Loved them all!

never embraced the left. Sully still has contempt for the left and will never admit that his side (the right) holds the fault for most of the ills of today's society.

There are legitimate criticisms from the left. The stupid & untrue criticisms are almost entirely from the right.

I have some grudges, but I think those are well deserved. Oh I'll vote for Obama, but I don't think I should be required to lie and say I love Obama with every fiber of my being. Some fellow DUer personally insulted and called me "anti-Obama" because I wrote that Obama kisses corporate asses, same as 90% of all our politicians. That douche is now on full ignore. It gets so tiresome.

I've added a plethora of sycophants to my ignore list, so that I no longer have to tolerate their sarcasm, their vitriol, and their condescension.

It's as if you slapped their mom or something. Good grief.

Just because I have some complaints doesn't mean I won't vote for him.

Like you, I will vote for him (if for no other reason than what other alternative do I realistically have?). But also like you, I think there are plenty of perfectly legitimate criticisms emanating from the left which I happen to agree with. He has done some good things, and I'm happy to give him credit for those. He has also done some things that I've found simply appalling, and I do not (and will not) hesitate to call him out on those issues.

I've found, at least in my experience, that retaining a healthy skepticism -- even of those politicians, no, ESPECIALLY of those politicians one supports -- has served me well.

Why in the world would progressives pay any attention to what a self-proclaimed conservative says about Obama?

Let's think for ourselves.

If you like what Obama is or is not doing, OK, that's your opinion.

Personally, I like some of it and do not like some of it. Depends on the issue, but I agree with Cenk's analysis overall.

That a conservative likes Obama while we progressives on DU wish he would take stronger stances on a lot of issues even if Congress did not support him tells me that Obama is a very conservative Democrat. I am not. I am a progressive Democrat. That's why I criticize Obama. I will vote for him, but I am not happy with his administration.

Obama's saving grace is that conservatives and in particular those running against him are completely unacceptable.

So I think one should be mad at the centrists for dragging his poll numbers down. But wait, that can't be right, that would mean centrists are more rational than Liberals?

Was the video about approval ratings?

http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/19/obama-begins-year-four-with-weak-job-ratings-but-positive-personal-image/

I look forward to your point-by-point refutation of each argument made in the video (or a thoughtful response to ONE of the arguments made in the video, that'd be a start).

Who is this imaginary "progressive" person/strawman that is setting the benchmark for all that is "progressive"? Certainly not FDR, he backed down from even touching healthcare. In the 1930s, FDR invited a group of physicians and private interests to work with his other appointees on a proposal to add health care to the Social Security Act. The invited special interest group, called the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, worked mostly in secret, isolated from public input and debate. The committee ultimately recommended a watered-down proposal of giving federal subsidies to states for health care programs. However, “Roosevelt so feared attacks by the American Medical Association that he dropped health coverage [completely] from his New Deal agenda.” Truman also tried and failed to bring about national health care, as did Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, Obama’s plan covers 32 million previously uninsured Americans: Obama also invited industry to the bargaining table, but unlike FDR, Truman, and Clinton, Obama didn’t walk away empty-handed. Am I FOR single-payer? YES, absolutely, but I also realize that sometimes progress is measured one inch at a time. On a progressive note Obama has gotten more progressive policies passed than anyone in 70 yrs.

I'll address more in a little while, it's 5:30pm here in NY and time to feed the kids.

Or are you going rogue?

Unless something crazy happens (like Bernie Sanders gets in the race and for some reason stands a chance) I will vote for Obama. Of course it will be with much, much less enthusiasm than in 2008.

One example why - not having a super-majority in Congress had absolutely nothing to do with the Wall Street hacks he appointed (and continues to appoint). We've had a number of experts/economists on and have spent countless shows getting deep into the weeds on financial reform and it saddens me to say that NOTHING was done to address the core problems that led to the last financial collapse. And look, it's one thing to be obstructed by Congress but completely another to not even TRY or in some cases actually advocate for policies that protect the banks at the expense of the rest of us.

In 2008 I donated and raised money - I laugh at the thought now.

He's the most progressive President we've had in DECADES, and on track to outdo them all. Remember, we're talking about REALISTICALLY, in 2012, with opposition obstructionism bigger than it's ever been in U.S. history. I don't understand how people can't wrap their heads around this. Are we going to like EVERY choice or administration position he makes? Of course not. Why? Because we must live in a realistic world. Has he passed the most Progressive pieces of legislation in mine or anyone else who works at TYTs lifetime? Yes.

When you spend days and weeks researching stories and listening to economists, journalists, historians, etc. you get a sense of just how much was NOT done with regard to addressing any of the core issues that led to, for example the financial collapse.

Here's just one of many interviews I've listened to that have led me to where I am today. Note that they start off talking about the positives of the financial reform legislation (before getting to the disastrous negatives):

Should we undermine the most progressive-minded president in at least a generation and will his failure to attain a second term help or hurt the progressive cause? Will his failure pave the way for a more progressive president or a less progressive president? It just seems strange to me that in order to "progress" progressive causes we would spend our energy creating material that only anti-Obama crowds would even be drawn to. Basically destroying any hopes of progress at all.

I think criticism from the left helps the president in two ways:

1. It creates political pressure to do the right thing (meanwhile there is a ton of pressure from the right/MSM/corporations to do the wrong thing). That can result in better rhetoric, better policy and more pressure on 'blue dog' Democrats in Congress.

2. It makes him appear more moderate - I assume staunch defenders of the president believe that's advantageous. Think about it, if it weren't for criticism from the left Andrew Sullivan wouldn't have an article talking about how awesome, pragmatic and reasonable the president is (and how stupid his critics on the right AND left are).

PS---You have to differentiate between a news/commentary show and the average citizen. If you want to do an honest show you can't NOT report on the bad things Democrats do, that is unless you want to be a Democratic version of Fox. If you actually watch that last interview I posted you'll see it's very fair, it doesn't just rip financial reform, it gives the bad AND the good. It's the same with healthcare reform. I have no interest in seeing one side, I want the facts:

terms of helping the progressive cause. If we keep harping on the negativity we will sway public opinion negatively towards him therefore crushing any hopes for future progress and progressivism.

The current makeup of Congress, with its Third Wayers/DLCers are not working for the American people, and the people know it. Just look at their approval ratings. You cannot fool the people all of the time, and this a period of real awakening in this country. Just because someone has a 'D' after their, is no longer enough for the average American.

Filling Congress with Liberal, principled Democrats who are not taking Corporate money, iow, getting that money out of our government, is the goal now of millions of Americans.

And in the future, rather than boasting about the obscene amount of money they are taking Candidates will be and should be ashamed of that money, especially since we can match their votes to that money.

Times are changing fast out of necessity as is always the case. And the people in general are far more informed now than they were even four years ago.

The Democratic Party has strayed from its ideals and beginning with this election and for many years to come, rather than allowing Corporations to choose candidates, the people will be and are taking a lot more interest in who is asking for the privilege of representing them. And who is funding them.

I think progressives would be well served by thinking more practically about the way that government works. When Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 57 everyone and I mean EVERYONE thought it was a dud - and perhaps it was on the face of it. MLK was livid with the bill that, at it's core, ONLY offered African Americans the right to vote and not much else. Clearly MUCH more was needed and everyone knew it. But it opened the door for the the Civil Rights Act 64 which bought sweeping changes to the laws of the land.

There are countless examples of this throughout our history....

This president has to his credit a list of things that I'd rather not have attributed to the guy I voted for. To a greater or lesser degree that is and always will be the relationship elected officials have with the people - especially in economically challenged times. But he's also opened the door for many progressive causes to move forward. That's undeniable. It's hard for me to imagine how a progressive feels it's such a "compromise" to support that.

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

in the race to dig us out of this hole. He has been conducting the smartest most steady least reactive deep cleaning plan that his well rounded educated concerned mind can cipher.

Let the person come forward and do a better job to raise our sunken titanic now. This person must be a person who we can vet and trust and know as well as this Obama. Let this person be able to reasonably coordinate to resurrect our country while those who dismantled our command system and embezzled our economy and our controlling our discourse are cutting off all lines of retrieval and crippling the nations desire to raise us up to our former civility.

When the Golden Rule is scoffed publicly by the Republican party we have sunk far below our stormy seas.

Alan Grayson is not our President. Dennis Kucinich is not our president. Gandhi is not our leader.Our President is Barack Obama. I knew who he was when I stumped for him . I told those I spoke with that he was a centrist. I told then that he was promising to do his best to bridge the gap between the left and right and he has lived that promise. I am disappointed in my expectations that he would transform into my progressive dream.

I still keep that hope but I realize that he is working in the limitations of the position he is actually in. I can see the changes that are needed. We have to fight for them. He may be that one to fix the main stern but first we still have to get our country out of the deep. He has placed the rigging and we are ascending. If we bite at his heels now he can take it but we can't afford to make his job harder. He has let some of our hard fought rights slip while he is securing the rigging. WE will get them back.

I will support this man and his method. I am a Democrat. I will fight for democracy and a more perfect union.I will help pull this country out of from under the grip of the manipulated manic republican hysteria who publicly geer the mention of golden rule and who are afraid to help those among us who need our help.

Obama is our man in the race. He has been a very good president so far and I will continue to support him.I am realistic and also optimistic.

Face it. Romney is a dip and Gingrich is a huckster.Neither have an ounce of basic human moral character.

He was WRONG about everything when he drooled over Bush et al and his various illegal wars.

Only after it was clear that we had been blatantly lied to did he jump of the Bush bandwagon because it was hard to stay there anymore.

We do NOT need to be giving credibility to people who cannot get simple and obvious facts right when the evidence is staring them in the face. He cheered for the Bush gang and anyone who did that doesn't have much credibility when the try to slam those of us who knew they were lying. I remember him trashing all those who WERE RIGHT, when he WAS WRONG also in the past. Nothing new from him. To be so wrong, I mean.

How about we pay attention to those who GOT IT RIGHT for a change.

Never liked him, still don't, he's not capable of discerning facts as he has proven over and over again.

I would care if someone who actually does research and gets the facts right, said these things. But then smart, intelligent, unbiased journalists would not stoop to that level. He's a Rightwinger who hates the 'Left' so what could anyone expect?

He never apologized to the 'Left' either when he smeared them during the Bush disaster and it turned out they were right and he was wrong, again.

He still thinks Reagan was a great president, and he thinks that homeowners bear as much (if not more) blame for the mortgage meltdown as the banks.

He is soooooooo wrong.

Maybe you CAN teach an old dog new tricks...

:kick:

that the PL and emoprogs lead by TYT would lead the way in going after Sullivan very well thought out and written piece over Obama...this is an anti-Obama website so I expected this. hahaha....

emoprogs. fts.

Surely you do not give credibility to anyone who all but called those who were RIGHT about Bush, 'traitors'. I view him as a discredited blogger and don't care one bit what he has to say. If I want to be educated about politics, I go to those who have been CORRECT over the past decade.

I do agree with one thing, Cenk should not waste any time on people like this who have a hard time figuring out basic facts and then when they are proven to be so completely wrong, pretend they came to the right decisions, 'slowly'.

The only good thing about Cenk doing this is to highlight that it is people like Sullivan who HAVE been so wrong for so long, who are still attacking Liberals, as he did when he was in love with Bush. Points out where all this anti-Liberal garbage is coming from. And totally discredits it.

the left has allowed the right to preemptively make all major reform- single payer, campaign finance, human rights, voter, media, politically much more difficult.

cenk suggests that obama doesn't want to change politics in wash, doesn't want single payer, wouldn't like to end wall st corruption (because the pirates are contributing to him). obama got a lot of advice about what is and isn't possible to reform in your first term and survive and he may have been wrong about some of it.

but most of the left including cenk, who was actually in the business, continues to evaluate obama in a talk radio vacuum. as long as the left orgs have NO organized opposition to the talk radio monopoly of 1000 cooordinated think tank megaphones that have been taking free pot shots at all things liberal - reps and candidates and ideals- they are allowing the right much more political power than they deserve and we have to work harder and get less on EVERYTHING.

the left collectively cannot say it EVER got obama's back and can't until there is an organized opposition to right wing radio, rove's invisible political 2x4, the true origin of the teabaggers (they're just dittoheads!)- out of the blue they were able to take the US to the edge of 'bankruptcy' and the left nor the media never acknowledged that the teabggers were fueled largely by months of RW radio, esp limbaugh, telling them default was good- it would force obama to cut the budget.

suggesting obama could march into the white billlionaires house and start proscecutions of bush and cheney while 1000 radio stations reaching 50 mil could blast away all day with no challenge is idiotic. any student of a university that broadcasts sports on a limbaugh station which sells club gitmo t-shirts and does global warming denial all day and has been calling single payer a commie plot for 20 years needs to look in the mirror when they get all 'principled' on obama.

maybe cenk can be a purist but continued analysis of politics while ignoring what has been the right's best weapon for 20 years and has done the groundwork for most of this disaster we're in is wrong. and cenk sounds silly.