Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"with Obama, we seem to be getting the best Republican president since Clinton"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:49 AM
Original message
"with Obama, we seem to be getting the best Republican president since Clinton"
President NAFTA Backs President Shafta
by Jeff Cohen
Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America.
December 11, 2010


It was a stunning spectacle yesterday when former President Clinton took the podium from President Obama in the White House briefing room to help shove the Obama-GOP tax deal down the throats of Democratic activists and Congress members.

Meanwhile, independent Bernie Sanders was electrifying much of the country by railing for 8 and ½ hours in the Senate against the wealthy getting billions in tax breaks while deficit-hawks take aim at Social Security and other vital programs.

I'm sure I wasn't the only American fantasizing that one day a fighting independent like Bernie would occupy the White House.

Instead, with Obama, we seem to be getting the best Republican president since . . . well . . . since Clinton.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/11

Refresh | +58 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well shit, if he's an associate professor of journalism. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. ehh
Clinton was a better Republican President than Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Wow, now Clinton is being denigrated on this blog. What garbage.
Where am I???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AndrewP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. Unrec for calling President Obama a republican.
I'd add another one for calling former President Clinton a repub too if I could.

Bullshit article from the very common commondreams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. That may be your opinion, but 85% of liberals will vote for him again.
The President is a liberal. A Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. 'The President is a liberal.' - lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. the President -didnt close Gitmo, didn't give public opt, helped banksters, extd tax cuts for rich
whats progressive about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
62. Depends what liberal is
I think I understand your reasoning. Obviously if Obama= Liberal, and Obama = scum sucking corporate lackey; then your definition of liberal must be: scum sucking corporate lackey. Therefore 85% of scum sucking corporate lackeys (i.e; liberals) will vote for Obama again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. That's just nonsense, niceypoo.
And you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think the following is closer to the truth...
The analogy is often used of America as an ocean liner that takes a long time to change direction.

Obama is doing his best to change the direction (by even a few degrees) with the crew he's been given. Half of that crew are always on the verge of mutinying for their own vested interests - he has to try and keep them sweet. That's just the reality of the situation.

(And by crew I would include not just Congress but the MSM, Wall Street, the Pentagon, Big Business etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. How about us being on board the Titanic?

That's an alternative ocean liner analogy.

And President Obama hasn't been "given" this "Wall Street, the Pentagon, Big Business" crew.

He chose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. The crew is America.
Wall Street, the Pentagon, Big Business, the Tea Party etc. are part of America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. So are bigots. But, I'm not a member of that "crew" or Wall Street or their apologists.

It's all about class and who actually rules America.

We don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. How about recognizing US GOVT is made up of President/Congress/Supreme Court
It would be convenient if Obama were a dictator, but that's not how it works.

It would have been more convenient if we had won the 2010 election too, because we would have more leverage than we do now against a Robot Army Of Republcans who will NEVER vote for a middle-class only tax cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. The "minority" Republican party seems to have more political pull than the Democratic party
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 12:51 PM by Better Believe It
How did that happen with a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic White House?

Wait, I know!

It is called capitualation and surrender to Republican obstructionism and letting Wall Street and corporate America call the shots!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. This Senate needed 60 votes for cloture as you well know
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 01:22 PM by emulatorloo
Likewise a vote to change that rule mid-session requires 60 votes for cloture.

Which McConnell's army of Robotic Senators was never going to vote for.

Republicans voted as a Robotic Block to deny cloture on practically everything, Anything that might reflect well on Obama or Democrats.

The Senate Dem margins were razor thin and included folks like Liebermann and Nelson

On the other hand, The House had a clear Democratic majority and they put out damn good legislation. But you know how the 2011 election turned out for the House.

I'm sure you are aware of the realities of how the government works. And the political aftermath of 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. The Senate Democratic majority can change Senate rules at anytime under our Constitution.

Only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation, or 50 with Vice-President Biden casting the tie-breaking vote.

As you should know, the Constitution permits the Senate to make or change their procedural rules at any time, including the "rule" that such changes must be made at the beginning of a Senate session. And under the Constitution and with a ruling from the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, that change can also be made with only 51 votes.

This fact along with the fact that Senate Democrats can end phantom "procedural filibusters" and force "on-the-Senate-floor" Republican filibusters (Senate Democrats did that just this past March. The Republican filibuster was broken in less than 24 hours!) under current Senate rules and can even prevent any kind of filibusters from starting by simply using the Constitutional Option. This has been fully documented many, many times on Democratic Underground.

Do you want me to provide that documentation once again that proves my assertions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #40
56. They will probably do so just in time to make sure the Republicans no longer need to collect 60
votes when they take over the Senate in the next election.

Reid should have changed the rules early on, while we still had both houses of congress, and then they could have passed bills that would have made sure voters saw real improvements in their economic situations health care situations. But they liked having the 60-vote impasse rule in place as a convenient excuse so they wouldn't have to make any real changes that might annoy their corporate owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. So 60 votes are needed to end a Senate debate? If that's so, force the Republicans to debate!

Make the Republicans debate against against legislation!

Don't withdaw the bill.

Keep it on the Senate floor until 60 votes are obtained to end the debate.

Don't let other legislation be on the Senate floor using Reid's "two-track" procedure until the Republican filibuster is broken!

It took less than 24 hours to break the Republicans the last time they were forced to actually filibuster back in March of this year.

Now was that so hard?

It's not rocket science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Without a doubt. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Obama

How can a man that attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church behave/govern in this manner?
Truth be told, when it was shown what Wright believed and preached, I was actually more excited about the idea of Obama as president. I was digging some of what Wright was shown to have said, even some of the things that were labeled 'controversial'.
I was hoping that since he sat there and attended for years, he secretly agreed with Wright for the most part, but had to distance himself after discovery for political reasons. I could totally understand the need to do that. He had to separate himself to appear 'safe' to white bread America. We see now though that the truth was he ATTENDED for political reasons (social climbing/local political connections). The faith or philosophy had little to do with his attendance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Cute Joke. FWIW Commondreams hates democrats, and loves to spin things as negatively as possible
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. So Jeff Cohen, former board member of Progressive Democrats of America, hates democrats. Right.

Thanks for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Clinton's approval rating among Democrats is 89% CommonDreams is a minority view website
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 12:27 PM by emulatorloo
Don't make the mistake of confusing a minority view website with the view of most Democrats.

EDIT LINK: last polling I could find: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141485/bill-clinton-popular-barack-obama.aspx

I don't know Cohen's work, but I know the "work" of commondreams over the years I have been aware of them.

That being said, Sanders was amazing and said a lot of things people (VOTERS) needed to hear. The unfortunate thing is I don't think the people who most needed to hear it listened,

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Willinois Donating Member (205 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. 2000 Nader supporter. '04 Kucinich staffer Cohen.
He thinks he's still fighting Clinton. We've got too many pundits stuck in the 90's using Obama as a stand in to carry out their old battles against Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. 'Commondreams hates Democrats'? Hmmm....
From Wikipedia

Common Dreams NewsCenter, often referred to simply as Common Dreams, is a U.S. based Leftist news website. Common Dreams publishes both news stories and editorials. Common Dreams also re-publishes syndicated content from Associated Press, columnists such as the late Molly Ivins, and news stories from a number of mainstream mass-market newspapers. The website also provides hyperlinks to other columnists, periodicals, radio outlets, news services, and websites.

The non-profit organization Common Dreams was founded in 1996 by political consultant Craig Brown, and the News Center launched the following year, in May 1997, by Brown and his wife Lina Newhouser (1951–2008). Brown, a native of Massachusetts, has a long history in progressive politics.

Among its notable supporters are Bill Moyers, Ralph Nader, and Don Imus.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commondreams



I don't believe that Common Dreams 'hates Democrats' as you say, but I have a pretty good idea about why you don't like Common Dreams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. I don't "hate" commondreams, I understand their perspective.
Which is to the left of Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Don fucking Imus?
They actually brag on that fact?





HAHAAAAaaaaaa!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I don't know if "they" brag on it as
the info wall pulled from Wikipedia, not Common Dreams. But Bill Moyers is praise enough IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. You're going to hurt yourself with those contortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
57. self delete
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 09:33 PM by fascisthunter
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. At least the Dems have made the top stories in the media. No pubs,
ain't it great? Even Rush wanted to know where the pubbies were. I love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. K&R. Bernie was telling it like it is. Showing how Cash for Hoarders has not Trickled Down.
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 12:11 PM by Overseas
I got to watch Bernie since I'm in between temp jobs right now.

He told it like it is-- Dribble Down Economics has failed and a return to Demand Side Economics is long overdue.

That Clinton style "New Democrat" "Third Way" junk was outdated even when he was promoting it.

He got his best results after he raised taxes from Reagan's disastrous slashing of top tax rates.

How dare he pretend that Supply Side deals like the latest speedy "compromise" are the best that Democrats can get!

Is he admitting that he so poisoned the waters that the Super Rich whom he enabled to increase their incomes by hundreds of percent while 90% of us languished can no longer be resisted by Democratic legislators?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Sanders was amazing, I really appreciate what he did, and I wish more "Independents"
and "Moderate Republicans" had heard what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. k&r for the sad truth. n/t
-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. I wish he were President Shafta
can ya dig it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehg2EaYhoJs

Who is the man that would risk his neck
For his brother man?
Shaft, can you dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about?
Shaft, right on

They say this cat Shaft is a bad mother
Shut your mouth
But I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft
Then we can dig it
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well President Sanders would still need 60 fucking votes to get anything done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
60. He would only need 51 votes to pass legislation. And he wouldn't let the Republicans engage in

fake filibusters.

If Republican obstructionists won't vote to end Senate debates .... let them debate .... in fact, make them debate!

Democrats should use Senate Rules as if they were in the majority!

Oh .... they still are.

Well, just end Reid's "two-track" procedure where he permits other Senate business to be discussed while the Republicans are engaged in a phantom "procedural filibuster".

Until the Republicans vote to end debate (closure) no other Senate business can proceed.

And don't withdraw legislation if 60 votes for cloture are not obtained the first time around.

Keep the legislation on the Senate floor until Republicans decide to end their filibuster and than bring the bill to an up or down Senate vote.

Now is that really so hard?

It's not rocket science.

And of course, Senate Democrats are free to change Senate rules at anytime, even the Senate rule that indicates rule changes should be made at the beginning of a new Senate session.

The Constitution rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
25. President Obama is not a Republican.
Unrecommended for random opposition to the President. Seeking out articles like this then posting them is less than useful. Calling the President a Republican is grounds for locking this thread, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
26. K & R
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Willinois Donating Member (205 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
27. Another guy who was ready to write that before Obama took office.
They see want they want to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. They're opinions have been validated.
Maybe you should blame the validator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. "Shafta?" Really?
I wish I could unrecommend twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. You can count mine as one of yours.
Cohen is about as much a Democratic supporter as the OP is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Thanks. This searching for anything anti-Obama and posting it
here several times a day is getting really, really old. It doesn't seem to matter what the source is or how specious the argument. It gets posted and recommended over and over again. Criticism is one thing. This is something else. The "Shafta" thing has ugly racial overtones that seem out of place on a Democratic website, I think. Someone even posted a "Shaft" parody in this thread in response to the slur.

There has to be some sort of limit on this stuff, I think. Perhaps not. I just don't know anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #41
65. Are you fucking kidding? You really don't know what the term "Shafta" refers to?

Hello. ,,, It refers to NAFTA/outsourcing/screwing the American workers.


And you personal attacks and false accusations are just vile, I don't know understand how you get away with this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #37
64. uncalled for and vile personal attack.

disgusting attitude, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
48. Same here.
Unrecced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
38. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
42. Obama and Clinton are both Democrats.
They are both to the right of me on many issues, but they are both Democrats.

This type of juvenile personal attack serves no good purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Obama is NDC and Clinton is DLC.
'nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. Peace signs are getting scarce around here anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Phlunk Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
47. yet the Repugs hate him........go figure
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Well, that's what they must do if they want to be viewed as a tough partisan political party.

The Democratic Party under the leadership of President Obamaon appears to be functioning more like a bi-partisan party based on their record of capitulation to Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
52. Um, yup. This where the 'Corporate Right' decided to hide
Behind Obama.

You see, they couldn't get behind the Palin. She was looney toons. Obama knew the rules, and so they chose him.

It gives me a small, but quickly diminishing hope knowing they would rather have the risk going Left than crazy. But that's not saying much.

It worked. If Romney wins the primary, expect the corporate marrying him. If they elect Palin, expect the corporate re-marrying Obama.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Prescience.
Although they are pretty predictable! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
53. I don't know, continuing Bush policies doesn't really make him Republican.
Not restoring Habeas Corpus, expanding aggressive wars, attempting to disable Social Security are all more in line with "the crazies" than actual Republicans.

Note: Bush/Cheney weren't Republicans either.

Not that I am in any way excusing Republicans or what they have allowed themselves to become. I didn't like them when they were "moderate" either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
61. Have you read Obama's book on fairytales? It's called --
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
63. lol, are you kidding? Clinton is practically a commie compared to Obama!

exaggerating, of course. }(


but in all seriousness, Obama is very much to the right of Clinton, and that... does not leave much room there, does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. And that would make Nixon a ......?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC