I've had enough: Obama, You're Out

Written by Paul Barrow
Tuesday, 29 March 2011 09:26

It's very clear that the Republicans and Tea Party folks criticize Obama for ridiculous reasons that have very little substance, but we on the left, particularly those of us who describe ourselves as "progressive," criticize him too, but for entirely different reasons. There are a number of strong supporters of the President who believe that if we don't continue to support Obama, we are simply handing the reins over to the right. But this is not necessarily so. The left needs representation in office, and we simply aren't getting it. Obama can be beat in the primaries, and he rightfully should be.

Obama promised a lot when he went into office. He said that he would close Guantanamo and he hasn't. While he uses the power of the presidency to go to war against Libya, prostituting the powers of the UN at the expense of its noble cause, which he promised he would not, and said that the president does not have such powers, he is unwilling to use the power of the presidency to close that terrible prison. He has sustained a policy of torture. He said that he would end the war in Iraq and has not. He has taken the war in Afghanistan illegally into Pakistan, violating their sovereignty, severely destabilizing that country by dividing its people between corrupt politicians who take money from us and deposit it in Swiss bank accounts and those whose families suffer the consequences of drone attacks upon schools, homes, wives and children. He does nothing to stop the illegal sale of arms to Israel, which uses them to assault Gaza. He advocated single payer when he was a candidate, but then instructed his commission to keep it off the table when it came time for legislation. He opposed the Patriot Act, but has pushed for further extension of it. He said that the U.S. needed to mediate in, and bring some change to, the status of the Kashmiri people, and that the will of the people of Kashmir, not the will of India or Pakistan, was most important. Now he refuses to support the Kashmiri and says it’s a problem strictly between India and Pakistan. It's my opinion, and the opinion of many others on the left that he is just a shill for corporate interests.

I have spoken before about our interest in participating in a steering committee seeking a candidate who would oppose Obama in the coming election of 2012, and did so yesterday for the first time. More about that later. The effort at this stage of the game is certainly much too preliminary to gauge the strength of this effort, but we certainly encourage open debate on the merits of what an alternative candidate might have to offer. Obama has stood by silently while the labor movement across the country has screamed bloody murder in the face of an all-out effort by Republicans and their ilk to undermine the strength of unions to bargain collectively, and this is an outrage. Where is there any sign of leadership, given the mandate Obama shouldered? Where is a commander in chief leading a defense of the people's voice? Obama needs to know as never before that he is doing a damn lousy job, and he needs to know that we can do something about that. We can alter his chances of re-election, if he has not already closed the coffin door on himself and pulled the dirt in on top along with it. And I certainly hope that we do. I've had enough.

Paul Barrow is Director of Policy and Communications for United Progressives.

http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1121%3Aive-had-enough-obama-youre-out&catid=44%3Apaul-barrow&Itemid=86

He's better than the other guy!

Seriously, this having to pick the better of the bad has got to stop. It's like using Verizon Wireless. They suck, but the other guys suck worse.

Until we get our heads out of the sand, we will continue to pick the better of the candidates the media provides us with~

get a sprint phone, its cheap, has very good customer service, large phone options and it doesn't suck like Verizon

I have ever received from any company, ever, in my lifetime - was from Sprint. Seven years of pure hell with them. Billing errors and surly phone reps. No, thank you.

I made the switch from AT&T and never looked back. Great blue company.

Change in the Democratic nominee in 2012.

come into existence?

The name is awfully reminiscent of Feingold's Progressives United.

http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=59

appears to have been around since at least May 2008

I've been as critical of Obama as the next guy, but there simply is no viable alternative and as disappointing as he has been, he is orders of magnitude better than any other possible candidate on either side of the aisle.

I doubt if this move will be divisive as its proponents would like, because even after a primary battle, Obama is so superior to any of the bozos who the republicans could nominate hecan't lose.

He is probably our best hope after all when it comes to getting enough swing voters to keep someone like Palin out of the office of president where as with someone else it might just scare to many of them into voting for Palin.

Yes, he needs to be primaried - no voices from the left are heard, we are truly voices in the wilderness, shit upon by both the right and the center right. Enough, I have had enough.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

Democratic office holder in the primaries. That is what the OP is suggesting. To do otherwise would shield ALL Democratic incumbents from discussion about primary challengers.

getting behind Obama when he wins the Democratic primary in 2012?

(I'm speaking only of the actual editorial writer here, not the DUer who posted it.)

any incumbent officeholder vs. seeking the defeat of the nominated Democratic candidate. If the editorial writer was calling for the Presidents ouster no matter what then I think the editorial would violate DU rules. However, he seems to be, at this point, only calling for a primary chalenger and thus, the editorial is OK to post. By pointing out the DU rule concerning trying to unseat a Democratic candidate, I assumed you were implying that the OP/editorial was in violation of the rule. Sorry if I misunderstood.

As long as we want to keep a Democrat in office, we're within the rules.

If Obama keeps acting like a Republican President then he should accept their party's nomination for his re-election so we can run a REAL Democrat against him.

He certainly hasn't done jack-sh|t to act like a real democrat, to help the rapidly growing number of poor and homeless people in this nation, to protect teachers from being demonized and and replaced by low-payed inexperienced replacements in privatized schools, or to protect all of us from predatory financial companies who are still committing blatant fraud with lost and forged mortgages and mortgage paperwork and growing fees for damned near everything.

He certainly isn't standing up for democratic values to protect women's right to control their own bodies, or to spread peace instead of war, or to uphold the value of the real rule of law instead of tribunals and spying on citizens and torture even of Americans.

He certainly hasn't done anything at all to show that he puts the well-being of people ahead of corporate quarterly profits, or thinks that corporations and wealthy people must pay their fair shares in taxes and must be good citizens to earn all that wealth and those privileges they get from society.

He has distinguished himself from the worst of republicans. Yes, he is better than Bush. But he hasn't distinguished himself from Republican goals and beliefs and policies. He hasn't done anything to show that he isn't a moderate republican pretending to be a democrat. Nothing at all. In fact, he has done far more to Prove that he is a good, loyal republican than he has to disprove it.

Giving the republicans everything they asked for, Again today, is just the lasted example.

Yes, I would love a liberal President too. You have 30 years of propaganda inertia to reverse before this happens.

yes, we need a president who is going to repeal DADT....wait a minute....that was done....okay, we need a liberal president who will Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act, wait a minute that was done, we need a liberal president who will
make it easier to get student loans and protect student borrowers, wait a minute that was done, we need a liberal president who will
Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college, wait a minute that was done, we need a liberal president who will Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, wait a minute that was already done, we need a liberal president who will Sign financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans, wait a minute that was already done....hmmmmmm......

And have the two parts of the USA-PATRIOT Act
bee repealed? Warrant-less wiretapping? The
murder of American citizens without *ANY* due
process of law?

Tesha

Are you feeling okay?

This is a good examlple of the intense and often reflexive nature of the criticism I see here (and elsewhere) just seems so disproportionate to his alleged "offenses", not to mention the outright lies, hyperbolic speculation, de-contextualization of comments/actions, and willingness to believe absolutely anything negative about Obama.

Obama's contribution to the "War on Terra" is
that *HE* (yes, Barrack Obama, not Ronald Reagan,
not George H.W. Bush, nor George W. Bush) signed
the order allowing our "defense" forces to execute
Americans that our Executive Branch (n.b.: *NOT OUR
JUDICIAL BRANCH!*) deem to be worthy of killing.

I must have missed that in the Party Platform and
it *CERTAINLY* wasn't in Obama's stump speeches.

Tesha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Has, in fact, gone over to the other side.

...our Democratic Primary is structured so as to
allow undeclared ("independent") folks to also vote
in our primary, and you can bet your ass that a great
many of those undeclared voters who will be voting in
our primary *DO NOT* have the best interests of the
Democratic Party at heart.

It wouldn't be too surprising to see Obama outright
miss getting a majority in New Hampshire (if not lose
the plurality outright to a challenger). And if that
happens, he can probably kiss his second term good-bye
because it will be downhill from New Hampshire onwards.

Tesha

And if a poll has come out with this statistic, my guess would be that many of the respondents were like me---ask me in a poll and I will say yes just to tip the poll that direction. This is a strategy to keep the Repugs from gloating. But I am not at all happy with him or his policies and would support a challenger.

If he still wins the Democratic primary, I would still support him, work for him, and vote for him. But that is because I am looking at what has happened at state levels all over the country when far right politicians win. That is much worse than anything Obama can dream up.

and lost me at you'd support him, work for him and vote for him, anyway. Are you beholden to your principles or your Party? Just asking, because they appear to be in conflict.

I hope you stick with your principles even when your Party doesn't.

Peace.

is that a Republican doesn't win. This means that I have to do what can be done to keep that from happening. Yes, it does present a dilemma. Principles used to rule my life in black and white, but the longer I live, the more I see in shades of gray. I have come to the conclusion years ago that I am too far left to have my first (or second or third) choice win a general election. I have had to resign myself to this.

I will do all I can to get a challenger primaried (depending on who that is and if he/she is electable). If that person does not win in a primary, I refuse to give up the White House to the Repukes. I would rather have a Dem president and push that president to work for my interests than to attempt to have a Republican president care about what I care about.

Are you suggesting that you would rather have a Republican in office because you can't have the Democratic candidate that was your first choice?

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

what the definition of "liberal" Democrat is. (If the DLC could call its think tank The Progressive Policy Institute, then all bets are off.)

If the question is "Are you glad Obama won instead of McCain?" even I would say "yes."

If the question is, "Do you support most of the things that Obama has done?" then I'm not alone in saying "no." Even people who were really gung ho, almost starstruck, about him in 2008 are starting to say, "WTF?"

*The ConservaDem posters have been quoting this poll for what seems like forever, along with their long but ultimately unimpressive list of Obama's "accomplishments." It may be about as valid as the polls that told us that "Ronald Reagan was the most popular president since World War II." We had to listen to and read that statement all through the 1980s--until Clinton was in office, and then the truth came out. Reagan's popularity had been only average.

Look how well that worked out last time

I'm thinking.

on as many issues as Obama has, would there be something wrong with having Nader as president?

He certainly talks a lot more like a Democrat than this president does on some of the issues that are the most important to democrats.

That old scare tactic amuses me. Whenever I hear Nader speak I agree with most of what he has to say, so why should the mention of the name of someone who speaks like a real Democrat scare anyone?

Stick the 'so you want Palin' talking point, at least that one IS pretty scary.

we must undo all of this --------> www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

and wind up the enemy of the Democratic Party? I view Greens & Socialists just as I view Repukes, they are the enemy (politically speaking). Go for it!

behind our desired policies. Politics is a game of organization and numbers: it's not a frickin spectator sport

if he wants those people he has to do something other than a nice speech

...unambiguously supporting the Working Class and LABOR would be nice.

Do people even think this through?

For a mere pittance they got their boys on the board of the DLC.

Look how well it's worked for them.

after their names. (I'm lookin' at you, Blue Dogs and former DLCers.)

I didn't want Obama to win the nomination in 2008. But I was in the minority.
Everyone was smitten with Obama. I wasn't. Once he became the nominee, I donated, I made phone calls because this was the man that the Democrats chose to be our candidate.

Now what do we do? Do we hope that Obama has a challenger so the Dem vote will be split in two?
Do we want it to be a repeat of history like it was when Kennedy challenged Carter?

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not thrilled with Obama either. But I do know one thing... I cannot handle the thought of the current republican party being in control of the Whitehouse and that is why I feel stuck with Obama.

But he can win re-election. A Dem challenger will not.

And he IS right on Libya.

The governable range of this country is actually fairly small, and whoever wins, their supporters feel betrayed.

It does not matter who the fuck is in the Oval Office any more.

Illegal wiretapping and draconian government spying?
O'Bushama has you covered!

Illegal wars in Arab countries that just so happen to have oil reserves?
O'Bushama has you covered!

Tax cuts for the upper, upper, upper class and austerity for everyone else?
O'Bushama has you covered - hell, Obama is even out doing Bush in this regard - at least Bush promised to do exactly what he did...Obama promised us the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE on the campaign trail.

Nominal health care "reforms" while Pharma gouges us on drug costs and Insurance steadily raises rates to inflate the PROFIT MARGIN of killing human beings by denying available medical care....think about THAT for a minute. Insurance companies STILL run our health care system and STILL are letting or causing people to die in support of the bottom line. That is beyond discouraging, its scandalous.

Sure the social issues and gay rights have made progress and its important progress, but let's be honest for a minute - that stuff is not in the same league as the economy and the wars and the misuse of government power for spying. I am glad to see DADT and Lily Ledbetter and a score of other small victories, but I am so sick to death of the smug asshats on the right and on Wall Street and their death wish for the rest of us.

Obama is easily the most disappointing president of my lifetime. He lost my vote when he lost his spine in standing up for what I was led to believe he would fight for.

The best he could do is announce a la LBJ that he is stepping aside and leaving after one term....fuck it, just switch roles with Hillary - she will likewise disappoint utterly (just another corporate owned shill, but at least a DIFFERENT shill) and he can just stay overseas explaining why he was fucking up everything he promised to fix instead.

Yes.

Obama's refusal to support the union membership who put him in the WH is stunning and totally unacceptable and inexplicable, as is a lot else that the does. His choice of advisors and czars often amount to taunting of the people who voted for him.

It's amazing how these pundant writers selectively forget what the obstructionist Repubs did in the last 2 years. Is this guy getting paid by the Kock Bros. or on the payroll of Andrew Breitbart? I hope the independents realize what these fanic religeous flat earth zealots are trying to do and regain their sanity. Keep Obama in and give him support.

Palin, Bachmann, Newt, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour, Santorum, Daniels or for that matter Romney in that position right now and being faced with the same challenges that Obama is faced with.

I don't think any one of these Repugs would hold a candle to Obama.

And please remember what we came off of the last 8 years of BushCo.

Come on - get behind you President cause you ain't gonna find anyone better out there.

> Come on - get behind you President cause you ain't
> gonna find anyone better out there.

That's a very, very sad thought!

Tesha

"And please remember what we came off of the last 8 years of BushCo." Yep, I'd totally forgotten that and needed you to tell me.

"...get behind you President cause you ain't gonna find anyone better out there." That's a pleasant thought to ponder.

I would have supported him as the Democratic candidate, even if he had been honest about his true plans. And I would accept his policies with more equanimity now. But as it is, I feel betrayed. He is not about change and he never was. His votes in the Senate, the minimal time he was there, proved that. I wanted Hillary I admit, but got behind Obama when he won the primaries and was excited by the ideas expressed in his campaign. In reality he has proven to be to the right of Hillary. At least she is clearly invested in women's right around the globe.

I am a progressive Democrat and I like Obama. Who would do better? Name some names--and not Kucinich!

I am the Queen of all things liberal and I have a different opinion. So by the power of the argument to authority in an anonymous forum, you're wrong obviously.

soooo.....

Firstly, the Republicans will wet themselves just thinking of the Democrats tossing Obama under the bus and secondly, what choices are there? The Repubs would just salivate at the thought of the Newt and perhaps Palin in the White House.

I for one, could just hurl.

an eye, without qualifying anything or suggesting conditions of any kind, as though the prognosticator has divine understanding of the course of ALL events and is, therefore, capable of weighing all permutations out and can, hence, tell us that his/her/their objectives (which we are to assume are exactly equal to the most feasible most progressive objectives possible at this particular point) WILL, in fact, be achieved better, sooner, and more completely with his/her/their course of action, which includes dumping Obama, than those same objectives would be achieved with any one of a very high number of other possible courses of action that would include Obama at least for a time.

The presumption is staggering.

I don't like what's going on either, but I am NOT willing to turn over ground-gained to god-knows-what.

and we're lucky a repuke is not in charge

administration's course?

That looks an awful lot like Republican behavior, to respond to the Derivative Crash as though it's over and done with and has had no significance whatsoever on the course of political phenomena.

other corporate interests never make it on the ticket. What can be done?

they quit ignoring the right's most effective weapon- you know those 1000 coordinated radio stations that are essential to creating the alternate reality that enables and feeds most of the obstruction.

as long as there is no organized effort by the major left orgs to fix the radio problem- with local sponsor pressure and station picketing, for instance, the right's most important weapon continues to make the left look idiotic and ineffective- especially the part where the limbaughs and hannitys get to take pot shots at dem reps alll day from 1000 radio stations and dominate messaging, and all those 'progressives' who promised to get their backs whine and pout with their fingers in their ears, giving the most effective megaphone the kochs and roves have ever had a free speech free ride.

until that is at least addressed most efforts to evaluate obama's motivations and effectiveness are plain fucking stupid.

RW radio stations helping limbaugh sell club gitmo t-shirts and mugs and make light of torture all day from 1000 radio stations and to 50 million americans a week and expect a black man to walk into the white billionaire's house and then expect him to kick CIA ass and push the bush/rove fundy military generals around.

remember when he tried to give them civilian trials? that outrage was mostly generated from you local RW limbaugh stations and many more like it and they could do it because the left has no clue radio dominates messaging in this country- not dems or obama or the internet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

two weeks, funding was pulled by major backers? It smells of set up. If we could get committed people to donate each and every month, without fail, $5 only if need be, we too could set up a network, internet and airwaves. One good thing that came out of AA - Rachel Maddow. Wasn't Thom Hartman there too?

and it's believable.

i think the independent progressives have good enough records to prove commerciality - IMO it's a matter of the left orgs making an effort to chame and challenge RW radio until the local stations feel local sponsorship dropping enough they can't pay overhead. if universities pulled sports broadcasting it would really pressure for balance.

and the start of AA from day one. It was just to convenient that funding was pulled in two weeks. We can do it, get our message across, with gentle persuasion and humor. We just need to fund a media campaign, put our money where our mouths are. I think AA left a very bad taste in contributors mouth, and it will be very difficult to pull off, but it can be done. It doesn't help that AA was slammed from day one either. Billo sued Al Franken and lost, he never forgot it and belittled and denigrated Al, still continuing to this very day.

twits like billo will have the rug pulled out from under them- fox is completely dependent on the radio groundwork

Obama would swing left during the primaries and election, then tack hard right the second the election was over.

Just like he did last time.

You all DO realize the OP is screaming "Dance my little puppets!!" While laughing at his computer monitor, right??

It is not my writing.

what are the chances of getting in another Democrat in 2016 if Obama wins a second term?

""

They seem to think that if they could just win the Presidency, all would follow.

The right is not lazy like that, they started at the bottom and patiently worked their way up.

Progressives seem to think that if the top office is handed to them, all will follow. Nope. The progressive President would have troubles with Congress and get nothing.