He's no President Lyndon Johnson, that is for sure!!

As a Leopard Changing this spots, Barack Obama is a straight up disappointment so far. First, the "give away" to Wall Street after all of the harm that they have done to millions of middle class Americans with TARP, the so-call Housing Program that is not really modifying most people mortgages, the Stimulus Program for the Banks and I could go on and on. The main reason we elected Barack Obama to office was for the Public Option in Health Care reform and it appears, he cannot get that done, either.

I am really wondering what was the point of me wasting my time, stand in line, electing this man when he cannot manage to follow though most of his promises. We wanted health care, period. This should be non-negotiable with the Republicans and others that try and stand in the way of real health care reform.

Instead, we get this so-called effort at a funny word called "Bi-Partisanship". If I have it correct, when has this EVER existed in Washington...except during a ill-fated effort by the Bush Administration to push up into a unnecessary war in Iraq. The democrats (not all, but some) continue to show that they do not have one inch of a backbone and Barack Obama is leading the way.

He cannot manage to pull ranks like former President Johnson in his efforts to get the civil rights bill passed in the 1960's. He cannot manage to shame congressman/women into their vote like Bush in Iraq and he cannot worm wheels and deals like Bill Clinton with SCHIP.

Is Barack Obama just a figure head, that without a well rehearse script ....think "Change We Can Believe In"....is a big fraud just like a majority of Washington insiders? He must have forgot that without our votes in 2010 and the upcoming 2012, he will be a One-Termed Lame Duck by December 2011. Personally, I am trying to understand, if he cares...or was it just a show/

Many of us worked our assets off knocking on doors, calling neighbors, driving people to the polls....just to get Barack Obama elected. Now since he is "there", it seems as if he is FORGETTING WHO got him there and easy that it was given, it can be taken away.

The public option should be a DONE DEAL and without it, my support will be lost and many others like me. Want us to "get mad" and start "acting like repukes and teabaggers"? If Barack Obama decide to "go there" and deny the public option, he will be wishing just for Fox News, the likes of Rush, Glenn and Sarah were against him.

as in pizza give away or what?!

:rofl:

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

Obama seems to be falling into the LBJ Vietnam trap: need more troops to succeed, send more troops; need some more troops to assure success, send more troops; and on and on as history repeats itself.

Its stupid to begin with and there are downfalls to trying to make a comparison in the first place.

on a war he did not start. It's too bad he is not as tough as LBJ was in getting things like civil rights and Medicare passed (although it is still early). But then LBJ had the advantage of having a Democratic congress.

My memory isn't fantastic these days but I remember reading something about this. In fact, as I get on the ferry downtown here I can see the Turner Joy.

LBJ caved to the military complex and started expanding the role of the military...that domino nonsense.

It seems, as with LBJ, that as long as sending in more troops seems to be the preferred answer, that is what will be done.

I wish he would exhibit more of the LBJ toughness in getting things done. I can't imagine seeing LBJ at a town hall meeting or putting up with an undisciplined Democratic Party.

My position is that just like LBJ, Obama is taking advice from the wrong people. Prior to Tonkin the US was "advising", maybe taking a few casualties, expanding ops against the VC a little cause of that, but no real heavy stuff.

That all changed after they cowardly ambushed our peaceful destroyers.

That was the first time I realized (some years later) that my president would lie to me. Then I met Nixon.

Obama is not a dictator. We have separate branches of government and there's only so much he can do.

Personally I think he should veto any bill that comes out of Congress without a public option, but I'm sure Obama would still get blamed if Congress fails to pass health care legislation with a public option in it.

How many posting here rallying for public option, or only Single Payer. Are we facing our choices and working for them.

Sounds like you are

concerned.

which was motivated in part by a determination to honor the assassinated President's memory.

Obama has been in office for less than 7 months out of a 48 month term. Get real.

Did you think Obama was going to be some osrt of dictator, ruling by fiat?

Your entire post is laughable.

You can laugh at this post all that you want but we will have a Repuke congressional majority in 2010 and Obama will be a one term president. Laugh at that!!

Have a nice day.

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

:popcorn:

Gone already? That was fast.

Stop letting the media manipulate you geezus! Fucking cows.

You're no Democrat-that's for sure.

I did and I made phone calls, e-mailed and spend many evenings at my local campaign headquarters FOR FREE working on behalf of Candidate Obama to get a REAL HEALTH CARE BILL PASSED. Do not tell me who I am or what I believe, got it!! I know what I stand for and for Obama to try and stay on both sides of the fence on this issue is disappointing at best, a tragedy in the least and make me wonder if Hillary or John Edward (prior to the affair) really should have been our candidate. Enough said to individuals like you!!!

LBJ lost the right side of his democratic base with the civil rights -- and yes, he is the one who ramrodded it thru using his experience and contacts in congress. He then lost the left side of the dems with the vietnam fukup. Some of us didn't understand how a civil war in SE Asia could threaten our nation...much like the Iraq/Af/Paki stuff. It might be a nuisance at most. Anyway by the time 68 rolled around he realized that there was no way he could do anything by staying in the races without ripping the democratic party apart.

Obama is losing a big chunk of his base with his handling of a number of issues. If he doesn't turn this around within the next few months - and I'm not talking just about healthcare, he will be a one term pres and if he tries to go further it will rip our party apart.

I figure his only option is to quit dealing with the DLC (rahm) and start dealing with Dean and Kucinich and Feingold. He should use his influence to neutralize Reid and force the blue dogs to put up or get out.

As far as the current issue? Only solution at this point is to say there's no way to get HR3200 through so we've decided to push HR676. If we're not going to get repub support, go for broke -- all in.

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

posting this today. I'll give you credit for being consistent in both content and username.

I see you took the advice of some DailyKos posters and decided against calling the President a "spade" like you did there, instead opting for "As a Leopard Changing this spots".

LBJ was a huge part of the cover-up of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. He was a crook, and his successes politically won't change that.

I'm tired of all the bitching, crying, and sobbing. If you think you could do better, and make the impossible happen, then fuckin' run for president and prove it. You'd fall flat on your face.

We live in a greedy nation, where the vast majority are out for themselves at all times, and special interests run the world. Obama can't snap his fingers and change that. He's doing the best he can with this situation, and NOBODY could do better. Period.

wholeheartedly agree.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/tarpinfo.htm

And there is no "Stimulus Program For Banks.
Just sayin'.
:shrug:

The fact you think that says you're an idiot whose opinion no one should take seriously

Your lack of knowledge or understanding of history is appalling if not predictable. You want to compare Obama and Johnson. Apart from the fact that any number of things make such comparisons silly, let's just take a look at the actual record. Obama has been President for seven months. Health care, while a priority, was relegated to a secondary spot because of the need to deal with the economic crisis first. But in mid July, the House began work on health care legislation and within a matter of two weeks, a bill had been considered and approved by the three separate committees with jurisdiction -- not subcommittees, full committees, thus teeing up the bill for consideration on the floor of the House when Congress reconvenes in September.

Now let's consider the record of the CIvil RIghts Act that you seem to think is an apt comparison. The bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by JFK in June 1963, a few weeks after Medgar Evers was shot and killed and not that long after George Wallace had made his famous stand for segregation. The bill went through almost a month's worth of hearings in a House Judiciary Subcommittee before finally being approved, sent to full Committee in October where it was approved. And then it had to go to the rules committee, which tried to bottle it up. It took a discharge petition to finally get the bill out of rules and to the floor in February. So what took the current Congress two weeks to accomplish with respect to the Health Care bill took around eight months in the case of the Civil Rights bill -- and during that time, 200,000 people marched on Washington, four little girls were killed in the Birmingham Church bombing and the President of the United States was assassinated. But go ahead and make your goofy comparison to LBJ.

Oh, and then there is the Senate. The Senate has several bills moving through Committee on health care, with expectation that they will be ready for the floor in September or October -- in the neighborhood of four months. The Civil RIghts Act? Well, Senate committees (Commerce and Judiciary) started holding hearings in July 1963 but nothing really moved in the Senate until the bill was passed by the House in February 1964, whereupon the Senate leadership promptly announced that they were postponing action on the bill until after the Senate considered a tax bill. Then a further delay while a Farm Bill is taken up. Finally, in early March the leadership sought to bring the bill to the floor. A two week filibuster of that motion slows things, but is finally overcome because of the overwhelming republican (that word you find so odd -- bipartisan --) support. A filibuster on the bill ensues, again finally broken in June only because of -- that word again -- bipartisan efforts. The bill passes and after winding back through the House, is signed into law on July 2, 1964 -- more than a year after it was introduced, almost nine months after it was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee.

Yeah, great comparison einstein. Now go away.

it is NOT true that the "main reason" Obama was elected was the public option.

Since you followed Obama closely, and voted for him (right?), you of course KNOW that a public option was NOT part of Obama's health care plan during the campaign. His plan was IDENTICAL to Clinton's, except that he did not include a mandate for everyone to have to buy ins., while Hillary did.

Whenever you try to cloak yourself in "I'm a true Democrat, and am fighting for this good cause that is being headed by Obama" coat....your true wolf colors come out, when you spew misinformation that we hear on Fox.

if you're going to post a screed, at least edit it.