Come on. We’re sick of your speeches! Suck it up, Be a leader-finally and kick some butt.

Obama Must Toss the Bums Out of Treasury, End the Wars and Start Leading
Submitted by dlindorff on November 19, 2009 - 1:13pm.
By Dave Lindorff

President Obama is on a short leash at this point. His fans, and I
was one of those who was willing to give him a shot last November, are
mostly giving up on him. Activists are already turning on him. My union
friends are disgusted. My African-American friends just shake their
heads in dismay. Liberal friends act embarrassed. A leftist friend,
retired, who devoted a month to campaigning for Obama full time in
Pennsylvania last fall now writes angry letters almost weekly to
Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe and others, blasting
Obama’s handling of the bank crisis and his Afghan War plans. Clearly
Obama cannot continue to appease Republicans and cater to Blue Dogs in
Congress and expect to be re-elected in 2012.

Indeed, if he doesn’t toss the crooks and charlatans in the Fed,
the Treasury and his Council of Economic Advisers out, and doesn’t stop
listening to the self-serving crazies in the military, he won’t even
have a Democratic majority in Congress by the end of next year.

President Obama, aren’t you tired of being an embarrassment to your
friends and family? Aren’t you tired of being mocked by your foes?

Come on. We’re sick of your speeches! Suck it up, be a
leader.finally and kick some butt. Do something unconventional and
daring. End the wars, bring the troops home, announce a huge jobs
program, issue an executive order expanding the Medicare program, raise
taxes on the wealthy to back where they were in the 1960s, and let’s
get the country moving forward again.

more:
http://www.democrats.com/node/21319

just amazing. what a waste of electrons.

and you're going to get it too.

Obama will hear will be those from Wall Street and the wealthy who can afford to send lobbyists to Washington, make big campaign donations, and even bigger donations to presidential libraries and foundations after he leaves office.

:dem:

-Laelth

I consider this a wobbly start, and Washington has been known to be very rough on presidents who don't start strong at the gate.

you clearly did not want Obama - he never campaigned as the kick everyone's butt type

and whose ideas have driven the economic policy of both Democrats and Republicans for the past several decades.

...to stand up for Democratic ideals and people and stand *AGAINST*
Republicans, the rich, and corporations.

Once Obama was the Democratic candidate, I supported him and worked
hard to assure his election, but make no mistake: he was seventh on
my list of eight *FOR EXACTLY THE REASONS THAT ARE ALL TOO OBVIOUS
NOW*. And I have no obligation to fall in line just because a bunch
of cheerleaders say I should.

Tesha

why should a president stand *AGAINST* the rich or corporations? neither are the "enemy", and that is not democratic party philosophy. to stand against people, merely because they are rich is not a democratic principle. to stand against corporations isn't either. this bizarre ideology that the rich are evil and that corporations are evil is not consistent with what (most) democrats think, thank god.

...when the Democratic Party stood *for* people: for the poor, for the workers, for the worth and dignity of the Little Guy in the face of the monied interests.

Now sometimes standing *for* those things, means standing *against* the rich and the corporate powers who after all have a direct line into the hallowed halls where policies are made.

I am sick to death of people bleating about how *awful* it is to be *against* the rich and *against* the corporations because "they are not the enemy". Well, when it comes to what is best for the little people -- i.e., most of us -- yes, they indeed are the enemy. They may put on a soft facade and pretend otherwise, they may even think of themselves as nice folk, but they are the enemy of the working stiffs and the poor and the sick and the homeless. Because their first priority is protecting what they have at all costs.
Even Warren Buffet came right out and said it like it is: yes there is a class war going on, and we (the wealthy) are winning it.

They're winning it without hardly a fight, because the bought and paid for politicians get cover from the bought and paid for media and the population at large is so brainwashed and misinformed an uninformed and distracted that they barely have a chance to know what's what. In the meantime the wealth gap becomes ever wider and the scale of misery on the bottom becomes deeper.

Well no worries, eventually something's gotta give. Here's hoping that we are able to turn this ship around before it runs aground.

your philosophy is absurd, but more power to you. It's your right to be wrong :). Corporations are not evil, any more than a particular race, or ethnicity are evil. Corporations are bad or good, and do good or bad things, based on their leadership, their goals, etc. Regardless, they are also responsible for some of the greatest innovations, many of which have saved countless lives. Millions of people make their livelihood from corporations, both as employees and as stockholders. Thinking they are the ENEMY is just as wrong as any other form of bigotry, where you prejudge an individual (corporation) by lumping it together with every other one and declaring them THE ENEMY. This is really an exact analog to what racists and other bigots do to groups they are prejudiced against. If i run a business, and decide to incorporate it, does my business suddenly become THE ENEMY (tm)? That's absurd. Ditto for your prejudiced hate of rich people. Some rich people are great people, some are pieces of shit. Just like any other group. Declaring them The Enemy(tm) is just as bigoted and ridiculous as doing it to corporations. I prefer to judge people by the content of their character, not their bank accounts. That's the TRUE open minded non-prejudiced way to be. hth

...but hey, more power to you.

First of all, you read what I said and got somehow that I think corporations and the rich are "evil". Maybe this is news to you, but it is not necessary to think someone or something is "evil" to think they are wrong, or in political terms, are your enemy.

For the record: I don't think all rich people are evil, not by any means. And I do not think all corporations are evil either, although there I lean more to the "anti" side, especially nowadays.

Innovations, hmmm... Seems to me that an awful lot of innovations come from taxpayer-funded enterprises like universities, NASA and the like. But yes, it is true that capitalism encourages innovation, and that is part of its good side. I am not anti-capitalism; I am, however, anti-unfettered-capitalism, which is what we have today. Nor am I anti-rich; like most people, I wish I could be a little more on the rich side (hey, I'm as susceptible to greed as the next person). But I am against the current system that glorifies rich and glorifies the corporations -- as you do a bit in your post, saying that they innovate, and employ people, and increase their savings, while not saying a word about how they pollute, and stop innovation when it suits their purposes, and rip off pension funds while enriching CEOs, and stomp on unions while creating wage slaves -- so yes, we do have some fundamental disagreements here.

I simply do not believe the credo that All Good Things Flow From The Beneficent Corporations. Simply don't buy it. Factory farms, shipping food around the world while the local producers barely subsist, stopping production of electric cars, making huge $$ for promoting drugs of dubious value, the list goes on. That is where the need to regulate comes in. No we do not need to do away with corporations; however, we do need to rein in their worst excesses, and we are nowhere near where we need to be.

Finally, as for "the rich". The rich in this country are running away with the wealth faster than at any time in our history. I'm not okay with that. Apparently you are. So be it, we are not going to agree on that.

Carry on.

i will correct myself. you did not say corporations and the rich are evil. that was my misstatement. you said they were the ENEMY. you said that a democratic president should consider them thusly. imo, that IS absurd. it is prejudiced, and close minded. it lumps people into a group, JUST like racists do and paints them all with the same brush. granted, you are not saying all rich people are EVIL, you are saying they are the ENEMY. those ARE different things. the latter does not necessarily imply the former, but it's about as absurd and prejudiced imo. i see no evidence that the rich are any better or worse than any other income class, and i say that as somebody who has met some VERY rich people (bill gates is the richest i have met, but plenty of multimillionaires). ditto for corporations. again, if i own a small business, why is my business suddenly the ENEMY if i choose to incorporate? again, i don't like prejudice or bigotry. and that imo is what you are espousing. i will continue to judge people by the content of their character, not their bank account. and i won't malign a corporation, which is merely a business with a specific structure, merely because of their structure, which is what defines a "corporation" under the law. that is equally as absurd or bigoted. but again, i apologize for misstating your claim. you said 'enemy' not evil, and there is a difference.

...always nice to know we can have a civil discussion.

But you are still putting words in my mouth, and making my statements sound more unconsidered that they really are. You claim "...you said they were the ENEMY. you said that a democratic president should consider them thusly."

I did use the word enemy, being careful to note I am using the term in context of politics. In terms of policy, at this point in time, yes the large corporations and the super-rich are in general the enemy of policies that might favor the rank and file. The rank and file includes the mom-and-pop businesses who may choose to incorporate in order to properly structure their business. It should be clear from my remarks that I do not consider everyone who incorporates to be "the enemy"; nor even do I consider everyone who is actually rich to be "the enemy".

I guess for me, the bottom line question is this: how the heck do you propose that our party leaders actually advocate *for* a position, such as say, the pro-union card-check, without at the same time advocating *against* a position, i.e. union-busting policies? The fact that our leaders continue to try and straddle that fence merely earns them the scorn of the right and the disgust of the left, myself included.

the word enemy might have stronger connotations than you mean. i see people here use enemy all the time. for example, if i was a democratic congressman running against a repub, he's not my ENEMY. he's my opponent. i think there is a big difference. i don't think a president should be on the side of labor OR management. you are saying corporations are the enemy. i want a president (regardless of party) who treats both labor and management FAIRly. labor isn;'t always right. management isn't always right. i say that as a proud union member. both are representing their side. ime, BOTH are usually making somewhat unreasonable demands, and the fairest decision is somewhere in the middle. usually, not always. i advocate for unions. i think they are good. but not every business is necessarily suited for a union, and vice versa. i have a friend who is a private school teacher, LOVES his job (used to be public school and union) and likes the fact that there aren't 16 trillion "stupid" (in his words) union rules about everything, and also likes the fact that he is recognized more when he does good stuff vs. the union environment where they often cater to the lowest common denominator. as a person who went to both public and private schools, i saw some of that stuff firsthand. i LOVE my union. they get us great benefits, fight for our jobs, advocate for us, etc. but there are also a lot of bad things in my job that are that way because the union won't budge. i want a president who looks at stuff on a case by case basis and DOESN'T reflexively side for or against unions for or against corporations for or against labor for or against management, etc.

Combined this and the post below.

He appears to be in a bubble?

The polls do not reflect the image Lindorff is trying to paint.

has become very cynical about Obama also, over climate change in particular.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661678,00.html

Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change

By Christian Schwägerl

US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

The folder labeled "climate change" that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn't a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. "Forget the climate" seems to have been Bush's unofficial motto.


But few people expected that Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor's climate change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US -- that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.

Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance poorer countries' move away from oil is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.

Obama Lied to the Europeans

Barack Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world" when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.

..more..

Barack Obama cast himself as a “citizen of the world” when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely his country’s addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves…

Dreamt Up by Hollywood

For most Americans, the world beyond the US’s borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect. In Hollywood, the United States has an industry that continually pushes the materialistic ideal of Western prosperity to billions of people around the world, while at the same time bombarding them with apocalyptic visions in the form of disaster movies.

Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry…

..more..

It deserves a thread of it's own.

that progress would be the result of electing a Democratic Congress and POTUS.

After years (or decades) of repuke or DLC control of government, we really thought that this time would be different. I attribute that to the total frustration resulting from the Bushista reign and a hope within many on the left that things could get better, if only....

We have been shown that is not true, at least for now with this POTUS and Congress.

It was reasonable to expect some changes.

It's like saying you treat women better than Ted Bundy did.

I read your posts during the primaries and through the election and inauguration. Your hate of Obama was clear as could be.

I call horse-hockey on this garbage.

(Assuming they exist, of course)

Obama really said it best:

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
...

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply

...

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

...It's getting tiresome Dave. (What is it about the name Dave? Sirota has turned into a 24/7 hater too.)

The President has done some good things and some bad things. By and large he is a vast improvement over the alternatives.

I don't understand why leftists like Lindorff feel it is their primary mission to rip him a new one any chance they can get. Do they think they are applying effective pressure on his decision making?

What universe do the Lindorffs and the Sirotas live in? Do they think an President Obama should use the same "my way or the highway" tactics that Bush the Lesser used? Aren't those the tactics they decry when they are used by the opposition.

Like it or not, governing an enterprise as large and as structurally damaged as the United States is far different from campaigning, writing a book, or posting on a political website. It is very easy for us to sit here and take potshots at someone who willingly took on the hardest job in the world at a time when it amounts to taking the wheel of the Titanic.

I can't wait until President Lindorff is elected to lead us to the promised land.

I can't wait...

This guy is just an agent of change, fascist change that has been going on slowly since 1980. Democrat or Republican it makes not difference. He isn't even a puppet so much as an autonomous device who really doesn't know who he is working for. Kucinich was the real deal that Obama only talked about. To do what you want Kpete he would have to go against his benefactors and masters who would get rid of him. I don't see it happening anyway. We will continue our march toward doom for the Republic then the new Holy American Empire will rise from the ashes of the old Republic. Funded and built up by it too. Then you will see very effective an efficient govt/church/corporation with very little corruption.

Obamaisn't a Liberal or Progressive, he is a Regressive in Liberal clothing but it has so many tears you should be able to see what he truly is. But then hope can blind as assuredly as a bright light in your eyes. Too many people are in dire straights in this Great Depression so they will genuflect to the next best thing on the shelf. Poison but with sugar in it to hide the bitter taste unlike with McCain who was straight up. We don't have much more time as I reckon it and once the economy finishes its collapse it will be way to late to save the Republic. The Storm Troopers of God will be out by then and we will have two lousy choices. 1)Live in a devastated shambles of a land full of starving people or 2)Live in a rigid hierarchy of religious and military and corporate values and no real protection from draconian laws and instant death penalty--the good side is you will have a job, home and a semblance of what you remember as to civilization. Guess which one that the majority will pick with eyes wide open? Just as they planned.

:wtf:

I find your post very insightful, though I am not yet sure that it's too late to save the republic.

:dem:

-Laelth

Sure is good at speechifying,

but by now, everyone should be able to see who he is working for.

Come on. We’re sick of your speeches! Suck it up, be a
leader.finally and kick some butt. Do something unconventional and
daring. End the wars, bring the troops home, announce a huge jobs
program, issue an executive order expanding the Medicare program, raise
taxes on the wealthy to back where they were in the 1960s, and let’s
get the country moving forward again.

Btw-Anyone who refuses to read that article or unrecs this thread is only fooling themselves.

I personally thought that President Obama was elected because his actions were well thought out, rather than reactionay and unconventional.

I don't think so. I honestly haven't seen the "change" I was hoping for but maybe our President can turn this around.

I don't agree with everything in the OP but will not say that I am not disappointed as well...

Linder is right.

We voted for CHANGE, not for same.

Granted, he's not Bush, and it's not fair to call him Bush.

But this middle-of-the road pleases no one. The Independents are bailing on him big-time.

Stand up and DO what needs to be done, Mr. Pres.

If you're going to be painted as a "LIBERAL!" then succeed or fail as a liberal.

seeing signs of either. Nearly everyone I know is hurting; about 20% are unemployed while everyone else is taking a hit with lower wages, lost benefits or retirement. The lack of change on climate change and the wars is infuriating for anyone left of center, the continued power grab by major corporations infuriates everyone but a few Beck followers. Enough is enough; it's time to start living up to campaign promises.

All the people who are out of a job are still unemployed.
All the people who ate their hats in the market watched the banksters get bailed out.
All the people who want an end to Iraq and Afghanistan are watching continued wars.
All the people without health care still don't have health care.

That's precisely how our Rep Democracy is sustained; mass adherence to fantasy

Take two groups that are duplicates in all the parts that matter and have them "campaign" against each other. They both hype people up about their supposed differences, getting everyone to fight among each other over irrelevant distractions. Which is why the corporate media does nothing but scream about irrelevant non-sense until everyone is whipped up and blinded. Why are the things of debate: Abortion, Gays, religion, and race?

... one way of course being, as you point out, "wedge" issues. Although the entire Cult of Celebrity likewise has much to do w/the mass deception ... hell, there's an entire range of manipulative stratagems, machinations and social and profe$$ional inducements in the Establishment's arsenal for control of the public mind.

better do something soon, there's already talk about running another dem in 2012, and comparing it to when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter.

We all know how the rats love to desert the sinking ship!

The mid-terms are not looking too good.....

but he does give great speeches doesn't he? :(