Critics can suck it.

The president has risen to the occasion better than I expected. He was after all a first term U.S. Senator.

On the campaign trail - I was concerned that he was in over his head, but he's done pretty well up against what he's been faced with.

And too bad the next prez is probably going to be more to his right, regardless of party.

He is to the left of Bill clinton. Or are you suggesting Hillary cannot possibly be more left than her husband?

As they say, in politics, that's an eternity. (You might want to lop off a few months to account for what will be lame duck status after the November 2016 elections; but essentially, because Congressional obstruction has impeded his every move all along, this is not really a change for him.)

Funny that it's silent in this case. Funny.

considering the Congress of NO he's had to deal with. My spouse voted for him in '12 after his citizenship and he's like Krugman, very satisfied with him too. In '08 my husband said that it would be impossible to live up to the hype the media gave him. Yep, I could see that too.

What she said.

and I'll guarantee you'll like him even more yet.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Ok, I also agree with Krugman.

Krugman, who was recently a self-described liberal, has joined the cheering section for the president who supports fracking, drone murder, proftized education, health "care" that shovels a half trillion dollars a year to middle men and death panels, the union-busting, wage-killing TPP, and secret domestic spying.

Personality cults are very dangerous, especially when the stakes are so high. The soul of the party that gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, the War On Poverty has been ripped out. I sort of wish the DINOs would find something else to call themselves besides Democrats, because they're pissing on the graves of the real Dems

Your thread in the lounge has been kicked and not in a good way.

We can be happy about the things Obama has accomplished and still be critical of the (numerous) areas where he's fallen short.

I agree with everything you enumerate in your first paragraph (and I agree with your second paragraph too, but that's beside the point). But Obamacare really is better than nothing, and in fact, for what it is, seems to be working pretty well; hopefully it will serve as groundwork for universal care at some point in the future. We've crossed a Rubicon in any case, and as Krugman says, the right-wingers are in the process of conceding the argument, which is to everyone's long-term benefit. If you want to argue that his environmental push is too little, too late, I don't have a whole lot to counter with, but I'd still rather see a little bit than nothing... and again, given the sheer insanity in Congress, I'll take what I can get.

But my point is to defend Krugman. I don't think he's drinking the kool-aid now, just because he's looking at the liquid in the less-than-half-full glass, if I may twist a metaphor. He's not only been consistent, he's been consistently right in his analysis and predictions; if 6 years into the Obama's presidency, he takes one column to feel ok about what Obama has accomplished, I think he's earned that...!

I was also quite happy with Obama's recent environmental push - and I have a feeling he's leaning towards not approving the Keystone pipeline. Which is great, as it makes Harper look like an ass (not that he needed help) for pushing the Keystone and falling short on Canada's environmental promises.

Maybe. Health "care" stock prices are continuing to rise, around 40 million Americans are still without, most still have to battle their death panels to get their money, and a lot of us with employer plans got absolutely hammered. And we give Big Insurance that half-trillion a year to provide...absolutely nothing except obstacles to care. I guess it's working well for some



This is no longer even a talking point for the true believers. One recent post described the ACA as "the most important legislation in decades". Another asked an opponent of the $500,000,000,000 per year giveaway to Big Insurance, "why are you so against profits?". This is the kind of stuff that used to be exclusive to Fox Nation and Freeperville. Now it's posted by alleged Dems and those who disagree with them risk hides and suspensions. No, the ACA is not going to "lead to universal care". It was never intended to. Its purpose was to lock in useless middlemen who use a portion of their bonanza to finance election.



I have the feeling that the Repukes heard the insurance executives testify as to how enamored they are of Obamacare, and decided it's a good idea to stop criticizing the insurance cash cow. As for Prof Krugman, he didn't like Rmoneycare or Heritage Care, but now likes the ACA. This is the part that is unhealthy - good people embracing bad policy because of who enacted it.

Anecdotally, though, I can say this: I live in South Carolina, and my wife was the principal Obamacare navigator for our county. On the one hand, it was heart-breaking for her to meet person after person who, thanks to our right-wing governor, was actually too poor to qualify for ACA benefits (since S.C. declined Medicaid expansion, and subsidies only kick in *over* a certain threshold). On the other hand, it was very gratifying for her to sign up many people who had never had health care before, and literally hadn't seen a doctor in years. For me, that's a pretty good representation of Obama's "good" policies: Better than nothing, but not as good as they ought to be.

(And I'm deliberately not going into his bad policies--we agree on those anyway.)

You're certainly right about the corporate give-away aspect; and I think one of the most fucked-up things about our current right-wing consensus is the idea that somehow, any public policy is more virtuous if someone is skimming money off it. Hence we get ACA, KBR in Iraq, and all manner of "public-private partnerships", most of which Obama (wrongly) supports. But at the end of the day, if the ACA is alleviating some suffering for some people, I have to give it some credit.

In The Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman basically advocates for the originally-proposed ACA, but emphasized strongly that the public option was a necessary component, for reasons I'm sure would be familiar to you. Since that book was 2007, I don't quite think you can say he supports Obamacare because it's Obama.

... in the land of bashers that is

Doctor_J, I'm here to tell you now that you're NEVER gonna find the "real Democrats" that you think you're looking for.
What does that even mean anyway?
A Democrat is merely a member of the Democratic Party.
It's not some special designation that tells you where the person stands on an issue.

Political Stance & Political Party are 2 INDEPENDENT THINGS.

These political gangs are just organizing bodies to collect behind for exercising principles.
Don't take 'em too seriously.

The Democratic Party was once the organizing body of the Southern slaveowners, the Confederates.
Now the Republican Party is the organizing body of those Southern Confederate descendants.
Which party is the REAL party of the Confederates?
Which party is the TRUE party?

See? Those labels mean nothing.
It's just a name.
There might be a time in the future where the Democratic Party might be the organizing body for ANOTHER evil cause.

Quit conflating party with principle. You're gonna CONTINUOUSLY find yourself disappointed trying to put that square peg in a round hole.

The Democratic Party is merely a tool to use. Nothing more.
There's nothing special about it.
What IS special are those principles.
Use this organizing body, this political shell to get those principles put into practice.

DINOs ARE Democrats by definition.
All you have to be is in name only to be a Democrat.
There's no central guiding belief behind this political tool.
The people organizing under that banner are what's important.

If one day the coalitions realign & the Democratic Party becomes the organizing body for ANOTHER set of political interests, you won't get confused & you will rightly be allies with the people holding the principles.

You already see the "real Dems". That's the ones with the (D) besides their name at the voting booth.
Instead of wasting time looking for that, look for the people with the principles.

John Lucas

Problem is Obama goes in the opposite direction too much for my taste.

It's not a matter of moderation and degree. It's a matter of direction.

What Obama has done wit the Internet and FCC is anti-democratic to an extreme degree. What he is doing in pushing for more of the "free trade" agenda is handing our covil laws and society over to the "free market privateers."

I have to admit that in the last six years the country has made a pretty satisfying amount of incremental improvement. It sure feels a lot better to be American now than it did in 2007.

Dearly beloved who elected Obama hoping he would change the world,

I also elected him with very high hopes - but with a healthy dose of cautious enthusiasm. Like Obama, I love America. I love my country. But like Obama, I also understand that there are many entrenched problems with our American democracy, one of the foremost being its unwillingness to come to terms with its racist foundations and institutionalized racism, which (among other things) undermines the exalted principles of liberty, equality and justice for all. I had nothing but hope for Obama, and what we hoped that he (finallly) represented: a new America that was beginning to come to terms with its troubled racial past and present. Well into his historic second term, we know all too well what the score is. And I'm here to tell you that it's not Obama's fault. I wanted to believe in the change we can believe in. In fact, I still do, but it's just going to take a lot more than just electing the first African-American President of the greatest nation in the world. If anything, we should have learned by now that PBO has spent his historic presidency laying the glorious soundtrack for what should be the motion picture of a new American revolution. The common will of the people must acknowledge that yes, progress has been made, but we most come together and WORK for there is so much more work to be done to overcome structural racism; reverse the effects of generational poverty and wealth inequality; convince and persuade by pen, voice and vote the masses who, for whatever reasons, can't clearly see the structural potholes in our American democracy that hinder our ability to move forward to the greatness of our promise. So if I had any disappointment, its only that I set my expectations too high for PBO and not high enough for the collective work we all must do to build a new America that at last delivers on its lofty promise.

Kudos to President Obama for that.

Agree!

Progress marches forward, while we drag the moron Republicans kicking and screaming along.

We would all be glowing hot ashes right now, if the GOP was in charge. I am so thankful the POTUS has a calm head on his shoulders.

The wacky party would have sang Old Glory while the missiles flew.

inequality that is harming our economy for everyone. But, we have to vote in presidential elections for the person who is least likely to make mistakes in foreign policy. And war is a big mistake unless it is necessary.

Think about the Iraq War.

Recent news from Iraq:

This was the first election since U.S. troops left Iraq and the third election since the removal of Saddam Hussein. Terrorist attacks have continued in Iraq up to the recent elections. Over the last year, approximately 1,000 civilians have died each month from the violence, much of it generated by foreign terrorists coming from Syria through Turkey and led by al-Qaeda linked forces such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Despite the violence, the election was relatively free. Still, the recent election results have not resolved any of the underlying conflicts in the country.

. . . .

The Sunni provinces, chiefly Anbar province in the West and Nineveh in the Northwest, remain a source of discontent and a fertile ground for terrorism. ISIS challenges the central government's control of these regions and effectively holds the city of Fallujah. They have reached areas surrounding Baghdad and attacked one of its Shia universities. Al-Maliki's government has proven willing to fight terrorists with brutal force, if necessary. However, the terrorists retain support in Fallujah and the surrounding area because of the broader anti-government sentiment in the region.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adil-e-shamoo/iraq-elections-no-end-to-_b_5411772.html

What was the point? We killed a lot of people, but so far we can't say we changed things anywhere near enough to make the deaths worthwhile. Maybe it is too soon to judge, but . . . .

Yet the GOP doesn't care one bit about that. They do however care if we give table scraps to the poor. I would say they are the most evil party to hold office in America. In the meantime, Iraq will now more than likely become another Iran with hardcore fundamentalists in charge of the country. In Afghanistan, we are leaving behind millions of dollars of equipment for the Taliban (you know, our supposed enemy) to claim and use. BOTH wars are unmitigated disasters that cost us trillions. That is money the GOP already writes off as a loss. They could care less if this country turns into a third world hellhole.

Should Obama have been more to the left, Yes.
Should Obama have AGGRESIVELY pushed things like the public option, Yes.
Should he have told all the war advisors they could take Mid east wars and shove it (including Hillary "Assad must go" Clinton, yes
Should he have made a better case for the bailout, yes.

Now, would Congress have passsed any of that, No. The Koch Bros ensure that even a jackass like Ted Cruz will get the money they need to stay in the game.

Would the public option have passed, no, for the same reason, Medical lobbies own congress.

Would he have been able to bring home the troops sooner, no, not as long as congress had their way, and between the defense industry and AIPAC, peace would NOPT be allowed.

BUT
if he was agressive, he would have forced to right to expose more of their hand, he would have made them waste ammo, money, and time, to the point where they would have finally angered the masses. As is, now the left can say "gee, we have no one"which allows the Libertarians to sing siren songs "Come on kids, you know the boomers were never going to let you get any Social Security!"

and is his failure to curb the NSA a black mark, Yes
would he without congress (including our beloved liberals Feinstein) be able to stop it, no, those folks outlive presidents.

Despite that,
am I happy he did not go to war in Syria, YES!
am I happy Health reform pased, YES!
amd I damned happy he put sotomayor and Kagan on the supreme court? HELL YES!

and lawlessness of the NSA domestic surveillance, but I am happy about Obamacare and Obama's efforts on the environment.

So I'm with Krugman on the points he made.