What do you think President Obama meant when he used to say

“We can prove that we are more than a collection of Red States and Blue States - we are the United States of America. That's who we are, and that's the country we need to be right now.”

???


This question is open to everyone but I am most interested in hearing from those that claim President Obama has violated all he campaigned on.

all to blue-state standards. Generally speaking, of course.

a question. Then again, maybe you think it's best not to actually answer the question, so this evasive tactic is a good one (in your opinion). Either way for the point of clarity it was not an answer, in the sense of actually answering what was asked. A response would be a better description.

and you answer- "well it's certainly not a billion zillion"

I thought that instead of fucking around, we'd pull red-state thinking into blue-state thinking once and for fucking all, instead of apologizing for what is right and instead of trying to convince wreckers and backsliders of their mistakes.

I mean some of these people have thought this way for decades and in some cases generations. It takes time to change people's views and even with time they move in small increments. So I am not sure it was realistic to think Obama's words suggested he would ride roughshod over others.

It's not going to work, and I don't think we should try it any more. I think Obama should have rammed the EFCA and a public option and other things he ran on down their throats because it's the right thing to do and it's the right thing for America. Saying he would stop thinking in red and blue, in my opinion, meant he would start thinking about what's the best thing for the country. There is no reasoning or educating people who are actively trying to be ignorant. So I say run roughshod over them, give them what they think they don't want, and quit trying to reason with them, because it gets the rest of us nowhere, too.

so it sounds like you are saying what you thought he should do, rather than what he said he was going to do.

.... are the "executive throat ramming powers" outlined? You replace "Obama" with "Bush" and "Public Option" with "whatever Bush policy issue you want to name" and you'll have exactly what his admin did ... or tried to do.

NGU.

to portrait this man a liar. he's so much more honest and trustworthy than any president i can remember - And i can remember them all the way back to LBJ. This is just bullshit.

rather than using that as a claim that we are a conservative country, and kowtowing to Big Money and to grassroots wingnutism, I would interpret that to mean that -- as the party of liberalism -- the job of the Democratic Party is to explain and promote what liberalism really is.

It does not mean that we water down our beliefs and concede the field and continue to perpetuate right wing economic policies that are bad for the real economy and for average and disadvantaged Americans.

After all, a couple of "red" states that voted for Bush in 2004 also voted to raise their state minimum wage.

United States. From other comments and statements this seems highly unlikely.

It's more like the US is a shading of blue, red and usually purple. And, on a regional basis, most states have a mix of all within them.

The same person who might be a social conservative, for example, may be more than willing to support strong liberal economic policies that protect the rights of workers. The job of the Democratic Party is to make as strong enough case for liberal policies that a person would support them out of his (her) own self-interest.

That does not mean abandoning social liberalism. I believe most people basically support "live and let live" tolerance. Some of the resistance to social advances in things like equal rights is based on fear of the unknown, rather than outright bigotry. That's where patience and a clear message is required. Plus positive experience with change, which can only come with exposure. (Things like actually getting to know the gay couple down the street and realizing they are basically just like they are.)

And before you drag out the "naive" cannons, let me make this clear. I am referring to the segment of the population that is referred to as moderate, independent, swing voters, whatever.

There is also a substantial conservative segment of the population who are never going to change. They are inherently bigoted ot have been totally brainwashed by the Rush Limbaughs or Born Again Fundies or are in positions where their self-interest is inherently against ther well being of the majority. Some of these are concentrated in places that are red through and through.

That will not change and that is the political opposition. But the key too making that segment the minority is to strongly advocate for liberal principles, with good political salesmanship. BUT that requires a belief that liberal ideas are the best ideas and would make sense to the average person. It is NOT assuming the opposite.

NGU.

"...bury it."

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff,
Author and Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

To be stating what used to be more of a reality that we are in fact one country with what should be shared goals, that we do not always agree with one another but that we have, or should have common goals that are good for the entire country not just the vocal minorities, that we are in fact the "United states of America" not two separate countries of the blues and the reds as if we were a couple of sports teams vying for dominance.

There is no unified country. There is no shared goal. I think that if there was any logistical way, we would be best served to separate due to irreconcilable differences. We are hated more than Osama himself and many of us despise them just as much.

If only it was as simple as sports teams. You play and you either score or you do not. You win or you do not. And if your players throw the game because someone is paying them, they generally have consequences they have to pay.

At the time, that is how I took it.

Not so sure now that it was anything more than a clever political turn of phrase.

Jury is still out.

My own response to the op is above.

Obama's 2004 speech speech was a lot of apple-pie and motherhood, but I interpreted it as associating liberal Democratic principles with apple pie and motherhood -- which is a good strategy as long as it isn't used as an excuse to do nothing to change things.

I am always suspicious of calls for bipartisanship, not because I enjoy disunity and conflict, but because it always seems to lead the the victory of conservative policies over liberal ones.

This years HCR debacle is, in my view, a classic example of liberals throwing their fundamental principles aside in the name of reaching a broad consensus, and ending up with a monstrous privatization scheme that only a dedicated reactionary could ever really love.

I also think it was a smart political trap, engineered with brilliance by the Republicans, to force the Dems to pass bad legislation in the Republican mode without any actual Republican hands on it, which they will use to attack the party for years and undermine the very principle of true, public HCR for decades.

In that sense, the promise of that speech has no taken policy form as a kind of tragedy.

Just my two cents.

Since we will face relentless opposition, not only from the media and the Repubs, but from entrenched "centrist" interests in the Dem Party, who for now seem to hold sway over the WH and both Houses.

Lalala! Unrec!

DU has become a place of shameful anti-Democrat cowards.

Pres Obama is paraphrasing his hero (and mine).

It was Reagan that started this division. Worst President we ever had. He feigned uniting at first, then proceeded to start us down the path that culminated in Bush. Obama is simply trying to bring us back to how it used to be. I sometimes think that some are too young to remember how it used to be and/or are oblivious to the lessons of history.

CONservative economic policies and corporatist behavior that would have been considered outrageously immoral and beyond-the-pale and self-defeating to the majority 40 years ago have become the norm today.

Overcoming the lies and bad behavior sanctioned by BOTH parties since then requires a major change and a strong fight just to get back to the middle ground.

That's why Democrats have to stand firm on real principals today, and not continue to perpetuate the bad behavior and rotten social and economic values that have made the country such a mess today.

P.S. It wasn't perfect 40 years ago. But the moral center of gravity of the majority was much more in the true middle than it is now.

Do you think that 40 years of bad policies could have been reversed in 1 year?

The system melted down. People wanted a clear change in direction from the mess created by the corporate conservative policies of the last 40 years.

IMO Democrats would have done a lot better in offering that clear break. Instead they were wishy washy and nebulous.

Example: Instead of contortions that bought into the fallacy that healthcare should be a "free market" commodity, there should have been a lot more forceful argument made to at least begin to make the idea of a role for public coverage as a basic right for everyione.

And, let me be clear -- I realize that HCR could not have been pushed as Universal Sinbgle Pasyer this year.

But what was the saddest listening to Democrats going through so many contortions to run away from the concept -- and to further justify trhe role of private insurers -- instead of making a case that the government should have a strong role in making sure that everyone has access to affordable coverage and care.

I'm not talking about all Democtrats. But too many (including Obama) were so afraid of the teabaggers that they ended up agreeing with them instead of challenginbg the fear of "socialist medicine."

Likewise with financial reform that has steered clear of the idea that the financial system should be diverse and broadly based. Instead they are still afraid to support the notion that we should NOT allow immense monopolistic banking/investment/insurance giants that are "too biog to fail."

NOT teabaggers. "Afraid of the teabaggers" - you didn't expect me to take that seriously, did you?

Financial reform has just begun. Do you know why it was held off a bit? Because of the delicacy of the economic recovery. As we start getting our footing economically, I expect to see more reforms pushed - don't you?

What I was referring to was a broader message that was being sent out by Obama and Congressional Democrats during this whole process.

All along the line the message coming out was a mixed and muddled one. Over and over Democrats talked about such things as "competition" and other conservative notions, rather than a strong message that promoted strong regulation of insurers like public utilities to protect the public, and the alternative of public health coverage as an option.

This all gets comparative, but my basic point is that after a strong victory and public support for real change last year, the democrats are still too often acting like they lost the election. Worse, the corporate center-right wing's tacit support for continuing the CONservaztive agenda of privatization and no-regulation continues to drown out those Democrats who are calling for real change and reform.

As for financial reform. Some steps have been taken in the correct direction. But there are some fundamental issues that are being avoided. There will never be a better time to reframe and actually accomplish real reform than when a shitty system has collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and systemic faults.

I hope you aer cotrrect and this is the first step. But I worrty that instead, they will put on a band-aid, call it reform while allowing the deeper problems to continue to fester and boil.

This would make a good interview question for him some day.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: ~ Matthew 12:25

(far be it from me to miss a chance to compare Barack Obama to Jesus Christ ha ha)

Hope?

Change?

Yes we can?

It was just campaign speak.

*smh*

being naive gets you nowhere except being used and taken advantage of again and again. :-(

And then, what did he mean when he said he never really promised that?

can do whatever Joe Lieberman wants us to do.

It's in his nature to avoid conflict as much as possible and try to conciliate everyone. His no red states and blue states, just the United States, one-nation, everyone-loving-each-other rhetoric is moving as an aspirational mythos, but doesn't work so well in the dreary everyday world. I've heard it said that religion can be lovely as long as you don't believe it. It's sort of like that. Generally speaking I think he'd be better off embracing the red-blue conflict more, rather than deny it and try to conciliate all sides. He should try mightily to implement in undiluted form those liberal proposals that have solid majority support, rather than compromise so much with the other side. Let the minority howl as much as they like, rather than compromise too much and leave your supporters disillusioned, the middle disappointed, and your enemies just as enraged as ever.

"smart enough to know that I could one day be elected President if I hold true to this notion."

Good point.

President Obama said he wanted to change the tone in Washington.

He has not succeeded, but I believe he has tried.