Attacking the last successful President this country's had is what Republicons do.

He dropped the public option. He let the Merrick Garland nomination drop from the headlines. He let McConnell hide the Russian election interference.

He actually believed that if we all worked together, we could get great things done. And, of course, he was right. Problem was you can't work with assholes that are out to torpedo your every move.

I mean, I get winning back Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio...I don't necessarily agree with that rationale as it applies to Biden but I understand it...and the current data seems to indicate that there is a good chance of that

He saw what problems Obama had in working with Republicans of today. What makes him think that he's going to work any better with Republicans than what Obama was able to do?

Why was Biden not able to use those skills to get even a hearing for Merrick Garland?

Does Biden feel that he would be in a better position because he's a white man?

And what is he willing to sacrifice to achieve any sort of consensus that he may be able to eke out of the GOP?

“Does Biden feel that he would be in a better position because he’s a white man?”

Would you consider writing a non speculative positive post about a candidate you like? That would be a lot more helpful to DU undecideds than this. Thanks in advance!

But in the larger context of his segregationist comments, he had a point...I think that maybe he should have chosen some better examples but...whateva...

The question remains...where was all of this "across the aisle" magic that Biden claimed to have from 2009-17?

(FTR, it's pretty much the same rationale that Obama put out, too)

head are based on speculation. I found the “white man” stuff kinda way out there.

Have a good one.

gave a lot of points to think about.

What's with this deflecting talk with "Why don't you write about your own candidate" stuff, been seeing it a lot recently.

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2019, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I’m asking to hear positive things about our candidates because I and others are undecided and speculative negative campaigning doesn’t help us decide who we are for.

Why wouldn’t DU’ers want to hear positive things about why we should choose a candidate to vote for in the primary? I vote on positives. I want someone to vote for. I don’t think i’m the only one.

Not sure why wanting that is such bad thing.

He probably thinks that after the disaster of Trump, the Republicans will see the error of their ways and be willing to make deals again. He doesn't really get people who don't want to make deals.

because on the whole, they were pretty rational during Obama's tenure there...the Republican governors were the same way (That's no longer true...or applicable because Dems have supermajorities in both houses...)

EDIT: also, when you put it that way, I remember how much in common that Obama and Biden had...not so much in policy but in the way they do governance...they really were a good match for one another.

She ain’t got a plan for that

But Biden did...that was his central point of his bringing up those comments in the fundraiser.

But I don't see the evidence or...well, Michael Bennet was the other debater that lit into Biden on the deal that Biden was able to make with McConnell...and the point he made was almost as great as the one Harris made

With a Republican Senate?

Do you really think that will work?

How are people missing this? It was positively essential.

And why was Biden unable to get McConnell to back off his threat to publicly disagree with Obama about Russian meddling? This was also positively essential.

Biden was unable to move McConnell and Mcconnell’s most likely going to still be there.

How has he worked across the aisle under McConnell in a situation that was as critical as those above?

here...his popularity suffered and those who allowed the GOP to win the Senate also gave them a judicial pick...it was clear what the right would do if given a chance.

Really...

Or you are taking it out of context. Or that was a long time ago. Or something.

house and later the Senate...Pres. Obama was attacked horribly...I think Sanders begged for someone to run against him in 12 in fact.

to get things done. Repugs will be repugs and he got to the point of working around them.

Oh, oops, did I criticize Obama? Shame on me. Actually, no I didn't. He did what he had to do. But it's no way to run the government. We can't go on forever issuing executive orders that can be undone by the next President.

So I'm really not looking for a President who will just continue what Obama did. I'm looking for a game changer. Can the game even be changed? Maybe not. But I am not ready to give up yet.

i hope we get there in 2020, and the WH of course.

O only had that for a few non-contiguous months in the first two years of his first term.

As I said, repugs will be repugs, hence the EOs.

Trying to attract enough moderates in swing states to squeek by, then make modest deals with the intransigent. We really need to think bigger. Which might not work either.

I saw Obamas EOs as a sign of impending autocracy. Trump is an even stronger sign. If we get rid of him, but don't consider the larger problem, then we will continue the downward spiral through the Biden administration until we get to the next autocrat, who will be smarter and less reckless than Trump.

I hope it happens but nothing will get done but EOs if it doesn't, even if we get Warren in place. Turtleman is a problem. I have contributed and will continue to Jaime Harrison who's running against him.

We all need to help Dem Senate candidates, even if it's just five bucks at a time.

The man was a transformational figure in our politics. Biden was part of that, and can build on that legacy.

I was very disappointed with his choice of Tim Geithner at Treasury - I wanted Paul Krugman. And Rahm Emmanuel for COS. Awful!

That may be a semi-popular opinion here on DU, but I don’t believe the majority of primary voters hold that view.

Surely she has moderated this view since then. And yes she’s on my shortlist.

...I saw it quoted in a new article tonight.

All of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates are cautious about criticizing Obama, and Elizabeth Warren hasn’t done it as a presidential candidate.

Beto O’Rourke has been the boldest in criticizing Obama, saying we have a bad immigration policy now and also did under the previous administration (even O’Rourke avoided saying “Obama.”)

The purity patrol is on it

someone who goes after a great Democratic president in any primary.

People here and in liberal circles were LIVID back in 2009 when he announced he was bringing on Geithner. And it proved out between that and others. Obama's administration was way too cozy with Wall Street.

If that's "going after" him then it's more "you're sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality" which is why we get into shit situations.

POTUS...she said this sometime ago so I will cut her some slack...if repeated. I will permanently cross her off my primary list and vote for her only in a general.

Republicans make their Presidents into saints. Democrats don't. So come join the Democratic Party where Barack Obama is a member in good standing, and leave the Church of St. Obama. It's a cult.

He will never have enough delegates to win on the first ballot (I will be shocked if he has any remotely large amount of delegates at the end of the day), and after the super delegates kick in (if it even goes to a second round) he is toast. The party will never commit electoral suicide by nominating him.

Like it or not, Sanders cooked his own goose (and is also doing damage to our overall chances) by falsely self-labelling as a democratic socialist, when he is simply a bog standard social democrat. I say he is doing damage to our Party overall because he gives the Rethugs an open door to falsely labelling pretty much any proposals we put up as socialist, when they are not all all.

Also, if Bernie did get the nomination Bloomber and/or Schults will probably run, just to stake him in the heart.

This would be the BEST case scenario (if the economy is still remotely stable and not having a cataclysmic fall) for a Bernie-topped ticket (also we would have almost no chance to take back the Senate, and might even lose the House)



Here is how it could turn out, worst case, if Rump and the Rethugs really sink the commie/socialist bovver boots (false as that is) in and Bernie is mauled in the debates, and Bloomberg and/or Schultz run (especially Bloomberg)

Link to article in OP.

A far right wing "democrat" if there ever was one.

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Expanded graduation rate at city colleges from 7% to 14%. (Apr 2014)
Canceled teacher raise; lengthened school day. (Nov 2013)
OpEd: Faced down teacher's unions to push needed reforms. (Mar 2013)
Provide more choices within the public school system. (Jan 2009)
Increase college graduation rates, like all other countries. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Usher in a Hybrid Economy in American cars. (Jan 2009)
Backing away from Kyoto was policy error & economic error. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)

I could go on, but classifying Emanuel as a "far right politician" by some, indicates that some need to get out more often, and see exactly what far right, right, middle, left, and far left actually mean

certainly give me pause:

Canceled teacher raise; lengthened school day. (Nov 2013)
OpEd: Faced down teacher's unions to push needed reforms. (Mar 2013)
Provide more choices within the public school system. (Jan 2009)
...
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)

left, middle, right, means very little

As for "defined by DU", I don't think DU makes such claims because it is too subjective.

On some issues a person may be liberal, and on other issues they may be conservative.

The question is which issues, and if some issues should be given more weighting then others.

The list I provided was from "on the issues"

https://www.ontheissues.org/Rahm_Emanuel.htm

and all that is, is an indicator, as you pointed out there are some troubling positions he has taken that should give one pause

Socialist, so consider it through that lens.

FALSEHOOD 1:

"President Obama didn't do a public option because he compromised with the republicans"

NO. They didn't do a public option, because the blue dogs made it very
clear they would NOT vote for a public option, Medicare for all, etc. We needed every vote to get the ACA passed as it was. It was either that or nothing. The republicans were NEVER going to vote for anything that President Obama put forth, they made that very clear at the beginning, so we needed EVERY DEMOCRATIC VOTE. and that wasn't there with a public option. Some obviously want to continue to propagate that lie about how President Obama could have done the public option myth.

FALSEHOOD II:

"President Obama dropped the ball on the Merick Garland nomination"

NO. Which part of NOT having the majority in the Senate do some people NOT understand?
The Senate would NOT even consider Merick Garland's nominations. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE MAJORITY

However, it all came together in 2016, when some of those wonderful self-identified progressives told us that there was no difference between the republicans and the Democrats, and not only refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, by either voting third party, or not voting, but encouraging others to do likewise. They did their part in bringing us to where we are today.

It didn't take much either.

In everyone of those swing states, the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%, and in each of those swing states Stein won by 1%. That is all it took

In 2016, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

and if what happened in 2016 wasn't bad enough, when one of the Democratic candidates for 2020 decides to hire people in their campaign, who not only voted for Jill Stein, but encouraged others to do likewise, I guess that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it.

Obama is not running in 2020, and I sure haven’t seen Elizabeth Warren campaigning against President Obama, but focusing on what she would do

be the motive?

Democrats lost the public option because of a centrist Democrat turned Independent Joe Lieberman. Democrats abandoned progressive Ned Lamont for centrist Joe Lieberman. One centrist Democrat cost us the public option.

Falsehood II. With or without the majority Merrick Garland deserved a hearing per the Constitution. Democrats had the law on their side if not the majority.

I just want the truth reported, not a popularity contest between our Democratic leaders. The truth of the matter is that Democrats last progressive president was FDR. The reich wing narrative that gets repeated all over progressive sites is that Warren and Sanders are too far to the left. Maybe, just maybe they are the real Democratic centrists. I call myself an FDR Democrat. Why don't we Democrats try for once to elect a progressive president instead of going out of our way to appease a narrative?

President Obama did a lot of progressive things, he also did a lot of conservative things. President Obama gave us the extension of the Bush tax cuts, gave us the Sequester that is still in effect. The Sequester every year is cutting 10% in reimbursements to Medicare doctors. President Obama even offered up chained CPI to Republicans but the Republican Tea party was too stupid to take it, thank goodness.

I will most likely vote for another centrist Democrat in the general election in 2020 because that is who our party leaders tell us we need to elect. Most importantly to me isn't even about the issues, it's about which of our candidates is tough as nails to take on Trump. So far I am pleased with Warren, Harris, and Biden, We won in 2018 because America wanted Donald Trump held accountable, the rest of the issues were secondary.

"It wasn't just one centrist Democrat that caused the public option to be killed."

It wasn't just Lieberman. Have you haver heard of Blanche Lincoln, Birch Bayh, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, Mark Pryor? There was no public option on the table acceptable for those Democrats.

Here are the facts on just how much control we had in 2008-2009:

Obama had control of the House from 2009-2011, but guess what, legislation does NOT become law without the Senate

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Total control of the Senate requires 60 votes.

In January 2009, Democrats had 57 seats, with Sanders and Liberman caucusing with the Democarts for 59 votes.

That 59 included both Kennedy and Franken. Franken was not officially seated until July 2009, and Kennedy had a seizure in January 2009, and never returned to the Senate to vote, so the actual number was 55 plus two independents which makes 57.

It was during that time that President Obama was able to pass a stimulus package, but only because 3 republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage

In April 2009, Specter became a Democrat, Kennedy was still at home too ill, and Franken was still not seated in April 2009

In May 2009, Byrd got sick, and didn't return to the Senate until July 2, 2009, and Democrats still had only 59 votes Kennedy's seat was temporarily filled by Kirk, but not until Sept, 2009

It was then that Democrats had at least potentially 60 votes in the Senate, and it lasted all of 4 months, from Sept 24, 2009 through Feb. 4, 2010, at which point Scott Brown, a republican was sworn in to replace Kennedy

The only thing the Democrats had control of for two years was the House, and for only 4 months did we have total control of congress, and it was during that small time frame that the ACA was passed

vhttps://www.ohio.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447


Facts don't matter to some I guess.

As far as the statement the "Democrats had the law on their side" with regard to Merrick Garland, that is simply false. The republicans had control of the Senate
The Senate doesn't have to act on a nomination, and the Constitution doesn't require the Senate to hold hearings.


Why the Senate Doesn't Have to Act on Merrick Garland's Nomination
The Constitution doesn’t require the chamber to hold hearings

The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

Read Article II, Section 2

It does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

Blue Dog Dem in upper State NY. He won in 2008 after a gop retired.. a swing District.

Unfortunately he didn't last long with the tea baggers on the rise in 2010. Might have had something to do with voting for ACA.

Thank you for explaining it to those who don't know how it all went down. It's wonderful when someone knows the actual history.

there wasn't a consensus with the blue dogs

I wonder at times if people realize what President Obama was up against, and what he accomplished


Thanks Cha

just believe what those with an agenda tell them about it.

But, many do who were paying close attention at the time, and had no reason to spin it differently.. like trying to re-writing history.

..gives us the 6E GJ material..or that Barr said he would give it(he didn't, you can't source it)....it's flat out false.

"Falsehood II. With or without the majority Merrick Garland deserved a hearing per the Constitution. Democrats had the law on their side if not the majority."
He may have deserved....but there was ZERO Mandate to hold any.
No we didn't.....have the "law on their side"....Obama is a Constitution scholar..he knew the Senate can withhold hearings...lack of granting consent.

Like all of them.

The part where, for the first time ever, a president's Supreme Court nominee was not even granted a hearing.

Whoever held the majority might be relevant when it comes time for a vote, but it never before prevented the nominee from being considered. It was precedent-breaking, what McConnell did, and Obama could have made a public stink about it but didn't.

that is one big reason I support Biden.

Obama rightly compared Senator Warren to Sarah Palin screaming about "death panels".

Oh and Geithner wasn't Wall Street - he was a lifelong regulator.

sounds too much like Nationalism and America Fristism for me.

She will get my vote in the unlikely event she is the nomineein the general...but that all folks. Good luck in the AA community after your nasty comments about Pres. Obama ...Sen. Warren. Pres. Obama saved our economy. Updated. This is an old quote but the book was written in 14 which is the year we lost the Senate so...still not happy about it...but would change my post to unlikely to vote for Warren in a primary...will vote for her in a general.

He did the best he could with the hand he was dealt - especially on the economy.

It is easy to be a Monday morning Quarterback and criticize.

"Elizabeth Warren Has Made Her Story America’s Story"

This is the headline of the article.

keep it up, it'll make our job much easier.

this is how we lose in 2020. Start criticizing President Obama and his Administration, bring back comments from 2014 from Warren or anyone else and you will see our majority coalition fracture.

Which is the point, I suspect. Have Dems at one another's throats, slice and dice, rinse and repeat.

We really need to stop eating our own. Because all these candidates are 1000 times better than the current Squatter-in-Chief.

Warren is candid about the record and as much as I like Obama that's part of his legacy.