I already know you don't care for him much, but there has to be something.

He sometimes SPEAKS strongly for great, democratic ideas.

He can be warm and empathetic and move people.

That counts for something, even if he's a weak president who will leave a legacy of constant compromise of principles.

That's about it, at this point.

couple of mixed race kids I would like them to be proud of both races,not one over the other as Obama seems to

prefer.

Aren't most black americans mixed race?

I'll revise my statement to say: A person of color other than white was elected. That means something to me.

Come to think of it, if the only positive I've got to say about him is his skin color, then it's not really saying anything about him; his skin color is not the content of his character. I'll have to try harder: As far as I know, he doesn't, at least not publicly, cheat on his wife.

obama identifies as black, so he is black. case closed.

feel it's a rejection of his mother and grandparents who were the ones that raised him.

The ones who otherwise are not angry with such betrayals, but are angry with us, are people who value authoritarianism more than traditional Democratic principles and the principles that Obama said that he valued when campaigning.

The ones who are not angry with such betrayals do not feel betrayed. Did they actual support Obama during his campaigns, especially the 2008 campaign? Are they even Democrats? They tell us that they are. Please excuse me for being skeptical, but I'm not so sure.

And, no, I won't shut up.

...the president's poor choices.

I don't think some people really went into the election caring all that much. I mean, that's their right and all, but some of us (like me) really had a lot of chips pushed into the center of the table for this guy.

And that's what makes the loss that much worse.

The questions you pose in the your second paragraph. I think those are reasonable questions to pose, given the nature of the man's choices.

PB

and I remember the first election with the elation over a black man running and the feeling of fresh breezes after 8 years of Shrub.

I also remember the first two years when he actually got some things done with the help of Pelosi.

Then it hit the fan and the rightwing reaction was overwhelming. Stopped him dead in his tracks, it did.

So, now some of us are looking back and inventing things he probably never intended to do anyway but we hoped for. And some things he tried, like Gitmo, were stopped by overwhelming opposition but we blame him...

No man or woman is perfect and while realistic appraisals are necessary and good, trashing the man because he didn't meet our personal expectations is pointless.

drones
targeted assassinations
continuation of the civil rights violations of the Bush Patriot act
and yes, Gitmo. Opposition aside, it is unamerican, period, to detain people who have not been charged with, and convicted of, crimes. Not to mention tortured - have a good read and tell me that continuing the unlawful imprisonment of this man is what you voted for.

I worked my tail off for President Obama last fall (serving as the early voting observer in my county for 6 weeks leading up to the election, and then in the war room in one of the most heavily (and targeted) Democratic counties in the state on election day) because my daughter would likely not survive the repeal of the ACA because she requires $40-$60,000 in medical care every year - except the years when something goes wrong and then it takes more. It is that simple.

He got insurance reform passed - which gives her access to insurance, and for that I am grateful. Had Romney been elected he would have worked his hardest to repeal it - and given the sentiment in another thread on DU, he would likely have succeeded since he would have had bipartisan support.

But President Obama's positions on the above are betrayals of the principles I hold dearest - and I voted for him in spite of those because I am not willing to sacrifice my daughter on the altar of a third party candidate who cannot possibly win. But make no mistake, betrayal is the right word.

lobbyists for his Administration. He said it was a major issue for him, and by campaigning on the issue and representing that it was an important issue for him, he knew that it was a principle that was an important issue to us, his Democratic base.

Just days after being sworn into office, and before he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, he betrayed all of us that thought that the principle of not hiring lobbyists (or appointing foxes to guard the chicken coops) was an important one. One of the biggest budget items in the Federal budget is the money spent for "defense." Raytheon is a major military contractor, one of the largest that makes a lot of money from military contracts. Just days after raising his right hand for taking the office after saying for months that he would not hire lobbyists for his Administration, he putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the day-to-day management of the Pentagon.

That's just one example. He's hired a great many more lobbyists for his Administration as well. Who do they work for? Do they owe their loyalty to us, the American public? Or are they acting as more foxes guarding the chickens? If Obama didn't want to avoid hiring lobbyists for his Administration, why did he make such a big issue out of it during his campaign? Just to trick us?

While campaigning, he repeatedly promised change in order to get our votes. Then after getting the presidency, he put Republican carry-overs into top level positions to continue with Republican policies. Somehow, this doesn't offset his signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

He did these things and more. Saying something about not meeting "our personal expectations" is a way to trivialize what he has done.

You have your perception of Obama, and your opinions about him. Which you have every right to feel and express.

However, you go on to describe those who do not share your perception/opinion of the man as
"people who value authoritarianism more than traditional Democratic principles," and then go further to imply that those who continue to support him did not actually do so during his campaign, and probably aren't even Democrats.

In other words, anyone who does not see things the way YOU do doesn't value Democratic principles, and their affiliation with the party as a whole is suspect.

The totally irrelevant addition of "And, no, I won't shut up" is a nice touch. There's nothing like an attitude of disdainful arrogance coupled with a feigned persecution complex - the latter meant to convey the ridiculous notion that you will soon be under attack for bravely and heroically voicing "the truth".

Traditionally, in our Party, Democrats have taken different views on policies, candidates, and officials. One common phrase used to describe this phenomenon is that "It's like herding cats." At no time did I describe or even imply that each and every one who does not share my perception/opinion of Obama as "people who value authoritarianism more than traditional Democratic principles."

That is certainly applicable to some people, however. When there are those who seek to squelch discussions by engaging in ad hominem arguments and name-calling (e.g., "You're an Obama hater&quot instead of addressing the issues, yes I do think that there are some "people who value authoritarianism more than traditional Democratic principles."

You are absolutely false in misstating what I've said and misrepresenting

how I could have "mis-stated" what you've said, when I quoted your own words, verbatim.

To quote further:

[1]"The ones who otherwise are not angry with such betrayals, but are angry with us, are people who value authoritarianism more than traditional Democratic principles ..."

That seems pretty clear: people who are angry with YOU (as I assume you used the word "us" to mean including yourself) are those "who value authoritarianism more than Democratic principles".

"The ones who are not angry with such betrayals do not feel betrayed. Did they actual support Obama during his campaigns, especially the 2008 campaign? Are they even Democrats?"

You cite "such betrayals" as though they are fact. They're not. Millions of Obama supporters do NOT feel betrayed in any way - and your response to those who do not agree with your perception of betrayal, and are not angry over something they don't see as even existent, is to question whether they "are even Democrats".

As for "those who seek to squelch discussions by engaging in ad hominem arguments and name-calling", I couldn't agree more. But even the most cursory glance at posts on this site, day after day, will include terms like "Obama worshiper, idol worshiper, Obama adorers, sheeple, mindless bots, blind idolizers, clueless followers, etc. leveled at Obama supporters - and you will see those phrases used far more than the term "Obama-hater".

I think your statements have been quite straightforward in their meaning, i.e. I think Obama has betrayed us, and anyone who doesn't feel betrayed as I do "values authoritarianism more than Democratic principles".

"In other words, anyone who does not see things the way YOU do doesn't value Democratic principles, and their affiliation with the party as a whole is suspect. "

that Obama has 'betrayed' his supporters.

You have also stated your position that those who aren't angry at those 'betrayals' in the same way you are "value authoritarianism more than Democratic principles".

You then question whether those who disagree with your perception of things are "even Democrats".

I think you have been abundantly clear.

they've said to give a false new meaning to what they've said.

My words speak for themselves. You don't need to re-state them to give a false meaning to them.

You falsely stated:

Loud and clear.

Go back to your original post that I replied to, and tell me how they can be interpreted in any other way.

I feel that you have a right to be angry. A right to criticize him. And a right to not shut up.

But you are completely wrong with your points on authoritarianism and accusing others of not being "true" democrats. Just because "some" people are making baseless claims assailing your justifications for your position does not justify you making equally baseless accusation on the Justifications of others.

I strongly support Obama because of the good things he HAS DONE for this country and because I see his presidency as being a stepping stone to FINALLY freeing this country from the grips of the GOP by bringing back the age of democrats. He has put together a coalition that allows us to take advantage of what Al Gore and my college professors called the emerging democratic majority. With this we can keep the White house for decades, make greater gains in the senate, and take back the house. Hell, if we can take the WH in the next election we will almost certainly take the SCotUS as well.


ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

Once we accomplish that we can really begin pulling this country to the left where it belongs and get real change done, and actual progressive politicians running things. Yet, to accomplish this I feel we have to being willing to step back from our pet issues and accept that we will have to compromise or "accept betrayals."

Is he perfect? No, not even close. But I think it is important to realize the reality we are living in and look at the big picture overall. The country is right of center if not outright conservative overall. However, Obama has shown that it can be moved to the left. But he does not have so strong a hold on the changing demographics that he can support any issue no matter how unpopular. The first debate against Romney illustrated this. For us to retake all three branches of government he has to compromise and take positions we might not always agree with.

We can NOT make positive change if we don't win elections. In fact, it would only take a small misstep to allow the repugs back into power and make things FAR FAR worse. Just remembering the dark days double dumb ran this country fills me with rage. We can not allow that to happen again. That is why I believe we should give Obama our full support and overlook the "betrayals." I strongly believe we can't be like the teabaggers and put our ideology ahead of the desires of the entire country, that will lead us to ruin just as it did the repugs in the 2012 elections.

These beliefs have NOTHING to do with AUTHORITARIANISM or not being REAL democrats. You do have a right to be angry and criticize Obama, but I also have a right to defend him, and explain why its important to that we band together to defend, support, and advocate on his behalf.



And, no, I won't shut up either.

Your post is extremely eloquent, and well thought-out.

I can understand those who feel it necessary, even obligatory as citizens, to state their displeasure with this president.

What I don't understand is the notion that many of them feel that he should be on-side with their every belief, and that his actions should be reflective of their personal desires.

I have supported Obama from the time he threw his hat in the ring, and have never wavered in that support. I did, however, recognize from the start that when one is elected POTUS by millions of people with varying opinions on what should be done, and how to go about doing it, it is an impossibility to please all of the people, all of the time.

I can only shake my head in utter bewilderment at those who thought one man was going to do exactly what they wanted, to the exclusion of all others who hold a different position, or have different priorities.

I never expected to agree with Obama - or anyone else among the Democratic candidates, had they gone on to be elected - one hundred percent of the time. I find it rather amazing that some people actually expected such an impossibility, given the diversity of opinion from one Democrat to the other.

"I have been BETRAYED" is a well-worn phrase on this message board, often trotted out when Obama says or does anything someone disagrees with. One can only wonder HOW such people actually believed they were electing someone whose policies and decisions would be in sync with theirs on every issue, without exception.

"These beliefs have NOTHING to do with AUTHORITARIANISM or not being REAL democrats. You do have a right to be angry and criticize Obama, but I also have a right to defend him, and explain why its important to that we band together to defend, support, and advocate on his behalf."

Well said - but gird yourself for the onslaught from a certain, very vocal contingent here: You will be labeled as a Conservadem, a Third Wayer, an Obamabot, an idol worshiper, a mindless member of the sheeple, etc. In other words - as crazy as it seems - supporting a Democratic president on this 'Democratic' website will win you far more enemies than friends.

Thank you!

It is good to know im not alone in my position, and I must say your posts are also very eloquent and well written as well.

I'm actually very liberal myself, but I understand that Obama does not share my beliefs on every issue, and is often confined by the political realities of our country. Like I said above, I see his presidency being a stepping stone to building a coalition that will dominate the political landscape for decades to come. I believe this will allow for real liberal and progressive reform to finally take place.

A political chess game, if you will, in which he's setting up our final checkmate on the enemy king. We almost had them before in 2000 till we allowed the repugs to steal the election by dividing us. Now we just need to be patient, see the bigger picture, and allow our Bobby Fisher to do his thing. Or "United we stand, divide we fall."


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Summer Hathaway[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Well said - but gird yourself for the onslaught from a certain, very vocal contingent here: You will be labeled as a Conservadem, a Third Wayer, an Obamabot, an idol worshiper, a mindless member of the sheeple, etc. In other words - as crazy as it seems - supporting a Democratic president on this 'Democratic' website will win you far more enemies than friends.


Thank you for the info. I have noticed a few threads that seem to indicate that if a poster is not a "true" liberal if you don't agree with this ONE position or another, or dissent on anything that they say. I will be on my guard, though I do look forward to polite debate as people agreeing all the time can become boring. Besides, that is what free speech is all about, the free exchange of ideas allowing one to come to an informed decision while showing the logical failures of poorly thought out positions.

Again, thank you for the warm welcome.

I walked to over 5000 voters homes, lower middle class to very poor neighborhoods - ALL were very concerned about social security number one - and the safety net.

It makes me feel like a liar when he bends to corporate (and the rich's) interests. WE trusted him to stand up for us.

I was angriest at those who nominated him, because I knew he wasn't going to offer what I wanted in a president. I paid attention.

And no, I wasn't in HRC's camp, either. They were tied for last place in my ranking during the '08 primaries. But who was I to buck the trend? My primary wasn't until late May, when it was all but decided.

Angry at Obama? Generally, yes, but not surprised. VERY bitter at the multiple levels of betrayal by the Democratic Party, by Democratic voters, and by the neoliberal "Democrat" Obama. I'm not angry at Democratic voters because I value authoritarianism, but because I think the majority have enabled the destruction of Democratic principles.

disclaimer: I am a registered Democrat.

those who insist that give up our principles and be cheerleaders for whatever Obama has done and is doing.

that voters couldn't see past the "inspiring" book and speeches to where he really stood on issues? It was pretty clear to me.

Although Obama had a thin resume, I trusted Durbin and all other high-level liberals in the Democratic Party to provide guidance to influence Obama so that he would do the right thing.

A few of us were also favorably influenced by the fact that he was not HRC.

I don't know how the meme originated that he is a wonderful speaker. I've never seen that, although I voted for him anyway. And I've always assumed that his book was ghost-written.

No, I blame the ones who fooled us. I've seen a lot of elections. As shown by subsequent events, the 2008 election was the biggest con job in history. At least for some of us.

I love the fact that Obama is our president and McCain and Romney never were (or will be). Jeez, when Bin Laden was killed, I've never seen so many glowing posts, yet peeps get all bent out of shape about BS issues.

Scattering emotionally laden slurs like confetti is a sign of intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty.

For me it was his escalation of a war like foreign policy.

If someone would have told me he was going to be like that during the primaries.
I would have called him or her crazy.
When I voted for him the second time I knew what I was getting but what can you do?



vote Romney...no thanks

#2 might be either the quick pardon given for the war crimes of the Bush admin.

#3 might be capitulation on the public option

#4 might be the failure to make decisions following the wall street scandal that could have helped the less wealthy and still accomplished major goals such as saving banks.

#5 might be the capitulation on the Bush tax cuts or other budgetary issues such as cuts to home heating assistance at the same time as the $$$ continued to flow toward the wealthy.

It is the BALANCE, the continuation of spending on war while lack of common sense help for the middle/lower class that really disappoints me.

There are countless other issues that I could think of as well such as the continued war on drugs (so called), education policy, lack of gun reform, slowlness of evolution on gay rights, etc.

give the Bush administration a "quick pardon for war crimes"?

I must have missed that pronouncement.

I also know that making the quick decision that they will not face prosecution wouldn't count in your eyes unless he used the specific words himself, "I pardon thee!" like the voice of God above, preferably in a deep baritone.

Ironically he has the legal power to pardon but not the legal power to pick and choose who the law applies to.

The latter actually violates the U.S.’s legal obligations under the international Convention Against Torture, which requires each country to “criminalize all acts of torture, attempts to commit torture, or complicity or participation in torture,” and “proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.”

The BS answer that was given down thread by someone else was pathetic. While I hate everyone in the Bush Administration, obviously the lack of prosecution does not imply that a pardon was given. It would be like asking me if I watched CSI and when I said no, assuming I don't have a TV. There is no logic to it.

on DU of late. People talking about Obama having 'pardoned' Bush/Cheney, or having granted them immunity, etc.

With all of the mind-boggling mis-information being posted here, it's starting to feel like I stumbled across Fox-News Underground.

It undermines the rule of law.

Everything else false into place.

have never 'openly admitted' to being war criminals.

Nor have they been 'pardoned' by Obama or anyone else. They have never been charged with, or convicted of, war crimes. Therefore, no 'pardon' could have been issued.

Nor have they been given immunity, 'de facto' or otherwise.

Words have meaning, especially words like 'pardon' and 'immunity' which have legal connotations.

Argue all you want about what should have/could have been done. But stating falsehoods - like Obama having 'pardoned' Bush/Cheney, or that he 'gave them immunity' - in order to support those arguments is just the kind of rhetoric that undermines such arguments from the get-go.

Using word torturing semantics to pretend it never happened (pun intended).

Cheney et al openly admitted to war crimes, in writing no less, yet you pretend that because they only admitted to the crimes, and not to being "war criminals", somehow they did not admit it. Torturing words to pretend what happened somehow never did, appears to be your only superpower.

Because Obama pardoned their actions by refusing to prosecute them, it doesn't count and we should pretend it never happened. What he did was worse as he has the power to pardon, but not the power to pick and choose who the law applies to.

You may be impressed with such valid "legal arguments" as "mistakes were made we must look forward" but looking past crimes because they happened in the past does not justify the sweeping immunity given them, or the fact that by not prosecuting them he held them above the law.

I know, I know, your argument here will be "he never used the words 'they are above the law' so there poopy head, they were never above it". I know of your semantic superpowers and am humbled by them

in our last exchange on this topic, this is not about semantics - it is about the law.

Cheney never admitted to committing war crimes. He admitted to using whatever means the Bush administration deemed necessary to protect the nation from further attacks after 9/11, and hid behind the banner of "protecting national security" as a reason for their actions NOT being equivalent to war crimes.

If you have a link to Cheney, or anyone else from the Bush admin, 'admitting' that they committed war crimes, I invite you to post them.

"Torturing words to pretend what happened somehow never did, appears to be your only superpower." Please point out where I said such crimes were never committed. In fact, I have stated clearly that I believe they were - but that proving such in a court of law is not as easy as stating what one of us - or millions of us - believe.

"Because Obama pardoned their actions by refusing to prosecute them ..." Well, we had this argument just yesterday. And as I pointed out at the time, failure to prosecute is NOT the same as a 'pardon'. If that were the case, it would mean that every DA in the nation who does not prosecute an alleged criminal (usually on the basis of there being not enough evidence to convict) is in fact 'pardoning' the alleged crime.

"looking past crimes because they happened in the past does not justify the sweeping immunity given them, or the fact that by not prosecuting them he held them above the law."

Again you reiterate the utterly ridiculous notion that not prosecuting someone is equivalent to a "pardon", or their being declared "above the law". As for 'sweeping immunity', there was no immunity given - nor would it be within Obama's powers to render them 'immune'.

As I said to you yesterday, words have meaning. And words like 'pardon' and 'immunity' have a very specific meaning in law. You may not LIKE the law of the land, but your dislike does not render the law meaningless, nor validly ignored when it suits you. Nor does your rhetoric change the rule of law in any way.

The law is what it is - whether you personally like it or not. And under the law as it stands, no 'pardon' was issued, and no 'immunity' was granted for the simple reason that under the law, they couldn't be - and your insistence that they were has absolutely no foundation in fact.

He covers the war crimes of Bush and also particularly covers murder

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder



http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B001IWO88O

Educate yourself, or not. But a caution: you'll be happier if you don't.

and am a great admirer of Bugliosi.

Do I believe that Bush/Cheney et al are guilty of war crimes? Absolutely, unequivocally, without hesitation.

Could I prove it, beyond all reasonable doubt, in a court of law? No - and I don't think anyone could.

That is not because the crime wasn't committed - it's because the Bush administration covered their tracks (along with their asses) extremely well. And they did so because they KNEW their actions could be used against them after-the-fact.

I've no doubt that DU, like every other Dem website during the Bush admin, was full of comments about anything even remotely linking their actions to prosecutable crimes being shredded within an hour of being committed to paper. And I think we can all safely assume that discussions among the inner circle about "we KNOW we're committing a crime here, but we're going to do it anyway" were not discussed in front of the bus-boys who cleared the lunch dishes.

The Bush Admin relied on two very important realities: the fact that if one turned on the other and admitted the truth, they'd ALL go down, and the fact that if they were indicted on charges of war crimes, by the time they got to trial (which would be YEARS, after all the pre-trial legal wrangling was dispensed with), any witnesses who might be in a position to testify to their knowledge aforethought of deliberate wrong-doing could have their testimony easily dismissed on the basis that so much time had passed, memories were "foggy" and prone to be inaccurate as a result.

Proving beyond all doubt that a former president and his cohorts KNEW they were breaking the law and did so anyway would be a very high bar to meet - and claims of "protecting the nation" after the attacks of 9/11 would be weighed and measured as part of the defense of same.

Bringing a former president to trial for war crimes is not a Law & Order episode, concluded in sixty minutes with commercials. The pre-trial obstruction by the defense would tie-up the courts for years - the interests of "national security" would be raised over and over in an attempt to keep the truth from being accessed and exposed.

And while those years-long legal arguments were being pursued, our 'friends in the liberal media' would be reminding the public of how many of their taxpayer dollars were being used to prosecute a former prez and his 'well-meaning colleagues' at a time when the nation can ill afford such an expenditure - and if you don't think that would have an impact on public perception, you are truly naive.

It is one thing to know with every fiber of your being that war crimes were committed - proving it in a court of law is a different thing entirely.

The law requires solid evidence that they knowingly committed war crimes, and that evidence does not exist - not because such crimes didn't happen, but because all evidence of same was carefully destroyed.

claiming to be liberals . . .

-Laelth

thank you card from the Obamas with a picture of them kissing your buttocks in gratitude.

Suffice it to say that I haven't been pleased with all his choices, no point in enumerating them here. On balance, I'm damned proud of some of the things he's gotten accomplished. Sadly, I no longer mention them here, since DU is the one place where I cannot EVER say anything positive about the man without getting eviscerated.

It's a big internet, I go there a lot.

All of those Democrats who support a Democratic president and the Democratic Party should be relegated to their own 'group', so as not to disturb the others who post on this Democratic website.

"Sadly, I no longer mention them here, since DU is the one place where I cannot EVER say anything positive about the man without getting eviscerated."

his supporters are in the majority here, but it's just that the critics have been much more vocal.

to get Wall Street rolling in continuing bailouts while the rest of us lose economic ground, to increase wars, DRONES ffs...and the government-assisted domestic terrorism brought upon the utterly righteous Occupy movement.

The overall Trend reveals something awful, unsupportable, and as someone who wants a better America, I have to say and do something about it. That's all. Our problems, and the new problems being introduced (NDAA's section 1021, for example) demand that we scream and activate against them, lest the negative trend continue, and sadly, we are clearly on a negative trend

Didn't have the time or money to donate or volunteer and my state voted for Romney despite my vote for Obama.

I wish they would stick to their Group and stop hassling those of us who can actually THINK

Even if we didn't vote for them, even if we did, even if they're Democrats.

No B.O.

and support him to this day

Maybe some background?

Checkmate.