= new reply since forum marked as read
This one went 47 yards, did a flip, and landed in a glass of water.
this week. Well played and with great aplomb.
You're right, we would be in a big mess and the Republicans would be more in control if we insisted on ideological purity the way people expect.
Plus I fully believe that had President Obama rejected say the ACA for not having a public option, the same people would be complaining that he didn't get what he could.
It also cracks me up how "spineless" they say he is, yet he is dictator of a surveillance state. If so, why doesn't he just have Boner and Co. arrested? 
I should have seen that coming. Especially with multiple countries banning GMO crops. So now friggin monsanto will be free to sue the hell out of the countries that have legally passed laws against them being there. I seriously want to throw something right now.
It seems pretty anti-America to me to allow foreign corporations to run roughshod over the laws of the United States. And then to punish the taxpayers for it? Without even letting us decide if we want it or not? WTF is that?
Do you know whether or not congress will be voting on this? I havent been able to tell from anything Ive read. Fucking monsanto.
Then he noted his views on Social Security were not much different than Romney's
Maybe he found the wrong party.
"I don't care whether some of you don't believe it, but I feel more sorrowful than anything else about my changed sentiments toward the President."
...I don't understand, is that most of things you listed were known years ago. When did your "sentiments" change? The fact that the President is advancing some policies that you disagree with, doesn't mean he has changed.
President Obama is one of the best Presidents this country has seen, and he operates like all President's in the scope of a vast bureaucracy, and in this current climate, massive obstruction.
I don't understand the notion of focusing on the negatives to justify withdrawing support from a President who has done a lot of good and just recently won re-election by a decisive margin.
For every disappointing claim, I can cite extremely positive achievements to counter the "pot smoker," "Community Organizer," "trade" and "rule of law" negatives.
The Stimulus.
By Mike Ervin,
<...>
The first is a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other selected Social Security benefits. Many SSI recipients live on less than $10,000 a year, and so this additional income will make a significant difference.
Second, the stimulus package also allocates $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce the processing time for claims and appeals decisions. During the Bush years, the number of people awaiting final determination on their Social Security disability claims more than doubled to 755,000. Many were waiting two years or more for determination, without income. Obama’s allocation should help end this disgrace.
<...>
More creatively, Obama provided $140 million to support centers for independent living. These nonresidential centers are run by people with disabilities and are focal points for services and advocacy. There are hundreds of these centers throughout the United States, providing thousands of good jobs for people with disabilities and others in their communities.
The stimulus package will also invest in the future by providing $540 million for vocational rehabilitation programs, which assist people with disabilities in obtaining higher education and jobs.
- more -
http://progressive.org/mag/mpervin030509.html
•The Act included $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce its backlog in processing disability applications;
•The Act supplied $12.2 billion in funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
•The Act also provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn; and,
•The Act provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
•The Act provided over $140 million in funding for independent living centers across the country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities
Before the health care law, the President signed the expansion of CHIP.
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill extending health insurance to millions of low-income children, and President Obama signed it this afternoon, in the first of what he hopes will be many steps to guarantee coverage for all Americans.
<...>
The roll call ended a two-year odyssey for the child health legislation, which President George W. Bush adamantly opposed on the ground it would lead to “government-run health care for every American.”
<...>
In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.
Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05health.html
The health care law.
A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.
Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.
The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individual’s income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.
Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.
- more -
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Monday said the state will join the Medicaid expansion under the new federal health care law, the Associated Press reported.
Her announcement came as a surprise to many observers, and it distinguishes Brewer from other Republican governors. The Supreme Court's ruling last summer on the Affordable Care Act, widely known as "Obamacare," made the Medicaid expansion under the federal law optional and state leaders such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) have already opted out.
But in her State of the State address on Monday, Brewer rejected the notion that a rejection of the expansion would reduce the federal government's deficit.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-gov-brewer-opts-for-obamacare-medicaid-expansion
HHS Ruling Helps Workers But Spells Trouble for Employer Mandate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023207327
LGBT rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/09/481147/obama-marriage-2/
Pres.Obama urging state lawmakers to legalize gay marriage in Illinois
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/obama_urging_state_lawmakers_t.html
The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline
http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq
Osama bin Laden brought to justice
Rescuing the auto industry.
Before the domestic auto rescue, President Obama made$5 billion in Federal loans available to small auto parts suppliers:
The Treasury Department announced a $5 billion program to aid struggling auto-parts suppliers, raising the likelihood the government will extend more aid to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.
What a lot of folks, including politicians, don't seem to realize is that GM and Chrysler merely ASSEMBLE cars. They don't make the parts.
<...>
Obama rescued the Domestic Auto Industry.
But BEFORE that. BEFORE that. BEFORE he sent the domestic auto industry into structuered bankruptcy, he made sure the LITTLE GUYS....the SMALL manufacturing companies that make SPRINGS or BOLTS or LATCHES or TINY WIDGETS were able to stay afloat so that when GM got back on its feet again it didn't have to look to CHINA or MEXICO to make those parts because the previous suppliers had gone belly up.
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/29/1069618/-What-Happened-Before-the-Rescue-of-the-Domestic-Auto-Industry
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.
“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Statement from Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation Patti Goldman:
“America owes Lisa Jackson a debt of gratitude for her work to protect the public's health from polluters and their allies in Congress. For her efforts to clean up pollution and better protect the environment and public health, she faced a steady barrage from members of Congress and the industrial polluters who back them. Her detractors are the same people who told us taking lead out of gasoline in the 1970's would break the economy and that taking acid out of acid rain in the 1990's would ruin the country. In both cases, the environment and economy were strengthened and this is the approach Lisa Jackson took. There is a lot of unfinished business started by Jackson that the next EPA director will need to attend to. Whoever it is, they'll need the support of the President and they'll need to be ready for a non-stop barrage of attacks from the chemical, industrial and fossil fuel industries and their allies in Congress.
“After 17 years of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally regulated mercury and other toxic pollutants coming from power plants. After a decade of litigation from Earthjustice and others, it was Lisa Jackson who supported and implemented regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. After more than a decade of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally implemented the first regulation of mercury from cement kilns all over the country.”
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/lisa-jackson-to-leave-epa-earthjustice-statement
By Laura W. Murphy
June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.
Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.
By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today
Here's a great clip from December 2010: Rachel Maddow on securing loose nuclear materials
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/40859004
The START Treaty.
For the last two years, Democrats have held the White House as well as big majorities in both the House and the Senate. Their record of achievement in that time, even in the face of unified, at times totally random Republican opposition, Republican opposition even do things Republicans had proposed in the first place, unified Republican opposition even to their own ideas—their track record even in the face of that is historic.
Whether you agree or disagree with what Democrats have done in the first two years of President Obama‘s presidency, they have freaking done it. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women, expanding children‘s health insurance, new hate crimes legislation that they said could not be done, tobacco regulation, credit card reform, student loan reform, the stimulus - which in addition to helping pull this country back from the brink of a Great Depression was also the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever.
There was also a little thing you may have heard of called health reform. Also, Wall Street reform, the improvements to the new G.I. bill, the most expansive food safety bill since the 1930s.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40898769/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
Trade:
In case you missed it: Good moves by the Obama administration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002540300
By Lee White
<...>
Steven Aftergood (Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and the publisher of the blog Secrecy News)
In retrospect, the Administration erred in making its early public statements promising unprecedented transparency. The President raised expectations so high that the ensuing disappointment was inevitable. The smarter move would have been to demonstrate openness in actions, not in words, and to exceed public expectations.
<...>
Thomas Blanton (Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.)
There are obviously some differences of opinion on this subject. My own is that too often we conflate "the Obama administration" with actions of specific agencies or specific bureaucrats, when in fact the policy decision at the top has been pretty good, just stymied by ongoing bureaucratic obfuscation in the middle and the bottom. Or even worse, continuity by federal career employees of Bush policies that the White House has not succeeded in changing.
<...>
Anne Weismann (Chief Counsel for Citizen's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington-CREW)
In my assessment, the administration's record on transparency is mixed. Without question, President Obama put strong, pro-transparency policies in place that really set the benchmark for a more open government. The problem has been in implementing those policies at the agency level. Agencies have been encouraged to make proactive disclosures, but they have shown little regard for the quality of and public interest in the information they are posting. And the administration has not provided them much guidance on this front.
<...>
Patrice McDermott (Executive Director of OpenTheGovernment.Org)
I think it is a very mixed bag. There are strong indications that the initiatives and efforts of the Obama Administration have begun to institutionalize changes in the attitudes of components of the Executive Branch, mostly in the area of domestic right-to-know. While the effectiveness of FOIA as a disclosure and accountability tool for the public continues to lag behind the promises the President and the Attorney General made, much more attention is being directed by agencies to improving the process, and agencies are putting more information out proactively (without requiring or waiting for a FOIA request)—and not just the usual stuff they want you to know. The greatest frustration on the domestic policy front has been the ongoing changes in policy personnel in the White House, creating problems of follow-through and consistency.
<...>
- more -
http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1209/Transparency-Declassification-and-Obama-Presidency.cfm
Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787
Obama First POTUS in History to Publicly Support Divestment Movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023144219
The new State Department special envoy for closing the United States military's detention center located at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba began the effort to shut down the polarizing prison camp, McClatchy reported Thursday.
Clifford Sloan, a former publisher of Slate magazine and a Washington attorney who’s worked in all three branches of government, embarked on a one-day tour of the prison facility, where he had discussions with military and medical personnel.
In a major national security speech in May, President Barack Obama vowed to close Gitmo, which he said has "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." Obama has drawn criticism, mostly from the left, for failing to close the detention center during his first term in office, despite his 2008 campaign pledge to do so.
“President Obama has been very clear as he laid out the goal,and the objective is to close Guantánamo," Sloan told McClatchy. “Our marching orders are clear.”
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/new-state-dept-envoy-begins-work-of-closing
ACLU Comment on Appointment of Envoy to Close Guantánamo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036083
too long.... that's not much better than spamming.
somebody has gotten to BHO and managed to change his mind on all these matters, and that's scary as hell. Moreover, all changes in positions on these issues are for the benefit of monied corporate interests. As such, the 99% are forever screwed unless they voice their strong opposition to this corporatist government in ringing and resounding unison at the polls and every day in the social media and elsewhere. 
[font size=4]
The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
I know "they" had a good laugh over this since he had campaigned as the Anti-DLC, Anti-CLINTON, Pro-LABOR candidate.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
Let's work to nominate someone we know for sure is a progressive next time, like Alan Grayson, or maybe Elizabeth Warren.
All the cards in the system are stacked against us, but maybe we'll get lucky next time around.
(up front apology for the length; waiting for my car AC to get repaired.)
let's not forget here, obama is a deeply progressive liberal in his personal principles, but - this is important - he is also deeply aware that he is a president of ALL the people, not just king of the dems.
he canNOT do what bush wanted to do - and often did - and impose his will.
all to his credit.
so, consider all the various pressures and demands that he has encountered since he was thrown into... all this.
now, consider the larger than even the over-the-top RWN tea bagger belligerent republican hatred and obstruction he faces on a daily basis; consider the military-industrial-intelligence complex.
this behemoth is beyond enormous; it rules the world. literally. make no mistake. i'll guess he had his suspicions when he ran, but i'll also guess he had no earthly clue just HOW HUGE and dominant and corrupt and unconstitutional all that has become, much of it in the past decade.
so what he's left with is this: how do i navigate it all? how do i stand up to my duty and lead us in the best steps we can hope for, steps that lead to ultimate success?
which is where the 11 dimensional chess mind comes in.
which is where i most certainly am not.
but i know how anyone in that situation should navigate it all: with tremendously delicate and finely toned surgical care. most certainly not by stampeding in on a white horse and taking no prisoners (see bush). because at risk is killing the patient.
take the environmental piece as just one example. do you really think it's so simple as to just do what we all wish were possible right now, that he could just wave his magic negro wand and make all the oil companies pay zenormous fines to convert the world to renewables, and we can then all grow flowers and romp with the lions and lambs since we'll all be vegan and no one will ever be sad again. (at this juncture, i have to recommend you visit the one and only tbogg for this pearl of wisdom.) i do not use the magic negro phrase lightly; obama knew far better than any of us the venom that awaited him the minute he threw is hat in the ring, and it's only become more venomous since he won. you all know the history; how does anyone navigate that, much less lead?? but consider this as well: what if he were to do just that? what then? you think it would be met with universal support? do you honestly think dictating comprehensive environmental reform would not result in a backlash from hell? at the very least - the very least - the industrial powers-that-be would dump more money than gawd into defeating every democrat for the forseeable future, bar none, even more than ever before. not that every one of them would be met with success, but think about that. this is the saddest truth about how far our country has slid into corruption and vice (and i would say, fascism, given that mussolini defined the term as synonymous with "corporatism"
. and obama must recognize this as reality.
another scenario, ACA. remember how eagerly obama went for the passing of this bill, even sacrificing numbers of progressive demands, like the public option (forget about single payer, as rahm ditched that from the get-go; so glad he's gone and tanking)? what he always knew was that simply something had to be passed as a basic foundation upon which greater changes could be made in the future. this is actually the way social security happened, gradually, not all at once. and he has to know this is another one republicans will fight to the death, because they have ALWAYS known that each and every government program that serves the safety net is forever remembered with the gratitude of votes. the post FDR republicans watched this happen, and have fought it ever since. obama knows this, he knows it's better to make the lives of americans a little better is not only just good will, it's also good politics, something that ties the opposition in so many knots they fight it all like hell.
and then there's this surveillance piece, something we've all really known about for years. so consider this: what pres. obama is faced with when he's briefed on all this by the MILITARY THAT CONTROLS THE WORLD are the threats that if he does NOT continue with their programs, americans will die. there is this terrorist plan and that plot and this risk and that suspicion and this intelligence and that analysis, and on and on.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE IF CONFRONTED WITH THESE OPTIONS? WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO LET AMERICANS DIE? ON PRINCIPLE?
do you let americans die? makes a nice license plate for NH, but frankly, it only applies to the one with the option in his or her hands for his or her own life. you simply cannot expect any president to make that choice for innocent americans in order to keep his principles in tact. life is, after all, the first unalienable right listed in the Declaration.
it seems to me that too many here are too quick (and i suspect, too young to remember much) to judge in this greenwald mold. don't get me wrong, i admire and respect a great deal of his work. however, he is not squeaky clean himself, and who among us can cast the first stone? after all, we each and every one make compromises each and every day, in our relationships with family, friends, community, work, you name it.
HOW CAN ANYONE THEREFORE TRULY EXPECT THIS MAN TO GOVERN WITHOUT MAKING ANY COMPROMISES???
the name of the governing game is compromise, pure and simple. otherwise, you govern like that faction of rump republicans who take it as a badge of honor to never compromise. where's that at?
compromise seems to be the way good bills move through the system, gradually. unlike very bad bills, like bush's PATRIOT act and his medical bill that created the donut hole, the gift to the pharmaceutical industry; both rammed thru under the shadiest of circumstances.
in general, managing such things, including the military and industrial powers, is a matter first of being able to sense how much gas to apply, when to brake and how much, when to clutch. at every turn, you have to consider so many plates spinning in the air, and each one of them is loaded with potential disaster. it's all become so damn tricky, it literally boggles my mind.
so consider all these things, and consider who out there you would trust to do a better job. and before you jump to a conclusion, consider further:
anyone else might not have this man's intelligence, knowledge, caring and humility (yes, he did do community service in chicago, and wore shoes with holes in the soles), principles, cunning (a good thing ultimately on our side), and yes both idealism and realism.
yes, the man is both idealistic and realistic, in ways not dissimilar to MLK, jr. and he knows, much as king did, that his own dreams will not be realized in his tenure. he sees the writing on this outrageous republican wall of obstruction telling him his only prayer is to take baby steps, and make sure he does not sabotage the future for is party. this party is also corrupt, but please people, get real; this is the only consequential choice we have now, between dems and republicans. so which one do you trust to get us closer to those goals? really? are you willing to do anything to sabotage those chances?
and who would you choose now to do a better job under these outrageous circumstances? someone more like bush? he's our go-to man if - like glenn greenwald - you believe a leader should never under any circumstances compromise in order to move the process along, however halting, toward the larger greater goal? if you're demanding that obama adhere rigidly to most everything he said during his life, or even just his campaigns, then i suggest you opt for the mywayorthehiway mentality of bush, cheney, and the thousands of like-minded jackboots who are now running our country down the toilet under the name of republicans.
the president is NOT and never has been or will be king. obama canNOT dictate what he wants, and sure not what we want.
so, careful what you wish for.
if you really listen to this man carefully, at every turn, on every issue, he has alwaysalwaysALWAYS encouraged, beseeched, and begged the american people to make their voices heard.
it is true this system is deaf, but it is still possible to get the attention of the deaf.
it requires that we be steadfast and clever and patient yet persevering.
when you feel you might despair that the forces are all overpowering us and we're doomed, just consider...
what this black man of unique life and exquisite character and profound fate faces in each and every moment.
