and consider it a success. It's a shame. 68 million people voted in 2008 for a revolution (change). He could have had all of them and their kids as Dems For Life if he'd seized the moment - pardon Don Siegelmann, put the DoJ on Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, stop the torture, and give Single Payer a place at the table. If his 1st 120 days had had those agenda items, the Repukes would now be on the ropes. Instead they run the country while he apologizes for every liberal idea.

Fixed*

:p

you're right

you're not doing it here.
Seized the moment? He seized the moment when he made every effort and concentrated on not running this country into a depression. But carry on; you will, no doubt.

Whitehouse, the progressive caucus, and so on. All the people the president doesn't call when he needs advice. In my browser's address bar the URL reads, in part democraticunderground. The people I mentioned are Dems. So this is probably the correct web site.

Thanks for cheering the mediocrity though. The president and the rest of the - what's the word? - "centrists" appreciate the low expectations. Those 68 million people didn't vote for him to "not run the country into the depression", and letting the SP advocates have their say would certainly not have contributed to this hypothetical demise you believe he's prevented. If he'd run toward his voters instead of the people who want to impeach him, he could have been a great deal more. He decided to try to make Boner happy instead of the people who voted for him. Don't know if he's clueless, or an active accessory, but presidency is pretty much over, be cause he stands for nothing and falls for every stern word offered by the Repukes.

the solution. All you can do is find fault; who's mediocre, and reminds me of a whole lot of other people?

Look around. Things are getting accomplished 'despite' the rethugs. You might be willfully blind if you don't see it.

I get tired of it, too. E.J. is spot on!

over at freeperville and fox nation it's usually written, "liberals = nazis". I know where you get your material.

as snow, and if they're not, they're bad people. Yes, those liberals!!

Like some on here, I disagree with President Obama on a number of issues. However, that being said, I don't view his presidency as mediocre at all given the circumstances. The way I see it, only two presidents (take a guess, I'll fist bump you or something if you guess correctly) who inherited situations worse than the one Obama inherited, and the congress he's dealing with has to be the single most obstructionist one in recent memory (if any can correct me on this, by all means do so).

Now allow me to state the totally obvious.

I'm completely sympathetic to the grievance that Obama should govern in a more liberal manner, and all the members of congress that my fellow poster namechecked (Sanders, Grayson, Warren, and Whitehouse) are members that I support. However, those members of congress are dealing with a population size a lot smaller than the one Obama is dealing with (Sanders is dealing with one that's less than a million). Furthermore, the populations that elected them strike me as being far more progressive than the United States as a whole, and because of that fact, the aforementioned congressman (and woman) can afford to espouse more liberal views.

Now, I totally understand the idea that Obama should lead by example and I agree, but this idea that he squandered away the supermajority of 09-10 is one I can't quite agree with. Having a Democratic majority does not equate to having a progressive caucus strong enough to pass everything we'd like to see come into law. The main issue here, in my view, isn't about president Obama, it's about the fact that congress isn't as left as we'd like it to be. While I believe it's fair to blame to the president for a number of things (among them proposing cuts to SS), he won't be able to pass anything without having a congress that's willing to help him. I get the frustration that many of us have with Blue Dog congressional members, but I'd much rather have a moderate in Montana than have another Allen West fill up that seat. Making America progressive is a daunting long term task that's much bigger than the Obama presidency, and doing this begins at the congressional level. The posters here who believe that we need "real Dems" are absolutely correct.....when it comes to states/districts where we are sure they have a reasonable chance to win.. Sad to say, we won't be able to have "Real Dems" in predominantly red states/districts until we set up the correct social/political climate that will elect them. Setting up that climate involves educating people, turning the governorship blue, and encouraging voter participation.

at those who always seem to find fault no matter what the underlying governing conditions are. I see that you are relatively new. You'll see what I mean. Stick around.

And welcome!!!

I vote for and give money to Dems only, whichever ones are available. Some people don't. If they feel like their vote is not appreciated, they won't bother to go to the polls. For instance, when a candidate, during the campaign health care discussions, says, "I will only sign a plan that includes a public option", then instead pushes a plan mandating that everyone purchase insurance from a billionaire, and also leaves millions of citizens without coverage, the first-time voter might well think he'd been lied to.

It is people like you, who look at a bag of shit they're given and say, "Well, it's only half full - the guy giving it to me is doing his best" that are the problem.

... that is the purest bull. "Change" is not "revolution" and he never, ever "promised" any sort of revolution. 68 million people cannot agree on the time of day, but they sure agreed that it was time to dump the GOP.

I do not know what you were smoking in 2008, but he was the same man then as he is now.

He does not "apologize for every liberal idea," but has managed to get a helluva lot done, despite the GOP, the MSM, and the naysayers allegedly from his own party.

He never promised to be able to walk on water, but he does indeed swim very fast.

as is typical with the apologists. I voted, raised money, spent my own money, and walked the streets for Obama in 2008. I did the same last year. I donated and voted for the available (D)'s in 2010. I have voted that way for 35 years.

New and massive numbers of people came out in 2008 because they thought radical change (revolution) was coming. They thought wars would be ending. They thought government-sanctioned torture would stop. They thought that war criminals and traitors would be pursued more aggressively than medical marijuana shops and users. They thought Gitmo would close. They thought the NRA would be reined in and labor unions given some appreciation. They thought the budget would be brought under control by letting billionaires' tax cuts expire. They thought something would be done about our horrific health care system. Whether you call this revolution or not, I don't really care. They stayed home in 2010 because they realized that the change they'd hoped for wasn't coming, despite huge congressional majorities and a president who campaigned on "Change". They thought they were in 2008 voting for an anti-Bush. Instead they got Bush Lite.

As for "the same person he always was", I remind you of the "comfortable shoes" pitch, and the debate pledge to "never propose the chained CPI". And trust me, if he'd campaigned on, "we're going to fix health care, not by taking insurance profiteers OUT, but by forcing every american to buy their product" (which is what we got), McCain might well have prevailed.

Finally, it's this president who complains about being too tied to entitlements, proposes cuts to Medicare and SS, didn't invite Single Payer advocates to the HC talks, signs FAA exmeption from the sequester without getting HeadStart or SNAP concessions, and in many cases just uses Republican talking points verbatim. He detests and runs away from EVERY idea proposed by the liberals in Congress.

Again, I am explaining to you why he got trounced in 2010 and why the party has endured so much suffering since he took office. I have and will always vote (D). He had millions of newbies, undecideds, and sick-of-bushies on the hook in 2008. He left them walk due to his ineffectiveness and apparent lack of resolve.

a precarious position. it is not easy to lead a nation with so many appendages all moving at the same time in a helter-skelter fashion - with a minimum of hardship or harm to the least privileged, the backbone.

i see a careful, thoughtful man doing what he feels is right to get the ship back on course while maintaining the integrity of it's bulwarks - when any sudden accelerations and movements will only turn it completely upside down.

there are no shortcuts to stability. sure and steady may be considered slow by others though it seems the least financially able have carried an unfair load of the burden.

as one on social security who took in her daughter and family when she lost her business & income in '09 - we have survived. she now has a job (part time and low paying) but they have a solid roof over their heads & food on the table. the winter of '09 and into 2010 were very challenging for us. a couple of days ago we were talking about how things are "lightening up" - that we are able to afford a little extra for better quality groceries and a few more gallons of gas. it's not great strides - but it is something.