Did President Obama take the left for granted ?

[kentuck]

And does he stand to lose much of their support in the next election? Can he win without the left behind him?

Many polls indicate that is the case. Many have simply given up on him.

In recent days, he has been trying to win them back. He is talking about saving Medicare, Social Security, and taxing the wealthy to pay for the deficit. But is that enough? Many simply do not trust him.

In a close election, one or two percent loss in any group could spell defeat. Some polls are indicating the President has lost 7-10% of the left and more. It would be difficult to see how he could win if he lost that much support from his left?

In the last year or so, it appeared he was triangulating, like Clinton did, to split the Repubs and to win the middle. That was a proven recipe for success. However, he kept losing more and more of the activist left of his Party and many may never return. That is the reality that the President faces.

Fortunately, the Republicans cannot agree on anything or anyone when it comes to presidential politics. This may be the President's saving grace. You can't beat someone with no one. Right now, the Repubs are trying to maneuver Mitt Romney into position but are having a very difficult time getting him by the inspection committee of the Tea Party and others. This may save the President, even if he loses much of the support of his left.

[DCBob]

1. Depending on who the GOPer candidate is, Obama likely wins this with or without the "activist left".

Also, I suspect many of them will come to their senses by election day. Obama and the Dems still provide the best option to getting anywhere close to what progressives/liberals want. And given time, I believe Obama will get there on many of the most important issues.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. I'm not wasting any time or money volunteering or donating this time

around. Whether I actually bother to waste time going to the polls to hold my nose and vote for Obama will depend on exactly how reprehensible the Repukes get with their nominee.

On edit: if I do vote, I won't be voting 'for' Obama. I'll be voting 'against' monstrosity.

[DCBob]

42. I consider stopping "monstrosity" to be a valid reason to donate and volunteer..

I guess you dont.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Well, let's see. Obama has approved extra-judicial assassinations

of American citizens abroad on flimsy pretexts. That seems pretty monstrous in and of itself. So the Repukes are going to have to nominate a totally horrible specimen of the un-human race (like this bozo Caswell 'Second Hand Clothes for Second Hand Kids' in Michigan) to get me to bother to pull the lever for Obama.

[DCBob]

45. Do what you want. I am sure nothing anyone says here will change your mind.

ciao.

[jaxx]

2. Did the left take President Obama for granted?

Did he lose some support because he wasn't fast enough or didn't get things done exactly the way they were expected to be?

Nobody can tell someone not to 'give up', or how to vote. Either the person wants this country to continue moving forward....sometimes at a snails pace, to be sure....or they abandon the attempts and find greener pastures. Beware the other side of the fence looking greener, it's usually because there is more bullshit on the grass and it needs mowed more often. And then there is the stink...

[kentuck]

3. Ah, the pragmatism...

foiled again.

[jaxx]

4. Mornin' kentuck.

Pragmatism wins out, it's a long road with many lanes to avoid. Look ahead.

[kentuck]

5. Mornin'.

I think the President is finally on the right track, although the polls indicate otherwise. My hope is that he sticks to his guns and keeps telling the truth about the Republicans and their plan to destroy America. So long as he has the people on his side, he cannot lose. I hope he understands that.

[jaxx]

13. I think he does understand.

He is fighting for the people.

[hfojvt]

17. well better late

than never.


I guess.

[TheKentuckian]

52. It is all to frame up the Catfood Commission as acceptable. If he was on the right track

he'd have thrown in with the Progressive (moderate in reality) budget instead of a bunch of nothing that will be safely guided by the likes of present gremlin Kent Conrad right into Purinaville, or worse.

Obama is the master of the okie doak and this push is the same formula used for health care.

[kentuck]

53. You may be right?

I think Barack Obama may be a creature of circumstance thrown into the lion's den and made friends with the first people that threw him a rope? He was ripe for picking.

[TBF]

56. Pragmatism doesn't always win -

sometimes other methods are more effective.

[patrice]

10. I like that question a great deal.

Ever since I can remember, I have heard almost nothing but conditional statements coming from any/all political directions. Conditions are appropriate to the reality of our lives, simple formulas are a hallucination.

There appear to be an awful lot of people taking too much for granted, when they DO listen, hearing only what they want to hear and not evaluating what they've decided to hear within the larger context, a context that in all regards, historically and contemporaneously, includes significantly positive/negative effects of each of our own actions/non-actions. Attitudes about what's going on serve a purpose of some sort for each of us, therefore each of us should be honest enough about our own individual desire for the truth to recognize what authentic function(s) our attitudes serve.

[Dawgs]

12. Your argument would mean a lot more if he put progressives in his cabinet instead of CEOs/bankers.

Or, center-right "Democrats" (Rahm) that told President Obama that the left can suck it.

[patrice]

14. I agree, strongly. And I also think there is something to the point that:

given the economic situation we are in, of the two groups you refer to, which one generally would know more about where at least SOME of the PRIVATE skeletons are hidden?

The answer to that question does not justify the narcissistic dysfunctions of persons like RE. Nor does that answer imply that the proportion of progressives be, well, really ZERO!, but I can guess that a young "outsider" (not to the manor born) coming into such a situation would want to cast as wide a net as possible to pick up whatever pieces he can in the hopes of putting together a pattern that would give his administration somekind of leverage in dealing with our private financial sector that is holding this country hostage.

[msongs]

16. and Bush retreads. republicans moles, reps from corporations who pay no taxes etc nt

[fascisthunter]

26. rovian sophistry... the sky is down, and the ground is up

[Exilednight]

51. No. Many on the left gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on many of his

early decisions. The left wasn't too happy about Rahm. The left wasn't too happy about bringing in Wall Street types to fix the economy. The left wasn't too happy to see many within the Clinton administration recycled and pushed to top cabinet positions within the Obama administration. But the left hung in there and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Obama disenfranchised the left when he denied their seat at the table for HCR and then appointed a lobbyist from the health care industry to write the bill and garner support from Congress when it was perfectly clear to the rest of us that Republicans were never going to vote for any compromise.

[LWolf]

55. +1

[leveymg]

6. If Obama has to count on the GOP defeating itself, he's already in big trouble.

The White House despises the Left, because the President and his advisers are almost all Wall Street lawyers and economists. Center-Right - kinda liberal in social policy, but solidly and decidedly corporate on economic issues. They came to save Caesar, not to bury him.

They'd rather the Teabaggers took over than to allow the likes of us anywhere near the levers of power. They may end up burning the village in order to save the village.

[rug]

7. Yes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. Yes.

[undeterred]

9. Someone from the local Obama for America left me a phone message

this week to talk about my role in the upcoming campaign. I haven't returned her call. I'm trying to imagine myself going door to door talking to people about President Obama. I don't think I'd make a very good campaigner, because when they start raising issues about him, I'm going to be chiming right in with them instead of defending him.

I don't feel like defending you, President Obama. I'll vote for you, but don't push it.

[NightWatcher]

11. same here. Last time I walked door to door and was excited

this time the only line I could say is what I see here over and over again. "vote Obama or else"

It's ok as long as they dont fire back "else what?"
More wars? Obama already started one and kept the otherS going
Torture? Obama thinks Manning deserves it
Economy might get worse? ....

Like you, I would not be an effective campaigner this time

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[undeterred]

30. The thing is, being from Wisconsin

I've never been so excited about getting involved in working for local Democrats. I'm working on the recalls and filling an Assembly seat that was just vacated because my Assemblyman got a County Exec position. I am so proud of all our State and local Dems in Wisconsin. Can't wait to see who will run for Governor when we dump Walker in the gutter.

But I'm not excited about re-electing Obama. Its just the system we're stuck with.

[txlibdem]

48. I'm proud of the people of WI, and the Dems there who stood up to evil

I hope you get all of the Republicans kicked out of the state government there. And the icing on the cake is to dump that corporate tool Walker.

About re-electing Obama, I'm not going to be fooled again. I'm hoping for a real primary challenger to step forward. Four more years of Obama will just be another 4 more years of Bush, IMO.

[JoePhilly]

15. I think "the "left" abandoned Obama after about 1 year, if that.

Many on "the left" appear to be praying that he'll lose in 2012. They'll be disappointed.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Did the Left abandon Obama, or did Obama abandon the Left post election? nt

[madrchsod]

18. yes he did...

when he gave dean the kiss good bye that was it for the left in the party.

but...the wellstone ,dean,and union democrats in wisconsin and across the nation raised it`s head and said no more.



so mr president..."you hear those diesels humm`n? .... all you got to do is step on board...."

[Le Taz Hot]

19. To be blunt:

Ya think? (No disrespect intended to the OP.) I think you make a good point. Obama will most likely win in 2012 but it won't be with the help of the left. It will be the Republicans putting up some batshit crazy candidate that the moderates can't stomach. As a result, they'll stay home and Obama wins by default.

[Arctic Dave]

21. +1

Obama won't win because people are for him, he will win because the repugs are on self destruct mode.

[ThomWV]

22. It is not a matter of if he 'stands to lose much support' he already had lost much support

Once you see him as a fraud you can't ever see him as anything else again. When he did nothing to promote the Public Option, when he ridiculed Democrats who wanted it, when he caved on the Bush tax cuts, when he caved on Guantanamo (sp?), as he currently approves what amounts to the torture of a lowly enlisted man, as we enter into a endless chain of wars, as he accedes to the warantless claim that Social Security is collapsing and in need of overhaul .... and it goes on and on.

[bluedave]

23. we are

still screwed either way but less by the Democrats and I'll always support them anyway.

[Zorra]

24. Yes, taken me for granted. Yes, I've given up on him. Yes, I'm going to vote for him.

I'm a hostage voter again. The scenario is this:

I either vote for Obama, and help him get elected, or a republican takes over the WH.

I don't like this scenario at all, it totally pisses me off, but until I, and others like me, can unite and figure out how to change the system through voting or direct action, we are stuck voting for corporatist Democrats for President.

And there is the possibility that things will get so bad that the less conservative Dems will see the light and will have had enough to where we can nominate a serious Progressive Dem and get her or him into the WH.

The bottom line is this:

A Dem in the WH at least does some positive things.

A republican in the WH does all negative things.

(I really like your thought provoking posts kentuck, thanks)

[LeFleur1]

27. His Inaction

...caused the Democrats to lose the house last election. The crazies didn't get in because that's what the people wanted. They got in because many voters stayed home, disgusted with how different Obama's actions were compared to his words. He had the majority and he squandered it.
I can hardly listen to him anymore. He lied to us. Will I vote for him again? Let's see...shall I be attacked by a hungry bear or a prince who turns into a frog? I suppose the frog is less dangerous in the long run.

[Zorra]

50. Exactly. We are hostage voters. nt

[Annata4Peace]

25. The 2012 motto will be

Change. We really mean it this time.

[fascisthunter]

28. of course he has...

...and now that he's in campaign mode he is sounding more progressive. Gee, I wonder why.... I guess progressives and liberals do matter.

[cattleprodigal]

29. The President has officially launched his 2012 campaign.

He is running for office. Naturally, he is now once again speaking to talking points on the left. Most of the country is to his left on the major issues of our day.

[Johnny2X2X]

31. Obama is a Conservative

He's one of the 2 or 3 most Conservative Presidents in US history. He's to the Right of Bush on Taxes so far. He's a Neo-Con when it comes to foreign policy. He's as Right as Nixon when it comes to Civil Liberties. The only Health Care reform package he got passed was completely the brain child of Republicans. In any other Universe he would have run as a Republican. The fear mongering by the corporate media has pushed us so far Right in the Country that it's a long way back.

He's at least a little Liberal on some social issues, but on the stuff that most matters he's a Conservative. Period!

[LWolf]

35. He's a neoliberal. nt

[donheld]

39. Sadly too few, even at DU, know what you mean.

[somone]

32. It doesn't appear the GOP is trying very hard to win in 2012

maybe because they already have a captive White House

[LWolf]

34. "take us for granted?"

How about, "Did President Obama actively work to push us out, and work to make us irrelevant?"

My answer: YES.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Obama is to the Left what Decaf is to coffee.

[cattleprodigal]

38. :-)

[sofa king]

37. I remember this sort of disaffection during the Clinton years.

And I suspect the causes stem from the same source: a poor understanding of how American government, particularly Congress, works.

In the Clinton years, the Republicans were just as evil, just as bought, and probably more clever by a damned sight, which forced President Clinton to compromise time after time. Even I called him the best Republican President since Abraham Lincoln.

The problem is this: just one bought Senator can stymie the legislative agenda of a President, and there will always be a bought Republican Senator willing to do just that. This is because Presidents have almost no influence over the legislative process. Of course, it worked in our favor all the past decade, and anything you have left now is thanks to some Democratic Senator who prevented the Republicans from stealing everything you had, instead of most of it.

What I didn't notice about President Clinton's years, and what I clearly see now, is how effective both of these Democratic Presidents are on the executive side of things. The rules, regulations, and practices of the Clinton era were so deeply entrenched that in at least some cases, the Republicans were unable to undo that progress. In cases where they did, the Clinton regulations were good enough that President Obama has been re-inserting them into the books with little change. Every day the actual functioning of government is improving, instead of being exploited, constricted, reduced, and starved out.

President Obama is having a better time of it because he is so good at turning the baser instincts of the Republicans against themselves. Thus, even though so many of you want to rail against his moderate ways, most of you concede that the next election is in the bag for him, but it's not because he's lucky. It is because he specifically maneuvered the tax cut compromise in such a way that Republican greed was forced to concede the next election in order to make their masters richer for two years.

It's all going to come down to the Congressional elections in the next cycle, whether we're watching closely enough to prevent rampant election theft, whether we can kick out fifty-or-so Republicans in the House, whether we can hold on to our majority in the Senate against dismal odds. Until then, President Obama has to be a moderate. He has to be a moderate so the next election isn't close enough to fucking steal, which is a stark reality that very few of the people in this thread have chosen to acknowledge.

So, if we all work our asses off to make everything break our way, we'll have a two-to-four year window to make this nation viable for the next half century. Those of you who want to walk away from that responsibility had better damned well remember that.

[cattleprodigal]

40. I'm no fan of Clinton, but at least

he did not compromise until after the debate started. On most issues, before actual debate on the issue even begins, Obama a), accepts the most radical right wing frame without even discussion; and, b), concedes more than half the distance between a centrist-right position and his perception of that radical right-wing position. That becomes his starting place. The fascists frame every argument, and discussion begins far to the right of any sane position.

No wonder the republicans keep moving to the right. Obama slavishly follows them rightward, like a shadow.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. So you think Obama being able to order extra-judicial assassinations

of American citizens abroad merely on suspicion of terrorism is 'improving' the functioning of government? You have a warped sense of what 'improving' actually means.

[upi402]

47. we todd did

:rofl: :fistbump:

Clinton was a republican supplanting a real Democratic nominee - thereby disenfranchising us. This is what cemented corporatism - they had both parties and the media.

Poor understanding is right. We suffer from NAFTA today. I railed against my former party's take over then, and I'll keep fighting the 'head in the sand' Democrats now.

"Democrats" did NOTHING to prevent the next election from getting stolen when they had a majority. Not a peep. Take the next step. If you connect the next couple of dots, you're there.

The dynamics you describe is part of the facade, not an "adult" understanding of reality -as they want us to think. It really is a charade.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Vattel]

49. Although I am far to the left of Obama on many issues,

I still recognize that he has advanced progressive causes on many fronts, often not as far as he himself would have liked. Obviously he was hampered early on mainly by the fact that he had to work with a Senate that, because of smaller states generally being more conservative, is inevitably far to the right of the majority of Americans (even when the Dems have the majority). And now he has to deal with a conservative Senate and a Republican majority in the House. Those who attack him for his failure to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, or his failure to close Guantanamo, have to concede that he has been on the right side of those issues--he tried but failed to get what he along with pretty much all progressives wanted.

On the other hand, on some issues dear to the hearts of progressives, he cannot blame Congress for his failures. On moving the country away from militarism, on reducing the numbers of innocent bystanders killed by our armed forces, on down-sizing executive power, on habeas corpus and due process and other issues pertaining to the balance of civil liberties and national security, his record is not as bad as Bush's, but it is still bad (at least as judged by standards that I would think most progressives would endorse).

I certainly don't want him to lose the next election, but I have no enthusiasm about his candidacy. Will I vote for him or just leave that part of my ballot empty? To be honest, I'm not sure. On the one hand, he will win my very blue state regardless of whether progressives show up at the polls or not. And as a matter of principle I really have a hard time voting for a presidential candidate who claims a degree of executive power that far exceeds what I believe is granted to the President. So I might not bother giving him my vote. On the other hand, given that I do hope very much that enough people vote for him to give him another four years, it seems rather odd for me not to add my drop to the bucket of his reelection. So maybe I'll focus on the good things he has done and give him something I'd rather give to a more progressive candidate.

[WA98296]

54. Did, Does, and ALWAYS will.

Until there's a progressive to vote for. And, that will NEVER be allowed to happen.