He's going to do what the Wasington insiders and lobbyists want him to do.

I think he's gone full corporate party on us...for a while now

eom

It's going to be a sad century for democracy

...not doing ...

Freedom of speech ENDS at the word Obama.

...doing his best to steer the ship of state but surrounded by sharks and matters beyond his control.

And, I've got his back.

I can't think of another president in my lifetime who has had more serious tonnage of sh!t being constantly thrown at him.

Or Thursday. Or....

You think we went easy on either Bush or Reagan? You think Clinton had it good? Or Carter?

Enough with the 'Poor Obama, he's sooo helpless" bullshit. He's a brilliant man doing a marvelous job representing his employers. Sadly, those employers aren't us.

for at least the first six years of his presidency. The term "the teflon president" was coined to describe how, no matter what kind of awful shit was revealed about his administration, Reagan somehow escaped--at least according to the media--smelling like a rose. Hundreds of marines killed in Lebanon, huge recession, ballooning deficits, "trees cause air pollution," Iran-Contra... no matter what the disaster or flub, the press always had his back, because he was just so gosh darn lovable!

As for Bush--if you're talking Bush II, he had it even easier. Again, for about the first six years--during the post 9-11 surge of "patriotism," even to question the president, no matter how mildly, was tantamont to siding with terrorists. Surely you must remember. It wasn't until the Katrina mega-fuck-up that people in the media finally began to ponder the possibility that Dim Son wasn't the next Winston Churchill.

Carter and Clinton had it pretty bad, I'll admit. Of course, they were both Democrats, so the media's "get out of jail free card" didn't apply.

I'll agree, though, President Obama is a brilliant man, and I wish he was about a thousand percent more progressive.

to get out of bed in the morning.

so she and Bo could pull the President around in a dog cart.

.

Vice President are watching, but mostly because I think they'd be laughing their asses off if they were.

I want him to be a shining example of what Democrats do not want. I want future candidates to fear taking up Obama's agenda.

If you have been reading, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Or do I have to type out the long list of issues again?


Screw the purity test response I know you might lend. You know this is not about a purity test. People that worked, donated, and voted for his second term gave him a long leash considering the House he had to deal with. It is his executive powers that have been horrible. His appointees. His priorities. His lending an ear to the wrong people. His poker chips used for negotiating with crazy.

Many people are just asking for shit to stop going the wrong direction. Asking for a representative cabinet. Asking for a representative agenda.

I could not agree more.

succeeded George Jetsam

and while I don't agree with everything he's said and done, Obama is a far sight better than what we could have in office and I think that should be remembered.

It's fine to express your displeasure and rail about your disappointments but if we'd had McCain/Snow Snooki and then Willard/Ryan, we'd be so far up Shit's creek it wouldn't be funny and the hue and cry would be even louder.

Just my .02

...so he reacts by treating Democrats like crap?

Um....k.

What are you really mad about?

From my perspective, I'm disgusted by the NSA thing on the deep Snowden level and his treatment. However, since Bush2001, I've not ever believed that any public communications to or from me were ever going to be private; the thought that BB was snooping on me has been readily apparent and if anyone applies for PreCheck or anything like that, you are not completely private. It's a simple fact of life.

Does this whole thing suck? YES
Can we really do anything about it? NO

There's no viable or visible 3rd or Green party candidate and the 'rules of engagement' from the D and R party, with respect to any non-establishment party are nil until the 3rd party folks are heard and are not of the crazy faction of the republics.

Are you just content to bitch and moan or are you going out to be a candidate?

Im not 'mad' about anything. I am, however, disappointed in Obama.

There is no viable 3rd party because the electoral college system dooms us to two absolutely dysfunctional parties.

I believe that Obama has disdain for his base because he believes the GOP will be impressed, which they are not.

We don't keep half the bag in order to try to make friends with the jerks who handed it to us.

I don't agree with anything KB insinuated.
I could say a lot more but I'll leave it at that.

to let a load that might have got me banned.

Yours is the better way.

Look at what's going on in the world. It's pretty crazy out there.

showing him up for his empty rhetoric while he tirelessly puts the interests of the 1% ahead of ours.

Posting your waving smiley.

Sure, he could be even more progressive, but historically speaking as far as presidents go he pretty much up there.

Eisenhower looks like a raving commie freak next to him.

100,000 in internment camps, LBJ had Vietnam, and Eisenhower broke up a 500,000 person steel workers strike. All around, Obama is one of our most progressive presidents.

present). (Another iteration of same includes, for example, saying Lincoln was a 'racist'). FDR invented out of nothing the modern social safety net, including Social Security (the most successful anti-poverty program in history) and LBJ gave us The Great Society (Medicare and Civil Rights laws). Nothing Obama has done comes anywhere close to either of those achievements. For that matter, Eisenhower gave us the modern interstate highway system. Again, one struggles to find anything Obama has done that comes even remotely close.

Hmmmm. Federal jobs bills blocked. Veterans jobs bills blocked. Anti outsourcing bills blocked. Taxing the wealthy mostly blocked. Medicaid expansion partially blocked. Lowering student loan rates mostly blocked. Infrastructure bills blocked.

Now imagine Obama didn't allow whites to participate in Obamacare, locked up 100,000 tea baggers, and started a war that killed 58,000 US troops.

a pre-packaged end of life nightmare.

He lost me forever. The spying, drones, and rightwing cabinet choices were bad enough. I kept cutting him slack at every turn. I blamed it on the republicans as long as I could. Truth is, Obama leaned so far to the right he fell off more than a pedestal. He fell off the list of human beings with a conscience.

I know he's personally a kind, thoughtful man......so how do you explain all these things you've listed?

I am at a complete loss.



And it makes me very sad.

yes INDEED

Rahm

Clinton

Rubin

Etc

.. and it's working quite well.

would think of such a thing. After all...we all went and re-elected him a 2nd Time.

How would he EVER THINK...that he doesn't Owe Favors to the Progressive Wing of the Party?

if he loses the house again and god forbid the senate, history will judge as what he could have done but did`t.

whatever we think of him really doesn't matter. we HAVE to take the house and keep a senate majority. we have to start today.

After the outcry from his first election and then the 2010 wins, it's been harder than ever for him to even blink without being judged.

What madrchsod says is true - we've got to win the House and maintain the Senate or the last two years are going to be a complete exercise in futility and that scares me for the 2016 general election.

Sure, dislike him and vent about your disagreements with what's happened, but just consider what could be if 'they' were in power and had some sort of majority - it would be so much worse.

... acting like actual Democrats and less like Teapublican Lite and that includes Barack Obama. Just hiding behind the "D" ain't gonna cut it this time around.

but other than day one, he's not been able to act like a Democrat and he's no where close to being a tea-anything.

I get that the NSA issue is huge and I'm not a fan of any of it, but I'm not so naive to think that since 2001 I've been completely anonymous in anything I do via phone or internet - that's just a fact of life since we became an online society and since the the NSA was put into place.

Obama can't also carve out exceptions for every case that comes into play, a la Chelsea Manning, drones and everything else. He's tasked with the larger picture of our country and it's safety and security, something that can't always be distilled down to each individual case or he'd be chasing an uncatchable tail.

I'm a supporter because he's a D and WAY better than the other options - and that's something I think about every time he speaks and I know he's better than what we could have.

It's a fucked up environment and nothing is perfect....but I'd rather Obama than McCain/Snooki or Willard/Ryan. I do think shit gets really real when you're in the job vs. what was said during campaign speeches and touting the ideals we'd like to hear. I think the real world simply fucks things up and he's got to deal with the 'greater' vs. the micro things he originally espoused.

And honestly, if it comes down to voting, are you gonna pick some teabag R over a D because of Obama? I'd hope not.

Have a great weekend!

I don't have to choose between a spineless, weak sauce "Democrat" and an insane asshole Teapublican. I will vote my conscience. I will NEVER again hold my nose and vote for the less shitty of two shitty candidates. EVER.

Earn my vote by promoting my agenda or go pound sand. I'm done compromising.

I'm all for that and respect your opinion.

However, if there's not a viable candidate in the party which you choose, one who may not have any chance of winning and it's a 'moral' vote,
will you ever be happy with the outcome? Hell, I'm not too proud to say I voted for Nader in 2000 and I know how fucked up that was and it gave
the vote to little boots; I'll never do that shit again unless I know a third party is viable and won't take away from a Democrat, however jacked up
he might be, getting in office - and I believe that shit from local elections up to the General Election.

Is the time right for a Progressive or 3rd candidate - maybe and maybe not. However, there's no way in hell I want THAT candidate to be of the
teabag or rethug flavor; ever.

We are cursed with the two-party majority system until it get broken....and I'm not certain when that break will happen. Until then, I'm still going
to vote Democrat because it is certainly the lesser of the two evils, like it or not.

... ever "be the right time" to vote outside Coke and Pepsi options?

That is the Catch 22.

I appreciate that you "respect" my opinion, but "respect" doesn't change a damn thing. I prefer you understand that having principles and integrity trump being respected.

I said I respect your opinion because I do - we are all allowed to have differing opinions and we should voice them here, frequently and loudly. I wasn't trying to downplay anything or pander to you.

I do understand having principles and and integrity but what is that going to do when we, as a country, have a two party system that excludes any other party and won't allow them to debate and they're relegated only to being on a ballot? Who is going to change that?

I'm not trying to pander to you - for me, I just see this in black and white and, unfortunately no shades of grey/gray are allowed in 'the system'; personally, I wish it were different, then I could really vote my conscience instead of picking between worse and worser. Right now, there's no magic bullet and the Green candidates are so far down the ballot they don't even get a glance; the Progressive party - I don't even know what they truly stand for as there's no one articulating their stance.

How could/would you change the system so that we could have a truly Progressive candidate? It takes years of groundwork and volumes of discontented voters to get that kind of party to be relevant to the voting public at large. Are you willing to put in that work or simply sit back and criticize - there's a difference between 'do-ers' and 'be-ers' and most folks don't want to get involved but simply bitch about everything.

If you have a plan and could put it in place, I'd definitely listen...until then, I'm like a lot of others - voting for the lesser of two evils and I'd still cast my vote for our current President if we voted today - I abhor the possible options of Obama not winning.

I wish you luck in your efforts and search...and for now, my votes are prefixed with a D and never an R- I don't want those fuckers anywhere near me or dealing with legislation that has anything to do with me.

When the Dems get beat, the fault lies strictly with them. They don't listen, it's on them.

strongly support your view in general. However, that said, I think a situation where one of the choices is quasi-fascist (Republican) and the other choice is center-right (Democrat) compels one morally to choose and cast a ballot for the not-fascist alternative. That's my curent state of thinking and I'd dearly love hearing your thoughts on it.

and yet some of these people will be on their crosses whining that the Ds are no different from the Rs. People with that attitude are never going to be happy and there are not that many of them.

What he doesn't seem to get is that he's going to be out there as much as he was in 2ars008 or 2012 in order to get any chance of flipping the Boehnerhaus. He's going to have to get out of his comfort level. He's going to have to...wait for it...actually get angry and get fired up.

The man has nothing to lose from keeping shit real in the last two and a half-years.

I'm actually thinking more and more that the insane, recalcitrant Republican House of the last few years has been a net gain for people on the left. If they'd been sane enough to take "yes" for an answer, we'd already have seen Social Security cuts.

And before you say that was an item Obama never would have pushed if not for a Republican House-- well then, why did he set up that rigged commission to "examine" the issue immediately upon taking office? SS had nothing to do with the deficit, but that was the story he was pushing, even then.

Progressives like Noam Chomsky, who calls Obama the world's greatest terrorist? Or Chris Hedges and Jeremy Scahill, who take every opportunity to claim he's a greater threat to peace than Bush and Cheney? Or Amy Goodman, who digs up former Bush officials to bash Obama on her show? Kristina VdH of the Nation? The late Alex Cockburn? Commondreams.org? Julian "Stand with Rand" Assange? Medea ditto Benjamin? The people who post and rec their predictable bashes here?

Because I haven't seen any of these defend Obama against anything.

Your opinion doesn't have the tendency to change facts.

Whine that we never find anything to bash him about. On a board for Democrats, no less.

republican he left in place for every republican he appointed. I at least hoped he would have cleaned house. He didn't when the other party is in power you bet they will clean house their way. I wanted him to clean house our way for once. Didn't happen. Oh well life goes on.

FDR had to run against "progressive" Democrats like... wait for it... Strom Thurmond.

as Secretary of Commerce under Warren Harding. However, he lost his way later in the decade, perhaps when the influence of the Progressive Republicans fizzled out with the death of their standard bearer, Robert LaFollette, Sr.

As governor of South Carolina, Strom Thurmond was considered a "progressive" for having members of a lynch mob arrested. However, it was Truman, not FDR, whom he ran against, due to Truman's efforts to integrate the army.

People will label from where they stand.

Right wingers of my acquaintance are sure Obama is a communist, so it's funny to come here and see people labeling him conservative.

Not really, but it is effectively the same

...along with Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the 2010 Arkansas Democratic Primary when we tried to give President Obama a "progressive" Congress by replacing DINO Blanche Lincoln, who, if you remember, was the Conservative Senator who Killed the Public Option, and was PROUD of it.

The Arkansas Democratic Primary was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

*Blanche had NO chance of winning the General in Arkansas

Guess what happened.
Our BIGGEST enemy to bring "Progressive Change" to The Senate was NOT The Obstructionist Republicans.
NO!
Our BIGGEST enemy to bringing "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

And I remember the level of support the unions got from him in Wisconsin in 2011.

And that is being repeated across...

And Clinton came in to campaign against Halter, a man who was reminiscent of a much younger Clinton who had nearly unseated an entrenched Republican in the 1974 3rd district Congressional election

in-your-face illustration of Obama's actual political position. And I've yet to hear an apologist offer an excuse for it that isn't downright comedic.

But sometimes I wonder if the reverse is closer to the truth.

Just sayin'

mistakenly thinks that liberals believe things that are impractical and unworkable.

In reality, he and his advisors are the ones who believe false narratives. There is a poisonous inbreeding of ideas among the 1%'ers, and the policies they favor always seem to coincidentally confer short-term benefits to their own class. The focus on budget cutting and the deficit flew in the face of basic economics, but all the "serious" people advised him to do it, so he listened. Only the DFH's told him any different, and what do they know anyway?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's why we're probably going to get Larry Summers as our next Fed Chairman.

Lately it would be difficult for me to know who is really "progressive" since so many who identify themselves as such are among the most intolerant, uncompassionate, bigots posting on the boards.

I don't think his actions are based in the reasons people project into them.

Example: "Brutal persecution of Chelsea Manning"? Manning wasn't found guilty on whistleblowing, but for stealing information. How is allowing the legal process to proceed blown up to "brutal persecution"?

I guess if you dwell and stew and get group reinforcement in a relatively closed environment, you can whip up any action to be rooted in nefarious intent.

I think some want to amp up their perception that Obama hates them (by imagining these things if he's personally spitting in their faces) to justify the resentment they've harbored for him since he ran.

Never too proud to say that you speak for me. Thank you.

The OP labels, like "brutal persecution" are "blown up." The OP expects us to accept those labels as valid.

Torturers and war criminals and banksters are all allowed a free pass; meanwhile, a conscientious soldier has the book thrown at him for exposing the criminals, as is demanded by both the Nuremberg Principles and US and international law.

You can take your "legal process" and shove it!

Looking forward to the next divisive effort.

is difficult to grasp from the outside.The Democratic Party is in a constant competition with the opposing party for the loyalty of two partisan sets of voters. If you don't walk a tightrope between the two you risk losing too much support of one side and therefore control of governing.

So the object is to win the loyalty of as many voters as possible to stay in power while weakening the opposing political party by starving it of the oxygen of power. To do that requires a temporary balancing act. If the Republican Party ever went fully belly up the balancing act might shift to being between Democrat and Democrat Lite parties. But, for now, we are stuck with the battle being between Democrats and Republicans and I think it's the strategy of politics that confuses some people.

But maybe I have no clue, since I'm not in politics.

This is why I think it's too bad that we didn't have a primary challenge from Kucinich or Sanders or the like. Obama would still have been renominated with ease, but at least he would have been reminded that he needs to consider his left flank now and then, instead of looking exclusively to his right.

Only people who are brain dead morons would think that.

It's always disappointing. People always think POTUS is secretly on the other side because DC just doesn't change much. Hell, in 2008 most Republican activists were convinced W was a not-so-secret Democrat. They vowed not to be fooled again, nominated much much more conservative candidates, and blew what should have been an easy chance for them to retake the Senate. Twice.

security?

b-b-but I read on here he did!

and creating their own TeaParty.

Let's say that we are talking about racists who want to cut welfare. Who are they going to vote for? They're going to vote Republican. There is no way that they will vote Democrat, and they're not going to stay home, they want their voices heard, even if the Representative doesn't vote to end welfare.

Now, to the Progressive/Liberal elements that are perpetually being taken for granted. Are we going to stay home next election? No, we're going to march like good little boys and girls down to our polling places, and we're going to cast our ballots for Democratic Party people. Even if they don't stand a chance in hell of winning, we'll march down there and vote Democratic. It could pour rain and animals could be lining up two by two looking around for a big boat, and we'd still march down and vote Democratic.

It isn't the Progressive or Liberal vote that the Democrats are trying to win, it's Republican votes that they're never going to get. The Democratic Party Nominee could be a blithering jackass like Filner, and we'd still vote for him because he's the Democratic Candidate. We are the base, we shout and scream because we are the ones that show up and volunteer and we're the ones that man the phone banks and we're the ones that go door to door passing out information because we want the Democrat to win.

And they repay us by sending us a form letter, sometimes, and buying us some popcorn on election night, sometimes, and then the next day they call up and ask us if we can donate a little more for some runoff elections.

Then they get into office, and they immediately send us calls for help, help in raising money for their re-election campaign. Money for their PAC to fight the RW. But when they vote, they vote however the hell they want, utterly ignoring us. If denouncing us gives them one point of approval, they'll do it without a seconds hesitation. Then they send us more emails and mailers to tell us how we have to donate or we'll lose a Woman's right to choose. Or they highlight some RW asshat to tell us how they're fighting for us. Just ignore the details of that fight.

So as you look with jaded eye at the PTB, and you wonder why those we worked to get elected are denouncing us, remember this. They already have our vote, and if by bad mouthing us and disappointing us they can get one vote from the RW, they'll do it. The same way that the Republicans beat up on the far RW, because they are going to turn out and vote Rethug no matter what.

and we'd still march down and vote Democratic."

Yeah, because that happened in 2010.

I'm willing to bet that you voted, and voted Democrat. I'd be willing to bet that aside from the trolls or those who were too young on this site, we all voted. The Liberals turned out, we always turn out. In 2010, we had the ACA to fight for, and we were not about to lose it.

Take any state you wanted, and you'll see that the Liberals turned out and voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic Candidate.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/

We would crawl across broken glass to go and vote Democratic. We turned out and manned phone banks, and we fight for the Democratic Party.

I've had my fill of fighting for a party that doesn't fight for me, one that's eager to see me when it wants money or there's work to be done but otherwise treats me with disdain. I'll work for individual candidates I find worthwhile, but the Party can find someone else to exploit.

Think about the scenario you laid out up thread: if Democratic politicians aren't representing us, and Republican politicians aren't representing Republicans, whose interests are all those politicians in DC representing?

Winning on real issues is actually hard work

We never get anywhere when the elected officials are troglodytes

So the first step is always to elect folk who will work with us

But that's just the first step

The next step is to organize pressure for the changes we want -- and that's where the rubber really hits the road

Posting on the internet BTW really doesn't count as organizing

And true on all counts.

Issues like tax, trade, Social Security, labor rights, privacy, regulation and education. That's all.

and I came to that conclusion long ago.

It is the machine that has been churning since 1941

The security state that is the military industrial complex

I am against 1/2 of his appointments and much of his agenda which I think is sometimes just wrong and other times doesn't go far enough left for my tastes but I am also pragmatic. Considering the way the world is fucked right now and the fact that congress is in total gridlock or basically non-functional, he is doing OK and I am glad he is the president. If the Republicans take the Senate in 2014, which is very possible, 2 of the 3 branches of government will then be controlled by the Tea Party. We can continually whine about Obama and the Democrats or we can get busy making sure that people get out to vote in 2014 so the nut-jobs don't take over congress. If you don't think there will be any difference if this happens then I feel sad for you.

It's going to take some time for America to swing back to the center, much less left of center.

He's weak at standing up to the Pentagon, he's had no military service or training. He strives to seem tough on National Security measures .. he thinks ''third way compromise'' is more what the public wants. I think he snarls at the left .. and we haven't even begun to let him know how unhappy we are about his policies. He sees himself as the middle man between the corporate, military, and the left. I suppose if he really had balls he'd tell it like it is .. but I don't know how long he'd would be alive.