words are easy.

And quickly forgotten after.

and at least 61 Senators (including those that have a "D" after their name) that will vote to put it into law

pig bellies and soybeans.

... common sense that the other side of the debate is unsupportable.

As straightforward as it is, the other side just doesn't get it.

Let's get out, knock on doors and open some eyes.

they need middle class money to drive the economy.

The more money that goes to the 1% just gets put into investments
which sucks more money out of the economy.

The middle class are the people who spend all their pay and then
put more on their credit cards.

To have a slow recovery and then try to push more money to the
wealthy just doesn't make sense.

and then those on the GOPT side who are not the 1% will look around and say.............

it was Obama's fault - because they refuse to admit they are morons who haven't a clue.

... their money knows no nationalistic loyalty.

Big Oil, Big Finance, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc., yes - they get it, and a weaker America is what they want.

The average poor or middle-class Republican voter? I don't think they always get it. A lot of them seem to genuinely believe that whatever is good for big business is good for them.

If it takes down his health insurance reform, President Obama will wish he had listened to Candidate Obama.

people might get it.

While I love the way our President explains things -
I'm afraid that it goes over the heads of certain voters. I mean "entrepreneurs" has alot of syllables

I was really worried when he used the words "social darwinism"...
I thought OMG, who is going to understand what this means?
Except that a lot of voters who think Darwin is the devil might kind of get it in a twisted sort of way

will probably look good in his eventual biography, but it too wordy for the idiot voters.

It's not class warfare, it's math.


Says about the same thing.

"My administration will not go after medical cannabis clubs following state law."
"Mandating health insurance to solve health care is like mandating people buy a house to end homelessness."
"I will work to amend or end the patriot act"
"I will not support warrentless searches"
"I will put on my walking shoes and support the citizens of Wisconsin"
"I will have the most open transparent administration."

Yep, the man knows how to campaign, and he knows that a lot of people don't separate words from actions.

blamed for not supporting far right policies strongly enough.

Many here think that Obama is a king and can simply do whatever ehe wants too...raise taxes on the wealthy all by himself, close Gittmo all by himself, etc...people here need a basic civics class...crazy! If you're looking for the perfect president and one that can be a king, you are never going to find it. FDR took alot of crap from progressives as well. Things never change.

He didn't need dictatorial powers. All he had to do was sit on his hands-- but he chose to 'negotiate' instead.

The Obama Administration's public argument for extending those tax cuts was that they had no choice, because the mean old Republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage.

The problem is that the Republicans had *repeatedly* backed down from that fight, because it was a huge loser for them at the polls. He traded the cow for magic beans. Only a fool could've thought that was a reasonable deal, and Obama is no fool.

Our political establishment, as a whole, wanted to extend those tax cuts, and the 'negotiations' were only about setting up political cover.

Please-- don't pretend that people who don't buy that bullshit just aren't as informed as you. It's the people making polyanna civics class arguments that seem sadly naive at this point.

right in time for the holiday season because Republicans were refusing to budge.

So I gather from this that you would have been willing to destroy millions of lives so that your principles could stay intact?

repeatedly in the past, because it was a huge loser with their own voters. It was a fig leaf for people in the political establishment who needed political cover for extending those Bush Tax Cuts.

They pushed a "rich people first" agenda while hiding behind the unemployed. A whole lot of people didn't buy it.

Really?

Hmmm, why don't I believe that?

Republicans demonstrated long ago that they were willing to shoot the proverbial hostage to get what they want. I don't believe for a second that they would have allowed a UI vote--they showed that they didn't give a shit what their own voters want.

There's certainly precedent for it. There's every reason to expect it to do exactly the same thing it did yesterday. Same deal with the Republicans on their unemployment benefits threat. They made the same threats in the past, and backed off it every single time, because their constituencies were *pissed*. I'm not speculating here-- they floated the idea repeatedly-- and backed down every time.

Now, I'm not six years old, so I don't think that wealthy politicians on either side of the aisle actually give a damn about me. They care about their careers and their parties.

And the fact is that, if Republicans had shattered the precedent and cut-off of unemployment benefits, they would've been handing the next election to the Democrats-- so why did the Democratic establishment fold so quickly? You apparently think it's because they just care so dang much about us poor folk that they couldn't bear the thought of us being screwed over. I think that's fairly ridiculous.

They folded because they *wanted* to fold, but they couldn't do it without political cover.

You're on board with the latest troll to be served pizza!

Julie

Have you anything to say about the other two co-equal branches of government? Is there someone currently in the race you would like us to consider as an alternative to Pres. Obama? Someone viable, I mean?

I would've bet dollars to donuts on it. At least you're honest. Which begs the question, why do you feel the need to be on this particular site? In all your righteous indignation, did you happen to miss this part?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

It's not my board, and I'm not part of the alert brigade around here, but I do think your post is in clear violation of board rules. If you intend to stay, perhaps you should work on the complexities of subtlety?

If I get kicked off here for not kissing Obama's butt so be it. I post on here because I believe in free speech. Apparently you have a problem with that. Obama could have been one of the greatest presidents ever, but he chose to continue the corprate control of our system without challange.
Don't mistake my anger at Obama for rooting for the other side. I have never voted R and likely never will. You must admit that the president we have now would have made a fine republican in the 80's and 90's. If that is mandatory to support in order to post here I will gladly be booted for having a different opinion, but don't ever claim that this site supports free speech or differing voices. You just want an echo chamber.

My problem is that you've chosen to post your intention to vote for a third party, which in essence is supporting the Republican Party. If you want to claim that your free speech is being infringed upon, then that's a matter for you and the people who actually own the board, and therefore determine what kind of "speech" is allowed here. Since neither you, nor I, own the place, it matters not to me if the owners actually enforce their own rules.

Differing voices are represented here plenty. Pull up a chair, and take a look around. Others walk right up to the line in their support of other candidates. You actually erased the line. And for all the spewing of talking points, you haven't really fooled anyone, least of all me.

Suppoorting a third party equals supporting republicans eh? Another person who believes the two party nonsense. I haven't tried to fool anyone, I plainly stated I am voting third party. How is that hiding anything? I know you claim to not be the board ref but how many other posts did you cry about and whip out the rules? Do you only support Obama because the other side is worse, or because you think he is doing a good job? I wanted a candidate to actually try and accomplish what he said he would. Not get in office and do the opposite while at the same time calling his base f'n retards . I guess I should have just said I don't support him and left it at that and them you wouldn't feel the need to whine.

And yes I feel he's done a helluva job navigating the obstructionist republicans, the blue dogs, all the while trying to placate the "progressives" who feel they were owed more than anyone else under our big tent.

I would support Pres. Obama no matter who was running. Like the bumpersticker another supporter gave me says, "For Obama Then. For Obama Now" Obama/Biden 2012. I could care less who you vote for, you're just not that interesting. But I do feel that if the management wants to uphold any kind of standards and adherence to their own rules, then the appropriate should be taken. I just found it curious that your account's been active for a year, and you just popped in to tell everyone you're voting a for a third party?

I'm not an alerter. Whether the post stands or not is between you and the management. Anyone can challenge it, just as I did. That's why it's a "discussion board". See how that works?

What's in your bottle? And could you leave "my mommy" out of this? I've never seen anyone go after someone's mother on this board, so you've committed a number of egregious and thoughtless errors just in this one thread.

I guess I haven't missed much in the "plenty of times that you've commented on this sight". And by "sight", I think you meant "site". I won't explain the difference, I'll let you look it up.

and look! He has gone bye bye!

There's quite a bit of that happening here, and it's not just newbies. Thanks for that.

If you assess the President's 3 years in office objectively you have to admit he accomplished quite a lot with nothing but major, major obstructionism from not just the repugs but from many blue dog democrats-in-name-only trying to block everything at every turn. Have you been actually paying attention? How would you like to try to do your job when even those that are supposed to be your allies are working against you. His administration hasn't been perfect. Ground has been given in some areas to gain in others. There have been screw ups, but more has been quietly accomplished than you seem to want to admit. So go and pout and vote for a third party candidate. Even if the third party candidate somehow miraculously wins, let's see him/her get one bill passed considering the long-knives-out obstructionism that will take place. Do you not remember Mitch McConnell said that his party's main job was to make the president a one-term president, yet he managed to save the auto industry, get banking reform, got middle class tax cuts instituted, got us out or Iraq, got healthcare passed (not perfect but something presidents have been trying to do since Teddy Roosevelt), saved and created many jobs with the stimulus (I live in Nevada and there are tremendous road projects still going on here, with many people working, from stimulus money). And I could go on and on. And do not forget the incredible grace he has shown under the unprecedented disrespect and racism shown him from the teabaggers, birthers, assorted other wingers, and on and on. Michelle Obama and her daughters must hold their breaths and pray that some righty lunatic with a gun will not show up at the President's appearances like what happened to the Arizona congresswoman. So go do your little third party protest. It's your right. But remember, we don't have a parliamentary system where the party in power can just ram things through. We adults who recognize we have a president and not a king who can just decree things, will support the President because even though we are long time progressives, the prospect of living under President Rmoney or Sanctimonium or Ego-the-size-of-head Gingrich or closet-racist-denier Paul will have us seriously thinking of becoming ex-pats because if you think W destroyed the country just wait until one of those clowns get in. And if it happens, it will be with the help of allegedly principled third party voters.

"When I am president, I will make EFCA the Law of the Land."

"The ONLY changes to Social Security I will support will be raising the cap on the Payroll tax."

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

"Let me tell you what I will do if I'm elected President.
I will immediately initiate Country of Origin Labeling because Americans should know where their food comes from.
I'll let folks know whether their food has been Genetically Modified because Americans should know what they are buying."



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

I am certain, and proud, that our efforts at Occupy have helped sculpt this.

Campaign Obama is so much better than President Obama.
Now if he would only put his money where his mouth is.
Sure Obama will get my vote only because the alternatives are much worse, but that is it, my time and money is being spent getting rid of Blue Dogs and ConservaDems aka Pubs.

why carry the water for him when what is campaigned on is 180 degress out from what gets push forward?

He lost the House anyway. He could have had strong proponents for his more progressive ideals had he supported the progressives who ran in 2010. Instead, he stayed with the safe party conservatives. They have not been loyal to his policies and strategy.

And even in a state where the president is up double digits over his nearest Republican rival, it looks today like Elizabeth Warren will LOSE. Where is the empirical data that proves your point, or is this yet another case of Monday morning quarterbacking?

Grayson will win this time, and he will know what he thinks about Obama -- a nice guy with great ideas but often not willing to stand behind his words.

The Obama administration has had no problem arresting people for "leaking" information that the American people have a right, perhaps even a duty to know. But they had great difficulty arresting any of the bankers and financiers who cheated investors, homebuyers and the American people. And who to arrest was totally the choice of the Obama administration.

It is true that Obama speaks well but does not fight for what he knows is right.

Granted, this president is no barnyard scrapper, he's much more dignified than that, which is why he was elected in the first place. Partisans on the left & right love the "fighting", in fact I think they're more addicted to that than they are about the actual issues, as long as someone is seen to be "fighting". People makes loads of money off the "fighting", so they have a vested interest in making sure the "fighting" continues.

Well guess what? A lot of folks can't afford the extreme partisan "fighting" that causes the kind of gridlock we've witnessed since the midterms. That's a luxury of the well fed, and no doubt well educated among us, but not so good for the unwashed masses.

Bloggers love "fighting". TV hosts love "fighting". Activists love "fighting". Newspaper columnists love "fighting". But you know who's caught in the middle of all the "fighting"? The very people you claim to be "fighting" for. Whether you like it or not, it takes "moderates" to actually get anything done in this climate. Otherwise, we're just "fighting" for the sake of "fighting", which is an immense waste of time and resources.

and was considered by others to be a moderate. But the extreme right has pulled the country so far to the right that I now seem to be on the left.

I agree with my very elderly mother on just about everything, and she is a traditional FDR Democrat, was when FDR was president and still is today. Guess I am too. Aren't those the people who made all the compromises.

Eisenhower would be horrified at how far to the right his party is today. So would Nixon, and maybe Reagan too.

amongst ourselves ("herding cats&quot , the right quietly went about establishing one of the most powerful propaganda machines in American history. They pretty much own the airwaves, and next to Citizens United, the Telecommunications Deregulations Act was one of the biggest setbacks for progressives known to man. I might add that we also lost Glass-Stegall under the same administration.

That being said, President Obama routinely receives scorn for something that FDR did within his first hundred days, "a bailout" for the largest failing banking institutions. Can you imagine the ridicule he'd receive today? And like Obama, FDR had harsh critics on his left flank, but today he's held out as a liberal icon, as someone to be emulated. It's funny, but that happened to Al Gore as well. For Michael Moore et al, he wasn't "liberal" enough, but today he's seen by many as a progressive champion. Ahhh, the good ol' days. Remember Gore=Bush? I might add that FDR also had huge majorities in both chambers, and none of this 60 vote threshold bull. Obama had "liberal lions" like Ben Nelson & Max Baucus. Even so, like FDR, I think history will be much kinder to Pres. Obama.

We can pick apart what he hasn't accomplished, but his critics either fail to even acknowledge, or they attempt to minimize what he has accomplished. How do you have a reasonable debate with someone like that?

I have a feeling that a lot of the pent up frustration for some on the left, is the fatalistic realization that there may never be a Pres. Kucinich, or a Bernie Sanders. I understand that frustration, but that's not the president's fault, blame the rank & file. And no amount of badgering from his left will change the fact that this party did not & will not nominate a Kooch, no matter how many hissyfits the activists throw.

As you and I know, neither party can win without appealing to Independents. Independents don't appear to care much for ideological intransigence, and the president knows this as well. I know that doesn't solve your problem, but Independents seem to loathe one party rule, so they throw these fighting, diametrically opposed factions together, and expect them to work it out? Hope springs eternal, I guess.

about our choices. Instead he has worried far too much about the fate of Wall Street.

Bailing out the banks should have been conditioned on bailing out homeowners. I wrote my congressman and others about that idea before Congress agreed to the bail-out -- but to no avail.

Now we have people in their 50s and 60s who are penniless and having to start over, and many young people without jobs who may never enter the mainstream economy. The depression continues for many, many, many people even though the economy has improved somewhat.

We certainly should not have entered into new trade agreements while still in the throes of a depression or recession.

Ah yes, the favorite talking point of the "disgruntled left", or those pretending to be.

I won't address that as it's been addressed ad nauseum. However, I will say that Bill Clinton taught us a very hard learned lesson. With a divided government, you don't alienate business. FDR had that luxury because he had the WH, the Congress, and even attempted to stack the courts.

I don't think the president discounts those people "in their 50s and 60s", but he also knows that you can't just stick your middle finger in the eye of the business community, while begging them to help you turn around a sick economy. How exactly would that work in a representative democracy? Government cannot create the kind of jobs that would put everyone back to work tomorrow. You know as well as I do, what's happening in the states.

Roosevelt fought an extremely conservative majority on the Court, even threatening to appoint additional (not other but additional) justices in order to get approval of some of his bills.

Roosevelt was daring. That is how he gained the trust and confidence of the American people.

That is why the country united around him to win WWII.

Roosevelt was no Obama. Obama needs to study FDR's speeches to the American people. FDR inspired Americans. Obama is too cautious and to frightened of the power of big business. FDR grew up in wealth and was not fooled by the men of low moral character in the business community. (I'm not suggesting that all people in business have low moral character, but there are a few. Obama does not seem to recognize who they are. FDR did.)

Positions have hardened over the past few decades. Take you for instance. You seem to be calling for a knock down, drag out. While that may be entertaining, and a boon for the paid and unpaid punditocracy, it's unrealistic.

You want him to name names ("Obama does not seem to recognize who they are. FDR did.&quot ? I have a feeling your argument is much more about style as opposed to substance. There's been an amazing amount of legislation for this president's first two years. As I pointed out earlier, while we were bickering amongst ourselves about party purity, the right evangelicals went about taking over school boards, local governments, and state houses all across the country.

I realize that there's a part of the base who love the "in your face" style of a Dennis Kucinich or a Ralph Nader, but they've both been rejected more than once, by those of us who don't care for that "style". When you get a chance, I think this explains it much better than I ever could:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2009/06/no-obama-cant-govern-fdr-1933/135503

of the Obama persuasion. Your argument does not persuade me.

I'm too old and have seen too many real Democrats to be fooled. Don't worry. I will vote for Obama because he is the least of the evils, not because I agree with what he has done.

The good news for me is that I'm not Obama's campaign manager, nor do I represent the campaign in any way. So I'm free to tell you that you can vote for whomever the hell you want. I mean it's CA, a solid blue state, which will probably remain so in perpetuity.

I hope that didn't sound callous, but being a 4th generation Southern Democrat, and I'm realistic about the perils of any Democrat of the Los Angeles "persuasion" running a successful campaign nationwide. It is what it is. Democrats range from very liberal to very conservative in my neck of the woods. I'd vote for a blue dog over an (R) in a millsecond.

And I will criticize him as much as I believe is warranted. Because he is good, but he could do a lot better -- a lot better.

We can only blame ourselves for falling for Tea Party propaganda.

History is full of examples of great leaders overcoming insurmountable odds, if they want to. When Britain went to war, and we joined them, EVERY SINGLE LEADER on our side knew with a dead certainty that we could lose everything.

But they fought anyway, because life as a slave or sharecropper, beholden to and controlled by corporations and entertained by a litany of excuses is never preferable for a free people.

And that reflects life for more Americans today than it has at anytime in the past, perhaps even more than 4 years ago.

I don't know about your history classes, and a lot of people died in the war, but I don't remember one class that left me with an impression of Chamberlain as anything but an unimportant footnote.

And just because you like Elizabeth Warren (I do too, btw) doesn't mean she ran a good or effective campaign. Perhaps she should get advice from Lisa Murkowski - who sits in her seat despite running against BOTH the Democrat AND her own damn party, with a name like Murkowski and a write in ballot.

could prove to me, preferably in bold numbers that his thesis regarding the president's support or lack thereof for "progressives" would have changed the outcome of the midterms. Conservative Dems lost, moderate Dems lost, and progressive Dems lost as well. I just asked for something other than rhetorical flourish to back up the poster's claim.

And for the record, I would say that getting a healthcare bill passed, something that the last Democratic president failed to do, was a huge achievement for this president and Congress. And what you might call "appeasement", more rational & less ideological people might call "pragmatic". If one is mired in dogma, whether it be conservative or progressive, you're unwilling to give an inch, so therefore anyone who does, is somehow seen as spineless. That's a very dangerous place to be, especially when we should all be working together for the greater good.

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

History is loaded with examples of people who overcame oppression against great odds, and it's ridiculous to just quit before one even has the battle. Then again, perhaps Chamberlain would have a lot more friends today, and could have had company when the tanks roll in.

But I do understand, and it's easier when a person isn't so self-aware. Like H. Tubman taught, "I saved a thousand slaves. I could have saved a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves".

She was a wise woman.

from mere activism to all out zealotry? I consider the Tea Party as zealots, with a little nuttery thrown in. We can't be that unreasonable. We're not teanutters. I'm pretty wedded to my stance here, as I'm sure you are, so we'll agree to disagree about tactics.

I'm for whatever gets us closer to doing the things that help the greatest number of people, and if that's makes me "spineless", then sobeit. I'm sure this president feels much the same.

and the Progressive lost. One of the first things that blue dog did was vote against something Obama was pushing for.

of progressive savior, then I really don't know what to tell you.

. . . is throwing out the public option to appease a bunch of RepubliDems, despite massive evidence that America really, REALLY needs this "inch" in order for it's uninsured citizens to survive.

What makes us weaker as a nation is when entrepreneurs cannot start a business or an overworked, underpaid and abused worker cannot leave his/her lousy job because of America's unspoken abomination of tethering a person's well-being and future to how gainfully they're employed and how much insurance they can AFFORD.

What's making us weaker is not "The Fed", not "strangling regulation" or "high taxes", but rather three decades of stagnating wages not being able to meet the skyrocketing costs of necessities (i.e. education, housing, transportation, groceries, utilities, health care, etc).

What makes us "bad for business" is not shutting up and doing exactly what your authoritarian corporate masters tell you to.

What drags us down is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else, but your asshole Congress refuses to do anything about it in the name of political expediency and selfishness. Or because they're all pre-purchased. Or they're just assholes who still beLIEve Trickle Down works.






But hey, at least he's getting some fire for when he stomps the ever-loving shit out of Mister Quarter-Billion in November.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0403/Slamming-social-Darwinism-Obama-reignites-debt-clash-with-GOP

“It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it, a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class,” Obama continued. “And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last – education and training, research and development, our infrastructure – it is a prescription for decline.”

We need more appealing to patriotism, religious principle, being an American, and what is really at the roots of our freedom, our country. People react initially through emotion and instinct, then they use "reason" to justify what they think. We all tend to place a different emphasis on an array of values that we as humans have. Conservatives care about people and value fairness but not exactly like liberals do. They value loyalty to their groups, respect for authority, and religious faith as much as care and fairness. Then there is that libertarian thing about freedom that seems to have transcended in their thinking since Ronnie Reagan demonized government.

The people who really want to rule the world know conservative language and can manipulate them very well. We just need to learn their language and how they weigh the values that we all have. Logic can only be applied if you get their attention first. And I don't mean hitting them over the head.

Oddly, we seem to be in the minority. We tend to be individuals who happen to work well in groups, we respect authority much less and that really bothers people who value that...a lot.

Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist, is well worth a good look. Just don't get your knickers all in a twist because he likes conservatives, too. And he can explain why he likes conservatives, and why we all need each other. He also quite clearly explains that we all think we are right in how we view things, and that we can explain why, or at least try. "Well, because, why can't you see that?" is sometimes all we can come up with. I think he goes farther than Lakoff.

So, more heart, more kindness, less logic, less judgementalism. ...all around. "We are all going to be here a while, can't we just all get along?"

http://righteousmind.com/

So, exiting the soapbox...

the stone in my mind is, "Now is not the time to point fingers."

Zero, and he has had four years.

There should be a special Group so I could tell you off in it.

for now I defer

The facts are these:

The Big Money on Wall Street is doing better than ever.

Millions have lost their homes to foreclosure.

Another jobless recovery.

As for what I think of you: You brighten my life, like a ray of sunshine.

That is your right as an American.

False choice, or something like that.
It is possible to criticize the president and still vote for him, you know.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
Barack Obama, New Hampshire Democratic Primary Speech, 01-08-08
44th President of United States (1961 - )

Gee, seems to be about four years ago now...

Was that change you believed in?

LuckyTheDog

I think this is a great sitate, who should be remembered.. Like other presidents speech have been rembembered...

Diclotican

It isn't as if the first person of color to become President isn't going to have some monuments to him. If we assume he wins a second term and the economy continues to improve then quotes like this just might make it into stone.