If Obama loses in 2012, does that help your cause any?

I think this is a very important question.

I hear many democrats who are not just calling for more action by Obama on their preferred issue. They are demanding that Obama "fix it" ... immediately.

Wake up. He is the President, not God.

We have three equal branches of government. Obama controls only one of them. And sure, he can take some unilateral action ... and we hated with Bush did exactly that.

He's been in office for 9 months. And apparently, some of us think he should have cleaned up each of our individually preferred messes by now.

If you voted for Obama based on your preferred single mess ... then (GASP)you may not get everything you wanted in the next year or so.

But you will certainly get more movement in your direction than the current GOP would ever consider.

I don't suggest blind party loyalty ... or blind loyalty to Obama ... and certainly no stop to criticism of Obama ... that is healthy.

But I'm hearing way too many Democrats act like single issue right wingers ... "clean up my preferred mess this instant, or incur my wrath!!!"

Obama can't change the direction of the country alone, and not in 9 months, even with help from Congress.

And if we don't work to help him succeed, we will all be whining about the new mean evil GOP President in 2012. And I'm sure he or she will spend a great deal of time worrying about your preferred mess.

:hi:

3 recs so far.

If Obama wins and dems take nearly every seat in congress, will the can still get kicked down the road?

And I don't want internal debate, which is healthy, to cause us to fall apart.

The GOP has always been better about getting more of what they want, even if they don;t get it all.

Democrats, perhaps because of the "big tent" ... we tend to eat our own, and then get eaten by the GOP later.

I'd like to see every Blue Dog have serious primary opposition
and a whole lot more progressive Democrats elected to both houses
in 2010. I get awful tired of the media telling us that an
incumbant President always loses seats in the off year election.
That doesn't get us anywhere (believing that shit). We have to get
off our collective butts just like we did last time around and
increase majorities in Congress, in State Houses, hell even dog
catchers ought to be Democrats. How about we get to vote on Talk
Show Hosts. Vote all those Rush types out too. Put some good liberals
on the air (maybe a socialist or two).

...we would see some action on Democratic issues.
.
.
.
.
Nah....even 70 wouldn't be enough.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

Polls show the majority are with progressives on the issues we put first.

If you are saying Obama would lose the blessing of the financial elite if he actually did what we elected him to do and they would remove him from office, that's something else.

But his support with voters would go up if he went FDR instead of Clinton-lite, not down.

The point is that many of us appear to be incredibly impatient.

And I understand that impatience to a degree ... but some of it has gone way over the top.

He gets to be President for 4 years minimum ... expecting him to have "fixed" your preferred issue after just 9 months is absurd.

Certainly filling his cabinet with members from the corrupt DLC branch of the party doesn't inspire confidence, nor putting the foxes in charge of the Wall St. henhouse.

more than average Americans, would you concede that people would be justified in being disappointed and even angry?

and finally start accomplishing stuff.

The problem is that on many issues, over and over again, Not only is Obama not accomplishing anything, he also keeps moving to the right so that he is unlikely to accomplish anything.

If anyone thinks that we are making decisions based on single issues then they are not really paying attention to what we've been saying. We may talk about one issue at a time, but we talk about many issues. We may have some issues that are most important, but we aren't blind to everything else, and we have said so.

If Obama would move to the left on civil rights, or on the environment, or on peace and really stopping torture, or on supporting the rule of law (including international law), or on reforming or repealing free trade agreements, etc., then he would have growing amounts of support. The more effort we see him making on the left the more we would support him. We just need to see that leftward effort, not just moving to the right and compromising and working with lobbyists and corporations.

The dems have used the liberal left to get elected with the confidence that we won't vote repub. I think they are going to find the "who else will the liberals vote for?" isn't going to cut it anymore. Yeah, we won't vote repub, but many will simply not vote.

He has actually made progress on some of the things we care about.

SCHIP, stem cell research, the Fair Pay act, benefits for gays in the federal government.

It's been 9 months.

You post suggests he should "move to the left on civil rights, or on the environment, or on peace and really stopping torture".

He stopped use of Bush torture, and Eric Holder is looking at investigations.

You mention "supporting the rule of law" ... he doesn't do that?

Does he get a full term ... or just 9 months before we turn on him?

Every Gitmo detainee who has been released has reported that the torture and abuse is still happening. Defense attorneys have implied this too in public statements.

The federal rights that Obama asked the federal departments under him to provide to us are were very minor procedural options that are available to very few. That is hardly something to be proud of as an example of standing up for Civil rights, especially when he has been refusing to take greater actions that are within his power.

He isn't supporting the Rule of Law as long as he is still using Military Tribunals, secret evidence obtained by torture, and extra-judicial rules that restrict the defense and run counter to the Geneva Conventions and normal Due Process.

Yes, he signed the fair pay act. Signing a bill after members of congress fought hard to get it passed and delivered to his desk doesn't mean that he made it happen. Giving him the credit is kind of disrespectful for to the lawmakers who really did all the hard work. They did the work. If he had campaigned for this law and used the bully pulpit to rally democrats during the long fight to get his passed then I would agree that he deserved the credit, but he didn't. He only came in at the end.

As for "it has only been 9 months", that's a really useless argument. Presidents are busy people with full agendas. They accomplish things every day from the day they take office. It's just a matter of what they choose to accomplish. He hasn't chosen to make left/progressive issues big enough priorities to get passed. If we accept that 9 months isn't enough time we'll then be told that 12 months isn't enough time, and then 16 months isn't enough, and then 24 months, and then 36. Soon the entire term is gone. While the president is busy doing his job when is the right time to expect him to address important issues? I say we should expect him to start addressing the important issues from the 1st day.

And you say ... "we should expect him to start addressing the important issues from the 1st day" ... addressing them is different from solving them.

never gets around to addressing them. When is he going to start?

scatter-brained instead of too narrowly focused.

Not interested. In fact if Obama doesn't step up to the plate soon, I'd like to see a primary challenge by Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank or someone with some testicular fortitude instead of mere eloquence.

Tell me ... regardless of your favorite issue ... do you think Barney or Dennis would win that primary or the General election??

I admire both of them greatly ... but I don't see it happening. You might as well be voting for Nadar rather than Gore in 2000.

I hope we learned something from that, and the terrible outcome which followed.

Alan Grayson is my Congressman and I was on his steering committee and worked on his campaign.

Don't underestimate me friend.

or am I missing something?

btw ... I think Grayson is great.

My point is that many seem to think Obama should have cleaned up their preferred mess ... even though we have very few "Graysons" in Congress.

Wall Street and the big wheels got theirs with almost no debate..

Thank Gawd It Passed.

Main street is a different story entirely.

Obama only controls one branch ... and if he can get Congress with him ... great ...

But when he can't, or if he can only get modest gains initially (say after 9 months of a 4 year term)... do we still turn our backs ... and give Rush, Beck and hannity the ability to pick the next President???

I think Obama gets very close to what he wants, he is the de facto leader of the Democratic party and he has an arm-twisting, deal-brokering junkard dog for COS.

All I know is Bush seemed to be able to get a shit load done (bad stuff but shit he wanted none the less) while losing the popular vote and not having anywhere near the majorities the democrats enjoy.

They fall in line.

We don't do that, which is fine, we need the power of the diversity of the full party ... lots of great ideas to be brought forward as a result ... but we also tend to destroy ourselves ... and then the GOP comes in unified and kills us.

We won in 2006 and 2008 because we stopped being narrow in focus and recognized that we are more powerful together, even if we each individually doesn't get everything he or she wanted.

They fucked up royally. Katrina, Iraq, quality of jobs that were created. They fucked up. It has nothing to do with any kind of enlightenment in the democratic party that we work better as a team. The other side fucked up and people with D's next to their names won.

LBJ perhaps a bit more, some others somewhat less.

Like I said, when it was to the advantage of the owners both POTUS and Congress moved swiftly indeed, in political terms they moved at superluminal velocity (faster than light).

But that was something the owners really cared about, when it comes to the rest of us you don't see such swift and decisive action.

Wall Street gets the filet mignons, Main Street gets the shaft, we might be able to make a soup stock with a bone and that would be soshulism.

As a gay rights activist? I dont think it would matter to be honest. (please note its not my only issue and I support a large majority of what the President stands for and what he has tried to do and has done).

We ALL move forward in the directions that we all share. Perhaps not as fast as all would like on ANY given issue, but the progressive movement moves forward.

This is bigger than ANY single group or single concern.

And if you don't think he will ever help your main issue (which I support) ... will you vote for the GOP, or stay home?

Unfortunately civil rights always get pushed aside for the majority - no matter what party is in power. Im use to it (does not mean Im happy about it though).

The only time I would stay home is if a Democratic candidate actively worked against civil rights - be it through legislation or inaction when action was called for.

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

I got the same impression of the OP

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

the GLBT community has been attacked relentlessly by thinly veiled attacks that play to the rules by not mentioning the issue in order to skirt the rules against attacking minorities here (other minorities, be they racial, religious etc have this happening to them as well). I did not take your OP that way - however I can easily see where someone could.

I know that many are very passionate about the issues they focus on. I am too.

But I truly believe that we as progressives need to not fight each others just so that I, or you, or some one else, gets what they want immediately.

My assumption is that progressives are all actually in this together, even willing to set their own key issue aside as we all move forward ... and notice that I didn't suggest any specific issue to set aside ... they are all very important ...

Which is first? Afganistan? Iraq? Jobs? Healthcare? Gitmo? Fisa? Patriot Act? DOMA? Don;t ask doen't tell? Torture? Nukes? Middle East peace?

Talk about a Rubik's cube!!!

as a "get over it missy" kind of comment, then why did you use "whining" in your description? It wasn't a personal attack on you, but believe me it was a personal attack on the kinds of people who believe Obama has more important business than any particular set of issues.

If you subtract all the issue Joe, then what's left?

Maybe the timing of your statement was bad after HRC crap and commentary from Harwood this weekend but you are not the first person to put "issues" out here and claim we're whiners (whatever the issue) because we want some forward motion on them.

The last president is stewing in an alcoholic haze this very moment five blocks from here, deeply loved and well forgotten - by the way, so absolutes didn't serve him very well either.

We have a lot of anger Joe - I'm happy you support us and genuinely sorry my comments hurt you, but yours were easily interpreted as more of the same old "sit down and shut up" stuff we heard all through election and over the past nine months.

You do ... I do ... all progressives do.

And I used the term "whining" because I honestly didn't think that term was focused on any issue group.

You ask what is left when you subtract the issues. But that is not what I suggested. I was actually suggesting we all look not only at the specific issues which drive us as individuals, but the set which drives us as a "progressive movement".

If we, as progressives, divide along "issue" lines, then we are weakened, and I believe, doomed, and we make no progress.

As I've said in other posts on this thread ... internal debate is good, healthy, and it actually should help us draw on the power of the diversity in the progressive movement.

But in regular waves (and perhaps this wave coincided some with the events you mention)... I keep hearing progressives get angry because Obama has yet to "fix it".

For instance, you mention some of the GLBT events recently ... the question of what Obama should do in Afghanistan has also come to a major head this week ... and then those who want him to say that there will be a public option or he will veto the health care bill is flying too.

That's three big issues all popping at the same time. And there are others swirling around those.

My point, more than anyting else is that if Dems and progressives are fighting each other, we all lose.

:hug: Please don't let the atmosphere of sheer poison that blankets this place like kudzu get you down.

God, DU is just MANIC in its depressiveness sometimes. This place needs a good enema. Yesterday.

Bravo! :applause:

:loveya:

Is Barack Obama.


rocktivity

n/t

...fucking assclown pinheads are still using the useless unrec function.

:rofl:

:D

Not my time or money unless he replaces his economic team with one that seems to be less focused on how the top 1% are doing after this mess.

I'll vote for the lesser of two evils, I'm not going to give my time or money to it.

K&U

Not my cause, but the cause of those who claim to be on the "left" who want to see him lose.

Some are dedicated complainophiles who are only happy when they are miserable. Having a Democratic president and Congress who are addressing the most pressing needs of the country is depressing to them. They miss George W. Bush, who enabled them to bitch and moan every single day.

Closely related are the end of time doomers. They want to see the world destroyed so they can say, "I told you so." If the world is not headed toward world wide destruction because the Democrats are in charge, they are that much farther away from "end times."

Then there are the Trotskyites, who hate all progressive parties and unions. Having any party other than their 200 members in charge is a horror. Having a rethug in charge at least allows them the satisfaction that an effective liberal/progressive party is not in charge.

He's checking it twice, going to find out who to purge or not.

LOL and you are calling other people Trotskyites.

Stephanie Miller's show has a character called "Kyle" ... "Kyle" wants his issues fixed now ... the issues are never given ... but if Kyle does not get what he wants immediately ... then the wrath of Kyle will be swift.

I'll have to check out Stephanie Miller. I've never heard her show.

it's divisive. You're attacking your fellow democrats saying they're whining and now "complainophiles".

Another poster here once said "suicide doves" and I went apeshit on him, deservedly. Can you try not name calling? Don't you see you're alienating rather than constructing? If you've given up on people just because they don't agree with you then haven't you actually given up on the validity of your own opinion?

It's better to build a consensus on common ground and understanding here than to try to build consensus to alienate some of your fellow democrats. Doubtless there are dems here who think it's okay to minimalize with with allusions to "whining", etc., but you need our votes and we need yours to move things forward. Obama needs to take some chances; needs to stick his neck out for the populist dynamic he leveraged to get into office in the first place.

Finally, he may be moving forward at a presidential pace, but he himself needs to communicate that he has a vision and that he is acting on it. He needs deadlines just like the rest of us, or those bills won't ever get paid.

DU is well known for fighting itself.

And let me give you a simple example.

I made a post the other day regarding how much the right wing hates basically every other country on the planet. They hate europe, russia, asia, India, Pakistan, South America, Mexico ... basically everyone.

Almost no one commented on it.

When I suggested that we as progressives needed to focus less on the specific issues we cared about as individuals and focus on what we all want to accomplish ... the thread exploded and I had folks attacking me for being anti-gay ... which is pretty ridiculous.

If you don't notice that some on DU are focused as much on fighting each other to prove who is the "most progressive" then you aren't paying attention.

My goal, to be clear, is to help progressives win elections. Because short of that, there will be no progress.

If Obama worked for Business International Corporation (a CIA front) and cannot for the life of him do what John Perkins did (Confessions of An Economic Hit Man), then Obama deserves to lose in 2012. Right now, if Kucinich is running against him Kooch has my vote.

I know those are tactical questions ... but they matter.

Lots of people voted for Nadar, which pulled from Gore, which gave us Bush.

And that had very real world consequences. And I care more about the consequences.

...to the Obama administration....
Or at least mentioned as maybe under consideration.
Not specifically DK, but ANY Liberal Democrat would do.
But, no.

Instead, we got these DLC "Centrists".


THAT is a strong indicator of direction.
Republicans and Health Insurance lobbyists have more access to the Obama White House than the Progressive Caucus. They have to write him letters.

My biggest concern with the Obama administration is health care reform and weather or not it's going to be a windfall for insurance companies. I'm hoping for the best. But it's possible that we may see something worse than what we have now.

But I agree mostly, I don't expect miracles.

Many of us think, hope, believe ... that Obama will help us move further in the progressive direction that the alternatives.

Will we all get everything we want ... I doubt that.

I am the prime mover.

He's holding all the cards. Will he play them? I guess we all just have to wait and see. Isn't that what you've all been saying?

I mean . . . really. Our little footstamping is going to make a difference to his election campaign? Hardly.

.... nobody expect anyone to "fix it". I'd be pretty happy with "not making it worse".

I know it will be a useless gesture, but hey, I've been a Democrat for over forty years so I'm used to that.

Here's the problem with the OP. First, it's not a single issue. Second, it's not a matter of clearing it up right now, it's a matter of making steps in the right direction. Third, just when should we start seeing changes.

We are still spending billions a day on wars that have nothing to do with what happened on Sept. 11. We are still killing and being killed for bush's dream. The president is the Commander in Chief.

We are still not investigating the crimes of the last administration. There is no indication that we will. We have specifically been told to shut up about it.

We are still continuing with, and expanding, the bush economic plan. The guys that gave us the bust are the ones in charge. The guys who profited from the biggest theft in American history are the ones picked to fix things.

We are still lopping the tops off mountains (a slower pace, but there are only so many mountains, you know) No accords. No mandates for the environment. Nicer tone, but no real change.

We are still kicking gays out of the military. I was glad to hear the recent promise. We will see. We still have people in love who cannot marry. Been told it will stay that way.

And we don't really have to get into the health care debacle, do we?

In all. Some major things with nothing done. Some major things with nice intent, but no progress.

As for it only being 9 months. Almost 20% of the term is gone. And since campaigns start a year and a half out, we are effectively a third through the term for getting things done.

We're not clamoring for mccain. We just want thing to get moving. If he can't move things, what was the point of his running?

:thumbsup:

But not in 2012 ... maybe in 2016??

You say criticism is OK, but when someone lists a specific set of grievances, you just fall back on the OH NO THE GOP WILL WIN nonsense.

You don't want discussion, you want agreement and cheerleading. Just admit it.

the 2012 Presidential Election.

In all ways.


That doesn't mean I can't challenge him to do better.

:-)

Answer: NO!

and the "all talk no action" black man. They are going to paint this unspoken picture of him all the way up to the election. That is why Obama better start shakin some trees now!

The mouthbreathers will believe it, but they wouldn't vote for him anyway.


It's all about the economy at this point.

I think Pres Obama will win fairly easily.


Landslide? No. Because some people will never vote for him because of the color of his skin (just like Hillary would have people who would never vote for her because she's a woman).



I'm more worried about 2010 than 2012, because I think the economy won't have enough time to rebound by 2010 (and I think it will by 2012).

if obama doesn't have the spine for the job of making the necessary changes- then let the repugs into make things even worse, and bring on a revolution that COULD end up making the necessary changes.

So rather that engage the tough long term fight ... let the GOP make things MUCH WORSE for MUCH LONGER ... and then maybe make a jump forward???

i did stipulate that if the current leaders aren't up to the task- then yes.

and a 'tough long term fight' that constantly involves losing ground to the other side isn't much of a fight anyway.

besides- it doesn't necessarily mean that things have to get MUCH WORSE for all that much longer before they reach a breaking point.
AND- it will make for much better tv viewing.

then the likely result would be a more moderate because it would be blamed on the "socialist" meme leveled against Obama, so you'd probably get someone like Evan Bayh in 2016... I'm guessing if Obama wins a similar scenario would play out as did when McCain followed Bush.

Should be "If Obama wins in 2012,does that help your cause any?"

n/t

That is setting the bar far too low.

'many' and 'some' are not nearly as specific as your adjectives. The lack of specificity is not heart warming nor trust inducing.
The question you ask is not even complete. If he lost to a better Democrat, that would be fantastic. A non dogmatic, less theatrical, less prejudiced Democrat would be an improvement. Chances of that are slim to none. So most of 'some and many' will do as we always do and vote against the Republicans, rather than for the Democrat. It is always that way on a national basis. Obama no different. I'd have voted for any Democrat in his shoes. Any at all.

He will not reach these goals unless he turns the economy around and restores our constitutional rights.

Thus, I will support the president to the extent that he pursues policies that will help him succeed, but I will not support him in following policies that will lead to his defeat. What is good for the U.S. is good for Obama. Bernanke and Geithner and Summers are not good for the U.S. or Obama. Neither are massive wiretapping of American private communications, ignoring habeas corpus, failing to prosecute torturers or Guantanamo and similar bases. I will not support any of these detrimental policies.

When Clinton was elected everyone believed he would reverse the course of Reaganism. Instead, he embraced it and gave it a bipartisan stamp of approval. He wiped out welfare, campaigned for DOMA, and was so anti-labor that some unions actually came close to supporting the Republican Party!

Furthermore, the party as a whole pretty much embraced the DLC election strategy since that seemed to have worked for Clinton. The result was that for the first time since the Great Depression we lost:

- a majority in the House
- a majority of state legislatures
- a majority of state govenorships

It wasn't until the 2004 disaster and McAuliffe's "victory" celebration that the DNC concluded we bought into a failed strategy.


I imagine Obama would be governing much further to the Left today had Clinton not moved the Democratic party so far to the Right when he was president.

Repukes ran their course and are still on the road of self-destruction. 2012, 2016, 2020 mark it down kids - we will own all those days.

GOP, maybe in 30 years you will get another chance. Doubt it. The economy still sucks BTW and we had 8 years of destruction by Dubya so no one forgets that kinda stuff for at least a decade.