Cinderella Obama: I Think this Cartoon Says it All!

I especially like the mice screaming for the birth certificate.

But he did.

Sure he has a lot on his plate, some of it unforeseen, but a lot of it was known before he applied for the job.

He spent over two years auditioning for the part, theres no sympathy for him at this point.

letting their humanity turn to stone

Obama knew how screwed up this country was due to 30 years of conservative policies, yet he still desperately wanted the job.

In fact his entire campaign was built on reversing that damage, yet his policies are mostly a continuation of pro-corporate conservatism instead of directly opposing them, which is the reason so many on the left dont feel much sympathy.

could be reversed in the little time you've allowed obama?

the republicans at times had all 3 branches of government as well as the non-government seats of power (corporate america, the military, the media, etc.)

obama has ONE branch of government, the house is on his side but the senate is effectively not, given the republicans' insistance on filibustering everything and the blue dogs willingness to buck obama for personal, petty reasons. and the supremes are obviously still radical rightists. and of course the media is no friend to obama either, nor is corporate america.

yet he still managed to get credit card reform AND health care reform accomplished. maybe he didn't make as much progress as we all would like to dream of, but maybe he has gotten just about as much progress as was possible in this amount of time, given how much power the right wing STILL has.

And yes, were all aware of Obama's accomplishments, but every single one was so compromised they are practically worthless.

CC reform had no caps on usurious interest rates and was designed to give the CC co.'s months to jack up rates, HCR had no single payer or public option, nor even the ability to re-import medications or negotiate prices with drug co.'s.

the compromising was mostly done with the blue dogs and ultimately, with the corporate interests who wield WAY too much influence on congress.

you want obama to really accomplish something? let's see what he can do with 70 democratic senators.

First it was just working to get the Democrats majorities in Congress. Then we were told the majorities weren't big enough and we needed to win back the White House and get at least 60 Senate seats and a veto proof House.

Now it's 70 Senate seats? Tell me you just left off the sarcasm icon.

I received a call a while ago from the DSCC telling me "we" need a bigger majority in the Senate to get things done - I suggested they get a new script because that line just doesn't work any more.

they don't have them. It's not that hard to understand. We are stuck with an opposition party who doesn't give a sh*t about people or governing. They give a sh*t about winning and loyalty to authority and big fat careers when they get out of politics.

That leaves 59 Senators to work with and possibly a couple of Republicans if you water down the bill enough. In addition, there are about 4 to 6 Democrats who are DINOs. That leaves the sane and progressives only about 54-56 to work with. If the opposition fillibusters nearly everything like they have so far, we cannot pass anything as progressive as we like. And Obama cannot force them to. He has to work with them.

We meed more progressive and moderate politicians who give a sh*t about people and this country. So if it takes 70 Democrats to get to the real 60 who will support progressive policies then that is what we need.

Find and support progressive Democrats in districts and states with Republicans. Those who understand how to fight back against right wing talking points.

This isn't about math, it's about who are represented by those numbers. Yes, we probably need 70 just to get 60 real Democrats.

the problem really isn't the minority party, it's the Democratic party and it's more than 5 or 6 Dinos. There's way more than that who have been more than happy to sell us out to their corporate masters. That's why we have gotten credit card "reform" that does very little to protect consumers and health "care reform" that mandates coverage but doesn't guarantee access to care.

There was a thread yesterday that was all excited about the idea that if Crist is elected he'll probably caucus with the Democrats. My feeling is that the last thing the we need is another Republican joining the Democrats.

Going forward, I'll support only progressive Democrats, no more voting for the lesser of evils just because they have a "D" after their name.

..the Leadership of the Democratic Party, including Obama, were NOT out campaigning for CONSERVATIVES.

Apparently Obama can't do much because there are not enough votes, except when he does a lot. In which case he didn't need the votes then.

I dunno, it is getting so hard to follow all the constant tangential goal post moving, soon I'll need a GPS to figure out the excuse d'jour. No wonder Reagan was Obama's favorite president: they both love Teflon.

Dems don't toe the line like Repubs do.
The dem party has right and left.
The repub party is almost completely right-leaning.
So the republicans only need a few dems to take their side, and the majority is nill.

If we had one in the White House, who fired Rahm and hired, say Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich as Chief of Staff we might get things done.

Someone who laughed at Fox News instead of granting interviews, someone who said "Damn the Tea Party Torpedoes, Full speed ahead (to the Left)!"

Sure there would be more outcry about socialism, but there would be a louder, more passionate support from the people who voted him into office.

Instead, Obama/Cinderella is content to go through the motions of scrubbing the floor, catering to the whims of the Princes of industry- AIG, Goldman Sachs, and now BP.

Hopefully Obama will realize someday he already HAS the Glass Slipper (the White House, the Presidency) and should use it's power to the fullest before the clock strikes 12 (election day 2012 or sooner) and he can no longer be a force for change.

:yourock:

rather Rahm Emmanuel and DLC were fighting against the left --

and the right is BUYING their demonstrators!!

So -- it's really a leadership question -- a small percentage of DLC corporate

wingers moving a Democratic administration to the right --

they are giving them an automatic pass with every new threat --

Let the Repukes vote no on everything. If it's a 50-50 tie, bring in Biden. That's the way it should work. With 59 people calling themselves "Democrats", it should never even be a question.

Except some of them are not Democrats. No matter what they call themselves.

70? If it's 10 more useless fucking corporate fellating DLC'ers, what would that change?

the HCR was a republican bill through and through. EVERY republican demand was fullfilled with the HCR bill, while not a single lefty progressive demand was put in. In fact the bill was written in such a way that most left ideas now have a massive wall to tear down before they could even be added to the bill.

Obama keeps going right and I keep waving bye bye to him as he does.

in July. It is the first time I have had any insurance for over 6 years. It is also VERY affordable. No, it's not as good as medicare, but now I don't have to worry that my world will collapse if I get sick or injured.

"I got mine and the rest of you can go scratch."

Charming attitude. So liberal and inclusive.


:puke:



Tansy Gold

I am simply saying that there is some progress because of the HCR bill.

I've read many of your posts and I see no need for you to be nasty to me. You can puke all you want. I'm simply saying, if I am able to get insurance (and there is no magic to me!) then many other are also.

for the most part, the republicans were too busy just saying "no", or simply passing along the insurance company demands.
i agree that it was not an ideal "liberal" bill. it was relatively small progress. but perhaps that was all the progress we could have reasonably achieved -- for now, anyway.

Far from ideal --

and your position is to believe no matter how little is changed, evidently!

...Pres Obama began negotiating with the Rape-Publicans, and found the blue dogs in the middle. He began from a compromise position. If he'd begun negotiating with the blue dogs from the beginning, and cut out the Party of No, we would have landed somewhat closer to what the majority of the American people want: Medicare for All.

Please note that I generally agree with you otherwise (see sig below).

NGU.

and turned away from them -- sadly.

Medicare for all -- speaking out against Israel's warmongering -- bringing an end

to supplying American tax payer dollars to subsidize that warmongering -- and supplying

the weapons for it!

Whatever the issue, Obama has done as LITTLE as possible --

It's a little difficult to get in there and help when the policy being proposed is completely opposite of liberal and progressive. What? You want us to help Obama be even MORE puke-lite?

sheesh.



Tansy Gold

have never swam with sharks, have you?

appointees, and Obama can't get his own people into the jobs becuase the Senate is full of Republican obstructionists who are always placing anonymous holds on his appointees.

government and agencies were probably not as deep at that time --

but they have to fight back --

and, needless to say, Dems haven't ever done the same things to block

right wing appointees --

Clarence Thomas, Roberts and Alito being prime examples of that --

Why has he barely used that tool? Because that is not the way he wants to roll. He wants to roll with them.

His appointments amply demonstrate: he wants to roll right.

some people are completely unrealistic and have no clue as to how things are. Anarchy is not a good replacement for what is in place now and until a way presents itself which doesn't have anarchy as its core, things will remain as they are.

some measures by Obama are simply too wrong headed (conservative) to be ignored.

Like his attitude toward teachers. And this commission set up to evaluate social security. This commission is comprised of right wing 'experts' that are ideologically opposed to social security from the start. This is similar to taking single payer 'off the table' before the discussion even starts.

I do agree with you that the right has all the power in this country, not the votes, just the media and the power.

The republicans did hold all three branches of government from 2000 to 2006. I'm not sure how you fit 30 years into that span.

Am I to believe that no Democrats exist in the coportate world. That John Corzine became a democrat after he was CEO of Goldman Sachs; that Warren Buffet is fighting for working families that

And since when is the military in the policy making business. I hope for our President's sake there are at least one or two Democrat brass in there some where. Of course with all the country calling Thad Allen, the National Incident Commander and our President continually reducing him to "National Incident Coordinator" its no wonder why he gets little respect.

And the media HA! Lets completely forget about Hollywood and Slate and MoveOn and Salon and even the 15 memebers of the naitonal media now running the WH communications office. As well as, George Stephanopoulos turning GMA into a bull horn for Rahm Emanuel.


Yes, I agree with another poster, you need 70 votes in the senate. In fact you really just need complete saturation of the government. God forbid the people who elected their representatives sway their voting opinion. Not when you all know what's best for us.

:bounce:

Same with overturning 26 year Moratorium on off-shore drilling ---

same with increasing attacks on public education in pushing charter schools --

same with not only continuing "faith-based" subsidies, but increasing them --

over and again --

Certainly we could also see stronger efforts to reign in Israel . . .

if we disapprove of what's going on, that disapproval exists in the dark shadows!

President Obama keeps siding with corporate interests and surrounds himself with corporate banksters. It seems he would hire people who represent people. It is not a chess game. I realize that FDR did not start the New Deal until his second term, but I do not believe he surrounded himself with anti-citizen advisers until then. I really hope he moves soon against the SCOTUS decision, yet I know how much is already on his plate. If he doesn't take some positive steps soon for suffering Americans we may never know about a second term Obama. I do not want more neo-cons, yet the line has blurred so much...
I firmly believe in a viable third party using some of the elected officials who have worked for the people. I am so amazed that the masses still follow obvious corporate masters rather than their own interests that coincide with the majority of citizens.

So the most sweeping financial reform the country's seen since Glass-Steagall is "pro-corporate conservatism"? I can see you made your mind up on day fucking one of his Presidency.

is a pretty low bar.

Real reform would have been reinstating Glass-Steagall.

People love to get lost in semantics, so that they don't have to deal with the actual context that may render their narratives false.

in this crazy derivatives trading? This was the main issue that caused the economic crisis. This is why many of us can't get too excited about "the most sweeping financial reform the country's seen since Glass-Steagall".

though maybe we just heard what we wanted from Obama, in clips such as the "Reagan changed the direction of the country in a way that Clinton did not" comment. Did Obama actually say that HE would change course, or just that the electorate was hungry for such a change?

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

the most impressive form of retort, right?

so it must have been impressive enough for you to make that move.

They read the TEA-leaves of the future and come up THE Saviors every time.

:)

Liberals usually have that - compassion for the poor, the unsuccessful, the disabled, those who are left out, immigrants unlawfully here, even criminals.

left out nor a criminal, is there a reason why he needs our compassion?

I think we've saved our compassion for the people who truly believed an Obama presidency would effect real change. For Obama himself? Uh, not so much.




Tansy Gold

why should it not be extended to everyone - Obama inherited a mess and this oil spill on top of it - instead of being patient and giving him space you're jumping on him like a conservative would - not good enough, not fast enough, no "excuses" are good enough - it's just not the liberal way. It's the authoritarian attitude.

Casting Obama as poor poor oppressed little Cinderella is inaccurate in a bunch of ways.

First of all, Cinderella didn't campaign to have her mother die and her father remarry and bring a golddigging stepmama and two whiny-ass stepsisters into the family nest. Obama, on the other hand, DID campaign for the job of president. Ha campaigned very very hard. And he had plenty of time to back off and drop out. He didn't. He wanted that job and he wanted it damn bad.

Did he think everything was gonna be fancy balls and carriages pulled by white horses? If he did, he was blinder than a bat, because the rest of us knew damn well everything was going to shit. The economy. The environment. The whole peace in the Mideast thing. He knew it was all bad, which is why he campaigned on the issue of change. We assume he meant change for the better.

Things like repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Has that happened yet? Hm? Has it?

Things like rolling back the boooosh tax cuts on the middle class. Has that happened yet? Hm? Has it?

As someone said in another thread several days or weeks ago, Obama is PRESIDING. He's not leading. He's not out there using his bully pulpit to lobby for the change we thought he believed in.

I don't give a shit if he's emotional or not. *I* am emotional, and that's probably not a good thing in a "leader." But Obama doesn't even seem very engaged. Yes, yes, yes, I know he's been to the Gulf three times since the leak started. Yes, yes, yes, I know Gibbs said Obama said "damn" and we should all get excited about THAT display of disgust.

But everyone who runs for the presidency (and the vice presidency, too) either knows or damn well should know that shit happens. Pearl Harbor happened. My Lai happened. Kent State happened. Dealey Plaza happened. Munich happened. OKC happened. 9/11 happened. Katrina happened. Just because there was no Ouija board message to spell out the details doesn't mean a president gets a pass when the crisis hits. The president is supposed to be prepared at any time to take charge of the situation.

That's what we ridiculed booooosh for, for his deer-in-the-headlights moment with Andy Card on 9/11. His airborne odyssey in search of whatever was a joke, and rightfully so. His lies afterward, his strutting on the carrier deck, all this is worthy of ridicule.

But for some reason or other, we're supposed to show compassion for Obama? Because he's been hit with what? With more than he can handle? Are you, in asking for tolerance and compassion, admitting that he can't handle it? That's he's not handling it?

If he were handling it well, with competence and poise and RESULTS, would you be asking for compassion? No, you'd be asking for respect and praise and admiration for the exemplary job he's done. You'd be comparing his actions to booooosh's inactions. "See what Obama's done? Booooosh didn't do that!"

In the wake of this crisis, which in some ways is far worse than the oil crisis of 1973 that prompted Jimmy Carter to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater, where is Obama setting an example? Where is his address to the nation urging a Project Apollo for solar energy? (Apollo, for those who are mythically challenged, drove the sun's chariot across the sky. Why he was picked to sponsor the man-on-the-moon NASA project I don't know, but the analogy would be great to apply to a solar power push.)

Obama is not providing leadership for change. Do I want him to be a dictator? No. But if he truly believes in change, if he truly wants change itself more than a failed bipartisan attempt, then he needs to change his tactics (pun intended). Pretty speeches and cool sunglasses won't get it. Appointing a bunch of insiders and Clinton-era retreads won't get it. Accusing fellow DUers of whining and doing nothing and being non-constructive doesn't get it.

I don't want a leader I have to feel compassion for. I want a leader I can admire and respect and try to emulate. I'll withhold my compassion, my patience, and my tolerance for those who are where they are through no fault of their own and not for those who begged and begged and begged for the job and now, maybe, apparently, in some ways, aren't up to it.




Tansy Gold

You want a leader you can admire, etc. and follow.

But the Ameircan POTUS was never meant to be that.

You weren't meant to be an American. Americans do not require leaders. They rule themselves.

The American president was never meant to be a leader we can admire? Do you really mean that? Would you prefer to have another doofus like the one we just got rid of? (BTW, "American POTUS" is redundant -- "American President of the United States" implies that there is some other kind of President of the United States. . . . .. )

If we were meant to "rule ourselves," then what's all that stuff in the Constitution about president and congress and senate and judges and courts and juries and stuff? Are the executives and the legislators and the justices just supposed to be figureheads, having their fun little sessions and making laws that we don't really have to follow or even pay any attention to because they don't "rule" us; we "rule" ourselves. What's the purpose of our local law enforcement then if none of the laws really apply if we don't want them to because we rule ourselves?

How well do you think you'd fare in court if you offed people who didn't like and then told the jury "you can't do anything to me. I rule myself and I say it's okay! Nyah nyah nyah!"

So because I disagree with you on whether or not to feel sorry for Barack Obama I don't deserve to be an American? Is that what you're saying? Doesn't sound very tolerant to me at all.

There's a huge difference between wanting a leader I can admire and respect and wanting one who will tell me what to do and what to think . . . and who I will follow blindly without question even to the point of doing things I know are wrong or stupid.

On the other hand, someone who gets all upset at disagreement, who starts calling people names (or just hinting that they don't deserve to be Americans), who insists there is only one right and one wrong and she/he has the right, who puts the John Wayne-esque rugged individual who knows and follows no rule but his/her own, THAT is all much more applicable to the rightwing authoritatian personality than the liberal.

The US was without a leader for 8 years. Do you really want a few more?



Tansy Gold

the common people and giving our childrens money to his banker friends? The Pres turning his back when Israel commits an act of war? What about the 11 dead BP workers? Who's stone over that? What about the 29 miners dead? It's not the left that has turned to stone.

The BP disaster should never have happened. The pres was warned. But he choose Salazar, a corporate lackey.

Yes there are some Democrats that are looking a lot like Republicans, but it sure as hell aint the left.

the left and progressives stand firmly against corporate control over government --

unfortunately, the Democratic Party has been highly penetrated and co-opted by DLC-

corporate wing-think --

and you can see it here with those with lesser expectations -- ready to settle for anything!!

They whine that we dont have the votes to do the right thing so we HAVE to settle. I say frig that shite.

to be on the side of corporatism is to lose one's humanity --

that's the problem with repugs --

and the problem with the DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

Obama has to decide if he will show his humanity and vote for humans/planet

over corporate/elites.

i'd say that any criticism of obama should come in very distant after a LONG string of republicans past and present, in all 3 branches of government and the federal bureaucracy.

he wouldnt have needed to compromise his campaign promises so often just to get something passed.

He won the election by giving people the impression he wouldnt stand for the usual DC games, had he followed through on that from the moment he was sworn in the GOP would have had to back down due to the pressure from even their own constituents.

By trying to play the middle Obama created the climate that let the GOP be the party of no.

yes, i too can offer obama constructive criticism, no one is perfect. but let's keep it in perspective.

the standard can't be what fdr was able to accomplish given huge majorities in both houses, for instance.

and you're only guessing that a more confrontational strategy would have been more effective. you don't know all the ramification.
yes, it might have been more successsful against filibustering by obstinance.

however, it might have easily given the republican license to paint him as overly liberal, extremist, or worst of all, an "angry black man". you might have liked that even less than what you're not liking now.

Obama's entire campaign was one built on confrontation against the status quo.

The massive donor list, the huge email list, the website that asked for opinions, all were designed to thwart the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton.

That was the foundation he could have used to accomplish great things, but he let it shrivel up and die in the rush to triangulation.

There are no red states and blue states.

The status quo was the constant partisan bickering in politics that prevent action. Unfortunately the GOP's constant opposition prevented Obama from accomplishing that goal.

We still have the constant partisan bickering and no action. Obama has not stood up to them and has been an enabler for their actions.

Achieving unity and finding common ground has not been an effective political strategy. It has not stopped the bickering and the obstructionism. The problem is that he hasn't achieved unity nor found common ground, which by definition means he has no political strategy.

Words have meaning.




Tansy Gold

that it became very clear to people that the Republicans are being deliberately obstructionist, even when Obama offers a compromise that is essentially what the Republicans originally proposed themselves. Unfortunately, though, people have no memory and are easily propagandized by the MSM, so they forget today what they knew yesterday.

why is that lost on Obama?

Yes -- let's keep it in perspective . . .

the standard can't be what fdr was able to accomplish given huge majorities in both houses, for instance.


the right wing was trying to kill FDR even before he was able to take office --

"ACTION, AND ACTION NOW" "ACTION, AND ACTION NOW"
696k - Adobe PDF - View as html
be assassin made an attempt on FDR's life on. February 15, the editors decided the ... FDR's "Fireside Chats" on the radio struck a powerful chord with Americans. ...
docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/100fly.pdf


and later in his administration there was a well known plot lead by many prominent elites/

corporations. Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler was approached and he reported it.

USHR held hearings but the names of many elites were kept out of it.

I don't think the full report has ever been released.

So your perspective and overall estimation of the odds against FDR are ill-informed and naive.


and you're only guessing that a more confrontational strategy would have been more effective. you don't know all the ramification.

Note that the reason we have to "guess" is because there has been no confrontation -- there

has only been bowing to the right.


however, it might have easily given the republican license to paint him as overly liberal, extremist, or worst of all, an "angry black man". you might have liked that even less than what you're not liking now.

And, once again, your deepest thoughts are in fear-based reasoning --

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

almost everything passed.

And Obama is not the one who created the party of "No", the Repugs did that on their own because lets face it there is no way they are going to capitulate to "that one".

Obama has given them a chance and it's allowed them to show their true colors. They are the ones that look child like in the time of crisis not him.

The Repugs still want to destroy the government make no mistake about it.

and UGLY SISTERS!

unfortunately that job is quite messy and difficult right now. The tea party crap is unreasonable, but many of the other concerns and feedbacks are legitimate and just part of a Democracy during a time of great need. But that is what one signs up for and takes responsibility for when they sign on.

I think Obama understands that, but some don't seem to get it.

It is like not feeling sorry for someone who died fighting for the military because they should have known what they signed up for.

Of course Obama knew what he is getting himself into and it is a difficult job cleaning up the mess from Bush, Wall Street and now BP.

The constant criticism from both the left and the right does not help Obama do his job any better. Leading the country out of this hole while the GOP is trying to make him fail is a very difficult job. Cut the guy some slack.

it's kind of hard for Obama to dig the country out of a hole when the thugs and the bloviators keep blowing things up all around him.

From the way some folks say that "Obama should do something about the oil leak", I ask "what do you want him to do? Put on a dive suit, armed with some Dawn dishwashing liquid and a Tide chaser and disperse the oil?"

If that damn oil rig had been built correctly and maintained correctly, chances are this explosion would not have happened:

http://www.helium.com/items/1839267-timeline-of-the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
April 20

The oil company BP owned a well about 40 miles offshore from southeast Louisiana and a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. BP contracted Transocean Ltd. to drill the well and Halliburton Inc. to cement it.

Transocean owned and operated the drilling rig named "Deepwater Horizon" and an emergency shut-off valve on the well known as a "blowout preventer."

For reasons likely due to the failure of the well's cement casing, natural gas exploded from the well on April 20. Propelled from a depth of 5,000 feet, mud shot into the air.

Some thing to keep in mind when trying to assign blame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig. The rig was built in 2001 in South Korea, is owned by Transocean and was leased to BP plc until September 2013.<4> Deepwater Horizon was registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands. In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m).<5>

On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the rig left eleven crewmen dead. The resulting fire could not be extinguished, and on April 22, 2010, the rig sank, leaving the well gushing, causing the largest oil spill in the United States.

Designed originally for R&B Falcon, Deepwater Horizon was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, South Korea. Construction started in December 1998 and the rig was delivered in February 2001 after the acquisition of R&B Falcon by Transocean. It was the second semi-submersible rig constructed of a class of two, although the Deepwater Nautilus, her predecessor, is not dynamically positioned. Since arriving in the Gulf of Mexico, Deepwater Horizon was under contract to BP Exploration. Its work included wells in the Atlantis and Thunder Horse Oil Fields, a 2006 discovery in the Kaskida field, and the 2009 Tiber oilfield.<8><9> On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield with a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m), of which 4,132 ft (1,259 m) was water, which was at the time the deepest oil well in the world.<9><10><11><12> The well was more than 5,000 feet deeper than the design specification on the company's fleet list.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/641226-kathy-werre/72835-bp-deepwater-horizon-halliburton-cement-failure-likely
The need for clean energy is a clear priority, as Federal accident reports issued on offshore wells uncovers that faulty cementing process was to blame in oil disasters at least thirty-four times since 1978. Many of the reports, available from the U.S. Minerals Management Service that regulates offshore wells, identify the cause simply as "poor cement job." Halliburton is responsible for the Deepwater Horizon job, mixes in nitrogen to make its slurry more elastic.

For now, despite efforts we continue to witness the BP oil Deepwater Horizon environmental disaster that will have long-term impacts both ecological and economic throughout the Gulf region. Unfortunately, at times history often repeats itself as faulty Halliburton cement is being investigated as the most likely culprit. Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser
-- For example, the November 2005 accident where the Deepwater Horizon was positioned above another well in the Gulf, faulty cement work allowed wall-supporting steel casing to come apart. Almost 15,000 gallons of drilling fluid spilled into the Gulf.
-- Just a week later in a nearby well at another platform, cement improperly seeped through drilling fluid. As a result of an additive meant to quicken setting time, the cement then failed to block a gas influx into the well. When the crew finally replaced heavy drilling fluid with lighter seawater, as they also did last month before the blowout at Deepwater Horizon, the well flowed out of control and much of the crew had to be evacuated.
-- Cementing was identified by federal investigators as a glaring cause of an August 2007 blowout, also off Louisiana. They said, "The cement quality is very poor, showing what looks like large areas of no cement."

Obama didn't take office until 2009. These are examples of the chickens coming home to roost for cheney/haliburton. Cheney and the oil lobby wrote the energy policy that made all of this fukkery possible.

believe me the last thing we need to do is cut Obama some "slack" -- !!!

If you want an end to corporatism, you have to stop beliving it doesn't exist!

and getting drunk in secret.

Unreasonable demands are just that, unreasonable.

melted down asking "what the hell have we gotten ourselves into?"

leadership, in general, is a thankless job.

were responsible for it in the first place.

Same policies with different results? No.

posted here at DU.

But I won't. ;-)

Great cartoon.

*

Great cartoon.

Ungrateful fuckers.

or piss them all off and don't run in 2012, and put in white joe.

He doesn't deserve this shit he's getting, especially from the instant gratification left crowd. He should take a 4 year vacation with his family and his last words to the nation should be:

'go to hell you motherfuckers, we're moving to Norway.The reason this place is the shithole it is is because of You, yes You sitting on your couch shapen ass clutching your pearls while whining a 'Me' song.'

I expect that from teabagging republicans. I'm really pissed off about these callous "He signed up for this" posts. If he doesn't run in 2012, these same people will be calling him a quitter. Nothing pleases them.

He will be able to silent his opponents , and prove he is up to all the bullshit
by fucked noise and limpdick, that our world is in a better place.
we just need to vote , in numbers ,like we did before.

:rofl:

:hi: Haven't seen you in awhile.

I needed to kind of understand the situation as a whole before I was swayed into having Obama hate. After I got the facts things got in order.

keyboards/computers when they took over the WH.

;-)

days after the claim was made. But, of course, we never hear the retractions. Plenty of other things to rag on Clinton for than for a fabricated story.

And it is still repeated today. Your average Freeper believes the Clintons actually stole some furniture from the White House. What a media.

:rofl:

It's like, "OK, biracial guy...you think you can measure up to your white male predecessors? Well, no breaks allowed here. Take THIS!"

Like Avis, no. 2, trying harder... I have no doubt there is a racist element in the crap thrown at Obama. What, did BP think they had free rein to cut corners, cheat, steal and lie because Obama, as a black President, doesn't have the connections and backup to make it stick?

Makes me sick.

I suggest 40 lashes and no going to any "balls" ever, at least.


oh, and.....

He was going to "change" the tone of politics all on his own,
and I'm still waiting for that too! He's worthless!

Now he's a victim.

by now. That's what he is.

Gee, that's almost as insulting as calling him a pathetic slave girl.

It's about his critics.

He's right in the middle of it, being a little servant girl.

The cartoon is through the eyes of the people behind the thought bubbles and through the eyes of the mice. They see him as a Cinderella-like character.

Just because he is in the middle of it as a little servant girl doesn't mean that cartoonist sees him in that light. But it is very clear that the cartoonist views his critics as not much better than Cinderella's step family.

The cartoon is not about Obama. It is making fun of his critics.

Especially those in this thread.

:shrug:

He knew he was screwed the minute he stepped in office. He knew it when the economy went south during the campaign. One of the reasons he really pulled ahead of McLame was the economy and McLame's idiotic talk of a suspending his campaign. Obama looked more Presidential there. He knows but there is still a whole lot of media types and others that make the job harder. I think he can handle it...he is very mature. Unlike that child we called President.

how many people expected that he would suddenly be blamed for not fixing everything, and then some, right away?

Bush spent two terms in office, and in 16 months, there have been more articles and op-eds demanding that the President do something about hunger, homelessness and poverty in America than in all of Bush's eight years.

One thing the President doesn't have the luxury of saying is that he's trying, and evidently he is to be robbed of the benefit of time.








edited for clarity.

And for this man in particular. RW skewed media plus Bush had low expectations simply for being an idiot. I do think Obama knew that as well. Look at the way Clinton was treated. Still, it is 2010, not 1993. The media is way worse now.

Cinderella stop constantly caving to the Republicans!

you're not doing enough

and meets with the Bushes and the Kissingers and the Hitlers for the Real party.

:rofl:

Cinderella snagged a prince........

Great analogy - k&r

And when she does, let's hope he watches the clock, so he can get all that stuff he talked about in his campaign done, before his carriage turns back into the DLC pumpkin.

touch.}(

I would add "Obama make us energy independent and baby, I want to drive my car".

"We're not dumping on you enough to make you angry yet, Obama?" Teabaggers:grr:

Give me a fucking break. Idiot son had a pantload on his plate as well. It's called being a president. It'd be a fuck of a lot easier for him if he actually took a stand on something. Then he'd only have ONE enemy, the right.

Triangulation is a bitch to maintain.

Yeah, President Obama is cleaning up the "pantload" Bush created.

Messy stuff.

as whiners for having actual expectations. This cartoon can kiss my ass.

Just as the Repugs could not rush in fast enough to place the Gulf oil spill blame on him to distract from where the real cause belongs. These Repugs know very well that the Bush/Cheney regime de-regulated and de-regulated the oil industry, as they did with Wall St.

Her own plane, private security force, armed forces at her disposal, private chef and n
access to a brief case withthe ability to end the world. Kind of a pathetic comparison.

the weight of the world on her shoulders. As far as comparisons go, this one is perfect.

Are trying to dissect the analogy by comparing a photo of the President to a cartoon?

It was not comparing the President to Cinderella.

The situation being: a person being criticized for not working harder, faster, "my way," despite that person's best efforts.

and leave a smoking hole.

To a powerless servant girl waiting for her fairy godmother is kind of an admission of failure. I would not be flattered if I were him.

Not only is this completely missing the point, but I take it you're unaware that a Cinderella story has nothing to do with "an admission of failure."

And showed as cinderalla, is he waiting for his prince?

The cartoon is not about how the cartoonist sees Obama. It is about how his critics see him. Thus the mice in the teapot holding up the sign asking for his birth certificate? The birthers? Tea-Baggers?

The cartoon is a slam at Obama's critics, not him.

I'm sure Obama could care less what they think.

The mice were cinderalla's friends in the story. You want to cheer this, fine. I find it incredibly depressing.

It is not about Obama being Cinderella. It is about the people who are criticizing him who think he is.

Cinderella! Cinderella! Clean my room, wash my clothes, darn my socks!

It's about Cinderella's step family (his critics). No matter what he does, he's not doing it well enough or fast enough. And they just expect him to do more without lifting a finger to help. They are entitled and superior. And because they don't respect him--just like Cinderella's step family didn't respect her--there is nothing he can do to make them happy. They just find more things to criticize him about. Even though in most cases he is cleaning up their messes.

The cartoon is from the perspective of the mice and the people behind the comment bubbles. The cartoonist is not suggesting that he IS Cinderella.

The cartoon is not about Obama, it's about his critics.

in so many cases. Watch the justifications for the misinterpretation start - one long subthread coming up!

Not flattering

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

He is powerless to the situation he is in. Shame such a nasty cartoon has so many recs.

Actually, it's obvious you don't get it.

He's not stupid. We are explaining for nothing me thinks.

As Cinderella, is not comforting to me, or the times. Supporters cheering it is even odder. The President being portrayed as a victim of the times and the office and his political opponents in a ragged dress, not confidence building.

OK, fine. You don't like the cartoon, but why are you upset that the President's "supporters" get it?

He is the most powerful man in the world. This is sad, very sad.

Cinderella never whined. She continued to work.

Potus is portayed weak in this cartoon. I find that sad, your response sadder. If I would have seen this cartoon, 2 years ago as the future I would weep. Kind of numb now.

You don't understand the cartoon, and you are sad, numb. So be it.

Pro cheers the president ortrayed as weak and a victim of his political opponents.

He is not the most powerful man in the world - he has to deal with Congress, the courts, the states.

The most powerful man might be the dictator in China, what he wants gets done, and people are killed if they don't go along.

What's the sudden obsession with power? Are you projecting? If you just were dictator, everything would be handled properly?

You are the step-family - entitled to all you want, and your Daddy is not getting it for you fast enough.

It is meant to be limited in power.

Have you forgotten the existence of kings and dictators?

Geez.

Geez, are you really pretending not to get this?

Always hated that fairy tale. But it does perfectly demonstrate the mentality of the "Daddy will save us" lot.

I guess we should be more tolerant, these are scary times. People need their coping mechanisms.

I would not take this cartoon as a compliment, nor be amused. Worried more like it

it's not about the President. It's a reflection on his critics, and how they're perceived.

Cheer on!

The President cannot live up to the challenge before him. Audacity of hope and what not.

Who is the fairy Godmother or should we all just give up.

The cartoon just might be about you.

I never expected miracles just a democratic administration.

Agean stables more flattering. Cinderella is an insult to the man and the office he is in.

I don't like the President in a tattered dress cleaning floors...not a flattering potrayal.

Agean Stables would have been more flattering.

I've spent a fair amount a time amongst people in office and running for office both male and female, none would be happy with this cartoon, even if the cartoonist message was what you are trying to convey.

I also don't like the signs the TBers carry of him with a bone through his nose. This is the cartoonist's interpretation of how the right and his critics see him. That image is not flattering, never has been.

I've spent a fair amount of time with people in office and running for office as well, and I'm fairly certain that they would not be offended by it at all. Obama isn't in an active campaign right now. This cartoon will be forgotten by next week.

The only people who should be offended by this cartoon are those who it targets. To me, I don't see it as a put down to the president in any way, shape or manner. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It says he's doing everything he can so solve this nation's problems and is hard at work doing it, but he has an inordinate number of problems to deal with. And instead of helping or at least being more supportive, his critics stand on the sidelines and carp and whine and complain and ridicule him because he isn't doing enough in a nearly impossible situation.

Maybe I am more familiar with the story than you as I have kids and have read it many times, and have seen many movie interpretations of it. In none of these have has the audience ever been expected to see Cinderella the way her step family does. We all know from beginning to end that she is a good hearted woman of standing who tries hard to do what is right and works her ass off for people who are incapable of appreciating it because they are too mean, self-important, greedy, lazy and self-absorbed. Cinderella is NOT a servant girl. And neither is Obama.

and she runs away with a prince.

If I had a daughter, it would not be a story I would tell her or encourage her to be familiar with.

Probably more Xena warrior princess with me.

Than again, I generally hate most Disney stories potrayal of Women, though the last Alice in Wonderland is a story I could show a girl or friends daughter and be comfortable with.

There is no Prince dear and you can beat up on the boys.

They are not! This is a constitutional republic. Congress would have to declare war.

We are occupying plenty of nations and killing plenty of people.

The constitution, I think that went out the window with Vietnam with war powers.

Shit the President can evidently kill American citizens with remote controlled air planes abroad these days.

Jefferson and Madison must be able to produce electricity with the spinning.

:rofl:

Is that the revelation here? It's too hard to take on Big Insurance, Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Israel, Weapons Makers...maybe if he stays nonconfrontational they'll regulate and reform themselves and do what's in America's best interests.

will never be enough

Can there be any other explanation for the what appears to be complete misinterpretation of this cartoon?

Well, I can think of one.

What is the explanation?

and Huffington etc. are really tea bag/freeper positions?

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

He starts at a weak position and gets watered down from there.

K&R

No one I've seen in the administration is able to move things. Put the fear of whatever in his fellow Dems let alone the opposition and media. Sibelius, Napolitano, Holder, Geitner/Summers/Bernanke....none of them pack the charisma or clout to do things. Rahm is broadly viewed as an obnoxious but ineffective dolt.

So, Cindy needs to show up and scrub, scrub and scrub. At least in Disney's version, the MICE were her friends and helpers.

Sad stuff....but he picked 'em.

While all the dirty little details of the last eight years remain covered, we can imagine it is real bad. The stuff we are seeing is bad too, but it makes you wonder why they let us in on these little horrors. I think it's for distraction, so the real news gets burried-deep...

the White House and said Clinton trashed the place?

Wish Obama just had to deal with that mess.

Spread by,you know,right wing nutbags.

When He moved into the White House was all the W's were removed from the computer keyboards.:evilgrin:

To change we must go in a different direction than we were going. Obama, himself, is still facing in the same direction that we were facing when he took office. He has become “Bush Lite.”

He ran on a campaign that the game could be changed. Now he's saying well, come on, let's get serious, you've got to play the game.

I'm sorry, but we're allowed to be pissed off.

which is fine for many here who can relate to him personally.