You know what's fuckin' scary?

Members of DU who are strongly supportive of a Democratic President are considered a "contingent."

Think about that.

I don't support Pres Obama any more strongly than I have any other Democratic president of my lifetime but my ordinary support now appears wildly extravagant on DU. I don't say shitty things about him or call him a sell-out or a coward or a con- man and I guess that makes me a sycophant
on DU.

Granted most of the Dems who support the president have taken a hiatus from DU and pop up only rarely or when there's especially good news to celebrate.

It is pretty depressing.

I checked in after the Warren appt. to still find a bunch of people complaining about it.

Good news is bad news and must be manipulated to become bad news.

That's the Warren appointment in a nutshell.

I could point you to 10 people, at minimum, who were just a few weeks ago bitching about Obama because he, in their view, would *never* appoint Obama. Those same people are now bitching about the way he did it or are saying her appointment doesn't mean anything because she had no power or are complaining because he took so long to do it.

Some people aren't happy unless they are unhappy.

Other's aren't happy unless they are making others unhappy.

by their own hate.

What I don't understand is how the president is blamed for everything that's not perfect, but you rarely hear anything about the votes required to get EXACTLY what we want. The health care bill for example, has a lot of good in it, but it's slammed as a failure because it's not single payer. How in the hell were we going to get single payer, when you have to have 60 votes to get anything done? This talk of disappointment with any and everything doesn't make sense. The president doesn't have a magic wand, and he can use the 'bully pulpit' as much as he wants but if the votes aren't there, they just aren't there. Why is that fact always left out of the equation?

It's not an "excuse" it's our constitutional system!

See things are getting better!


Should be renamed DemocraticFubar.

Seems like the same stuff that I left when I found out I had high Blood Pressure.

:hi:

Please let me know when the coast is clear so I can get my Dr's approval to return. : (

:hi:

:shrug:

But it reminds me of how people were less than enthusiastic about Al Gore because "what's the difference between him and Bush? Let's vote for Nader".

I fucking hate Nader.

That's an apt comparison.

I remember it well. And I was floored by all the people who threw out Al Gore as the supposed savior of the Democratic party in 2008, people who desperately wanted him to run, some even who declared they would support no one else but him because he was a "true" Democrat, a "true" liberal. Those same people were either not active politically in 2000 or were hypocrites.

I suggested once during the primaries, in one of those "draft Al Gore" threads, that the people pushing this had no idea who Al Gore was. I was, predictably, thrashed, called a moron, a traitor, etc.

Al Gore is far more conservative than Obama is. Don't tell certain people that, however. You'll cause aneurysms.

But I think global warming would have been the man's first priority. As well it should be.
At any rate, my point was that Al Gore turned out to be quite different than Bush - and would have made a much better president.

His current stance on global warming -- what he expresses he wants done -- is a result of his *not* being a politician anymore. He has the freedom to express himself in a way that is not geared toward being elected.

I'll tell ya the truth. I didn't like Gore, at all. I didn't like him when he was a Senator. And, I hate his wife. Hate. I was irritated a lot when Clinton chose him as a running mate.

None of that means anything. When he was chosen as the Democratic candidate, he became my favorite political person in the world. Why? Because I'm a Democrat (large "D"), and I *believe* in the democratic (small "d") system. Votes happen. I'm not always going to be on the winning end of those votes, but it is my job to support those who are chosen via these democratic votes in support of a political party that by and large supports my principles.

That's the problem with modern politics. A helluva a lot of people (a lot of them so-called Democrats) claim to support the ideals of democracy but really only support democracy as it agrees with them. They maintain a belief that the majority agrees with what they believe, and that is very often not the case. They only respect democracy insofar as it supports their causes.

I could get into this in more depth, but I'm going to leave it at that.

Obama's opponents on this board are for the most part -- and I'll just be honest and say it and expect that this message will be deleted eventually for expressing a controversial opinion -- ignorant. Some of the most ardent anti-Obama commentators display a disturbing lack of knowledge, and that's the way it has always been. So be it. I don't care in the long run because DU is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The participants in the Senate campaign I'm working with now hadn't even heard of it until I mentioned it, and when they looked, they laughed. This place is full of narcissists with delusions of grandeur.

We have mirror images of each other in both parties. It seems you are popular if you're loud, obnoxious, and wear horse blinders on every issue.

:silly: