Sam Seder nails it. It doesn't matter if Obama is on "our side" or not.

If you've got about 8 minutes, watch all of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x525590">this video, hosted at DU.

If you don't have 8 minutes, skip to about 4 minutes, 10 seconds into the video linked above, where Cenk Uygur asks Sam Seder and Steve Karnaki whether President Obama is negotiating from a position of weakness too much, whether it's foreign policy or internally?

If you've got 90 seconds to spare, watch that. This is an attempt at a transcript of what Seder says but it's worth checking out the video, whole or in part.



Sam's absolutely right IMO. It's starting not to matter if he's a sellout or it's 14 dimensional chess. People are hitting the point where they don't give a shit anymore, they just know they aren't seeing things getting done they want done and they're starting to look at ways to force him to do them.

PB

I'd love to hear the list.

I don't think we can force him to do anything at all apart from leave the White House in Jan '13 if we don't vote for him.

What leverage does the public have?

Sam did a yeoman's job pointing out the obvious, if such a thing can be said without sarcasm. It's just such a bizarre situation to be in, just acknowledging that we're in the situation in the first place is a kind of progress.

I tell you what though, be they the God or the Devil, whomever comes up with an answer to your question is going to start attracting followers and if Obama does not either get his shit together or just break to our fucking will, there's a chance there's going to be 4 parties running for president in 2012 and although I am critical of the 2 party system, I have no idea if that road leads to salvation or a kind of ruin I can only dream of.

PB

And if that doesn't work see the Greeks.

Even boycotts if they are strategic can affect politics.

"What kind of leverage does the public have?" What a question!

Edit: or see the Germans http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9564984

Sadly, I don't think that's an outrageous question. There's another side of it too which is what organizations would get behind, organize and promote such strikes?

Just using outrage against the war in Iraq as an example, I believe most of the big, regular protests were organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R.. I'm not sure how willing other Progressive organizations or unions would be to sponsor such events and I'm sad to say I have very little hope that anything connected to the Democratic Party would.

Yes, the tools are there, but will America use them?

PB

But we do have the tools (and the numbers) should we decide to use them.

We forced Bush to take troops out, right?

No?

Surely Obama was forced to... oh, wait.

We're still there.

W's nightmare years proved this, I think. We need someone who has good communication skills & also who can reduce ideas into compressed outline type of forms.
I'd prefer someone who is either unemployed or retired so they have the time, someone who would openly discuss ideas here & is willing to basically lobby our politicians.
We will probably have to pool our money in order to wine & dine the congresscritters.
I think we will have to create our own lobbying group.

...America is actually getting people to do it. When enough of them are unemployed, they will.

PB

What do you suggest?

it's the only thing that gets their attention.

...people!

From Shadow's interview with Al Lewis:


PB

What a great interview - thank you for posting that. Worth reading in it's entirety :) Grampa Munster was a sharp guy.

...used that intelligence to reduce it all down for the rest of us. I'm glad you took the time to read the rest of the article, he really was a unique character. Me, I will never forget those quotes lines. As far as I am concerned, those are gospel when it comes to effecting change.

PB

false equivalency b/s. Granted, Jon did have a point that the cable news mentality is doing more harm than good. But thats not necessarily the message those people came to hear.

The real question is can we get hundreds of thousands in the street and make it mean something... like the Bonus Marchers or King's "I have a dream" speech.

...was so deep that I'm not sure exactly what to be able to expect from it. Maybe that's how Jon planned it.

Your point about "...that's not necessarily the message those people came to hear." throws light on something I think is worth touching on again: We really have very few groups/organizations or individuals in the U.S. who are willing to sponsor or organize demonstrations.

Demonstrations in the U.S., today, are so opposite of how we're programmed. We're programmed to Twitter our outrage. Of course, politicans never get nervous by peeking out their windows and seeing Twitter messages chanting outside on the street.

Your last question, about whether we can get thousands in the streets to mean something. I think we can. I think things have to sink lower before this becomes as popular a form of expression as it had been in the past, at least for Progressives. The Tea Partiers sure as hell know how to cause a stir by demonstrating. They're crazy, but they definitely have effective tactics. Except for the guns thing which I'm not so big a fan of.

But it's possible.

PB

I don't think he cares about getting re-elected. That can be the only explanation for his actions. Everyone agrees he is a stupid man, so either consciously or unconsciously, he is self destructing his presidency.

Which either means our agenda, the one which got him in office, is not his agenda. Or he's off playing that 14 dimensional chess. He has reached a state of self-degredation in regards to the Republicans which upsets me and causes me to wonder exactly what his "plan" is.

Or if he's just fucking cracking up.

If he is going to be a one-termer and not run again, you'd think it would give him energy to do the things the people wanted him to. That time, while we were in control of the House and Senate, is almost entirely over.

The guy's been on the court for 2 years. When's he going to take a shot?

PB

I meant to say everyone agrees he's NOT a stupid man! But I think your theory about him cracking up could be true!

...heard either A) He's just cracking up B) This was his plan all along C) His hand was forced by a larger (usually economic) set of interests which just said "No".

Do you have any other ideas or theories? I follow Middle East politics and it can be very difficult to untangle some of the motivations there. Politicians are subject to all kinds of amazing forces from wildly disparate directions. Yet even there, there is some level of understanding.

With Obama, I'm drawing blanks. Like, right now, I'm not even sure I have any one theory about his motivations that I 100% (or even 90% believe in).

PB

We just don't know how to get our many agendas into
A proactive cohesive whole.

...situation involving the inability of a cohesive front and corporate money which still competes against a cohesive fronts, when and where they appear.

This is a really big problem for the Democratic party and Democrats in general, IMO.

PB

Face it, he isnt going to be primaried. So get over it and move on. We must support his reelection starting now. Doesnt me we cant encourage him to be progressive but we should not tear him down in front of the enemy. Our best efforts are to elect progressives from the bottom up. Also, get in you HOR Rep face and try to make them vote progressive. Become as independent from the big corporations as possible. Develop an alternate network to back up the internet. Support only progressive candidates directly and not the DNC or DLC or other Democratic corporate machine.

All I hear from you is a bunch of sit down, shut up and hope it gets better if I send letters to the Editor.

Sorry.

PB

bicker about the Pres effectiveness. We are stuck with him, like it or not. Get busy getting progressives elected at local level and at the state and national levels. I resent that you would sink to the level of putting words in my mouth. I want to fight. But we can not primary Obama. It is not possible. To continue dreaming about that is wasting time

does 4 years mean 8 years?

No.

place? Do you honestly believe that you can primary an incumbent president? I know that it is a hard pill to swallow, but we need to spend our energies elsewhere.

If Obama embraces the recommendations of the Deficit Commission I will actively work against him in 2012. If there is no Democratic Party candidate aside from Obama I will vote third party.

...has caused yet another round of confusion on exactly why he would do such a thing. It's like I'm waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop.

PB

No. No, as long as President Obama is breathing there is no reason why that breath can't be quickened by thoughts of what the people who elected him will politically do to him to hold his feet to the fire.

You. You go be stuck with him. That's a defeatist, enabling attitude.

No, he's not some crappy toy we got from a claw machine- where we have to wait a few years to put another quarter in. One grows old very quickly thinking like that. And maybe complacent, to boot.

PB

we have no choice. We can tell him what we want of him, and we can try to help him by electing progressive Congress critters, but we can not abandon him. I know that is a hard pill to swallow but it is the case. It isnt practical or statistically possible to primary him. We need to concentrate on getting progressives in the Senate (hopeless) and HOR.

These are all passive, victim words. They have no place in the lexicon of anyone fighting for the change of anything. He's fought for us at the beginning of his presidency and then he started to flounder and now we're expected to leave him to his own devices and skate on his responsibility.

This is not unheard of in politics, especially in a 2 party system. But there is the reality of his accountability for his actions, and that's a reality I'm not willing to so easily trade away for concepts like "we have no choice" or just "swallowing the pill" that he's going to do whatever.

We are not accountable to the Democratic Party. Never have been, never will be. The lions of the Democratic Party would tell you and have told us all that this is the case.

The Democratic Party is accountable to us. And so is the president.

Progressives are fed up with his bullshit, but especially his recent turn which arguably eclipses a lot of his previously poor choices, and which I think a lot of us were willing to turn a blind-ish eye to.

But, and you'll see this in OPs all across DU, there are lines he is crossing or potentially crossing which are wildly unacceptable. Those cannot be blindered away so easily, especially in such a dire financial situation such as this nation is in.

If our safety as individuals with families and core beliefs about what is right and moral for America are in jeopardy, there is no reason why he should be sheltered from the consequences we face.

None.

He places his ability to lead the party in doubt. He places the ability to win the 2012 in doubt. He places the ability to use his stewardship of the country thus far as a down payment on congressional wins in 2012 in doubt.

If he fails to change his course he is endangering our ability to recover from 2010 in 2012.

This is politics. Those that do not deliver are out. There is no free ride here, there are none left in America.

PB

The phrase "Lead, follow, or get the f*ck out of the way" also applies in this situation. Victim words do nothing to change anything at all.

a strategy. We dont live in a country where "those that do not deliver are out." There are many, many examples of Congress critters that dont deliver that are still "in".

Trust me, I dont want to be pragmatic. It is so much more fun to be rebellious. In fact, if you are serious about "rebelling" let me know. But in the mean time, most of those statements like "The Democratic Party is accountable to us. And so is the president." are just so much rhetoric. The Democratic Party should be accountable to us but they arent. Same with the president.

We are at war. We need strategy and tactics. Just throwing ourselves at the castle wall is suicide.

I want action by my president, correct Democratic action, not Republican-lite action. How is that for tactics? I am sick to death of Obama's BULLSHIT.

Bad mouthing the pres is not going to change his behavior. If you think it is possible to primary him and get his replacement elected in the general, let us all know.

The best plan I have seen is to push the president to be more progressive but not tear him down in front of our enemies. Work at the local and state levels to get more progressives active. To ever elect a progressive president, we must have the foundation built. Join and support moveon, PDA and/or DFA.

Let's not follow the Repukes behavior of complaining without a plan.

1. Can't we arrange for a bunch of reputable "wise men" and women to go to Obama and give him some straight talk? Saying, if you can't stand up to some of the Repubs' nonsense, deputize some other people in your administration who can, and will. I personally think he's using a coping mechanism which has got him where he is in life so far -- be conciliatory to those who wish him ruined, and don't hesitate to shaft those who'll support him anyhow -- and no matter that it's inappropriate for a president and party leader, he can't change. But if he can't, at minimum he shouldn't undercut those who're able to fight for him, and will, given half an opportunity.
He's an intelligent man. Is there no way to convince him that it's not just a matter of life or death to his own political career (he's already said he'd be willing to be a one-term president). But a matter of life and death for many of his fellow citizens, and maybe for our nation as well?
And if he's been seriously threatened by actors for the PTB (or even more, his family has), we need to know that too, before it can happen. No more assassinations (though I wonder if those who killed JFK knew they'd be getting, instead, a president who'd bring about the biggest advances in social legislation in modern times.)

2. All these things failing, there WILL be a serious third-party candidate in 2012. Well, there will be anyhow, but with the country full of both disillusioned Dems and double-crossed Repubs, failure on Obama's part could mean unprecedented support for such a candidate.

...then some kind of communication to him about the realities outside of Washington would be very much in order.

PB

:(

we must work for Pres Obama's reelection and work to put more progressives in Congress.

That is the only thing that placates them.

Don

is that the latest meme?

:rofl:

I am.

In comparison, it looks as though you're the one who thinks more in terms of what is cool, hip, or the "in thing" to say.

"It's a barrel of suck or Nazis win, your choice!"

Come on...

PB

I think that's the relevant question.

It doesn't matter if you, BzaDem, don't know that it's a logical fallacy, don't know what a "logical fallacy" is, even. What matters is when you logically think about whether the choices put forward make logical sense.

Because they don't. They're just used to control you.

PB

And that happens to be true whether or not you acknowledge it as true. The truth does not become untrue just because you incorrectly label it as a logical fallacy.

that's the problem? But perhaps the Senate?

I wonder what it will take for people like Sam Seder and Cenk to see reality.

...you are part of the problem.

out of obvious empirical reality, you are wrong.

However, in reality, if you (due to cognitive dissonance) can't accept obvious reality, YOU are the ones that are wrong (not the people acknowledging reality). This applies to Republicans in the case of global warming, and you in the case of our system of government. Just because you are in denial doesn't mean you aren't part of the problem.

my statement clearly recognizes the CURRENT REALITY of the two party system.

the difference between you and me is that you, de facto, defend it by not recognizing the CURRENT REALITY of it being the greatest stumbling block to progress.

based on your obvious ignorance/delusion or complicity (it has to be one or the other) there appears to be no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

And we blew it. We didn't get enough people to get off their asses and go vote. A simple vote.

I talked to at least 15 people about voting.... strangers, mainly, and I don't get out much.

No one ever talked to me first about voting. Not one.

We had a chance and we blew it. Now we have another chance starting in 20 months.
If we blow it again, they win. And remember: Obama loves a winner.

And in the 2 years after some great fighting for us, Obama started to capitulate more and more and it's snowballing into something entirely unpalatable, politically anyway, for a Progressive.

I just don't get the defeatism from him. We are forced to endure every one of his capitulations, regardless if we would wish to continue fighting. He welled up an unimaginable amount of hope among people who really had little or no hope after Bush, got elected, did a bit of scrapping and then hung up his hat.

That's not acceptable.

PB

Of course, with me tin foil hat on it does occur to me that he was pretty much told what he could and could not do shortly after his ascension.

Methinks that had the people rose up as they should have and delivered an unmistakable NO to the pubbies, that things would appear much differently. Like was said in the OP, tho, people just don't give a shit. Did Obama cause that, or is it just the process of a dying empire, society and civilization?

We've been through so much in the last 15-20 years, and not much has made much sense. I don't see blaming Obama as the main culprit making much sense, but hey, if you can get him to go all radical and start kicking butt, it can't hurt.

...I have no idea who Obama is, now.

The first time I ever heard him speak and listened was when he gave that speech on race relations in America. It was in regards to his pastor being a jackass or something, I don't recall exactly what the kerfuffle was at the time. But his rebuttal or really his clarification on the matter didn't just address the issue, it expanded to cover America, itself. From that point on I spent months following his speeches, his live events, I even went to a rally where he spoke in person.

I've never been to a political rally where I didn't attempt to shake the candidate's hand or get his or her autograph. I'm just like that. When I went to see Obama I didn't need to. Just being like a few hundred feet or whatever away from this man, this bearer of great ideas- ideas that needed expression- was enough.

I have no idea who is the man is now. He's not that man I went to see. Either he wasn't the man I thought he was or something profoundly changed him from a rekindler of long-thought-extinguished Hope to the water than extinguished them in the first place.

Now you're right that we should have delivered the House for the Democrats. But we already did that once and at some point attention has to be turned to a politician who is simply not delivering.

Assuming he was genuinely the man I thought he was what kind of mega fucking gloved hand exists to crush him in office like that? See, those are the kind of ideas which start to creep in if you believe he's powerless. It takes responsibility off his shoulders and it allows him to skate.

I can't buy that, internally, yet. It would basically mean that America is not only a lie but a lie without any hope of redemption. Worse, much worse than a lie or a travesty- an abomination. I'm not saying you're saying that but the way I think there's a certain chain of conclusions which follow in a certain line of thinking- and it's those conclusions that I don't accept. It would just be too overwhelming.

I don't know if you remember the day he got his "talk", the first full-on "This is the state of the world and the United States" classified briefing by the NSA that every President gets on assuming office. Very interested to see his demeanor and he gave a speech directly after and he didn't have quivering hands or anything, LOL.

It seems it was something at least after the first year or so. Maybe a little before or after. You ever try to pinpoint when things started going South? Any speculation on relation to anything specific?

"It seems it was something at least after the first year or so. Maybe a little before or after. You ever try to pinpoint when things started going South? Any speculation on relation to anything specific?"

I thought it happened right away, as soon as he won the election, before the inauguration. Looks to me like he said what he needed to to defeat Hillary (who would have been pretty much the same as Obama, maybe a little more hawkish in foreign affairs), then dropped all pretense as he chose his staff and made his appointments (including Hillary as Sec of State, foreign affairs!)

I think a primary from the left is essential, not optional. It could be done in a positive way. Just make the progressive case, issue by issue, show the alternate reality. No need to damage Obama irreparably.

Even if such a campaign went down to defeat, it would advance the arguments that aren't even being heard by anyone outside of the already progressive people like us.

Many Americans have no idea what these arguments are, what other realities are possible, because nobody is out there presenting them, least of all Obama. They pay little or no attention to Social Democratic countries in Europe. USA, Number One!

We could win over a lot of people with a substantive leftist response to our many problems. They make sense, they're what the country needs, the arguments have to be made, and in a presidential context would get them heard by people that don't usually hear them.

People didn't come out to vote in 2010 because there was no such push, nobody inspired them, no real change was being offered. So many people think, why bother, they're all crooks? We have to present an actual positive vision, and it would help to have a viable, well-funded POTUS candidate to drive the message.

Such a candidate might even win. Stranger things have happened.

I am reminded, however, about the recent escapade in Florida, where Meek, the 'radical leftist' was
abandoned by the party who went for the Crist, whom which failed to save their sorry asses.

Realize that your way is not paved with petals, is all I am saying.
We had our chance two weeks ago. We faltered.
We must dance with who brought us to the party.

"We must dance with who brought us to the party."

They (elected Democrats) must dance with who brought them into office. We thought we put Obama in the Whitehouse. He appears to think otherwise (and that may be true, I have no idea what forces really put him there). He just used us to get to the dance so he can dance with the real power players.

He's not dancing with us. Not at all. Time to ask someone else to the dance.

Like I said, no need to destroy Obama in the process. Let him choose the high road or the low road. We just need to very actively and positively primary him, create the alternate reality. He clearly won't do it for us and he clearly won't listen to us either.

Been so long for me when I had the first inkling that "Things aren't as they seem here in the US".
So long ago that it doesn't scare me anymore. Not true. Still scared, just used to it, now. Besides, I am an old man.

Just look at how many death threats were reported the first year. See the anger in people's eyes when Obama is mentioned. There is real hate, for no good reason.

Besides, there is a LOT of money on the line here. A lot of money. More than we can imagine.
And power.

Of course they told him what he was going to do. Hell, we tell him what to do from here. Now imagine you are the PTB. Are you gonna not tell him what you want him to do? Thing is, the PTB has to power to back up their demands.

The first time he spoke after the election was when I saw a change.

The audacity of hope is that he overcomes. But that will take some time.

PTB; Powers That Be

...of assassination. Just never experienced that in my life. Never thought I'd ever experience it in America, that's for sure.

Your comment about the money and power on the line- I'd like to pretend I could understand it either but I can't as well. BTW, your comment about the PTB being able to "back up" its threats maybe rings much more chillingly to me given the SCOTUS' Citizens United ruling.



Do you recall anything specific or was it just a gut impression?

PB

Carlin laid it out well in his lines about the real owners of the US.
Was recently gracing these pages.

When pres. elect Obama spoke, gone was the bravado, the audacity, the 'damn the torpedoes' force.

FDR was almost couped, and I remember the Kennedys, MLK, and all the senseless 'suicides'.
Then I read Carlin, and I hear about 'it' on the streets and see minor players doing 'it'.
And so, I believe, they threw their weight at our man.

He had them scared that he might actually follow through and cost them some big bucks.
Whether he used us or not, time will tell, but who else can deliver? Who?

Who would have guessed that someone who did community organizing would turn to corporate lobbyists and investment bankers for guidance.

You make it because you elected one thing and got something (especially as time wore on) which appeared completely differently than the person you thought you elected. Taken on it's face, in all seriousness, obviously he wasn't brainwashed.

But, as has come up so many times in this thread (and many other discussions not just on DU but among American Progressives everywhere) "How can one explain Obama's actions?"

Again, although I agree it's both intriguing and disturbing to pursue why he might have made the choices he did, Progressives are being forced to look beyond ciphering out exactly why he's doing things this way and start forming strategies to force him to Progressive political will based on the assumption that he nolonger wishes to agressively pursue a strong Progressive agenda.

And, and here's the brilliance in Seder's comment, at that point it really nolonger matters exactly why he's doing things, just that he's not doing the things we want and start responding to him as though he needed to be forced to follow an agressive Progressive agenda.

PB

former investment banker. Lobbyists galore hold important position within his administration. The minute the election was over, the corporate D's (in name only) where out front grabbing air time spewing the misconception that they lost because the public wants the country governed from the right. BS. Folks didn't get motivated like they did in '08 because they don't see enough difference between the tow parties. Both are mouthpieces for the corporate elite. Why would he have surrounded himself with the people he did, if he wanted to hear from the people?

Those were not choices forced or foisted on him. Those choices are his responsibility alone and to suggest anything less is begging the question: What is the President in control of, if not these things?

PB

Either me and many others were bamboozled, or we're f-ed.

peace. :scared:

The party elite made a concerted effort to damage progressive candidates. In my state of Ohio, we saw not only the state party but the DSCC attempt to discredit and even use dirty tricks against the very qualified progressive OH SOS Jennifer Brunner who ran for OH senator. It really pissed off progressives, rightfully so. Their corporate candidate, Lee Fisher learned the hard way what happens when you use dirty tricks on a fellow D-39% is the top percent of votes you get.

I have been active since 2000. After the primary, I decided this was not a party I wanted to put my name with-corporate backed and dirty tricks. In the past I've organized voter registrations drives, worked at rallies, GOTV and voter protection. After the primary, I sat this eelection out. Why enable this behavior? I now see myself as a Progressive first and Democrat second. If the party doesn't start including progressives, I find one that does.

Nothing that hasn't been said before.

To "enough is enough".

I'm listening to today's podcast. I had problems finding it, people can find the shows to listen to at http://majority.fm/category/shows/">THIS LINK.

Thanks again!

PB

but I can't get it to play.

If you have probs, I dunno. Definitely try IE at least once.

PB

Vile recriminations are lobbed as a reaction to said prediction. It is clear some people have already reached a conclusion in their head and aren't interested in or are incapable of assimilating what to them would be new information as events actually unfold.

:rofl:

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

....and he is actually considering alienating the other 99%. choices, choices, choices. what's a democratic president to do?

...if he does not increase taxes on the rich and continue tax cuts for the middle class and working people. in case you hadn't noticed that is what we're talking about.

my PREDICTION is that he WILL act against the 99% and may alienate an increasing number of them, enough to decrease his chances of re-election (or be unable to get congress to do the right thing with the same result).

please try to read more carefully.

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

It's one of the many ways cynicism kills progress.

Then Cenk and similar whiners turned their guns on Obama instead of working with progressives to pressure the Senate. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The "how do we force him" line reveals that they still don't get it.

the possibility that you could be mistaken. Maybe we have damn good reason to complain but you simply can't see it. Why are there so many of us feeling this way?

Rather than the way laws actually get passed?

passed through reconciliation. Obama couldn't get the health care reform we wanted with a huge majority, and many of us don't believe he even tried. It is called leadership.

Conservatives were bitterly disappointed that the tax cuts sunset after 10 years, which is why we are able to talk about reversing them now. They said he caved to the Democrats and didn't fight for them, "a real conservative would have at least fought to make the permanent rather than leaving a huge tax increase a decade down the road" etc.

That's also, incidentally, the only thing Bush passed without significant Democratic support. He triangulated and took Democratic issues like education and health care and put a somewhat conservative spin on them. His attempt at privatizing Social Security was dead in the water, as was his attempt at immigration reform. He did not "do whatever he wanted": he forced the tax cut through Congress and was called a sell-out by his own party for it, and he drum-beat the country into the war in Iraq. Everything else required Democratic support or got nowhere.

until The Grand Scheme is at last revealed...

I wonder if this is a secret plan...
:eyes:

Why such FAILURE on our side?
Why won't they forcefully tell the truth that SS is NOT in trouble and has nothing to do with 'reducing the deficit'?

Fucking pathetic.

...I was grateful for the reminder. BTW, somebody pointed out the podcast for Sam's show upthread. Here is a link to Sam Seder's show archive. In the one for yesterday he expounds on what he was talking about with Cenk. The show's about an hour and a half and it isn't all rant but if you have something you're doing it's great background to listen to.

It's amazing the shot that they put over on people, the way things are framed. If you are anything but absolutely critical in the way you listen to the various assertions, it's easy to get sucked in to a falsely-framed narrative.

PB

I recommended listening to last monday's podcast as well.
(see here) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9520941

======

Today is the 'Hard Launch' as per email he sent this morning:

HARD LAUNCH IS TUESDAY NOVEMBER 15, 2010 W/ MARKOS MOULITSAS

SUPPORT THE SHOW BY SUPPORTING OUR SPONSORS
CLICK ON AD, BUY GREAT COFFEE & GET DISCOUNT!
USE DISCOUNT CODE "MAJORITY"

It comes up on Laura Flanders' show and on Amy's. It's the corporate media that refuses to say anything. They're complicit, imo.

But to the point, what about all of our alleged party representitives?
The impotence, incompetence, and abdication is maddening.

It's not 14-dimensional chess, unless you assume Obama is on your side. When you take the opposite tack, it all makes perfect sense. Thus, Occam's Razor comes into play.

As in, it doesn't matter exactly what he's doing. At the end of the day we look at the direction he's taking the nation and the things he supports (or doesn't support) and the things he's willing to negotiate away and the things he's not willing to negotiate on. That, at the end of the day, many Progressives are looking at that and thinking "Ok, whatever his motivations the bottom line is he's negotiating from a place which is costing us too dearly and we need to think about ways of forcing him back in line."

PB

something CHANGE, then we as the DEMOCRATIC party need to stop doing what we are doing and expecting different results. That is what is not working. We have laid a lot of things at the feet of the White House. I mean after we voted did we do anything different to signal that we as Americans have CHANGED??? Are we still placating to Big Corp,Big Pharma,Wall Street,Koch Brothers. Are we still sponsoring their sponsors??? If we are to win we need to be the DIFFERENCE and stop talking about we are the difference.

If you have some magical way of overcoming the opposition in the legislature and enacting the policies or agenda you support then have at it.

Here. Little web player in the upper right corner of the page.

PB

http://majority.fm/

Weekdays from 11:30 to 1

and if you missed it, you can download and listen.

The insurance company ceo's and the hedge fund managers. It is not, and has never been, about the people. I will never again be fool be a politician of any party.

You can't hold Obama's feet to the fire, they seem to be fire proof.

Underlying all of the progressive angst is that sense of impatience that just doesn't want to go away. And I get it. We had eight years of Bush's destruction and we all want to see it reversed, NOW. But we have to remember that Obama is working within the confines of a very restrictive system that often has a mind of its own, and a contrary one at that. Yes, we should continue to put pressure on him, but we should also realize that we will not be rewarded immediately.

And I think it's that underlying impatience that makes many of us think Obama is a sell-out.

But I don't think so. I think he's a realist who knows that the system we have in place is not going away anytime soon and he has to work within it. Whether that's playing chess sometimes or selling out sometimes (another term for compromise, if you ask me), it's part of the process, whether we like it or not.

Kicked.

To threaten him with if he doesn't do what you want?

The next vote is 2 years away.