Listen. Take off your "footie" PJ's, put on your big boy (or girl) pants. The WH is correct.

We have on the left/progressive end of the political spectrum just as much vitriol, just as much imbalance, and just as many unreasonable expectations as the right wing.

Yes, we may feel our positions on the environment, gay rights, health care, etc. are morally more defensible than those of people on the right...but politics is the art of the possible.

You can't just say because the Dems have the White House and a clear majority in both houses, that the zeitgeist has completely changed and we can erase all of the bitter debates and strong positions along with powerful lobbying groups overnight.

As bloggers screech and bemoan President Obama's lack of progress on their pet issues, they are clearly not paying attention to the full frontal assault from the RIGHT WING on the White House, Democrats, and decency itself with the organized hatefests against doing really ANYTHING.

Firedoglake, Huffingtonpost, Democratic Underground.....all of you need to grow up and realize you may get a public option. you may get a reduction in fighting forces in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. you may get DADT removed from the military rules around homosexuals in the military. you may get significant legistlation to fight global warming. any one or combination you may get some satisfaction on.

but you aren't going to get all of them no matter how many times you collapse onto the ground in a red-faced rage and scream your head off. be reasonable with this president. that's all they are asking. that's all I'm asking.

all I'm saying is it does seem the president is being successfully squeezed by the right who will hate him for all that he is and does AND by the dyspeptic left nutroots who are almost competing to see who can be the most dissatisfied the most quickly with this new president. as though it is some sort of badge of neutrality to go after him full force for not implementing their laundry list of pet agendas in the first 10 months.

what would make YOU happy with this administration? What specifically is the minimum threshold they must cross before you abandon them.

...as children who need to remove their "footie PJs" and who scream "red-faced" like a crying baby.

But no, that's not vitriolic, is it?

:sarcasm:

If I don't get a job that I was going for I might be disappointed. If the pay raise I was supposed to get can't happen yet because of financial realities and my manager tells me it should happen next quarter, I might be disappointed.

But if my response to not getting 100% of what I want exactly when I want it is to post hateful articles about my boss or the company I interviewed with...if my response is to run around and make a fool out of myself saying those people are full of crap and they have no business making promises both real and implied that they can't keep, who looks like the immature fool?

There is a right way and a wrong way to channel our disappointment. My contention is people who choose to behave like 2 year olds in these matters of national importance when they don't get everything in exactly the package they expected, they should be called out on it.

It is just one more piece of the puzzle regarding the destruction of civilized debate in this country. Now, bloggers purportedly WORKING FOR THE SAME THING the Obama administration is, feel their best option is to go fucking crazy with the attacks rather than constructively focus grass roots energy on seeking the solutions they are motivated to pursue.

which is really funny...

in a sad, very sad, way...

When you refer to people standing up for the 40000 people that die from being uninsured every year (this doesn't count the underinsured) as 'needing to get out of their feety pajamas.' Nope no vitriol or insult there at all.

And when you complain about our fixation on our 'pet issues,' you know like Peace, Health Care, Civil rights for all, and the environement, yeah obviously no offense intended there either.

And when you conclude with an image of us kicking and screaming red-faced in a tantrum are we supposed to suppose that this is just what? Rational discourse? Intelligent and high minded discussion of the issues?



In short, spare me.

Also comparing the issue based critiques and discussions here with the brainless blathering of the beck watching bullshit believing bullys is not just insulting it is also, logically speaking, a false equivalency.

you may want to look up the word.

and speaking of definitions, "inappropriate" doesn't even come close. Why don't you just apologize. And not just to me, to every gay and straight person on DU.

No, no vitriol there.

K&R

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

if we agree the Rush Limbaughs and Drudge's of the world are able to create a fake reality that people read and accept as reality such that their world view is warped and they will refuse to support this president, why is it wrong to say blogs and other sources of public dialogue in the progressive side can't be used for the same purpose--to drive down the popularity of this president and the Democrats merely because they didn't change things fast enough?

you will hold their feet to the fire on all of your wonderfully lovely ideas....they will be defeated by Republicans in 2010 and 2012, and you will be stuck in some variant of Bushworld vowing to move to Europe. The safe place of impotent minority you've grown so accustomed to.

Period. This belief that somehow shrill and angry rhetoric coming from the blogosphere pushes our people to do more or better is simply a myth. In fact, it does exactly the opposite, encouraging left-wingers to be viewed by the elected officials as unreliable supporters who can't be expected to work for progress.

It has been at least that long since the Democratic started completely taking the left for granted and started treating the rational and issue based side of the party as some kind of crazy aunt living up in the attic.

I rarely ever see the republicans repudiate their base the way a certain subset of democrats try to pretend that we don't matter.

Giving our unearned, undeserved, unswerving, full throated loyalty has not turned out well for us either, particularly with the election of the blue dogs who love the Democrat name brand and still want the corporate favors and lobbyist money.

once they saw fiscal discipline wasn't on the menu and the religious activists saw the programs like "faith based initiatives" program were just paper facades to make them feel better.

Right now, the ultra right wing tea party folks are in revolt against mainstream GOP. So your argument is proven false by objective facts.

I have read Mr Kuo's book and I don't think there is a reasonable comparison to be made. Money still flows freely towards Abstinance only education and democratic bills to the contrary seem to ignore reason and intelligence in favor of pandering and pleading that some small fraction of money be added to an 'Abstinance plus' program.

When supreme court justices get put up the right gets the most neandrathal gay hating, union busting, anti abortion nut jobs. We get tepid pro choice judges that aren't too offensive to corporate interests.

There are more examples of course but again-false equivalency.


The resistance and reluctance towards only the most obviously insane of the right wing is nothing compared to twenty years of placating head patting towards the left.

Many of us on the left were even blamed for Nader and every election cycle there seems to be a mass moderate-right DLC based propaganda blitz to remind us that 'we' didn't win rather that a corporate friendly, moderate, fiscal conservative coalition won.


The rightward march of the politicians would make Eisenhower and probably even that criminal Nixon remade into centrist Democrats (particularly considering the marginal tax on wealth).

If we get any that is.

Corporate wealthfare is still corporate wealthfare.

No public option means No reform.

by mandating most of us are stuck buying their shoddy products with no guarantee that access to care improves, is a rightward move.

Okay I'll give you equal rights if you give me health care reform?

jeezus you "realists" are so unrealistic.

be able to say so on the record instead of slinking around passing notes like a middle-schooler.

I think not.

More likely, Harwood is making the whole thing up.

the "branded" news and opinion makers like George Will, Charles Karumpphh, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborogh, and the whole pile of them.

by comparing my statements to the vacuousness of Britney, you're engaged in an attempt to undermind my point through guilt by association.

then, by posting her link where she essentially said to mindlessly trust the president no matter what, you are indicating that to NOT engage in constant attacks from the left on how quickly or how thoroughly Obama is acting on his promises and agenda is equivalent to not having a voice at all.

there are many channels to hold Obama's White House to their promises. Nasty blog articles and a general spirit of anger and frustration against one of THE BEST presidents we've seen in awhile is not constructive and isn't the key to ensuring a progressive agenda is moved forward. it's cheap, stupid, and counterproductive.

actions (or inactions as the case often is). Don't pretend it's not.

toward the president due to their own irrational expectations. I myself question this president often. Questioning where things are headed and having anxiety or a lack of trust that things will markedly improve are valid things to do.

My original post was essentially agreeing with the White House's position that some on the left in their outspoken cynicism and attacks on Obama are ultimately working against the coalition building necessary to get ANYTHING done.

We have on the left/progressive end of the political spectrum just as much vitriol, just as much imbalance, and just as many unreasonable expectations as the right wing.

We don't have any gangs of angry Marxists manipulated by communist PR firms to storm the banks and Wall Street demanding nationalization.

We don't have left wingers making up lies by the hundreds, spouting them on national broadcast media, and having Democratic leaders attending Communist rallies to echo the lies (like Grassley saying his pull the plug thing at an anti-reform rally).

Don't fall for the foolish-- Golly gee, both sides are riled up, we all need to calm down.-- type stuff, when one side is calling for national health insurance and the other is raging against the anti-Christ nazi hitler socialist. When one side is calling for necessary reductions in our carbon emissions and the other side is screaming against Satanic One World Government.

The right wing PR professionals manipulated desperate people to turn their anger away from the banks, Wall Street and corporations and onto the government. Those amoral PR firms like FreedomWorks were quite amazing. They got Medicare recipients to storm town halls against government interference in healthcare. They got them to fear government death panels, without pausing to look at the actual private insurance practice of "recision" aka dumping patients who need care from their insurance policies.

That's all crazy town. That's no "heated but reasonable debate of the options." So don't let the right wing apologists try to convince you that we are equally mad. We are both angry, but the progressive side is expressing what used to be the moderate compassionate Democratic perspective twenty years ago and the town hall stormers are the lunatic fringe that the Republican party didn't used to court so openly. The Republican Party used to eschew its lunatic fringe, to present itself as the more rational, less idealistic party. They used to pretend to be the sensible guys, concerned about budget deficits and national defense, while the Democrats were too generous with social spending.

But now that they have become The 29% Party, the GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Plutocrats) has had to stir up its nuttiest potential constituents and kowtow to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

We don't have Rush Limbaugh type liars on the left. We have a few loud, assertive progressive radio hosts but they don't regularly spout lies like the right wingers people try to compare them to. Even my favorite, who calls out The Bush Crime Family, isn't lying-- that family has committed quite a few crimes between them. Progressive radio talkers don't spout racist garbage either.

So while I understand someone saying that the progressive side is impatient and they wish progressives would give the president more time to achieve his goals, President Obama has actually asked us to tell him what we want. We may think he needs loud, demanding left-of-center groups to balance out the strident right wing that dominates most of our broadcast media.

You have mastered a false equivalency with yoru comparing issue minded detail oriented bloggers with the Fox watching screaming emotionalist astroturf racist nut jobs.

Kudos on the self hate!

because you are correct about many people's motivations on the left being a bit more informed and rational than on the right at this moment.

However, there are some over there screaming due to taxation and government spending which could be seen as a legitimate reason to be upset from their perspective.

Also, whether the "screeching" and noise making and chipping away at the president's ability to move an agenda is based in sound reasoning or not, the end result is the same from both sides.

I also donate to causes that support ONLY progressive candidate.

I call my congresspeople and occasionally call the white house switchboard. I also write the occasional letter to the editor (which I thankfully have my sister to edit as I tend to write first and think later).

The point is Nothing gets done without noise and the answer to right wing screeching and insanity is NOT silence. Silence creates the impression that the only two sides in healthcare reform are the Birthers and Max Baucus. Nothing or corporate wealthfare.

Do you really expect those of us on the left to accept two completely unacceptable options?

in fact I have repeatedly called for it here in posts asking folks to call their congressperson. I think you and I agree way more than we disagree.

It's possible through my incomplete and inelegant way of putting it, that I have given you the wrong impression I was essentially labeling your type of activities as "screeching" when I wasn't.

It has more to do with the megaphone of widely read blogs and their less than fair assessment of facts around what Obama is and isn't doing and potential reasons why.

With a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House we should be able to accomplish some remarkable things that the party has put into its platform for years.

Call me crazy but half the democrats being bought by the special interest you are railing about, including it appears the White House on some issues like Wall Street reform, is the reasoning behind the inaction and not the Right Wing, which has no real political power at this given moment in history.

to deny that is to not be fully aware of what is going on here. Witness the hue and cry over a liberal group in Norway giving Obama a peace prize. Obama is having to appeal to people directly and gain traction with European powers abroad to help counter the hardening conservative trends being projected by concentrated power of the owner class and their megaphone corporate media.

I alluded to the "buying off" of some of our so-called majority when I talked about not changing the zeitgeist overnight considering the ignorance of so much of our population on basic political issues and the rich $$ being shot into Washington by lobbying groups from that same corporate owning class.

Two of the most ardent Obama supporters and leaders in the campaign in my area of PA (one a team leader like I was and another an FO) both thought that the Nobel Peace prize was ridiculous and premature. We weren't upset about it, we just thought it was ridiculous. Now these are people who actually did the work during the campaign of getting him elected. Sleepless nights, long days, time away from family etc. etc. etc. If I think it's premature and I personally like the man, I can only imagine what someone who doesn't like him thinks.

Whether it is inviting big Pharma for a closed door meeting or Goldman Sachs employees mysteriously appearing everywhere in the administration, the President himself seems to be guilty of cozying up to the same corporate lobbying groups and industries that you appear to accuse of taking on his administration.

The media is going to criticize regardless of what he does so he might as well do big things.

The man that put Single Payer off the table has put End the War Now off the table as well.

and the White House would be crazy to do so. Did you think of that?

And to continue the war so as to not lose face, as Nixon did, is equally criminal.

I can't really see how you can make that statement. It is one area of the wider Afghan/Pakistan security problem exacerbated by the fact that Pakistan has had difficulty containing the Taliban and their allies inside Pakistan. I think keeping nuclear weapons of Pakistan out of the hands of those tribal warriors and exteme groups would be one reason to stay in the area. But I'm open to more information. I'm always willing to say if there is a case to draw down troops or remove them entirely then the U.S. should.

I just don't know if it is the responsible thing to do at this moment.

won't matter at all. We will only "win" more graves in our national cemeteries, and more PTSDs to deal with for years to come.

Ok. So, what is the plan?

Is ending the war unreasonable? Is it reasonable? They say a successful counterinsurgency can be done in 14 years. (This was on 60 Minutes on 10/11/2009.) Is it really desirable for American soldiers to die in Afghanistan for another 14 years? Pakistan is a large part of the problem, too. What should be done there? They created the Taliban. To what extent can they be counted on as allies in this effort? I am not for keeping soldiers in harm's way.

It is not unreasonable to complain that things are not getting done as fast as one would like to see them get done: one wonders if things are actually going to get done.

It is also not unreasonable to start negotiations from a position of strength. A case in point is health care reform. Namely, Obama doesn't have to be for single payer to start with that as the initial point of negotiations. He might lobby Congress for that initially and THEN back off to a public option when everything has been hashed through and the other side feels that it has forced him to compromise. Thus, he gets them to concede some ground. His negotiating style is similar to a person trying to compete at tug-of-war by allowing his opponent to start at the end of the rope while he starts at the edge of the water pit; to wit, everything has to go exactly right for one to even stay in the game. One should not be surprised that people are bitterly disappointed by such a lack of negotiating skill.

P.S. You can drop the "big boy/girl pants" insult. It does not serve the point of your argument unless you need blatant ad hominem attacks to cover the weakness of your argument.

at a rapid pace.

What is your plan?

If the madrasas have Saudi financing, why not go after that financing using banks? And the madrasas are located where again? In the beginning, they were in Pakistan. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html)

So, what is your plan for Pakistan? The Pakistanis serve their own interests, not ours, and are not necessarily a trustworthy ally. Yet, so much depends on them.

The last time I saw you post something you were claiming that President Obama wasn't reacting fast enough to the request for more troops. You stated (in reference to BabylonSister):

"Yeah, let our troops continue to die and suffer waiting for reinforcements
while your Messiah diddly daddles on a war that he himself called a "war of necessity."
Thank the gods Obama wasn't President during World War II."

"The person I responded to views Obama as someone beyond fault
(Edited on Sat Sep-19-09 08:07 PM by IndianaGreen)
Do a DU search on her posts and you will see how this poster berates other posters for being less than enthusiastic.
BTW, the Indiana National Guard is in Afghanistan so this is more than just an academic issue to me. People are dying!"

Yes, people are dying. One should make damn sure that the people who defend this nation are not committed to a 14-year potential misadventure that depends heavily on Pakistani cooperation that may or may not be there.

I am open to your counterarguments. Maybe I have an incorrect view, but how many dead and wounded will result from a 14-year mission in Afghanistan? Is there an alternative?
If this is a war of necessity, where will the next war of necessity be - Africa? Does the USA have the means to follow al Qaida from failed state to failed state across the globe? I hope that this does not come across as aggressively argumentative. Seriously, what do you believe the options to be?

They even exist in Latin America.

xocet I wish YOU were advising Obama.

have a problem with it. Meanwhile, the OP will be comfortably unaware of it all.

I see people on DU complaining about things Obama has actually done or is doing. I see the right wing freaking out about socialism, Obama is Hitler, dead grannies, all LIES. When I see people on DU complain I don't see lies, I see people tired of taking crap and I see people righteously angry.

These "pet issues" you talk about, well since I have a family of 5 with no health insurance because of pre-existing conditions Health Care is not a "pet issue" for me it's a matter of life and death. DADT and DOMA are not "pet issues" they address the lack of basic human rights for our GLBT brothers and sisters.

When I see people complaining about the appointments like Geithner and Bernanke I don't see whiners I see people righteously angry about terribly poor decisions made by someone they trusted.

I don't see any "organized hatefests" on the left, I see people who spent time and money to elect someone they hoped would help them getting angry because they feel like they wasted their time.

Sure nothing is going to happen overnight and for you that may be fine, you may have health insurance and you may have all your basic rights in place(such as they are) you may not have lost a fortune in the financial collapse, but many many people have. So from your perspective it may look like whining but from another it's righteous anger.

And frankly, insulting people in your thread title is a really stupid way to get them on your side.

This doesn't help. Engaging in a pissing contest to end another pissing contest (yes, I've done it too) just ends up with a lot of piss on the floor.

Odd how the right-wing has outsourced their jobs to the center

that they are merely being pressed into service in the right wing's campaign to tear down this president and his allies by any means necessary.

it doesn't matter to the right wing opinion makers if their allies are diametrically opposed to them on the issues--as long as the one with the power and initial momentum for change can be stopped by the Lilliputians.

Now can we start talking about actually issues, instead of the evil segments of the political spectrum and their effects on Mr Smilely?

you are one of the worst offenders. You're sitting at your computer taking pot shots at President Obama because he's not working hard enough for YOUR version of the one and true health care plan that will save us all from yourselves.

It would be awesome to have a discussion with you on the issues, but you have demonstrated time and again you aren't interested in that.

I'm pretty ambivalent about Obama to tell you the truth. I'm much more focused on the actual policy being created in the legislative process

Wide strokes paint ignorance. Easy there tiger.

As I have stated repeatedly.

There are only Issues and people that want to sell them to us.

The right to form a union
protection of drinking water from mercury
global warming
fair trade
free and fairer education
free post secondary education
decreasing dependence on fossil fuels
increased money on renewable energy
protection of endangered species
Making polluters pay for the damage they do
Equal rights for everybody
Universal healthcare
Provisions such that no child in America go hungry.
Free Job retraining education

Ask the majority of Americans and you will find that on these issues a hell of a lot more than your made-up '20%' will be identified as left of center.

The fact is that the corporations that own the media are Not left of center, which is why NBC and CBS would never have done a story on the horrors of the Nuclear Industry (unless it was Chernobyl).

The centrists in the Democratic party get more spots on the sunday morning circuit and they are typically 'counter balanced' with about double their number of right wingers.

or bell curves. approximately 50% of a population in a standard normal distribution will be "left of center". I actually argue that the U.S. population is skewed and a greater than 50% value are "left of center". That doesn't take away from the fact that 80% are bunched in toward the "center" and 10% make up extremes on either side of that center. That is where I get 20%. 10% right extreme and 10% left extreme. or thereabouts. Go ahead and call it 9% and 11%. knock yourself out.

I suppose you think you can toss two entirely unrelated mathematical conventions out and pretend that they are related to something resembling normative politics.

The Pareto Principle has absolutely nothing at all to do with political opinion. Nothing. It is one of dozens of economic formula that attempts to rationalize irrational and unequal distributions of wealth. It was not designed with political opinion in mind and its thesis is that, in Italy, at the turn of the 19th century that 80% of the land was owned by 20% of the population, and that this is a natural or even ideal state.

People try to misapply this 80-20 state all the time to things it was never meant to apply. I would argue that the very 'rule' is absurd and remarkably elitist and if someone were to design it today they would invent a 95-5 rule.

As to a bell curve. A bell curve is only good for naturally occurring variations and it is a construct that attempts to glean an average range of existing characteristics. Again, it is entirely inappropriate to gauge the shifting and e'er changing winds of political opinion. In many ways it is actually far too simple a model to accommodate the vicissitudes of how we inform ourselves politically and the range of political information available.


In short, you cannot throw out two random half recalled theories that you might have heard of at business school and pretend they have any relevance at all to the discussion

is for naught.

edit for spelling.

in 2010 specifically to help in the short term election season. It is cynical and crass, I know. But it is a fact that is why stimulus money has been slow to go out to the states. That is my educated guess anyway.

I remember in 2001 the tax cuts were analyzed as being timed to do the same thing for the 2004 election season. And they did. I think this is the other side of that same coin. Largesse as a political tool and as a way to temporarily juice a structurally unsound economy.

there will be jobs created next year but with no additional help from the WH. So, is this the same stimulus money that the WH is sitting on until 2010?

Honestly people following that moron lose their shirt. He had Bear Stearns as a buy the week it collapsed.

to have an effect that crests from late spring to early fall of 2010. now that the money is being spent, the multiplier effect of government spending on our GDP will be felt.

district wrote an op-ed in the local rag the other day pontificating about the high unemployment rate and how repukes will "restore jobs." I think people are dumb enough to buy into the notion that the Dems are responsible for this mess (blame the party in power) and will reward the r's next fall if things don't improve significantly. Then we'll really be fucked.

Yep, getting people back to work has to be job #1.

certainly hope Pres. Obama realizes that his re-election will hinge, to a large degree, on the job market.

Because that's what makes real change in this country.

Or DIDN'T they . . . hmmm . . .

:puke:

Some douchebag is channeling Jeb...

The usual suspects abound, as ever.

any time.

Thanks for deigning to post to us mouthbreathers...

You'll take it and you'll fucking like it!

with the dlc traitors and rabid repubs.
There is nothing left to give up. We can't go any farther right or we are officially repubs.
Either folks start taking an principled stand and refuse to budge or settle for more half assed right wing policy which always leaves the working class and working poor worse off.

How about radical centrists democrats start a little coalition building with the new deal liberals on the left.

toward the end of Clinton's 8 years. And he is nothing if not constantly labeled a DLC'er centrist DINO by many on this board. Maybe being a bit more pragmatic even if our policy goals and visions are for big things....they must be attained through political realities.

and devastated the working class with nafta. Neo-liberalism has reigned for 30 years and got us here.

And now he tells it us that floater is actually a Babe Ruth candy bar, even though it stinks to high hell.

The only people I see acting like three year olds are the ones who just cannot express themselves without insulting broad swaths of people on this board. Considering that these fire-bombers never learn their lesson, I must conclude that the only purpose of such OPs is to get attention......by pinching off a floater.

Even though I regret kicking this floater, I do so in the hopes it will get flushed.

If you want reasoned discourse, you must START OUT with reasoned discourse. Nuff said.

are getting a bit out of control and actually hampering efforts at change, I should have the post locked? What is the point? WHy don't you say what you disagree with? I didn't say everyone on DU is behaving this way. I didn't say all progressives are behaving this way.

Ok. You took offense. What do you think the real state of play is? That Obama is being compromised by big business and money and we have to scream like 2 year olds to get past that?

Pointing out Obama's compromises is hardly screaming like a 2 year old. It's actually a more adult response than the blind cheerleading and justification we so often see.

You cannot clean the smell of a floater with strawmen.

who got one too many emails from LemonLyman.com or something.

but your OP boils down to this: your 'pet issue' is a politician. So you are frothing at the mouth that the political process involves pressures on your pet. You act out in rage, for this imagined relationship you have with a man who actually asks for pressure on policies, clearly and directly the opposite of what you want for him, according to some odd thinking in which you need to want for and protect the President of the United States from people on DU.

but when Obama says he wants us out in the trenches keeping the pressure on him and others to make the changes we're all talking about on here, I don't think he had in mind the lying and misrepresentation that is now starting to creep into liberal blogs as they see their specific issue isn't being addressed in the way THEY want to see it addressed.

This all feeds into everyone's "me" culture promoted by government and media. It's all about us. all 280 million of us. We each have our own little worldview and we're going to throw a fit if we don't get it.

My larger point is that once the "masses" are effectively ignited against something or someone, it is very easy for negative forces to spread it out into a diffuse "we don't like this guy" without a lot of rational thought about why or why not.

Attacking Obama because he can't get Congress to do what was his stated goal on health care reform in the time you'd like to see it done is not productive. no matter what you may think about my neurosis.

well said-the voice of reason. you can't turn the good ship Titanic away from the Bush's iceberg overnight. He's just one man against a mad, loud and ubiquitous right wing political, corporate, military industrial and health care industrial complex all amplified to 11 by the RW media noise megatron. He told us he'd need our help. HE NEeDS OUR HELP!! Call your congressperson and Senator. March in the streets. Write letters to the editor and media dispelling the RW propaganda. Stop shopping at at Wallyworld. Stop eating Macdonald cheeseburgers. DO something to help instead of complaining that he hasn't lived up to expectations. YOU haven't either. Realize political change takes a village, and in this atmosphere is difficult and requires some compromise. 9 months maybe enough for an aspirational Nobel, but its not enough to fix the mess created over the last 30 years.

In fact, he asked people at the HRC dinner to keep pushing him. What's completely daft is when, in return, they scream that he is taking them for granted because all the goals they want to achieve haven't happened yet. Obama's entire being and his personal history should tell any fair-minded person that this is not and will never be true.

They are trying to shame you and they are trying to control you. In this case it's just another instance of 'Sit down and shut up'.

huh. Sounds awfully familiar. I can hear them now "but we ARE in the right"

Another bullshit diatribe from a "Centrist".

"Centrism"....because its so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING, and get to insult those who do!
:party: