending?

The unemployment?

The loss of the House to conservatives in 2010?

The abandonment of the labor cause?

The advocacy for more trade agreements?

Guantanamo still open?

Crimes of the bankers not yet prosecuted?

The imposition of austerity programs on the poor but not on the rich?

The repeated attacks on Social Security and Medicare?

The bail-out of the health insurance companies?

Abandonment of the traditional support for home-ownership by ordinary people?

The increase in the number of conflicts in which we are engaged overseas?

The use of drones to kill upon the order of the president and the military brass?

Just what is worth defending.

My representative in the House is a true progressive. He opposes a lot of this stuff. I can support his part, the part based on the traditional values of our Party, but I cannot support Obama's part of the Party.

Nothing I have thought or done has changed. Obama does not share the traditional values of the Democratic Party. It's Obama who is trying to change the Democratic Party to support values I do not share.

[Jakes Progress]

405. Yeah. Be true to your school.

Everyone knows that Belmont High is the best. The best. And Manomey High is full of booger heads.

Yeah our guys.

[Starboard Tack]

19. You obviously don't understand party politics, or you wouldn't compare the two.

Politics, by definition, is Faustian. Choose the lesser evil and learn to compromise. We have 2 parties right now. I think a couple more might be preferable, but we have 2. Deal with it. Obama is dealing with it and he's the best that's occupied the WH in my lifetime, which goes back to Truman.
Nobody is ever going to be completely happy with the political landscape. So quit whining and rally round, unless you have a better suggestion.

[vi5]

37. I think I understand them quite well...

I'm not some johnny come lately to politics or to the Democratic party. I've been voting, supporting, donating to, and working for Democrats for almost 25 years now. I'm not saying "Obama is the same as Bush!" or any such hyperbole. Sure he's better than Bush. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that no political party is served by it's members refusing to criticize the leaders it has elected to represent them. A significant portion of Republicans did this, and no matter what bad thing was done under Bush's leadership and no matter what the impact, it was never his fault. It was always someone else's fault. Always. If you don't see the same thing going on right now with a sizable portion of Democrats then you're the one who doesn't seem to understand or be looking.

That's not the same as saying Obama has done more damage than Bush. It's simply that he has done some things that are pretty bad both for the country and even more so the Democratic party and it's core principles. But no matter how clear and evident it is that he had a specific role in those things, there are some who still will continue to insist it was not him, that it was someone or some other group and that he is merely a victim of circumstances.

[polmaven]

52. And what party

is well served by refusing to acknowledge the numerous good things done, and that the good far outweighs the bad?

Yes, President Obama has done some things which I found somewhat disappointing. The number and scope of the good he has accomplished, however, particularly in the face of the absolute opposition he has dealt with for the entire 31 months of administration far outweighs those.

For "the "left" to claim otherwise, as well as to so often imply that those who disagree with them are not really Democrats at all, is, in my opinion, not at all serving anyone well.

[Starboard Tack]

53. "he has done some things that are pretty bad both for the country"

Like what?

[StarsInHerHair]

66. extended W tax breaks, reauthorized unpatiot act, continued bailouts for Banksters

...

[Starboard Tack]

126. With his hands tied he compromised. He's no happier than you or me.

Give the guy a chance. He doesn't have the congressional backing he needs. We have to make sure he gets it next year or it will only get worse. We need to support our party and our president and bashing Obama ain't gonna help. Party loyalty is essential right now. So quit whining.

[Enthusiast]

148. I wish I could believe that.

I simply cannot dismiss the fact that he created the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission. I cannot dismiss the fact that he has surrounded himself with Wall Street insiders that do not have our best interests in mind. I cannot dismiss the fact that he extended the Bush tax cuts placing the essential social safety net in jeopardy.

I hardly think expressing our outrage over betraying core Democratic Party principles is whining.

[kentuck]

149. Post-partisan...

That's what it looks like... corporatism.

[Starboard Tack]

249. Well, have fun with your other options.

[BobbyBoring]

275. Me too

He doubled down on the very things that got us in this mess in the first place.

[katnapped]

170. Oh so the president is powerless

Well thanks for letting us know.

Somehow Bush rammed a whole load of shit through but I guess that only applies when you're a Republican.

[truth2power]

208. That's exactly the subtext to all this "rally around" stuff...that he's powerless.

**This post is probably much too long. But I feel better for having said it**


I've watched this whole thing morph from the day Obama took office. First it was, "he's only been in office for....." Then it was, "He's playing 15-dimensional chess." Now it's "He's being hamstrung by a recalcitrant Congress", or words to that effect.

What this last statement really says is, as you've noted above, that he's powerless. And furthermore, it conveniently absolves him of any responsibility in the matter. It's not his fault. He's helpless to change things. Think about that. We're involved in the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression (there is no recovery - that's a lie), and our president is powerless to do anything about it. Well, for my part, and I say this with no animosity, if he can't do anything then he needs to step aside in favor of someone who can kick ass and take names.

I refuse to accept the absurd notion that I am a "basher" or a "hater". I voted for Obama in the primary and the general election. I contributed (a very small amount - I'm on a limited income) to his campaign. I did not work for him during the campaign, but for what it's worth, during that time I was involved in a difficult family situation, now resolved, thankfully, that went on for nearly two years and left me with hardly the emotional energy to get out of bed most mornings.

Even so, on election day 2008 I pulled myself together and walked the streets all day, carrying a list of registered Democratic voters, going door to door and asking if they'd voted, if they needed a ride to the polls etc. I did what I could, given my limitations at the time.

Now we're involved in the run-up to another election and we're hearing excuses that bear a striking resemblance to what abused spouses/partners are, or used to be, told, i.e., He/She can't help it. He's really a good person underneath it all. Go home and love him more - that is, keep supporting him. It's dysfunctional and doesn't begin to solve the problem.

My spidey sense tells me that something is terribly wrong in this administration. And I'm not alone. Scores of credible people in the blogosphere have been trying to raise the alarm for some time. But around here they're usually dismissed with some drive-by epithet that doesn't ask the important questions that would facilitate discussion.

I've come to the conclusion that if Obama loses in 2012, he will own it, by virtue of his actions or lack thereof. It's time to put the responsibility where it belongs.

[Carolina]

261. Excellent post, K&R

[truth2power]

299. Thanks. n/t

[tgal]

319. should be an OP

excellent post truth.

[Enthusiast]

379. I think your spidey sense nailed it.

I wish I didn't agree with you. It is very painful.

[Starboard Tack]

255. Bush did it with Democrats collusion. He played on fear and won

Now you and the other whiners are letting them do it again. Good luck with your options.

[a simple pattern]

278. So you're admitting the Democrats are complicit.

Did you really mean to do that?

[Starboard Tack]

297. Weren't you there for Iraq and the Patriot Act?

Of course they were complicit. Disgustingly complicit. Do I wish there was a better viable option? Damn right I do. Feel free to point one out.

[bertman]

190. Starboard Tack, you are living in fantasy land if you think he compromised

because his hands were tied. Give me one example of President Obama actually calling out the intransigence of the Republican party in a nationally-televised speech in prime time. It did not happen during the stimulus debate. It did not happen during the Healthcare debate. It has not happened during the non-debate about why in hell we are talking about budget cuts during a freaking depression.

The man compromised on EVERY point BEFORE the battle even began.

Wake up!!

[Starboard Tack]

256. So why don't you run if you think you'd do a better job?

This is the guy we elected. Let him do his job or vote for someone else, but go whine somewhere else.

[FredStembottom]

277. Possibilities for your next reply:

I know you are... but what am I?

or possibly:

I'm rubber and you're glue.......

[frylock]

329. when someone posts a shit response like this, it's a signal that they've lost the debate..

thanks for playing.

[sudopod]

410. Why the fuck should we even bother to have political speech in your world?

Jesus.

[Ken Burch]

You'd be a lot more credible with a different posting name

:eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

251. Oh, and why would that be, Mr. Burch?

[Ken Burch]

349. Starbard Tack=Turn To The Right.

Did you really think nobody would pick up on that?

[rhett o rick]

364. I didnt catch that. Thanks for pointing it out. nm

[Starboard Tack]

403. Wrong! Now you have egg on your face Mr. Burch

When sailing on a starboard tack, the wind comes from the starboard (right) side of the boat. This pushes the sails to the port side and causes the boat to heel (lean) to the left. The stronger the wind, the more it heels. Get it?
Also, when two sailboats are on a converging course, the one on a starboard tack has the right of way.
You should research before accusing. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tack_%28sailing%29

[Ken Burch]

411. In that case, YOU aren't accurately representing your posting name

Your posts are all about moving the party to the right...not leaning to the left.

[Starboard Tack]

430. Not at all. My posts are about survival of our democracy.

This is not the time for extremism of any kind, but pragmatism. I trust Obama. I wouldn't want his job and he needs all the help he can get and the whining I hear is not going to accomplish anything positive.

[Fuddnik]

440. Democrazy.

Republican style.

[RC]

341. +10 - Yeah, I noticed that also.

Go right? Why?

[eomer]

244. Starting in 2011 his hands are tied. But in 2009 and 2010 he was sitting on his hands.

In 2009/2010 the President and Democratic leadership of Congress could have enacted dramatic changes using 50 votes in the Senate and the budget reconciliation process (which can't be filibustered). They could have passed a strong stimulus bill for short term economic recovery, raised taxes on the wealthy for the long term deficit, provided a public option for health insurance, and so on.

In 2009/2010 the President was sitting on his hands while he played footsie under the table with his corporate sponsors, a few blue dog Democrats whose votes weren't actually needed, and Republicans whose votes also weren't needed.

[Starboard Tack]

258. Did I miss something or wasn't he trying to get a public option healthcare bill passed?

I took a 30 state road trip in '09 and saw those stimulus dollars at work all over the country. Did the same thing this year and saw some of them still at work and the start of change in many places. If you think landing on the Titanic and taking over as skipper, just after hitting the iceberg is an easy job, well you know how to apply. Otherwise, good luck finding a lifeboat.
Remember, everything negative you say here, gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That would be the enemy that torpedoed the ship and keeps pissing on us every time we try to come up for air.

[eomer]

344. Yes, I think you did miss something - the backroom deal he had already made.

Obama many times said he was in favor of a public option but all along he had already made a deal that it wasn't going to be in the final package. Here is an article that explained it at the time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Regarding the stimulus, I thought when it was being debated that Paul Krugman was right to argue for a larger stimulus and I think the results that we can see now prove that out.

And, no, my stating facts here is not going to give Republicans ammunition; they don't deal in facts anyway.

[Starboard Tack]

420. No, I didn't miss it. Very disappointing.

I believe he wants universal health care. Obviously, he didn't think we were going to get the public option through. I have to trust his judgment, because a certainly don't trust anyone else's. I'll give him four more years. If he has to cut these awful deals to get something. So be it. That';s how Washington works. Unfortunately.

[eomer]

422. They themselves were the only thing stopping them.

The President together with enough Democrats in each house to form a simple majority had the power to enact and sign into law a public option. They didn't need anything from anyone or any entity; the power was already granted to them. The reason that they didn't do it is because they themselves were too corrupt, had previously been bought. If that's what you mean by "how Washington works" then we agree on that; that is the problem.

Trying to understand what you wrote, perhaps you mean it was more the fault of Congressional Democrats, more than the President? If that's what you mean, I don't see evidence to support your explanation. It looks more likely to me that the President had private talks with the Democratic leadership in Congress and coerced them into not including a public option in the final reconciliation bill. He is the one, after all, who we know had a secret deal all along to not include it.

In any event it is the President and the Democratic majority in Congress who were to blame and I'm inclined to blame the whole lot of them collectively and individually. Besides some exceptions from the Progressive wing of Congress, none of the rest of them fought for a public option and that includes the President.

[Starboard Tack]

432. I agree. Very disappointing. Hopefully he'll try again.

What is certain is that nobody else will and it's a damn shame.

[demwing]

333. Bullshit

first he's a millionaire, and has permanent income for the rest of his life. I don't hold that against him, but neither am I willing to pretend he's an average Joe.

Second, he has expressed his consternation for the leftward members of his party several times. if his money hasn't caused him to lose empathy, then his philosphy has allowed him to neglect it.

Finally, show us a President that fought hard and lost well, and I'll agree with your assessment that his hands were tied. What we have instead is a President that fought not, and compromised well. If Obama's hands were tied it's because he meekly allowed them to be tied, without due cause.


But its worthless explaining this AGAIN. It has been explained MANY TIMES over an extended period, and if you still don't see it it's only because you have chosen not to.

[StarsInHerHair]

428. f8ck you & your attack "whining"

[xiamiam]

114. accepted our number one industry is war which is loathsome to me, for starters..nt

[Starboard Tack]

127. No he hasn't. That's total bullshit. I'm sure he'd rather be making solar panels.

We all want out of Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are pretty much out of). I hate the fact that troops are still over there, but I trust the guy to make the right decisions. He didn't start this mess. It was 7 years old when he was elected. W and his cronies got us into it. Don't blame Obama for not being able to get out on your or my timetable.
Every time a Democrat bashes Obama it gives fuel to the Repugs. That's like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And they are the enemy, make no mistake. Let those assholes back in and you can kiss this country goodbye.
Solidarity is needed now like never before, so quit whining.

[Union Scribe]

166. Lol, what bullshit.

And incoherent, rambling bullshit at that. Were you trying to hit every single talking point you could but really had to pee or something?

[katnapped]

171. Be glad he didn't post "The List" n/t

[Fuddnik]

193. Starboard Tac.

That's movement to the right.

Tells you everything.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

214. I had forgotten that, but you're right, uh, I mean, correct!

n/t

[Occulus]

224. Google defines it as

"Sailing with the wind coming over the starboard (right) side of the boat."

I put in 'define "starboard tack"' without the ' marks.

I mean, really. How fucking transparent can you possibly be?

[vi5]

167. Oh well, if you're sure if it then o.k. never mind.

Really? Because you're sure that's what he wants? Do you have George Bush's ability to look into a man's eyes and see his good hear or his good soul?

Because the other posters that responded before me pretty much hit the nail on the head with the things I think he has done poorly.

But if you say you're sure of what he wants well then I guess I'm convinced.

[Starboard Tack]

259. Good, now quit whining and concentrate on getting Dems re-elected

[Horse with no Name]

180. We are NOT almost out of Iraq

we just changed the mission and the name...but troops are dying there everyday. All dying for lies.

[Starboard Tack]

262. Dying for Bush/Cheney lies. And they aren't dying every day

Total US casualties in Iraq after 8+ years is less than 4,500 and none of them were drafted. More people get shot to death in the good ole USA every 8 weeks because of NRA lies.

[Horse with no Name]

281. Specious. At best. Cmon, you can do better than that!

Yes, people are DYING every day in Iraq still--whether they are American soldiers, contractors, Iraqi civilians, it matters not. 4500 troops killed IN the war. What about the over 100,000 SOLDIERS alone who were wounded and those who die every day due to complications of their injuries (they don't count those!) or whose lives were irreparably ruined by the hazards of war? What about my 30 year old brother who served several tours over there (hard to count because some of them backed up to each other)and now a perfectly healthy young man is showing symptoms of MS? Will he be counted in your numbers? What about my cousin who suicided himself by cop because of the war horrors he saw and his inability to deal with them (while still in the military, I might add)? What about the 102,169 – 111,677 Iraqi civilians that have been killed http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/When you can't win that argument, you introduce a diversion of people dying here in the NRA. Like truly? Seriously? When you can tell me that guns in our country KILL that many people, then we will talk. Until then, WTF does that have to do with an illegal war?

Just because these soldiers weren't drafted (although there is pretty good evidence that the backdoor draft is in full swing--there are more Rodriguez' being killed than Rockefellers')...doesn't mean they deserve to die for oil because their leaders started a war based on Bush's lies but is continued by Obama who validated those lies by our mere continued presence in the Middeast.

[Starboard Tack]

307. People are dying in Iraq. Yes. And it is a tragedy.

A tragedy caused by Bush/Cheney et al. Not by Obama, who has drawn down troop levels and removed combat troops. The NRA sponsored killings at home are not a diversion. Over a quarter million Americans dead on the streets of America since we invaded Iraq. God knows how many wounded and the cost to this nation is in the tens of billions of dollars. But in terms of human life and trauma, worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

395. You don't seem to understand vis-a-vis your constant "whining" refrain

-You want something from me.
-I don't want anything from you.
-I'm a liberal.
-I'm accustomed to losing elections by now.
-I have no plans to vote for Barack Obama in the general election. My current plan is to leave that spot blank and fill out the rest.
-I may change my mind and vote for Obama.
-If I do vote for Obama, it will not be because anyone called me a whiner.
-If I vote for Obama, it will not be because people warned me I was responsible for Bachmann, Romney, more USSC appointments, etc.
-If I vote for Obama, it will be because he has given me a reason to vote for him.
-If Obama loses the 2012 election, I won't feel guilty. I'll feel sad that he didn't govern the way he should have.
-I don't want anything from you. You want something from me. Maybe your behavior should start to acknowledge that imbalance for what it is.

[Starboard Tack]

402. Good for you. It's your vote. Your right. I just don't deal well with whiners.

It's my right to express my views. Be well.

[sabrina 1]

308. That's what Dick Morris said about men and women sent to die

for a lie, heartless creep that he is. He was asked on Fox, of course, 'how many dead soldiers would the American people accept before they stopped supporting the war'. The coward, who never put his own or his own family's life on the line responded as if he was talking about toy soldiers 'Oh, I'd say at least 5,000'. How kind of him to dismiss those lives as if they were nothing, had no families, no loved ones, but let them die until the number becomes too great for the political purposes of his Party. Party before everything for him!! Support the troops! USA! Yellow Ribbons, Flags! Although the yellow ribbons are all gone now and the most rabid war supporters and rah, rah for the troops crowd, don't want much to do with the returning the wounded, the homeless and the maimed for life, those others who did not die, but will have to live for the rest of their lives with the scars, both mental and physical that war based on lies, in which soldiers are still dying, gave them. But hey, what's a life here or there??

But yeah, I guess it is it their fault since they 'weren't drafted' as you say. That was Morris' boast also. They are 'volunteers' and as Bush liked to boast, 'willingly fighting for our freedoms'.

Your talking point is particularly note-worthy since we rarely saw that here: More people get shot to death in the good ole USA every 8 weeks because of NRA lies And that makes it all okay to lie a country into war and continue to fund it? Too bad we didn't go after the liars and war criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

322. My point was not to give support to a phony war or justify any killing,

but to gain some perspective in terms of where our priorities lie.
The war in Iraq was based on lies. It was criminal in intent and criminal in action and the criminals who were responsible should be brought to justice. Obama was not one of those. My reference to the gun violence at home was meant to point out our mixed priorities. The Iraq war has cost our country dearly, in lives and money. Compared to domestic shootings, the cost in lives has been a tiny fraction of the cost in Iraq. I don't follow Dick Morris or Faux News, but I resent any comparison to either.
I was against both the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. I am not a flag waver or ribbon hanger. I do not support a military draft and anyone who signs up voluntarily should know he is doing so at the mercy of politicians, who don't give a damn who lives or dies. As you say, they just watch the numbers. For me, one death is too great a number for the wrong cause.
And you are right, it is too bad we didn't go after the liars and war criminals.

[Mr Deltoid]

230. "Solidarity is needed now like never before, so quit whining"

The problem in a nutshell

[rhett o rick]

295. +1000

[rhett o rick]

294. Your post says a lot about what we Old-Democrats are up against. You last statement:

"Solidarity is needed now like never before..." So far I agree. But then you end with a threat: "...so quit whining." You left out, "and fall in line".

Arguing that Pres Obama inherited a mess is a straw-man. We dont disagree. But he continued Bush's Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. He has surrounded himself with conservatives like Jeff Imelt. Apparently you dont get that message. He seems not willing to fight for SS and Medicare.

To you the fact that he is a Democrat in name is all you need. I want Democratic Principles. By-the-way I dare you to tell us how you stand on the issues. You wont. YOu wont discuss issues because it would expose you. You are content to attack the left, just like the RW.

[Starboard Tack]

390. Give me an issue and I'll happily tell you where I stand

Meanwhile, here are a few.

HEALTHCARE - Universal, single payer. Private options for those who want non-essential procedures, private rooms etc.

ENVIRONMENT - Green, renewable energy. Phase out oil foreign dependence asap.

IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN - Get out asap

SOCIAL SECURITY - Protect it at all costs for those who need it.

TAXES - Higher for the rich, Get rid of Bush tax cuts. Get rid of loopholes.

IMMIGRATION - Open the borders to those who want to work.

DRAFT - re-institute draft for public service, military option for those who want it.

GUN CONTROL - Abolish private ownership of handguns and enact permanent AWB. Long guns OK.

GAY RIGHTS - full rights to marry, but let each state decide. However, states that do not allow must recognize rights endowed by any other state.

I trust you're getting the picture.

[SwampG8r]

416. which of these do you feel he has worked hardest toward?

no snark just going through reading and i saw this
most of this list is contrary to the actions of the president
on which do you feel he represents your views ?

[Starboard Tack]

421. I think he has worked hard on all. Not hard enough and I am not happy by any means.

But the alternatives are horrendous. I'm not going to hang him out to dry. I think he will do much better if we can get a strong majority back in Congress. And even with a Repuke congress, he will be there to stop a total catastrophe. We are in serious shit right now and I see this guy as our only chance, unless you have a better suggestion.

[Common Sense Party]

426. You're not abolishing MY ownership of handguns. Go pound sand.

And what if ASAP out of Afghanistan is another 10 years?

[DeSwiss]

391. What. A. Load. Of. CRAP!

[me b zola]

140. FFS

[Ken Burch]

358. Escalating in Afghanistan

Giving up on labor law reform.

Letting the rich keep their tax cuts(and getting almost nothing in exchange for it).

Abandoning the poor.

Refusing to publicly make a real, passionate case AS president for the legitimacy of progressive change.

The trade deals(all of which will benefit the rich at the expense of all else).

Letting the Right control the debate from the get-go.

[truedelphi]

447. And then there is that little tiny thing of Obama

Allowing, just as Bush did before him, to let some 14 to 19 trillions of dollars leak from the Federal Reserve over to the Bigger Financial Players.

While meanwhile, back at the ranch, the county and the state governments have to pink slip every other job position. Like fire fighters, teachers, librarians, project managers, social workers etc.

The only thing our Federal Government seems to have money for is "loaning" it to the Bankers, the Big Expensive, Non-ending, Un-winnable War Efforts, the prison system and military weaponry.

[tama]

92. Politics, by definition

means taking care of what is common, polis, res publica.

As allready the first "modern" historian Thucydides tells in 'Peloponnesian wars', when politics degrades into party politics and Faustian factionalism, things go apeshit.

Real politics is about community organizing, listening and discussing in compassion, helping those in need, accepting help when in need, generally doing things together for common good.

The real meaning of party politics, especially in this day and age, is obviously divide and conquer so that the supporters of either wing of the Corporate Party of America keep on bashing each other in silly "my daddy can beat your daddy" games, instead of getting active at grass root level revolution of walking away from Corporate America and start real political work of creating something new and wonderfull.

As Gandhi said, "politics is the art of impossible".

[Starboard Tack]

130. You're right. Modern Washington style party politics is a tough row to hoe.

"Real politics is about community organizing, listening and discussing in compassion, helping those in need, accepting help when in need, generally doing things together for common good."
Pretty much describes our President and what he's trying to do.

[tama]

189. I have no doubt

mr. Obama is swell guy with best intentions. Mired in the Washington style party politics.

That is the point. I've had my plunge in party politics - proud former member of a trotskyite revolutionary socialist party :D! - to learn from personal experience why political centralism and institutional leadership with unavoidable hierarchical leadeship cults and power games don't work and what I'm in my heart and have allways been, an anarchist.

I've seen in practice how anarchistic grass-roots self-organization works and it works wonders. How much more evidence do we need that waiting for factional party-politics and institutional leaders to fix our problems does not work, it just makes us passive and powerless audience of the spectacle of party politics and keeps us from becoming empowered, finding self-confidence and taking responsibility of ourselves and each other in natural compassion?

[Starboard Tack]

271. OK - good points, but it doesn't make us powerless.

We have voices and we have personal actions and we have the choice to lead by example. Nothing makes us passive. We decide to be passive or active. I don't wait on elected leaders to fix my problems and you shouldn't either, if you are an anarchist at heart. I don't expect any government to fix our problems. I just don't want a government to make them worse, like the last one.
JFK had it right: "Ask not what your country...."

[A Simple Game]

104. It's obvious some one doesn't understand party politics.

So you are happy with the lesser of two evils? You would rather drive off a cliff at 10 mph that at 100 mph? You are still driving off a cliff.

You would like a couple more political parties? You do know we have more than two, what are you doing to support any of them? I know in New York we have at least two that are more liberal than the Democratic party.

So just quit whining, well I have. I will no longer be an automatic vote because a candidate has the proper letter after their name. I will now and for the rest of my life vote for the best candidate. I will not vote for some one because of their party affiliation. Where has that gotten us lately? I expect to never again vote for a Republican, and rarely for any Democrat. The not voting for a Republican has even included a relative.

Do you know that each party expects a large percentage of voters registered to their party to toe the party line, to quit whining and rally round? That's a great incentive to do what the majority of the voters wants isn't it? Remember both sides think they are the lesser of the two evils. Just suck it up and vote straight party line, that will fix all of our problems.

The best way to make a politician vote the way you want is to let them know they have to earn your vote. What do you think would happen to the Democratic party if say 3 million Democrats, between now and the spring of 2012, changed their affiliation from Democrat to Non-affiliated? Do you think they would still try to please the Republicans, or would they try to please the now more liberal non-affiliated voters?

[Starboard Tack]

132. Hey, you make your choices. It's your vote.

This is a Democratic forum and part of being a member here is being loyal to the ideals of the Democratic Party. I don't care a damn that you didn't vote for a Republican relative. You want a fucking medal for that magnanimous gesture. The very idea makes me want to puke. My personal political views are far more aligned with the Green Party than the Democratic Party, but we saw where that got us. A decade of disaster. Don't be so naive. There are two horses in this race. You want to take your whining somewhere else, be my guest. Don't come crying when Rick Perry moves into the White House. We're talking national politics here. Congress and the WH, not some local mayor.

[Caretha]

168. This is getting very tiresome

"Don't come crying when Sarah Pal ...er, I mean Michelle Ba...uh..Rick Perry, that's it - Rick Perry moves into the White House. We're talking national politics here."

Try being more original. Can't you think of another scary monster "under the bed" meme to whip the errant Democrats into shape?

[katnapped]

172. That's all they've got

And whether or not they'll ever admit it, they'll be the ones responsible for Obama's loss, not us "evul unrealistic bomb-throwing leftists"

[Horse with no Name]

183. I think the problem is that we are torn between a Democratic candidate vs. Democratic ideals

they are not one and the same.

Therein lies the problem.

[zalinda]

236. You are absolutely correct ! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

279. Therein always lies the problem and then what do we mean by Democratic ideals?

We are so fractured and diverse in terms of our priorities. The ship is sinking and we have folk worrying about what to wear for dinner.
The party and Obama, as leader, needs to clearly state our common goals and priorities. And as much as I strongly support such issues as gay marriage, troop withdrawals, gun control, balanced budget etc., we need to deal with the ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTHCARE, and EDUCATION. Because, without those, we have nothing, and all four are badly broken and pushing us inexorably toward third world status. They are also intertwined.

[Horse with no Name]

282. How about the standard platform we have run on for many many years

to start?

You can keep your Third Way interjections. The OLD WAY Democrats know the drill and what the game plan is here.:eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

324. Oh yeah? How's that workin' for you?

[Horse with no Name]

339. The republican wing of the party doesn't like it..so I guess it is working out well. n/t

[A Simple Game]

213. Damn right it's my vote. Nobody owns it just because they have the right letter after their name!

This is a Democratic forum and I believe in most of the Democratic party's principles. I just wish the Democratic party did also.

My not voting for a Republican makes you want to puke? All I can say is WOW!

If you are more aligned with the Green party, why don't you support them? Giving your automatic vote to a Democratic party that has strayed from their, and I assume your, principles makes little sense to me. You said you would like 3 or 4 parties, how are you going to make that happen when you will not support one of the alternate parties?

I am not the naive one here, nor am I whining. I will vote my conscience and I will not settle for the lesser of two evils anymore, I see where that has gotten us. Neither major party supports me, so I will not support either of those parties. I will not feed the beast that wants to eat me.

Your being aligned with the Green party caused a decade of disaster? No, I don't think so, don't be so hard on yourself.

I don't plan on crying if Rick Perry wins in 2012, I am used to being disappointed with the White House resident. Jimmy Carter was the last one that made me reasonably happy.

I thought all politics were local, well what do I know?

If you can be happy settling for less than you want, just because you think they have the right letter after their name, good for you. I used to, but I can no longer do that, I'm too old and life is too short.

[Starboard Tack]

287. "My not voting for a Republican makes you want to puke? All I can say is WOW!"

I never said that. I said the very idea of voting for a Republican makes me want to puke. The fact that you would even consider it is on a par with voting for cancer.
"Your being aligned with the Green party caused a decade of disaster?"
I didn't say that either. Others voting their conscience, instead of their brains contributed to the debacle. I prefer pragmatism.
I am always happy settling for less than I want, as long as I have what I need. If I had everything I wanted, there would be no room for aspiration.

[david_vincent]

216. Being loyal to the ideals of the Democratic Party

is not the same thing as being loyal to the Democratic Party, since the party doesn't own those ideals.

[Starboard Tack]

290. Well said.

[LondonReign2]

220. Therein lies the problem

"This is a Democratic forum and part of being a member here is being loyal to the ideals of the Democratic Party."

Shouldn't the *leaders* of the party be loyal to the ideals of the party? When they no longer represent those ideals is it still our duty to be loyal to them based on the letter after their names?

[Starboard Tack]

291. Which ideals do you think Obama is disloyal to?

[Chan790]

316. Do you really want someone to answer that and make you a fool?

Or are you being rhetorical?

Or do you really have no clue?

[Starboard Tack]

326. Yes, I do. Feel free to expound. Assume I have no clue.

[RC]

353. The Democratic Party is not being loyal to the ideals of the Democratic Party.

That said, the party needs to follow the dictates of the members, not dictate to the members.
The Democratic Party went way Right and that is the problem. They are no longer the party of the majority of its members. The members did not go Right. Liberals have no real representation in the Democratic Party any more.

[scentopine]

218. Whoa, an incurable case of irony deficiency cause by the party apparati virus -nt

[JDPriestly]

351. So, Starboard Tack, the values that underly your support for Obama are opportunistic.

Implicitly you are admitting that Obama is a failure.

But, you are a glass-half-full kind of guy, not an idealist. So you tell yourself, "Hey, Obama is the best I can do."

That appears on the surface to be an optimistic view -- glass-half-full suggests optimism.

But in fact, it is very pessimistic. What you are really saying is, -- glass-half-empty-but-I-don't-deserve-and-am-unwilling-to-make-an-effort-for-anything-better.

Those of us who are criticizing Obama are asking you to embrace true optimism and think about either persuading Obama to change -- by the sheer force of our numbers and constant pressure on him, or to ask him to quit and make room for someone more progressive, someone who will at least advocate strongly for progressive positions even if he must eventually compromise to some extent.

We at least want a president who is not a push-over, someone who stands strongly for the values of fairness, for the defense of the weak, for a moral national community. And Obama has not been that president.

It is the failure in the Democratic Party to stand tall for the progressive morality that underlies our movement and that supported the movement of the American Revolution that has left a void for the Moral Majority, Christian extremists to fill.

That is because America is not a nation based on race of ethnicity but on moral ideals. And Democrats in recent years, have offered no consistent moral vision -- just the compromise that Obama personifies.

So, what are you? Are you moved by a moral vision? Or are you simply an Obama opportunist?

Do you understand the choice you have made?

[Donnachaidh]

29. +1000. n/t

[polmaven]

44. Yeah -

Like that "party" thing about ensuring the extension of unemployment benefits over the "principle" of letting the Bush tax cuts expire that is so often cited here. Doesn't get much worse than that. Imagine putting the benefits of the unemployed over raising taxes on the rich. That sure isn't the Democratic Party I always knew!


Oh, wait! YES IT IS!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

219. Imagine a president who went on TV and said to the American people:

"The Republicans are all about low taxes for the rich. That's all they really care about, no matter what they tell you. They are even fighting extensions of unemployment benefits because I won't agree to retaining the Bush tax cuts, which are supposed to expire this year anyway. They whine about the deficit, and yet they won't raise taxes on people who earn more in one year than you will in a lifetime

Well, I have a message for the Republicans: I will veto any legislation that includes an extension of the Bush tax cuts.

And for unemployed Americans and for people with unemployed friends and relatives, I ask you to contact the offices of your Republican Senators and members of Congress and shame them for being so blatantly on the side of the selfish."

[GOTV]

246. Oh, in my dreams.... n/t

[polmaven]

280. Well, sure...

THAT would have gone a long way towards putting food on the table (or even on the the family :eyes:), and I'm sure the mortgage company, or landlord would have taken that as an excuse..."well, the republicans are selfish, so I can't pay the mortgage any more."

The president was not willing to take the chance that the people who had already stated that their primary goal was to ruin him would be capable of feeling shame. He put the people who would be so adversely affected before his own ego.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

346. You don't get what I was saying, do you?

Would the Republicans ACTUALLY have cut off unemployment checks if the public had become wise to what they were doing? If they had been bombarded with phone calls from angry constituents?

Would they have even suggested such a thing if they hadn't already found out what a wimp Obama is?

[polmaven]

352. The constituents who elected them

would have likely WELCOMED a move like that. They didn't make that kind of threat without knowing their voters would back them up. They had already, before the 2010 election took place, blocked a vote in the Senate on the UI extension, and did not pay any price for it, except an increase in their Senate numbers!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

357. They would have welcomed it unless it was their friend, relative, or neighbor

who was subsisting on food shelf donations and unemployment checks.

From what I see of Republican posters in online forums, their pointy little heads think that only dark-skinned people can be welfare cheats. When the Republicans promise to get tough with malingerers and make the unemployed get jobs, they're imagining the Republicans telling a black single mother to go scrub floors. They're not imagining cutting off the unemployment checks for Cousin Joe the factory floor supervisor whose plant was moved to Mexico and who can't get another job because all the other unemployed people in town have already taken the WalMart greeter and hamburger flipping jobs.

Remember, Republicans understand issues only when it affects THEM.

[kentuck]

293. Lydia, you are absolutely correct...

That was the turning point. The Tea Party Pubs saw then that Obama would rather fold than fight. He did not want to fight for the unemployment benefits. That was a winning issue for the Democrats. Many folks here agreed with the President. They did not want the unemployed to suffer. And they would not have suffered. They would have been in the streets and offices of these Republicans that were willing to throw them under the bus. On top of that, the Democrats would probably have maintained the House. That is how dangerous that decision was to the politics of our Party. That led directly to the fight over the debt limit and further compromises by this timid President. Those are the facts of the matter.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

348. Yes, refusing to cave on the Bush tax cuts would have been a signal

that Obama was willing to fight for ordinary people.

Taxing the rich at higher rates is a very popular opinion, except among the brainwashed zombies who listen to AM talk radio or the greedheads who think that taxes are theft.

[julian09]

392. He kept the tax cuts for middle class and unemployment

benefits, when he extended Bush tax cuts. Had he canceled Bush tax cuts, unemployment benefits AND tax cuts on middle class would have gone as well. Then repugs would campaign on Obama tax hikes on EVERYONE. Dem underground would be on him for raising taxes on middle class, no win situation. He chose to keep tax cuts for middle class and unemployment extension for unemployed; the only way he could, by extending Bush cuts. Give him a better margin of progressive democrats in the next congress, if you want better results.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

401. I would have been happy to have my taxes go up if they also went up for the fat cats

And the Bush tax cuts were SUPPOSED to expire in 2010.

[kentuck]

407. I would say that it was fighting words to suggest ,,

...they would not pay unemployment to our people...

The time to fight was at that moment. What kind of assholes would throw Americans, and their families, out into the cold without the bare subsistence of unemployment compensation? We will not be bribed. We are calling you folks out. If you are the ones that would suggest such a vote, please step forward and show your faces. That was a dirty deed, simply by suggesting such cold-hearted actions toward our fellow Americans.

That was the moment...

[eilen]

243. It was very short sighted and signaled the slippery slope

First, the December 2010 tax cut deal is where Obama started really parroting the Right's Doomsday Deficit fairy tale trope. Soon after, more and more cuts were made by states to decrease the time that the unemployed could receive unemployment benefits. Because of austerity measures more aid to the poor was cut (heating assistance and medical care for example). Since then there have been more cuts made to states. If we had not kept the tax cuts, we would have had more revenue to fund programs for the ranks of "the poor" which eventually many of the unemployed and by then many of the unemployed (99ers) had joined. Because without a solid jobs, education and training program, we are just continuing to bleed jobs and to have excess worker capacity and the problem just gets worse and worse.

Second, a jobs/unemployment extension/fund/education legislation plan should have been out there front and center as part of the campaign --probably introduced last Spring but likely to have been held up by Repubs. However, the democrats were given their marching orders that History was to be Made on Obama's signature Healthcare Legislation and that monopolized much of their business after they passed a very lackluster stimulus which was already noted to be inadequate by May of 2010.

[Shandris]

254. Under any normal circumstance I would agree with you on that polmaven.

But that battle was no 'normal' circumstance. It was the testing ground for (literally) a new tactic of terrorism, and we signaled that we were willing to fold to it.

Reagan wasn't right about damn near anything, save this one: You can't negotiate with people who are terrorists once they've committed to the terrorism (as opposed from just anyone conveniently labelled as a 'terrorist'). To do so is a sign of weakness, and they go straight for the throat. There's even a clip of a reporter asking whether or not he was concerned about them repeating the same thing at the debt ceiling battle, and Obama said 'No, John Boehners a good dude, he wouldn't do that to us' RIGHT AFTER Boehner and crew was using terrorist tactics on the unemployed. That's naivete, no matter how you slice it.

[polmaven]

285. Yes, you're right..

It was no 'normal' circumstance....this was about tens of millions of people who would be cut off from any income after 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. That would have been disastrous for not only those involved, but for the economy as a whole.

Now, if he does not make that threat from the monsters who perpetrated it a central argument in the upcoming campaign, that will be very disappointing. But for that short term, there really was no choice.

As far as what the states are doing, the president is not in charge of that, but that, too, should be a central part of the campaign. "President Obama was watching out for the welfare of the country and her people, while the Republicans were watching out only for the welfare of their own biases".

[TheKentuckian]

384. Where is the offset coming from? What will replace the lack of activity due to hoarding?

What is going to happen to all social spending with no revenue?

Is it sensible to trade 60 billion for 700 billion under about any circumstance?

I was 100% dependent on UI and was against the deal so guilt will not only not work but tends to piss me off. I didn't want to live on the streets of to go hungry so cease and desist with the bullshit that I wanted that for anyone else but it doesn't make the deal acceptable or any less long term damaging for the broader economy.

I find it shockingly simpleminded that any Democrat thinks the push behind ending the tax cuts is about "punishing" the wealthy because first of all Clinton level tax rates aren't a punishment by any stretch and secondly (and more crucially) they are an economic activity killer, a wealth disparity enhancer, starve the government of revenue, encourage wage destruction, and provide a perverse reverse incentive for any investment.

The tax cuts are fucking horrendous policy and make liberal initiatives neigh on to impossible, no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[polmaven]

419. What is the size of your family?

How many young children do you have? How long had you been out of work?

I ask those questions because, if you do have young children, and would prefer to see them on the street than for those cuts to be extended for 2 years, then I really do feel badly for the children. You would apparently rather allow that to happen.

I was 2 weeks away from losing my benefits. I am single, with a mortgage. I, personally, was NOT ready at all to lose my home after 20 years, live on the street in MA in winter, and have very little way to even look for work, much less find it, in that condition. I remain out of work even now, except for a 1 mont period of a temp job.

As far as the "offset" - From where would you have suggested the offset be found when 20+ million people are unable to have any money to put into the economy? It is already proving damaging enough that the 99ers are no longer able to contribute to the economy, yet you are willing to add that many more.

Oh, and by the way, calling me "simpleminded"? Very adult of you! Please point out to me where, exactly, I said anything about raising taxes the rich being "punishment" to them?

[TheKentuckian]

429. Just me but my fat was in the fire and I think the health of the greater economy

These tax cuts are poison, I never approved of them and only refrained from sending mine back because such a gesture would not impact the outcome.

Would children change my mind? Quite possibly but I cannot say for certain.

As for the punishment thing, I believe it was implied when you went off about cutting off people's benefits just to make the rich pay more taxes. If I misinterpreted you then I'm sorry but you seem pretty easy going about the damage and loss of opportunity this tax policy has set up as well as starving the government from revenue which will absolutely have severe negative outcomes for all kinds of folks, those most at risk first.

I don't care about the offset for the nothing ass money for the UI benefits, we lose that on a good day to the guys shooting at us. No, I'm talking about how do you offset the lost revenue from those that sure as shit have it and the lost activity, jobs, and wages from encouraging hoarding via the tax policy.

I cannot begin to defend this tax policy and think it creates a series of counter-productive effects that cannot be balanced by 60 billion in benefits, it seems pretty close to insane to me.

If there is a case that the activity from the UI benefits outweighs, equals, or even seriously offsets what is killed by the cuts, I am listening but on face value it seems absurd.

[kentuck]

442. The anxiety is understandable.

When one is depending on unemployment to survive. However, the Democrats should have fought for those benefits rather than submitting to blackmail. They could have won the fight, and won the political battle also. We are paying dearly for that decision and who is to say that those unemployed are not worse off now?

[MissDeeds]

69. Agreed

And what does that say about the 'party' they advocate? A party (or candidate) not based on Democratic ideals is not worth fighting for.

[tblue]

99. It's scary.

Not sure if it's worse than under Bush, but it's astounding to see people line up behind a politician no matter what he does.

[katnapped]

175. Don't you see that big D next to his name?

Clap louder no matter what he does!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I'm more of a "If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately" type.

No matter what, someone in the party is going to be disappointed with the outcome.

On the flip side, I guess we can all feel better about our "unity" as we shake our fists in impotent rage as we get crushed by the republicans because we were fighting among ourselves while they were re-arming.

[tblue]

100. That's a better argument than the insults and name calling.

Nothing turns me off from Obama more than people calling me names for not following him unconditionally. It just makes me go the other way.

[Chan790]

317. Who do you mean "We", Kemo Sabe?

I'm a liberal first, foremost and finally.

[county worker]

6. I think progressives have to lower their expectations in the short term and work for the long

term I think we need to make sure we hold the ground we have and that means to be sure to vote in 2012, but don't expect the current crop of politicians to have our best interests at heart.

I listen to Norman Goldman and his web site spells it out pretty good. normangoldman.com

[ixion]

9. a great example

of third-way logic.

[Luminous Animal]

20. I've been hearing that advice since Clinton and meanwhile working for the long term

and watching the ground slip further to the right.

Fought against NAFTA
Fought against welfare reform (one of the most mean-spirited pieces of legislation that I've seen in my lifetime)
Fought against the Glass-Steagall Act repeal.
Fought against the expansion of federal criminal law
Fought against the erosion of abortion rights
Fought against undeclared wars (Kosovo) and the continuous bombing of Iraq

I've been working on the long term for 30 years and I keep getting told to wait until after the next election, then we'll really get things done.

Bullshit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. And that's the problem. It's always, "wait, wait, wait" but nothing ever comes of it. Just more

lukewarm right-leaning policies.

[county worker]

83. Well then don't wait! I'm not holding you back!

My point is we have to do the work! Nobody is going come and save you! Jesus people are so fucking thick headed around here!

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. Sure, we can do the work. Which work would you suggest? If it has to do with getting

good candidates elected in a broken system, good luck. If it has to do with fixing the system by getting the people who got into office under the current one to change it to a better one which may not favor them, again good luck.

Not saying the work isn't worthy, but it's all uphill and I think that's what holds people back from helping. They're demoralized. (And calling them names won't help much.)

[county worker]

90. I am not sure what the work is but I hear part of the work is to become polititians ourselves.

Run for office, or get in charge of your local Democratic organization.

[tama]

196. Honestly

in my experience best political work we can do is philosophical contemplation and stopping to cause problems. Plus of course cooking, cleaning, gardening, simple things like that.

[RickFromMN]

237. I would make a terrible politician. I am no leader. My personality is similar to Obama's.

I look to diffuse situations. I look for ways to get along. It's my nature.

I would make a terrible leader. I make an excellent follower.

I need to follow people with definite goals, willing to fight, willing to take risks.

It doesn't mean I will follow you blindly. You have to win my trust.
You have to lead in a direction I believe we should go.

If I trust you and believe in where you wish to lead, I will follow you to the edge of a cliff.
I might even follow you over a cliff knowing, full well, we are going over a cliff.

I was thrilled when Obama became President. He said things I wanted to hear.
He spoke of Health Care Reform. He spoke of ending the wars.
I believe Bush had the economy on the wrong track; I believed Obama would fix the economy.
He spoke of working together, something I wanted to hear. He spoke of getting things done.
Change we can believe in. Yes, we can! Those were good rallying cries.

What I didn't hear was how he was going to lead. I assumed he was a leader.

I have come to learn, President Obama is like me. President Obama is no leader.

I hope people read this forum for President Obama.
I have some advice I want to give President Obama.

Find two or three people, with strong ideas, willing to fight, willing to take risks.
Have them wanting to push the country in the direction you wish to go.
Please have this direction be to the left. Please push the country to the left.

Use your Presidential power to make their ideas happen.
You won't feel as guilty when there is conflict. You won't see the risks as daunting.
Don't compromise when you think it's time to compromise; you will always compromise too early.
Compromise when they say it's time to compromise, or don't compromise at all if they say don't.

You won't be setting the schedule for when to compromise, because you can't set that schedule.
You will always compromise too quickly. You've demonstrated you will compromise before we start.
You will never say no deal and walk away from the table by yourself; it's not in your nature.

You will feel you are enabling others to be the best they can be and accomplish great things.
You must fight for "their" ideas; you must make them succeed.

Don't be squeamish. Don't do it half-heartedly. Make them succeed.

You, President Obama, like me, are an enabler for others. We live to enable others.
We live to see them grow and accomplish great things. We are not leaders and never will be.

The same applies to business as it does to politics. I make an excellent employee.
I make a terrible manager. I get pushed around easily by other managers.
They know I will compromise so they hold their ground and fight...fight...fight.

I need a strong right hand person, with strong ideas, willing to fight, beside me.
I need to believe in that person and let that person decide, not me, when it's time to compromise.

[chervilant]

445. AND,

accusing them of whining helps not at all...

[Fuddnik]

186. That's why I'm taking to the streets in DC on Oct. 6th!

I've worked my fingers to the bone the other way for 30 years, and what do I have to show for it?


Boney fingers!

[noiretextatique]

65. recommend

short, sweet, and accurate :thumbsup:

[bread_and_roses]

169. Same here. Thirty years of promises and waiting and waiting...

I love how some here lecture as if those of us who've had enough are all political newbies. I love how they trot out their tired, trite justifications as if they are newly minted.

When we're no longer willing to accept that a death by a thousand cuts with the Ds is not, in the end, any better than a stab to the heart with the Rs, we'll get somewhere. When we're willing to turn DC and every State House in the land into Tahrir Square we'll get somewhere - and not until.

Oh, and btw - we don't have much time. Ecocide proceeds apace, while we blither on trying to get a few scraps and bones out of our Corporate Masters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

222. I think the political newbies are the ones who are all starstruck over Obama

The ones who don't remember what this country used to be like economically.

[Pavlo]

68. Norman Goldman is a tool

[county worker]

91. Care to explain?

[Big Blue Marble]

133. We have been doing just that for decades.

And what has it gotten us. The writing is clearly on the wall now. The party just keeps moving
right every time we compromise and vote for them. We on the left have become their chief
enablers.

[kentuck]

147. truth

unfortunately

[Enthusiast]

153. Ah, the inescapable conclusion.

Thank you.

[Enthusiast]

152. Obama hopes to enact three new free trade deals.

Don't forget that. How is he better than a filthy Republican?

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Fuddnik]

184. We've been lowering our expectations for 35 years.

Look where it's gotten us.

Jimmy Carter governed as a conservative Southern Democrat. And, each Democratic president since then has been more and more conservative.

How much further do we have to lower our expectations?

I've seen good progressive candidates run out of congressional races by Harold Ford and Rahm Emmanuel to be replaced by Republicans they've recruited to change parties.

We were told they would cut off war funding 5 years ago, and they didn't do it. In fact, they did the opposite.

Just how low should I set me expectations?

We're approaching teabagger levels now. And a few televangelist speeches ai't going to cut it anymore.

[Javaman]

192. That's the equivalent of...

cutting off your nose to spite your face, in the false belief that your nose will eventually grow back.

Unless traditional dems hold their ground now, there is no going back.

[October]

235. I understand your point, but it's difficult when a minority group like teabaggers get their way

It's frustrating being a Dem. Never easy. But worth fighting for.

I vote DEM no matter what...sometimes I hold my nose while doing so. It would be nice to pull that lever for a TRUE compassionate FDR-styled liberal though.

*Of course no more levers... only push-button voting in my area now.

[Mr Deltoid]

240. Problem is

What is happening in the short term is ruining any chance for hope in the long run. At this point, the only way out I can see is for things to get so bad, like they are in Wi or Ohio, that people literally flood the streets in anger.

[Carolina]

264. we've been doing that for decades

enough is enough.

[Warren Stupidity]

286. that short term is now 20+ years. I haven't got a time horizon that extends for your 'short term'.

Sorry. Won't play that game anymore.

[Autumn]

8. "Those that stand for nothing will fall for anything"

And we will all fall, if we fall for preserving "our" corporate whores. Unacceptable.

[Hydra]

10. Houston, we have a problem

We're supposed to ignore our values and vote, but if the President loses, it's our fault.

Heads we win, tails you lose?

IMO, we wouldn't BE in this position if President Obama had adhered to his campaign pledges rather than playing to the people with the money.

[Lorien]

Aye, there's the rub. If I get hired to do a job for a client and refuse to follow through

with it; doing the opposite of what they hired me to do, then I shouldn't be surprised if they start to look elsewhere. I can't tell them "The reason I didn't follow through and at least try to give you what we agreed upon is because you weren't supportive enough of me." It's ALL on the Obama administration.

[Raine]

41. Yes, that's the way it works in regular day to day real life.

If I take my car to a mechanic because something is wrong with it, maybe even something that another mechanic botched ... I expect the new mechanic to FIX IT. No way would I accept the excuse that "you brought me a car that someone else messed up and you expect me to fix it?? DAMNED RIGHT I DO!!!!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

81. Good idea except

in your example the mechanic is working for you. In our political situation, the 'mechanic' has many, many bosses and we are not one of them..........

[Raine]

128. You make a good point, the political "mechanic"

is listening to the boss who has the most money ... unfortunately that's not us. :-(

[sabrina 1]

11. Maybe the Big Tent is not big enough for

Liberals anymore, now that the Third Way has taken control?

It's definitely something a great many people are wondering about. And if that is the case, what to do about it.

[AlabamaLibrul]

12. We've gone from tent to bus...

Pay the fare, sit in the back, shut up, and if you can't do that you'll gladly be thrown under at the next stop.

[truedelphi]

312. + My household. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

13. The left are the leaders and fire of the Democratic Party. I'd like to see Obama

win without us.

Squishy centrists and "No Nothing" independents? They are followers.

I recall Dukakis and Kerry running to the left when they were worried that their campaigns weren't going well and Obama 2012 will do the same but will we be there?

[xiamiam]

115. he wont win..period..thats the point and why we're fired up..nt

[Carolina]

267. Touche, excellent points

especially about Squishy centrists and "No Nothing" independents!!!

I have had it; I won't be there for the top of the ticket in 2012. No campaigning, no donations. Will work like hell locally for REAL CHANGE!

[Chan790]

321. "Obama 2012 will do the same but will we be there?"

Only if he gives a speech in which he says his "era of post-partisan compromise is over." and makes reference to Teddy Roosevelt's big stick in a domestic policy sense. And if I believe he means it.

I want to see Baby Boehner cry some more.

[reACTIONary]

14. And how is it that calling someone a corporate whore...

...promotes working together to change the Party? A frank discussion about what it takes to win an election is not treating someone "like a piece of dog crap". And wanting to win an election is not "standing for nothing." Wining elections is what electoral politics is all about.

Maybe you should worry less about changing the party, and try doing more to change the electorate. That done, winning elections and "standing on principles" are not incompatible.

[sabrina 1]

17. Define 'Winning' please! n/t

[Lorien]

33. Ah, the old "learn to love the new feudalism" argument

By "winning" you mean "give it all to the wealthiest 2% FASTER".

[reACTIONary]

60. By "winning" I mean...

...winning elections. So, just what is it that you mean by winning? And just how would that, whatever it might be, the 98% non wealthiest?

And how does calling someone a "corporate whore" help either way?

[Pavlo]

75. 98% non wealthiest?

Who is Obama getting his contributions from? Why is he On vacation eating Lobster and kobe beef. How many expensive birthday parties do you have? I can't take a vacation and certainly not stay at Martha Vineyard. Do you not get it that shared sacrifice only means that he tells me one thing to get my vote then lives like Royalty.

I have been sacrificing by working for Organizing for America, and can not believe some of the things that I have told people to get them to donate time and money. How do you explain Jeff Immellt (sp) and GE paying no taxes. Something is very wrong with this 98% wealth argument.
I feel that the only one who is getting wealthy is the ruling class at the top of our party. Like or not I feel like a serf and am starting to feel like I am caught up in some perverted illusion.

[reACTIONary]

88. And how is losing elections going to help?

And how will calling people "corporate whores" (from the OP, not you) help? BTW, I didn't make any "98%" wealth argument, I simply asked what the plan is for them, if it doesn't include winning elections. What is it?

If you don't want to vote, or organize, and you feel like you are being exploited, DON'T vote, DON'T organize. Do whatever it is that you think will help others and yourself out. And, be sure to let us know what that is.

[Pavlo]

103. How did winning the presidency help us?

We are in worse shape then I have ever seen in my lifetime.
We are being sold a bill of (no) goods to keep our party in power.
In all the years we have been fighting to help the poor, have we?
No what helps the poor is having them to stay in school and
obtain a career, not dooming them to generation after genoration of accepting handouts.

I feel like it is better to bring bags of food to the food pantry
then it to help these (some)whores get elected. Then they grandstand in front of the cameras and pontificate
how evil someone or some group is.There is always some evil that should attract our attention
while their deeds slip by under the radar , or we give them a pass. They promise everything and deliver
nothing. They talk about the rich not paying their fair share, but then give a free pass to Rangel or Geithner
or GE. If we love our party we must man up and point out the hypocrisy.

Mostly I feel sorry for my grand children which will inherit
this mess that we have regulated onto them. I would rather lose elections
than my integrity.

[reACTIONary]

111. OK Pavlo,

bring food to the poor, encourage them to stay in school, and feel sorry for them, for your grand kids and for yourself.

Won't hurt too much. Might help some little bit. See you around someday.

[xiamiam]

116. welcome to du..good post..nt

[sabrina 1]

120. Well said and welcome to DU, Pavlo

I too would rather lose an election than sell out the most vulnerable Americans and compromise all of our principles just for the thrill of 'winning'.

[Javaman]

194. +1000.

You haven't been here all that long, but I like your style already!

Cheers and welcome to DU!

[russspeakeasy]

204. Well put pavlo...

:evilfrown:

[Carolina]

268. Welcome to DU, Pavlo

And you couldn't be more correct when you asked: How did winning the presidency help us?

Gee, we had the WH and both Houses of Congresses and yet, we are worse off.

Go figure, something is terribly wrong with the Democratic Party and the rot starts at the head.

So I am in total agreement. Screw 'em and work locally for democratic causes and ideals.

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

[sabrina 1]

113. 'Winning elections'? Republicans win elections, we have won

elections. Our winning has done the opposite of what we were told it would do. Do you seriously support cutting Social Programs to pay for the Gambling debts of Corrupt Wall St. Gamblers? You call THAT winning?
We got that when Bush was winning, except then, the 'left' went apeshit when he tried to 'put SS/Medicare and Medicaid on the table. Seems to me the left fights harder for what it claims to support when they LOSE elections. And more and more it's looking like the 'left' was not about principles at all, things they claimed to care about they no longer care about now that they 'won'.

What happened to all the Committees, Leahy's eg, that were supposed to restore the rule of law, restore Habeas Corpus eg? At least there was a pretense of caring before Democrats won elections.

What are you trying to win elections for if not to implement the policies you believe in? What is the point of elections to you? To 'compromise' away such things as Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor? If that's what 'winning' means, please, let me be a loser. At lease when we lost none of that was even possible.

Winning elections means nothing if all it means is 'we won'!! And after that, everything we opposed becomes 'okay' because 'our team is doing it now'. What happened to the Anti-War movement? Where are the war crime prosecutions, the Economic criminal prosecutions? Tell me again what 'winning' means, or are you going to tell me that none of those things matter anymore, all that matters is that 'we win'??

[xiamiam]

117. + ten trillion

[kentuck]

146. Bingo

right on target

[Enthusiast]

155. PLUS ONE! What a wonderful post!

You have expressed our position perfectly.

[KoKo]

179. Committees: Waxman, Leahy, Conyers...Russ Holt on Verified Paper Ballots...

Feingold who promised so much...., etc. On and on.

Promises....Promises...and in the end...the Bush System/PNAC/Military/Corporate Domination marches on over backs of the decimated Middle Class and Poor, Youth and Elderly of this country.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

188. "...the left fights harder for what it claims to support when they LOSE elections."

Funny i'n't?

[russspeakeasy]

206. Many thanks sabrina.......

:toast:

[myrna minx]

239. +1 n/t

[bread_and_roses]

338. Amen, Sister (n/t)

[nashville_brook]

380. shazam.

[reACTIONary]

404. The Republicans had 40 votes in the Senete...

...and after Teddy passed, had 41. In 2010 they came up with a majority in the house. That is why we were unable to implement the policies "we believe in." Under those circumstances you are NOT going to be able to unilaterally implement the policies we believe in without serious compromise. It ain't going to happen. If your expectations were different, I'm sorry, but your expectations were not realistic.

You simply are not going to win, as in "implement the policies we want" until and unless you win as in "win a lot of fucking ELECTIONS." That's right, you are going to have to win LOTS of fucking elections. After no single election will you get to unilaterally and without compromise "implement the policies we want". And often you will only be able to hold onto what you've already won.

Piss and moan all you want, it's that simple. Unless you win elections, and lots of them, you won't get a chance to "compromise" concerning Medicare, Medicaid, at all. They will be taken from you. What you think, feel, want, get angry about will mean nothing at all. Because you lost. You are not at the table. Period. End of story.

Now, there are different ways to win elections, long term and short term. Maybe electoral politics is not your thing. So, go ahead and proselytize, organize, try to win folks over. That has to be done, because the American people are not as progressive as you are and they need convincing. But try not to call the people who are, basically, on your side, and those you want to move in your direction, "corporate whores" (OP, not you). It doesn't help. And please spare us any self pity about being called "dog crap"(again, the OP, not you) simply because someone tells it to you straight.

On the other hand, if you want wish fulfillment and instant gratification you chould take up fantasy role playing games or something of that sort.

[leftstreet]

409. +1

[begin_within]

414. All we "won" was a sideshow to make us think it's a democracy. The plutocracy remains in place.

As it turns out, the election of Obama has meant only that "we won." We won the Sideshow of 2008. Which wasn't hard, McCain was a cranky geezer and Palin was clearly unqualified. Obama was clearly the better choice in the Sideshow of 2008. But as it has become painfully obvious, winning that little sideshow meant nothing in the long run, in the big picture. The true power structure remains in place no matter which faction wins the Sideshow every 2 years.

[a simple pattern]

289. "Winning"

"Elections"

[killbotfactory]

15. Withholding your votes for democrats is not going to change the party

It is completely misguided and politically stupid. The right wing grins every time people take that kind of shit seriously.

The left needs to realize that they will never get their political dream date, and to be critical of the democrats where it is deserved, not just this lazy categorical dismissal of everything the democrats have accomplished because it isn't perfect.

[Fuddnik]

198. Battered wife syndrome.

I know they really love me, and they don't really want to beat me. Maybe if I just try harder, they'll quit beating me.

Ooops! Should have ducked, but they promised me they'd never hit me again.

[killbotfactory]

427. By withholding your vote, you are empowering moderates

Why would any politician court your vote or take you seriously when you bail on them and withhold your vote, empowering their political rivals, because they didn't do everything you demanded of them?

[GOTV]

252. Losing elections does change parties.

[RickFromMN]

265. For good, or ill, losing elections changes the political landscape.

Look at Wisconsin. We lost. The Republicans overreach. Democrats, in Wisconsin, are coming back.
The Republican damage, in Wisconsin, has to be undone. It's still not clear sailing.

I don't want Perry in the White House. Giving a Tea Party politician the bully pulpit will be bad.

He will wreck the social safety net, at the same time, convincing people it's good for them.
His policies will increase the income disparity between the haves and have nots.

If Perry does win, I'm praying a group of Democratic senators will filibuster Perry's agenda.
Unfortunately, the Republicans won't play nice. They will find ways around the filibuster.

Why can't Democrats be as mean and scary and stubborn and vengeful as the Republicans?
You play nice with a person when you know there will be dire consequences if you don't.

[mike_c]

16. in some ways that might be a good thing....

I've become utterly disillusioned with top-down politics but at the same time I've become MUCH more active in my union, including it's political activities and it's interface with other labor groups. This has two effects, one short term and one long term. The long term effect is the more important, I think: rebuilding the labor movement is ultimately the key to producing an electorate that is truly liberal and progressive. When politicians cannot remain in office and legislation cannot pass without the backing of organized labor, we will be well on our way toward a more socially just and progressive society.

The short term effect is that my political activities-- donations of time and money, lobbying, etc-- are magnified by the solidarity effect. When I meet elected officials to lobby them, it's not Mike_C sitting across the table, it's the CFA, SEIU, and AAUP. Likewise, my monetary contributions are added to others' to achieve sums that make politicians sit up straight and pay attention.

We need to rebuild a progressive movement from the grassroots, and the failure of top-down politics to support the left might just force us to confront that reality and do something about it.

[Lorien]

22. Good points. I think that we need a general "workers union" that covers every

worker's job description. Right now some of us have no options; if I work on a film as an animator I can join IATSE, but if I freelance as an illustrator I have no union options-and freelance illustrators regularly get screwed royally by their clients. We need a massive umbrella union that ALL workers- Walmart employees, Verizon workers, pet sitters, EVERYONE can join- to finally stop the Owners from creating a new feudal society in America.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

82. That a definition of the "Wobblies"

International Workers of the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

[Enthusiast]

156. Excellent suggestion........nt

[sabrina 1]

32. "We need to rebuild a progressive movement from the grassroots"

Yes, you are right, and I agree that this may be the silver lining of what the OP is upset about. I saw something the other day, eg, where the Unions were talking about sitting out the Dem Convention since it is being held in an anti-Union state. And the Teachers' Unions have also been letting it be known the Dem Party can no longer take their support for granted.

The short term effect is that my political activities-- donations of time and money, lobbying, etc-- are magnified by the solidarity effect. When I meet elected officials to lobby them, it's not Mike_C sitting across the table, it's the CFA, SEIU, and AAUP. Likewise, my monetary contributions are added to others' to achieve sums that make politicians sit up straight and pay attention.

That sounds like a really positive outcome and ought to be effective. Your whole post should be an OP to show how other people can use their disgust to start a whole new movement that actually works for the people.

[reACTIONary]

63. Sounds great...

...and, just a tip, while you are out there building your grass-roots movement, you might have to talk to and work with people who don't entirely agree with you, have their own opinion and maybe see a somewhat different outcome as desirable. Be sure to repress the urge to call them "corporate whores". It doesn't help the dialog to move forward.

[sufrommich]

18. Some of you need to leave the bubble of the internet sometimes.

There is no great battle going on in the Democratic Party in the real world. Most of these arguments are extremely DU centric.

[sabrina 1]

23. I think it is you who needs to leave the bubble of the internet

if that's what you think. Seriously, do you think that only here on DU is where you will find people upset with the direction of this party?

Do you know anyone who supports putting the Social Network programs in danger of being cut? Do you have any elderly relatives, disabled relatives, dependent children, sick friends or relatives whose very existences depend on those programs??

Nearly everywhere I go people are worried that those programs are now threatened. And those on SS have already seen their benefits cut over the past two years.

Please, if this party is to survive, such willful blindness is not going to make that happen. People judge by their own experiences. There was a time when I could argue vehemently against those blaming the Democrats for what was going on, but I cannot do that regarding the cuts already suffered by those dependent on them since this was done by a Democratic administration.

And that's just one issue. I will NOT defend that, it is unconsienable and totally wrong and against Democratic principles. How do you defend it?

[xiamiam]

118. i'm in no california..i can't name anyone who is ok with this administrations direction..nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

225. I know plenty of people who have never even heard of DU who are

expressing these same sentiments.

They've always been Democrats, they're not much interested in politics except during election periods, but they're bewildered and anxious about the direction that the Obama administration is taking.

[sabrina 1]

276. Me too, Lydia Leftcoast.

[Warren Stupidity]

327. Me too. This theory that it is just the blogbarians is bullshit.

The local loyal dems are restless. The independents are hornswaggled. But the problem is that some lefty democrats on a blog or message board dare point out that there are problems.

[Fred Engels]

34. Thanks...I wanted to say something similar, but was afraid to, as a newbie.

The fact is that most Democrats (and, dare I even say it, Republicans as well) aren't idealogues on the fringes of the political spectrum. I'm like virtually all of my Democrat friends, to the left of center but not WAY to the left; there are some 'conservative' positions that I have no problem with...just as a lot of Republicans aren't horrified by (for example) my views that everyone deserves complete equality in the area of marriage (I have quite a few Republican friends and none of them give a crap that I'm still half of a same-sex domestic partnership after 29 years and 8 months), perhaps my strong adherence to the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment helps with that.

There doesn't seem to be any DU rule that says members have to be liberal...that I can find. I definitely consider myself liberal as a political place-holder but that doesn't mean I can't embrace some few ideals that are nominally part of the 'conservative' (which I often call reactionary) stable. :-)

[bluestate10]

73. Welcome to DU. Now sit down and shut up. Just kidding, welcome aboard. nt

[Angry Dragon]

110. Welcome

I would ask you to define a liberal democrat
what is a conservative democrat??

[Fred Engels]

365. haha...well, I believe that any thinking Democrat (or thinking American) can be liberal

on Monday, Wednesday and Friday...conservative on Tues, Thurs & Saturday...and reserve Sunday for pure unaffiliated debauchery with no time wasted on politics. :-)

[Angry Dragon]

397. I hope some day you can develop a real sense of humor

because it is sad that you do not have one now.............

[Donnachaidh]

36. some need to take their own advice

And get out and talk to friends and neighbors. And parents in their kid's schools. THEY are the ones in the *bubble*... :eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

191. My mother was an ardent supporter of Obama

after he suggested that Medicare and SS be touched...he might as well be GWB, in her eyes.

Cutting funding to financial aid, doubling down on the wars, lackluster support of social issues is not going to invigorate the young voters to vote D.

Putting Medicare and Socal Security on the table is not going to invigorate the older voters to vote D.

All that is left is what is in the middle and that is a polarized section indeed...depending on whose ox is being gored.

BUT...anger and resentment are going to beat out apathy any day of the week.

[Number23]

40. You got that right. Someone actually referred to DU as "mainstream"

And this was during a poll of the president's performance where only 29% supported him. 29% on a "Democratic" web site. 10 points lower than polls that also include REPUBLICANS and Tea Baggers and yet in this person's delusional reasoning, DU is "mainstream."

I really should have asked him/her if she wanted to buy the Sydney Harbor Bridge. I got a special going now...

[sabrina 1]

43. That would have been me. And yes, DU is mainstream

Regardless of polls. I have Republcian, Independent and Democratic friends and relatives, and some who are not interested in politics at all. But virtually all of them, teachers, nurses, cops, firemen, elderly people, disabled, and those who have relatives who are disabled depending on SSI or elderly dependeing on SS, nearly all are disgusted with both parties. And almost every Democrat I know is absolutely thoroughly disappointed with what this party has done with the victories they handed them and are finding it more and more difficult to defend them.

DUers are mostly working class people and they are the people most affected by the decisions being made in DC. And now that members of Congress, like Conyers and DeFazio and Maxine Waters are beginning to speak out, I guess you will call them extremists also, not mainstream?

[Number23]

46. There is nothing 'mainstream' about DU

The racial makeup of this place is far from mainstream. (That's probably true of most online discussion boards)
The political makeup of this place is far from mainstream.
The economic makeup of this place is far from mainstream. So many people seem to have contests on who is struggling the most, there don't seem to be very many middle class posters on DU.

I don't care how many of your "friends and family" agree with you or that poll. That does NOT make you or your friends mainstream. The fact that 29% of DUers support this president means this place is NOT THE MAINSTREAM. Granted, only 500 people responded, but the response from that poll cannot be denied. I know a big old post a few weeks ago told you there were "NO FRINGE POSTERS" here but he lied.

And thanks for outing yourself, by the way. You post so frequently I'm sure someone would have figured out it was you anyway.

[StarsInHerHair]

72. so what is the "racial makeup of this place"?

[Number23]

85. Recent unofficial polls have put it at about 90+% Caucasion

[Major Hogwash]

121. We need to primary Obama before it's too late!! Before it's 100% Caucasian around here!

We should ALL rethink this before we take a stand on it.

Done yet?

LoL

That's how long it took me, man.

Let 'em whine.
They can't even get a candidate to run against Obama in the primaries!

[dameocrat67]

144. quantcast says 16% are minorities which would make it 84% white

http://www.quantcast.com/democraticunderground.com#demo

I would add that the quantcast stats on barackobama.com show them to far more black but also far more rich than the typical black or the typical person here, so they are not representative either.

[KoKo]

181. Site says "Date is Estimated"....meaning they can't verify.

There's no way they can get this data unless they polled every single one of us to know our age, gender, income.

Using DU polls by members is not accurate since many of us don't bother with them.

So....are they hyping their stats? What do they get out of "estimating" DU members and posters?

[noiretextatique]

74. DU is a microcosm of america

Obama's approval rating on economy hits new low
By Todd Eastham | Reuters – Wed, Aug 17, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Approval of President Barack Obama's handling of the U.S. economy has fallen to a new low of 26 percent, according to a Gallup poll released on Wednesday in the aftermath of a bruising fight with Congress over federal spending.
Seventy-one percent of Americans said they disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy, up 11 percentage points from mid-May, when Gallup last questioned people about the issue.
Approval of his handling of the economy fell by 11 percentage points from 37 percent in mid-May.
The president had similarly low approval ratings on other economic issues. Only 24 percent of Americans approved of Obama's handling of the federal budget deficit, while 29 percent approved of his efforts to create jobs.
The poll came two weeks after Congress and the president agreed on a deal to cut U.S. federal spending following a bitter political struggle that took the government to the brink of a potential default.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-approval-rating-economy-hits-low-233536916.html

:hi: nice to see you out and about. obama's numbers dropped with african-americans also, from 91% to 81%. i had a conversation with an older friend of mine who has been involved locally with the democratic party for many years. i asked her point blank: what the hell is wrong with obama? i would like to discuss her answer with you privately...will pm you soon.

[Number23]

86. That's 26% on particularl issues

His approval overall is closer to 40%. And his approval amongst Democrats is over 80%. So in this regard -- overall approval -- DU is the fringe.

I personally feel that the debt ceiling fiasco hurt Obama. And I'm not sure that he didn't deserve to be hurt. There was no reason for that to get as wild and out of control as it did. So even though I put 75% of the blame on the unhinged Republicans, I feel that Obama and his admin deserve some of the blame too.

And it's so good to see you too. Looking forward to your PM.

[noiretextatique]

89. just on the economy...you are correct

however, i believe that is the main issue at DU also.
i agree about the debt ceiling fiasco. some "advisors" heads need to roll. will pm you soon.

[xiamiam]

119. those polls are inaccurate..sorry..nt

[Number23]

125. Well, damn! If you say so, it must be true!!!one!~

[provis99]

283. Well I've been to one world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo

and that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

PM me, too, please

I'm interested in hearing this.

[FlaGranny]

159. Regarding who is struggling the most

- you seem to feel that the middle class is not struggling? I beg to differ. We have poor, middle class, and what I would consider wealthy posters and even the wealthy ones are worrying that they might someday soon join the struggle.

The reason DU seems to not be mainstream is because the people posting here pay far more attention than the average person. Probably a good 80-90 percent of DUers were thrilled when Obama won - I was. The rest were disappointed that they didn't get H. Clinton. It's just that now we have been sorely disappointed. AND if you ask individual people individual questions about policies, the majority of Americans are to the left of middle on most issues. That is why Republicans always sound like they're on the side of the little guy, but their policies prove otherwise.

Also, to our detriment, we have wound up with a percentage of people who treat politics like a football rivalry.

P.S. Unfortunately, I was one of the people who thought Obama was "rope-a-doping" the Republicans. Then I found out it was Democrats he was doing it to. I am talking about "real" Democrats here, not the new crop.

[Number23]

362. This is my favorite excuse

The reason DU seems to not be mainstream is because the people posting here pay far more attention than the average person.

I love reading that people who fall for every lie (no matter how ridiculous) as long as it's from "the left" do this because they are simply "more informed" than the rest of America. It's almost hysterical.

As another poster pointed out a while ago, every single Freeper, Libertarian etc. feels that the reason they think as THEY do is because they too are "more informed" than everyone else. There is not a fanatic on this earth that doesn't endorse this line of thinking. That's very telling.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[Horse with no Name]

195. That is actually in line with most of the polling reports

I have seen. I know his approval ratings are in the 20's.

DU may or may not be mainstream...yet...demographics that you mentioned really don't matter because the majority of posters here have the ability to think outside the box...In other words, someone might be filthy rich but also knows that there needs to be money for the lower classes because of the necessary symbiosis of a society. So, while not "technically" being mainstream, it can certainly reflect mainstream ideals and opinions.

[nashville_brook]

381. so, your definition of mainstream is agreeing with you.

that's just sad.

[Number23]

386. No, I think what's sad is your level of reading comprehension

If you think that I consider "mainstream" to be "agreeing with me" instead of what I actually WROTE:

10 points lower than polls that also include REPUBLICANS and Tea Baggers and yet in this person's delusional reasoning, DU is "mainstream."

then I don't know what to tell you.

[Raine]

51. A "battle" no, it's not a battle, it's worse than that.

It's more like giving up. I'm not talking about activists in DU but regular voting Democrats who feel hopeless and disallusioned. Many of these people are my neighbors they don't follow politics by the minute like people here do. They still see SS/Medicare on the table, the ugly deficit battle, the lack of support for the unions, no jobs etc. etc. They are disgusted, discouraged and see no solutions. I wouldn't count on much support from them, a vote, maybe but maybe not.

[dflprincess]

84. At my local DFL meeting last month

fully a third of the people there voiced major disappointment with Obama. These are long time party activists (one might even describe them as hacks) and very few of them are as far to left as I, though none of them would consider themselves to be third way or "new" Democrats. These are the people who never miss a caucus, do all the grunt work to keep the local party unit going between caucuses and have worked on countless campaigns.

Tonight I found an email that this month's meeting is being canceled because so many people have let the chair know they wouldn't be there - and two more people have resigned. Attendence always drops off in the summer, but we've never canceled a meeting due to lack of interest. It will be interesting to see what happens in September.

[tblue]

102. You saw the results of '10, right? Was that in a bubble, too?

I don't know any Democrat who isn't pulling out their hair.

[KoKo]

21. Don't worry about it. Obama has Slain Ghadaffi...and it's anothe notch on his belt...

This is very important. It's not for us to question the motives or why this is important.

Assad is next...and all while our President had the plans in place before vacation. You've got to give him credit for such a remarkable achievement to clear this all up before the end of August.

By the time he comes back to DC...the world will be changed and the ringing cheers from Democrats will be heard everywhere.

:eyes: CNN Tonight has BIG GRAPHIC... THE WAR IN LIBYA!

Seems the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC "Theaters of Operation" they promised us are coming to fruition. ME is falling like Dominoes.

[dionysus]

54. ROFL

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

24. Where exactly do you think it is drifting to?

Everyone is frustrated, but believe me, the left isn't drifting away anywhere. I'm about as left as you can get on most issues, lefter than left on some, but in this system there is nowhere else to go. This is probably as good as it's going to get in this country in the short term.
Solidarity is what we need now, unless you want to see Perry in the WH, which would be like Dubya on steroids.

[Donnachaidh]

38. "there is nowhere else to go" and this is what the admin is counting so heavily on

And what was the word they used after the losses in 2010 -- a *shellacking*. Repeating the same action expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.

The problem is - people are waking up to the speeches versus the actual actions and comparing the two. And those are the folks this admin hopes to *woo* -- but they see the same disconnect the left has.

Good luck with the smoke and mirrors thing. :eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

50. Damn right it's counting on it. We have a very big tent.

The next election, as all before it, will be decided by the fence sitters, not by the far left or far right. We have a president who understands how to compromise, when necessary. It was Congress that lost in 2010. Let's win those seats back and enable Obama to get some real legislation through. Enough with the infighting and whining.

[Horse with no Name]

199. Giving them everything they want and getting nothing in return is NOT compromise

Could be collusion...but definitely not compromise.

[Starboard Tack]

245. They didn't get everything they wanted.

The thing they want now is to bring Obama down and they want you to help them. Looks like it might be working.

[Horse with no Name]

257. Excuse me. They got 98% of what they wanted. Those crumbs sure are tasty...yum yum

Fuck that.

I will vote for Democratic ideals. Period.

For those candidates that espouse those values...they have my undying support.

If candidates aren't interested in earning my vote...then they won't get it.

[JoePhilly]

269. 98%?? Really?

If you wonder why some don't take parts of the left seriously, you just demonstrated why.

[Horse with no Name]

273. Absolutely! I got the part of the "left" that people don't take seriously to respond to a known fact

with a disparaging insult. Of course there weren't any facts to support it because even PEOPLE ON DU touted John Boehner's remark of 98% as valid to blame the republicans when we lost our credit rating. Good job ME!:patriot:

[JoePhilly]

306. 98% is not a fact ... its a BS number pulled from Boehner's

ass, which you seem to wipe off and repeat.

[Fuddnik]

200. We obviously have a very big bus also.

There's a lot of us under it.

[Starboard Tack]

248. Time to pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off and climb back on board.

Otherwise you'll be walking.

[lonestarnot]

412. hmmmf. Clue for 1000.00 Alex.

[Occulus]

228. You aren't fooling ANYone here.

Not with that username.

[tama]

25. The left

that just demands - well, begs and whines - more crumbs from the capitalist's table without offering people any real alternative nor analysis of the current situation that is radical enough and goes to the roots of our common problems, deserves to drift away.

The Left intellectuals, overly cerebral theoreticians, don't understand what to the Right is plain and obvious: politics is not about theories, it's about emotions. Where as Right by rule of thumb manipulate the emotions of fear and anger for their games of power, divide and conquer, "Left" or rather "We the people" should consentrate on building and opening emotions of courage and and compassion and self-confidence. Not whining and self-pity and temper tantrums, of which DU is full of.

[upi402]

26. slowly getting ths shit kicked out of them (more accurately)

Like a wife who has been beaten for the last damn time.


done.

[edhopper]

27. I await the day when

Obama does not put forth a policy that is not a Republican plan.

That especially refers to his economic plans and his health care plan that did not include the public option.

[treestar]

28. Playing the victim to the utmost

and expecting special attention. It's sickening. We're tired of it and can not do anything about it. So go off and complain.

Your post is bringing martyrdom to an art form. Nobody likes someone who passively aggressively suggests they are owed for all those sacrifices.

[WillyT]

30. K & R !!!

:kick:

[kenny blankenship]

31. More like it was kicked away, rather than drifting away

And it is just slowly learning not to return within hippie-punching reach.

[Bluebear]

58. +

[Bobbie Jo]

394. See post # 28....

...and apply accordingly.

[Safetykitten]

35. Great post. This is the funny part.

When all is said and done, me, a lefty will dutifully go and cast the vote for our current President. It will not be out of desire, but just duty to the gang.

The funny part is it will not matter one lick. He's going to lose in a landslide. There will be some that won't vote, some that will begrugingly vote for Obama, but the sheer numbers by 2012 will be staggering of the people who are independents and republicans that will vote otherwise. The ads alone will be devastating. A deserved portrayal of a mixture of inability, ineptetude, a jobless and moneyless demoralized society, all wrapped up in a ribbon of republican lies of course.

Then when he is out of office in 2013, the finger-pointing can begin, and then the almost, how shall we say, certifiable Obama supporters will rise up and begin their purge. It will be for nothing. Like Obama's once in a generation chance that he pissed away.

[ixion]

42. if they do, they're not a 'lefty' at all

they're a moral relativist hanger on.

[SwampG8r]

122. all 15 of them are going to make a purge?

there are only about 15 to 20 of the ones who routinely insult as their sales pitch
i will have no more of them
if they support a lesser evil then they support evil

[McCamy Taylor]

39. The "left" will vote against extreme Republican social values the way they always do.

This election will be decided by apolitical working class Americans---the ones who are suffering the most right now. And you know what? I think maybe working class America has a right to decide its own future, something they will not get if the Democratic party implodes and all they are left with is the Tea Party.

[Safetykitten]

45. Excellent points.

But vote for change they will. It won't be the change or whatever we will be promising.

[johnaries]

47. On the contrary, the Left is on the rise.

The Tea Party and Extremest Republicans have been largely discredited in the minds of the Majority of Americans. Democrats have a solid chance of retaking the House. Although it's doubtful we can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Republican lockstep is cracking. And, we have a Progressive President. Yes, Obama is Progressive and has a Progressive record to prove it - whether some here recognize it or not.

[Safetykitten]

49. He's not a progressive. He also is not getting re-elected in your wildest dreams.

[dionysus]

55. .

:spray:

your wishing that ain't making it come true.

:rofl:

[lumpy]

59. Sounds like wishful thinking, kitten. Is it?

v

[Bluebear]

62. Pathetic

[lumpy]

67. I notice that the perfectly legitimate question hasn't been

answered, bear.

[Bluebear]

97. It's not a question though is it?

Just sounds passive aggressive, no offense

[MissDeeds]

76. I agree

Obama is not a progressive, no matter how much some want to stretch the definition. His re-election is in serious doubt given the state of the country and the anger and frustration people are feeling. Voters go to the polls for two reasons: they are inspired or they are angry. There is a lot more anger among voters than there is inspiration. This election is going to be a slug fest.

[noiretextatique]

77. he is not a progressive, and if the economy does not improve

his re-election is in jeopardy. but...the republican candidates are all nuts, so...

[reACTIONary]

94. Of course he isn't "progressive", and if he was...

... he wouldn't be elected. Nobody who is "progressive" is electable at the national level. Since he ISN'T progressive, he's got a chance, especially if the economy ticks up a bit.

So, accepting the fact that Obama is not "progressive" and that a "progressive" president is not going to get elected, what do you propose?

[sabrina 1]

138. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. A Progressive

President WAS elected in 2008. Had he NOT pretended to be Progressive, he never would have been elected. Now, thanks for the confirmation as most of those pretending there is nothing to be upset over, claim he IS a progressive. You all better get together and decide which it is. But I agree with you, he is not, and never was a Progressive. But he deceived an awful lot of people in order to get elected.

And don't bother denying it. There is a long list of progressive issues easily produced, which he claimed to be supportive of. You'll have try something other than the old 'you didn't pay attention to what he was saying' routine. We've already dealt with that false claim, over and over again. Just thought I'd save you some time since you're new.

[reACTIONary]

408. In 2008, Ilona Staller could have won the election...

...if she had won the democratic primary. No kidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller

[reACTIONary]

435. I don't know, Sabrina, I never had the impression that...

...Obama ran as, or pretended to be a "progressive". And I have never been disappointed in his performance, at least by that standard. Here is what I remember from the campaign that particularly stood out for me. I'm not looking any of this stuff up in news stories, just what I remember, my own impressions from the campaign. Maybe I'm right, maybe wrong, and you can give me your impressions.

O Bipartisan Problem Solver:

First and foremost, I was impressed by Obama promising to be a conciliator who would seek bipartisan solutions and be willing to work with all Americans of good faith, whatever their specific partisan background. I don't know whether or not this intention makes him a "progressive", but it seems to me that he does do just that and that there are a lot of people who claim to be progressive who are pissed off with this approach. But it is entirely what I expected based on his campaign.

O Health care:

Obama ran on an intention to overhaul our health care system, lower its cost, and make it more assessable and fair for all Americans. At the time he was running I do not remember him being too specific about the details, and I do remember him saying that he would work out the details in the context of a bipartisan and inclusive effort. I also remember John McCain having some sort of health care plan also. I ignored it because I figured, as a politician he had to have one simply because it was an issue, and as a republican nothing would come of it. As a democrat, I believed Obama was sincere in his intention. So, did his make him a progressive, running on a progressive policy platform? Not any more so than Bill Clinton, who was the last President to take this issue seriously. So, if Bill Clinton was a progressive, then Obama is a progressive. With the difference, of course, that Obama actually pulled it off. However, given the pissing and moaning about Obama's accomplishment, I doubt you will give him credit as a progressive for this. But in my mind, he did exactly what he said he would do, as well as it could be done in the corrosive and hostile political environment that developed.

O Debt, Deficit and Taxation:

As I remember it, Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K per year. I suppose this could be interpreted as an intention (or threat) to raise taxes on those making more than $250K per year. Should this intention be considered progressive? I think it could be, but $250K is a bit steep, well above the 90th percentile, if I'm correct.

At the time he ran the debt and deficit were not issues, and they were forced on him due to the more recent republican electoral success. I think he has done a reasonable job and had reasonable success in maintaining that a "balanced approach," that is, tax increases, be part of any solution. I don't consider his stance as progressive, and I don't think it in anyway is surprising or inconsistent with his campaign. On this issue I would not characterize Obama as having run as a progressive or done anything unexpected given his campaign.


So, here is the question - when he was running I didn't perceive Obama to be a progressive, I didn't expect him to be one, and he has performed more or less as I expected - what did I miss?

[Enthusiast]

160. How ridiculous.

[katnapped]

174. SHUSH!

Those people are all unrealistic!

[Marr]

221. Did you attend the Ayn Rand School of Logic?

'Let us begin by acknowledging that bunnies can fly. Therefore, bunnies can fly'.

Obama did not win the election by convincing voters that he wasn't a progressive. He didn't proudly promote himself as a third way, DLC Democrat. He ran as a progressive, and that's why he won. Yes, he used a lot of weasel words, and he was very careful never to say it too plainly-- but he won because he managed to get people to believe he was a progressive.

[Fuddnik]

247. The fact is, when he was elected to the Senate.

He had the DLC scrub his name from their website and membership list.

That was the public Obama. The real one had Joe Lieberman for a mentor and bragged at Rubin's Hamilton Project think tank that he was a New Democrat, who believed in free trade.

[rhett o rick]

301. A great Conserva-Dem question. If I cant have liberty give me death.

It's not original but it will suffice.

[otohara]

123. Let Me Guess

we're gonna let Rick Perry and Sarah Palin sashay into the White House, cuz we're mad at Barack Obama, The President who over promised when the place was on fire.

[Bluebear]

134. Oh noes!!!! President Palin!!!11

[Marr]

223. So what? I'm regularly assured the president is powerless, so long as we control

one house of Congress. Is that true or not?

[Carolina]

272. excellent retort

the Obama defenders always try to scare us into line with threats of Potus: Palin, Bachman, Perry or worse. But we have DINO BHO who they exculpate of all responsibility in our national mess because he's powerless against the blue dogs and repukes in Congress. Oh the paradox?!

[Marr]

304. Yep, it's whatever's convenient at that moment.

For instance, if Obama wins next year, after tacking so hard to the right, they'll say it was because he employed a winning strategy. All his critics on the left, they will say, should be ignored because they're clearly irrelevant and out of touch.

If he loses, they'll blame it on liberals, and say that they should be ignored in the future because they're clearly out of touch.

[rasputin1952]

436. So, the alternative is a Republican?

That in itself is a nightmare scenario.

[woo me with science]

95. ....

[tblue]

101. He's not progressive. And he has never said he was.

I don't think he fits any category and I get the strong impression that he doesn't even want to.

[Angry Dragon]

112. You really need to define progressive for me

[Bluebear]

57. That's been clear here since 2008

The left is not wanted or needed by the third way, their candidates or their loudmouthed supporters

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

106. Yes, we saw that in 2010 when they voted for Republicans. n/t

[MessiahRp]

137. Seriously what a dumb shit comment.

If it wasn't for the left, Obama wouldn't be fucking President right now. They bet on him over Hillary because everyone knew the Clintons were DLCers and way too friendly with the corporate elite. Obama was still much more of an unknown commodity who was using progressive type rhetoric along with a lot of Hope/Change talk that sounded like a better alternative. If the same liberals that Obama and his asshat apologists attack daily didn't cast their die for him, he wouldn't occupy the White House today.

And if he thinks he can find enough Independents to replace liberals that he kicked out of his base AND enough Independents to somehow win the battle over the undecideds... good luck. Hope you like living in Chicago the next four years.

Rp

[Horse with no Name]

202. The Hillary v. Obama is the PERFECT argument for the devil you know

vs. the devil you don't know.

[sabrina 1]

143. Lol, that's why Demo leaning Indies deserted the party in 2010!

[Puglover]

177. And attitudes like this

are good for this party? Unbelievable.

[durablend]

185. That's all they got

Can just see them going door to door campaigning

"Vote for Obama or you can go fuck yourself!"

[Fuddnik]

207. How to win friends and influence people.

A real Dale Carnegie graduate.

[myrna minx]

241. Like they did in 2010?

:shrug:

[tgal]

325. yeah that bs mushy middle that always collapses

like it did in 2010.

Cling to those collapsing indies...

[Pavlo]

64. no matter what the Democrat might stand for ?

Just a little bit ingenious. Where is it stated that
if we are a Democrat we must vote like mind numbed robots.
Seems we should be worrying about our country and refelecting on what
voting for our progressive president has gotten us.
Time to broaden your thinking and the field

[udbcrzy2]

70. It's difficult to smile when your heart is breaking

We have some folks who cannot find jobs and now more trade agreements, plus they are not helping the unemployment numbers by doing that. Then they are taking away unemployment benefits, food stamps and things that are important to people who can't find work.

They are going to reduce social security or make me work longer before I can finally collect it. I may not have a pension either or a 401k and then I'm told get over it and to eat my peas.

[unkachuck]

71. "...they are our corporate whores."

....there's nothing wrong with whores as long as they're not corporate....today, a puke or a conservative Dem win is a corporate win....

....and corporations don't need to win, they're evil!

[GreenArrow]

79. We'll meet again

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day
Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
'Till the blue skies
Drive the dark clouds far away

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day

Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
'Till the blue skies
Drive the dark clouds far away

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svo5Jgn8EE8&feature=related

[Bluebear]

98. Beautiful song

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

80. I donb't belong to any organized political party,

I'm a Democrat :bounce:
Face it kids, we live, currently, in a two party system. Do we really want to throw Obama to the wolves because he's a centrist democrat? For me, the grass is not greener 'over there'. We gotta keep the office if we hope to accomplish anything for the greater good...........

[TBF]

93. This leftist voted straight D ticket in 2010 -

it took very little time and I figured I might as well do it (even though I have my doubts about how they count these votes).

I consider many other forms of political activity much more important than voting, but yes I did vote in 2010.

[woo me with science]

96. K&R

[otohara]

105. Corporate Whore Dems

Still better than Corporate whore Republicans!

I don't think my congresswoman is a corporate whore!

[Modern_Matthew]

107. Read Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky and call us in the morning. nt

[cliffordu]

108. Nice rant, but can you qualify ANY single point??

The most passionate I know are STILL working all the time.


They understand what it is like to be disheartened and pissed off at a man we thought would change the world.

NOT ONE has time to snivel or clown around (like me, for instance) on DU or any other idiotic political board.

They make the fundraising calls and man the booths and will be out on the streets until the election is over.

You?? Not so much.

What remains of rest of your post is little more than more empty threats, from someone claiming to speak for the Left.

I know the left, sir, and YOU are not the left.


The left work towards solutions, not against people on an internet board.

[Bobbie Jo]

398. Damn Spot On.......

The "left" I know, are passing legislation on the state level to elevate and support kids with no voice, no vote, and no resources.

The "left" I know, are coordinating targeted efforts to get REAL legislation to the floor for a vote so that it STANDS A CHANCE of becoming reality.,

The "left" I know, are organizing GOTV campaigns so that we have a chance at directing the agenda that gets REAL legislation to the floor that stands a change of becoming REALITY.

The "left" I know, are working within the system of government as it exists IN REAL TIME, because they know if you don't have a player on the field, you CANNOT score much less make the rules.

The "left" I know, aren't throwing up their hands in defeat, much less paving the express lane for those who would run over their grandmother to get to the finish line.

The "left" I know, aren't agonizing over the perceived flaws of one man who was personally hired to do the grunt work of making things happen....exactly according to script.

The "left I know, aren't congregating on a message board to compete for recs and call it ACTIVISM.


Frankly...I'm with you cliffordu, I don't recognize this "left" at all. That is unless you count raising teenagers, I'm feeling a vague similarity.

Good to see ya! :hi:

[scheming daemons]

109. When you have time to come down off that cross, I'd like to point out that..

...not much of what you said in your OP is true.

A. "Those in the Party that are the most passionate and most active are treated like a piece of dog crap."

Bullshit. The ones on this site most treated like dog crap are those that support the President. And the one who is treated the MOST like dog crap is the President himself.

B. "They are threatened that they will be blamed for losing if they don't get in line and vote Democratic, no matter what the Democrat might stand for."

They are threatening to "take their ball and go home" unless they get 100% of what they want on every single issue, regardless of the will of the majority of Americans or the political realities facing the President.


C. "They have given their heart and soul to the Democratic Party and their loyalty to the Party is questioned."

Many of them gave their "heart and soul" to Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004. Many of them are threatening to vote 3rd party now. I would argue that the FDL left is the *LEAST* loyal to the Democratic party. They run for the first 3rd-party candidate they can find.

[katnapped]

173. Ah yes, that "what Americans want" canard

You mean like taxing the rich, single payer, ending wars, and other "far left" stuff?

Oh right, they're all "unrealistic people"

[dbonds]

212. Seriously? that sounds just the opposite of reality.

[Mr Deltoid]

233. "The ones on this site most treated like dog crap are those that support the President"

Exact opposite is true

"unless they get 100% of what they want on every single issue"
That is not even remotely true, as you well know.

"Many of them gave their "heart and soul" to Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004"
This is not even remotely true. Show me one person on DU who says that, just one.

[Tx4obama]

124. Bottom line: Everyone needs to vote in 2012, otherwise the other side wins. n/t

[JoeyT]

129. Oh it doesn't matter if they get in line and vote for Democrats or not.

They're going to be blamed for him losing no matter what happens.

The people doing the blaming are so unhinged they'll never believe his shitty policy could have driven people away, so they'll automatically froth at the mouth and scream about how the left is to blame.

[pecwae]

141. You nailed that. nt

[Marr]

227. You know what's even worse? They'll be denounced as "irrelevant" if Obama does win.

If he wins after tacking as far right as he has, it will, naturally, be hailed as a winning strategy. If he loses, they'll blame liberals and say they should be ignored in the future since they're so fickle.

[Mimosa]

135. There is no real left left in America. n/t

[cali]

150. There is where I live. Maybe Vermont is the last bastion of liberalism.

[Mr Deltoid]

234. Yes there is

Just because half of the electorate is being shunned by both parties does not mean we went anywhere.

[Dragonfli]

136. Since Democrats appear to have adopted the same Straussion economic goals of the the neocons

Those on the left will have to either become begrudging corporatist and support them hoping to teach Keynesian economics to those that refuse to learn (in my opinion a quixotic adventure)

Or else we will finally have to face the fact that the party we have been trying to bring back to it's former glory of standing for the people, their rights and their livlihoods has now finaly after all attempts to revive, died on the table.

It is now a corpse propped up next to the Republicans to maintain the illusion of a choice. Even if the corpse wins it will only be used as a vedntriliquist dummy for banks , oil, and military talking points.

We have to stop holding up the corpse like some political version of weekend at bernie's. and admit that we must gather together in the wilderness and ally ourselves with the Unions the workimg poor and the poor and begin the work of forming a party that will stand for what Democrats once did, revive the platform of FDR and give it not lip service but support and expression in legislation submitted by a third party, The son of the Democratic party so to speak, now that it has died and left us with simply another Republican alternative, it must be reborn or be lost to history.

The Corporate political employes have stolen our name for their abomination. So we will be forced to choose a new one, perhaps Labor Party, or just go with the Socialist Democratic party.
It will take time, but we are getting nothing but Reagan and worse from the corpse right now, so we have finally reached a point where we simply have no other options left to us except to breathe life back into the principles and ideas that fought back the last assault of the super wealthy.

If we just go along to get along with either party all we will get is neo-feudalism.
I prefer to fight for the only ideas that brought shared prosperity and a moral and secure nation.

The corpse is dead, any more time spent on it is time spent on our own destruction. They will only bring us third world wages without security, a land where only the ultra rich can know security and joy.

If this fails, it will only be a matter of time before the hungry and sick that can not get help will explode in numbers and then explode in bloodshed. Once the rich prince said "let them eat cake" or more precisely, "let them eat peas", they stopped hiding the green skin of the corporate corpse as the stench became too pungent to continue to ignore.

[Horse with no Name]

203. [phone]. Can you make this an OP? n/t

[Dragonfli]

303. Such an OP would likely be deleted, I don't know how to say it in acceptable "party speak" /nt

[Desertrose]

260. Well said my friend. Well said.

Sad...but seems to be the truth of things as they are now.:(






:hi::hug::loveya:

[Dragonfli]

305. Were it not for help from you and others, I would still be unable to post.

:hi: :hug: :loveya:

[Desertrose]

330. Just wish I could do more to change things, ya know?

I am so glad I was able to help but...well it's not right that people are suffering while the rich get richer and the wars get longer meaner and make even less sense. The little/poor/middle class/workers are simply disposable to them. Argh.

*sigh*

(I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant....)

Anyhoo...just makes me all kinds of happy :) to see you posting here again...still. Your voice is so important!!!!


:loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug:

[Jackpine Radical]

444. I'm with you both.

:loveya:

[Carolina]

274. K&R Dragonfli

Outstanding post!

[swilton]

425. Excellent logic - if the budget debacle didn't

put the last nail in the corpse coffin I don't know what did.

[OneGrassRoot]

438. Well said, indeed. And what an awesome gif image of the dragonfly.

:hi:

[Dragonfli]

441. Thank you, I designed and created that image myself

:hi:

[Lunabelle]

139. So what do we do?

Keep fighting! Look at Wisconsin. There are still Dems out there who get it. Don't get defeated!!!!! And for the love of God/dess, VOTE and help campaigns of candidates you believe in.

[Enthusiast]

145. Kicked and recommended!

Great post!

Those that fail to criticize party leaders for fostering this radical change in the Democratic Party will be entirely responsible for its decline. If we all pulled together with a great voice to tell the President that we have had enough of his Wall Street ways he would be forced to change. Instead we have those that defend his every action no matter what.

[democrank]

151. "Fall for anything" indeed.

The Democrats defending this New Way must have never read a thing about the Civil Rights Movement or the Women`s Movement or the anti-war movement. They must have never read the history of unions or the fight for rights for the disabled. If we had listened to this type of Democrat back then, African Americans would still be getting hosed in Alabama and The Wall would have 200,000 names on it.

I`ve seen too much life to romanticize anything, but I can say for absolute certain that "back then" Democrats actually stood for something. Now, we nod and say, "okay" when we`re told not to make waves. It`s pathetic.

[Demonaut]

154. wow, I understand your pessimism but I don't share it

I once lived on an aircraft carrier, it took a long time to turn make a u turn, radical change in a short time I think is unreasonable.
The country IS changing, it's just taking time

[dameocrat67]

157. it is moving incrementally right not left

and obama is a part of that. i now think all his talk of making the country better for future generations means social security cuts and privatization. making the country a better place for future generations of rich people only.

[Mr Deltoid]

238. Yes, it is changing

The Democratic party is now buying into the GOP meme that the poor and middle class should shoulder all of the burden for the collapsing of the economy by Bush. The GOP has gone so far right that they are now in cuckoo land. The president has responded by settling into the positions previously held by the GOP, calling it 'centrism.' We have a right wing party, and a fascist party.

There is nothing radical about halting radicalism.

[dameocrat67]

158. i think he will lose mostly because there is no reward in working for him

at all for anyone that is not in finance and they are not big enough in the population to make up for the less of working and middle class dems.

he had demoralized the shit out of everyone.

[Enthusiast]

161. "he had demoralized the shit out of everyone."

This simply cannot be by accident.

[kentuck]

162. Why are so many people "demoralized"?

Surely there is a reason?

[Vinca]

165. I just read an article about the administration pressuring the

New York AG to agree to a mass settlement over mortgage "problems" with the banksters. The AG doesn't want to because he would be unable to investigate individual cases. Why is the administration coddling the banks that are causing such terrible, terrible pain and suffering to some mortgage holders?

[fascisthunter]

253. once again, details that people seem to ignore here

the sooner people come to terms with how corrupt, this admin is, the better off we will all be. The right wing has been on the banker's side for generations, now the left is supposed to go along with this?

[Fuddnik]

205. The first rule of politics.

Rally and mobilize your supporters. Keep them engaged. Solidify your gains. At the same time, demoralize and scatter the opposition.

This administration seems to have gotten it exactly backwards. In 2008, the Republican Party was laying on the embalming table, being given it's last rites. Instead of finishing them off, they allowed them to regroup and remobilize. They came back with a fury.

Was this an accident? I'm more inclined to think it was by design. Both parties have the best of both worlds. Do nothing, and point fingers and blame the other side.

The status quo is unchanged.

[Joe Fields]

176. I don't defend or condone collusion and criminal activity.

[Horse with no Name]

178. To me, it is the proof that our party has been taken over by disaffected pubes

they are bullies and only care about the hashmark in the win column.

This bunch of miscreants ONLY cares about pyrrhic victories and it doesn't make ONE whit of difference what gets destroyed for the win.

By their words...you shall know them.

[durablend]

182. "Party (personality) over country"

Now where have we seen that before?

[paulk]

187. they are not "drifting"

they are being pushed...

[aikoaiko]

197. I don't think its as dire as you make it sound.

My voting philosophy is to vote for the person on the left who I think has a chance of winning the general election.

[Beacool]

209. That's what happens when you are enthralled by someone's rhetoric

rather than their actual accomplishments. Remember his vote on FISA?

:-(

[dbonds]

210. The left is still there and strong...

I do think they are avoiding the fights with the DLC hijackers, but we are still here.

Always stay true to your heart. A path without a heart is not worth following.

[truth2power]

211. Recommend. Thank you.n/t

[pasto76]

215. think those changes will happen with a Republicans in control?

we are better off with President Obama. Most of you, and likely me, would be living in a box. Stimulus jobs have kept my bills paid for over a year now.

It was republicans who sent us to war. "its now obama's wars" is bullshit. I dont know if I'd have dont differently if I were in his shoes. Being dealt those hands was very crippling.

so maybe there will be a balance. People like me will keep democrats in office. So maybe whatever changes people like you are screaming about might-actually-have-a-chance-at-happening.

Fracture our side of the aisle enough, allow republicans the white house and senate, and you can kiss your dreams goodbye.

sgt pasto

[marions ghost]

217. I don't think we can change the party

anytime soon. But we still have to vote for Dem candidates when they are up against Repugs. I don't have a conflict with that since it's the reality of our dysfunctional, antiquated system.

At the same time, we need to be looking beyond. Working on creating a real progressive movement. We need to promote what is positive about our beliefs. Stop focusing so much on political parties and political heroes. That's a losing game in the current political gridlock.

This isn't an either/or situation. I can vote for Obama as the best of the corporates while still helping to envision & birth the movement that will actually represent progressive ideas.

We do need someplace to go, but we will have to create something new. The base is already there.

[BlueMTexpat]

226. I am part of "the left"

and I am NOT drifting away. Especially not now.

[Action]

229. Total repub rule?????????

What fools many of us are! We thought if we elected Obama we could just sit back. Repubs love how dumb and stupid we are that we are ready to take our marbles and go home.

When we are all kicked to the curb by total repub rule that many here let happen, you will be standing in like with the rest of us.

Get real. Get moving and fight like hell to keep the country out of total repub rule! Do you honestly think the repubs would just go home?

How can folks call themselves progressives when they are really just quitters?

[SaveAmerica]

231. This is exactly how I feel, it's like you read my mind! I've volunteered myself to death for a long

time now, non-stop at times ('08 on several campaigns, recent years on executive boards of local dem groups) and I am at the end of the line. After all the time given I feel that I have little to no representation and I have to say that the decision to step back is so foreign to me. I have stepped down and back starting a month ago and I feel GAREAT!!!

[orbitalman]

232. K & R

[defendandprotect]

263. Liberals are a huge voting bloc and should not be "drifting away" -- we need a candidate -- !!

this is a liberal nation -- despite the Goebbels' stype press and

"Congress controlled by Oil and Coal industries" --

Let's take it back -- !!


http://www.stophoping.org

[joanbarnes]

266. I question your use of "slowly." Otherwise, I agree entirely.

[midnight]

270. True.

[ThoughtCriminal]

288. Part of the price of pulling voters away from GOP

When you pull away people who voted for Reagan and Bush, they're just coming around to the idea that the politicians they have supported are buffoons, but their political views may not have changed that much. Unfortunately, as they become "Democrats" it tends to pull the party as a whole to the right.

[rhett o rick]

296. We must not give up the Party to the Conserva-Dems. We must fight for the Party. nm

[rhett o rick]

302. Those in DU that continue to attack the left wont tell us what they stand for.

Ask them where they stand on the issues and they will just attack you. Either they are ashamed or have no principles.

[Dragonfli]

309. Try not to be too hard on them, they are followers and have fallen for many lies, followers don't

stand for things on their own, they need someone to follow and just adopt whatever the leader tells them they stand for.
For this group it is really hard because the leader they chose is ambiguous on what he stands for.

Pity them as you might the uneducated poor republicans that were used against themselves by Bush.

I do not hate them, but they can not be said to have principles of their own, they are not helping themselves or us, quite the opposite, but only the operatives are doing it to screw us.

[Rex]

315. They love to punch hippies.

It is a dangerous addiction by a select few. Sad that it seems to be endorsed here by the admins and mods. You would think DU would be a haven for the left. Not so with the delusional on-board.

[rhett o rick]

320. THe term hapless comes to mind. nm

[ibegurpard]

415. They stand for winning elections!

After that then who knows...
you'll just get excuses about how it's just impractical or not do-able

[swilton]

313. It isn't just passion and activism that the left brings

to the table...The progressives are the component within the party that has the ideas - the 'outside of the box thinkers'......

Mainstream DLCers have the money but they're resistant to chain....Inbred with capitalism is a defacto preservation of the status quo = stagnation.

[JDPriestly]

331. Thanks, kentuck. You get it.

I come to DU out of habit and because I'm stubborn.

It is really discouraging to face the same mindless propaganda by Obama apologists day after day.

Obama is not the president that my populist great-great grandfather hoped and struggled for. He is one huge disappointment, just a bank employee about to be fired by the very bankers that put him where he is.

He should have realized that if he sold himself too cheap, he would lose their respect. But he did not see their game.

Why in the world did appoint Timothy Geithner as Secretary of Treasury?

Because Timothy Geithner's father gave Obama's mother a chance?

Or maybe because that staunch Republican Pete Peterson liked Geithner so much, and appointing Geithner was part of the bargain when Obama accepted Wall Street money for his campaign?

Who knows?

But one thing is certain, Timothy Geithner is your banker's banker even if he only worked for the IMF and never in any specific Wall Street institution. And for Timothy Geithner (and as a result for Obama), the be-all and end-all, the meaning of life, is keeping the banks afloat and in the black no matter how much money they lose at their international gaming table.

What a shame.

Obama needs to think about the people who walked the precincts and made the phone calls. He has very few months to get back their trust. Otherwise they will not be there for him next year.

[kentuck]

347. I don't understand it?

If there was any time in our lifetimes that we needed Democratic policies to fix this country, it was when Barack Obama came into office. We needed Democratic solutions.

But it seems to me that he wanted to be the post-partisan, bi-partisan President that would bring this nation together and that would be his claim to history? He did not want to fight. He preferred to compromise and negotiate. And the Republicans took him and us to the cleaners. Just my opinion.

I would not be surprised if he used the Bush taxcuts as a negotiating tool to get "something" from the Republicans when it is totally unnecessary. He should not negotiate away something that has already been negotiated but I have little confidence in him.

But it seems the Repubs have his number. He is weak and timid or he is too smart by half? Take your choice. Either he thinks we are all fools to be played or he is too naive to be at the negotiating table. I cannot see any other possible answer?

Perhaps the economy was not as bad as I thought when he came into office? Perhaps it was just a simple glitch and a short recession on the horizon? Perhaps there was no need for radical solutions or fixes? Perhaps it was nothing more than a stroll in the park? Perhaps it was just my imagination how badly Bush and the Republicans had screwed everything up?

And then there was the unemployment extension vs Bush tax cuts extension fight? There really was no fight but there should have been. That is where he should have drawn the line and taken it to the people, with the unemployed at his back. He would have won. The unemployed would have gotten their benefits and the Democrats would have won the House.

The Repubs got his number right then and there. That led to the debt limit fight where he was ready to give away the farm, including Medicare and Social Security, when it was unnecessary. It is totally discouraging and depressing that he has so few Democrats advising him and those that are are corporate DLC-type Democrats.

[Mr Deltoid]

354. Republicans do not share

That is the flaw in the whole 'post partisan' way of thinking. Republicans play winner take all, period. They do not share, even the crumbs. Obama is sharing his presidency with the GOP and they are taking him to the cleaners.

At this time in our history the PROCESS is the least of our worries. Nobody remembers the process, only the outcome.

[AsahinaKimi]

332. Slip Slidin' Away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_H-LY4Jb2M

[KOfan]

334. Eff the Tea party!

What is this sh*t? We are now believing what the tea baggers are saying? No way!

[creon]

336. I am not

I am not drifting away.

[inchhigh]

340. Happiness is triangulation in my rear view mirror

I've knocked on doors for evetry Democratic PresidentiaL Candidate since Jimmy Carter. Wish there would be a Dem for me to support in '12.


I never left the party. They left me.

[pam4water]

343. K&R

[Rex]

345. It is all the Hippie Punchers out there that have no agenda themselves

so they act like children toward the rest of the party, well more like a moronic bully. Their hatred will only hurt the party in the same way people have decided not to vote in 2012. It will all hurt us in the end and is very unnecessary. Yet, some people put ego above party.

[davidthegnome]

355. I'm not sure the left is drifting away

I think the powers that be have pretty much spat upon us and told us "You don't like it? What are you going to do? Vote Republican? At least we aren't as bad as they are." Yet with every passing year, the democrats in office cave more and accomplish less in comparison to what they are giving away. Medicare, social security, school funding, infrastructure, so many things being ignored and so many people being tossed aside. To say that I am not pleased with the success of the democratic party in the last decade would be a severe understatement.

I have tried to vote for democrats, I have worked for campaigns and donated money when I did not have money to spend. While I certainly have no intention of jumping ship... the left needs a serious wake up call. Somehow, we have to demand that our politicians start paying attention. If those of us further to the left are looked down upon by more moderate or centrist democrats, it is often because they think our ideals and goals unlikely and even impossible to achieve. In order to be heard, we really have to organize to get out the word (and the votes) to show the world that the so called tea party is not the true face of America.

I have been struggling to put together rallies and events in my neck of the woods (Northern Maine) but it seems that, for all the passion, there are very few people willing to actually get up and do something. I will keep trying, but I sure wish some of the enthusiasm, the anger and passion I see for justice and compassion was more on display when it comes time to get together to do something.

What can I say, those of my friends lucky enough to have work are busier than they have ever been. Those who don't have work are barely holding on. I'm struggling myself, so I can understand the frustration and what may seem the apparent hopelessness of accomplishing anything. All the same... we have no excuse at all for not trying.

I want to help put forth a democratic candidate for Senate this year in Maine, preferably of the democratic (or you could say shameless liberal) sort. Win or lose, whatever, I'd really like to at least start fighting though. I'll do it alone if I must... is anyone else interested in helping me to organize something meaningful up here in the North of Maine? Shoot me a PM.

I post here a lot less often than I used to because I realize now that posting isn't nearly enough. If we want to make change, we have to make it ourselves in the real world. I even read less often because it seems we are constantly kicking the same dead horses. I think that I had it wrong... the politicians, it's not what they can do for us except to represent us. If we are not being represented, we have an obligation to do something about it. The true power of this Country, behind the thrones of the Oligarchy, is the strength, spirit and determination of the American people.

Together, I suspect we might accomplish something. But we can't do it only through online communication.

Just a few thoughts...

[AtomicKitten]

360. Why don't you climb down off that cross you've nailed yourself to and fight for what you believe in?

eom

[rhett o rick]

363. Dont dare believe we are not going to fight. We will fight to the end to drive the conserva-Dems

from our party. It is only the leadership that has been co opted by the big money. The real party is made up of middle class Americans that will fight for their liberty.

What issues do you think important? If you dare tell.

[AtomicKitten]

366. The victim mentality and sense of entitlement here are astounding.

I'd suggest the disgruntled climb down from the cross y'all have nailed yourself to and pull up your socks. Stop lying about your investment in this president with claims of working your fingers to the bone to get him elected; cross-referencing pre-election posts render these claims laughable. Take some responsibility for your vote in the democratic process, stop throwing trash from the sidelines, and pick a goddamn side.

[rhett o rick]

368. Your attacks are childish. The "sides" are the corporatists and We The People. I pick We The People'

side. Whose side are you on? Oh yeah, you think the war is between the D's and R's. How easily some are mislead. Our corp overlords arent stupid. They have enough money to buy both the Repubs and the Dems (or at least some). But your side is with the D's, even if they are owned by the Koch Bros.

[AtomicKitten]

371. It's straight talk, not the insipid k&r'ing of every bit of trash talk that comes down the pike.

I will work my ass off to prevent the GOP/teabaggers from gaining another inch in government. You're free to continue to snivel on the internet and pretend you're a morally superior keyboard warrior.

[rhett o rick]

374. Again, the enemy is the corporatists and they come in all colors and parties. While you fight the

T-baggers so hard, watch your wallet.

[hay rick]

370. What I believe in is not Obama.

I believe in a Democratic Party that is not an echo of the Republican Party. I will do my fighting in the primaries. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will not support him in any way.

[AtomicKitten]

373. "If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will not support him in any way."

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[hay rick]

382. ... generally supportive of progressive ideals. check.

...and to support Democratic candidates for political office. check.

I will be supporting Democratic candidates in other races, but not Obama if he is the nominee. If that's the loyalty oath required to post here, count me out.

Obama is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[nashville_brook]

383. stellar repartee.

seriously -- you should start a salon.

[hulka38]

433. We were supposed to start fighting

for our principles in 2008 but our white knight keeps pissing himself and rusting his armor.

[SylviaD]

361. I still support him.

I still support President Obama and I will work for him this coming election. He will come through for us. I have faith in this, I wonder why some of you have lost yours?

[Joey Liberal]

369. Democrat till I die

I'll NEVER vote republican and I'll always keep up the good fight. Nuff said.

[DCBob]

372. Your mind is drifting away.

You live in a fantasy world. Political parties evolve.. they have to survive. This world is very different from when FDR, JFK or LBJ were alive. They probably would never get elected in the current political environment. That's just the reality of 21 century America. We can still do good things and make things better for common folk but it wont happen if people like you give up.

[DeSwiss]

393. Yeah, but they're supposed to get better, not worse.

They're supposed to move forward, not backward.

They're suppose to improve upon the party's principles, not adopt the opposition's.

EOM

[KoKo]

396. I don't think this world we live in TODAY is much different from FDR & Great Depression..

So...I did have a problem with your saying "This Time it's Different" without giving credible differences as to WHY?

WHY? WHY is THIS TIME DIFFERENT? I really don't get it as to that.....

[Bobbie Jo]

399. Why?

Well, for starters.....

How about a real example. My grandparents who LIVED through the great depression, with 7 brothers and sisters (on both sides) had to quit school at age 14 to find WORK, take care of younger siblings, and basically SUCK IT UP to SURVIVE. They were not the exceptional rare case of hardship, this was the WAY IT WAS! In fact, only one of my grandfather's siblings actually graduated from high school.

This is 2011....the world is INFINITELY different in thousands of very basic structural ways. The system has evolved into a much different and intricate playing field.

There are a MULTITUDE of differences and complicating factors. To ignore this reality is truly naive and downright foolish.

To stomp your feet and scream .....BUT WHYYYYYY???? suggests you really aren't interested in an answer based in reality.

[sabrina 1]

434. You think there aren't people doing exactly the same thing today?

The millions of formerly middle-class home-owners who lost their jobs and their homes, now maybe homeless or living with relatives? College kids no longer in college, but working at McDonalds if they are lucky? Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

And when your grandparents were struggling, there were plenty of people like you, who didn't know of THEIR struggle and/or existence.

Human beings don't change, nor do their needs. Things are not that different, we still have people who are doing okay as there were back then, but an awful more than a few years ago who are not. I guess they are invisible to those doing okay, as always.

[Bobbie Jo]

437. 14. nt

[Jakes Progress]

406. K&R When the left is gone, there will be nothing left.

Nothing left of the party that made America great.

[lonestarnot]

413. Not I!

[dkf]

417. Why would the left be happy about anything in an era of lower revenues?

It stands to reason they will be unhappy by choices made in an environment like this.

[Name removed]

448. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.