The most progressive President in 40 years.

The first left-wing movement activist to be elected President in American history.




Does a movement that hasn't had one of their own in the White House for a generation know how to work with an ally to achieve legislative victories? Are we capable of learning how to do more than complain about the guy in charge? Are we able to recognize the good faith efforts of an ally after years of being told that Democrats are one half of our two-headed enemy? Do we know how to organize to pressure Congress so that a President's progressive proposal doesn't become a disappointing compromise?



That call went out on election night 2008. Sometimes, I'm woefully discouraged that the response from too many was to sit back, relax and wait for their cynicism to be validated, as if change is something they can watch happen on a screen.

anything besides complaining, because I sure am hearing a lot of it.

Not for many, but for some, the goal is to spread disappointment, discouragement, and cynicism.

It's a goal for those who want everyone to give up on the Democratic Party, whether they're talk radio Republicans, Greens, Marxists waiting for the revolution, or nihilists. They think Obama's loss is their gain. I can't see it as anything but misguided, self-indulgent, counter-productive bullshit that's holding back the progressive movement.

You are exactly right.

:yourock:

:thumbsup:

ought to spend some time looking at the sort of work he was doing in Illinois & in the Senate. He worked on a lot of thankless bills & laws dealing with stuff like nursing home conditions and so on. I liken the shitty treatment that Obama gets to more or less a pearls before swine thing.

I understand why people are disappointed in compromise. But the people who doubt that Obama is doing his best to move the ball forward simply don't understand what's happening. And if they don't understand what's happening then its unlikely that they'll figure out how to do something productive other than complain on the internets.

He's making subtle but profound changes for the good right now. However, there is such stupidity & ignorance in the country that it all goes unnoticed while dancing palin captures the imagination of the masses.

he doesn't scream and shout to let people know about it. He expects us to pay attention and notice. That hasn't worked out so well.

It's systemic and important, but Kathleen Sebelius' and Elizabeth Warren's authoring of OMB Circulars doesn't really capture MOST people's imagination or attention.

in the beginning. FDRs legacy was developed over his multiple terms in office. Johnson didn't have the obstacles in the congress the Obama has had to face.

I guess they would rather he refuse to compromise at all. Gee, if he did that, absolutely no legislation would have been passed!

President Obama constantly talks about persistence. We should listen to what he has been consistently saying over a long period of time. And we should acknowledge that his presidency and Speaker Pelosi's Congress are the most accomplished in 40 years.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

America goes through spurts of relatively rapid change. But you're right that all of it seems incremental at the time. People can dream about revolutionary upheaval all they want but the slow, difficult work of organizing is how progress always happens in this country. That's the American temperament.

You seem to have some inside information that the rest of us are not privy to so please, educate us.

Why must we go without until 2014?

Have a heart attack, or cervical cancer... and....


What's the next repartee? 'President Palin'? Obama sold us out.

He didn't sell anybody out, he took nothing away but your dream that you could get something for nothing.

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

And they didn't even have the possibility to look forward to.

these are societal changes.

I bet you have health insurance.

I'm guessing most of us on DU would prefer single-payer yesterday. But can't we still acknowledge that 2014 for the exchanges is better than never? And if the HCR bill had never passed at 50, you would have been waiting.. what.. 15 years for medicaid - just like all other 50 year olds without insurance have been for years? looking forward to 3 years rather than 15 is a good thing.

Unfortunately the rest of the Country isn't where we are as far as progressive thinking. I think the real question is... what do WE do to help make the change? We cannot rest our hopes only in those we elect... we have to change our neighbor's minds on issues. We have to educate them.

If so, it's very easy to tell someone else to go without until 2014. We're talking about life and death.

Why keep flailing Obama over it? He can't force the Senate to do whatever he wants. He isn't superman. You're falling for the Republican game.

And the buck stops at the top (he quoted harry truman) and i believe him. ;)

I don't believe misplacing blame for compromises forced by the Senate does anything to hold his feet to the fire. Putting more pressure on the Senate would have been useful though.

He must have been the proto-"decider" to make that claim. The buck stops with the people.

The Republicans use the filibuster routinely now. LBJ and FDR did not have that problem, nor has any President.

I don't quite get how selling us to the insurance companies can be considered a progressive move. Must be more of that 3D chess we mere mortals can't grasp.

We have a conservative US Senate that blocked his first proposal. He compromised to get the best plan passed that he could. Calling that a sell-out seems silly and pointless.

If you don't like what happened then the answer is to change the political realities by putting pressure on Congress or electing a new one. It's too bad the left was busy flogging Obama instead of working to change Congress in the last election. A unified message about the need to get a better Congress might have resonated with voters, but instead we were forming the circular firing squad and complaining about sell-outs.

will work in order to maintain the luxury of cynicism.

"coverage" that comes with a high dedutible and is near or just over the income limit for any "subsidy" (actually tax credit - they still have to come up with the cash for insurance until they file their taxes)? Where do they find the money for care if they have to pay a big chunk out of pocket before the "coverage" kicks in?

And, Obama proposed a progressive solution? Really? Cutting a deal with pharma was progressive? Refusing to even discuss single payer was progressive? Selling us out and claiming "it was the best we could get" was progressive?

We needed reform that would give us access to care instead we got a mandage to continue buying the same old crap from the same old crooks.

Why did that slave have to wait until 1863 before he was freed?

Try needing something like social security in 1890? Why did that person have to wait until the 1930?

Honestly. Reality sucks sometimes, but it is reality.

corporate sell out!!! Don't you get it? :sarcasm:

As soon as he became President he was able to be who he TRULY is!!!! An American hating Muslim from Kenya who wants to be a Socialist Hitler Coporate sell out and crush all his enemies with his limp spine!!

Its so true.

Many, including many here on DU blame Obama because things are not moving fast enough for them. They fail to blame the Senate for failing this President. And they fail to recognize that despite the obstacles in his way, he has still managed to pass important legislation for the benefit of the people of this country. He has kept the majority of his campaign promises, more than any other president. The economy is starting to turn around. We are getting out of Iraq. More people will have healthcare than ever before and the list goes on.

I am so frustrated with many folks who fail to acknowledge this presidents accomplishments.

We supported him but there is no support in return. That explains the disappointment as well as the fear of the future. Think about it.

It's really that simple.

Instead, they want us mired in doubt and fighting each other. My question would be who benefits from all the fighting and chaos on the Democratic party. Who sees such bickering as a time to profit? Those who profit from this mess are the ones who simply egg on the Dems to not only call each other names, but call the POTUS every moniker in the book. No solidarity means no progressive change.

Pres Obama was handed a shit sandwich when he was sworn in. Although I will continue to advocate for some issues that currently make me grind my teeth, I regard him with goodwill. We're in this together. If he succeeds, we as a nation succeed.

Shit sandwich is right.

Professional Left. Pathetic.

You often express your dissatisfaction with the negativity here on DU.
But instead of joining in on the celebration of this positive thread recognizing Obama's accomplishments, you instead chose to make a snarky remark.

Congrats for spreading more negativity.

And we have not helped him. . .we have let the Right Wing and teabaggers do a job on him since BEFORE he took office. . .and we are letting Fox News beat him up and spread lies daily.

How can one man be so strong as to keep going, and keep his vision, and continue to find ways to be PRESIDENTIAL, even under repeated insults of the Right Wing Congress!

I've been contacting Congress, the Senate and the president for 2 years.

Obama's own family physician of 20+ years (a single payer advocate) couldn't get an appt with him to discuss health care after the inauguration. Yet Obama had meetings with the hospital, insurance and pharma CEOs for months. Look it up. I've posted this time and time again.

:thumbsup: Happy to rec

In one of my more optimistic moments during 2008 that was a picture of the President I thought I was working to elect.

It's not just a matter of progressives organizing to support their own interests. It's about reversing the trend against the middle class, the working poor, the desperately poor and labor whose financial future and job security have been undermined by years of tax and trade policy. Policies that continue to this day even under a "left wing movement activist" President.

When I was more naive I thought by supporting and working for the Democratic party I was supporting a movement with those objectives in mind. The Democratic party was the movement. However, the facts show otherwise and you seem to be conceding that much in your post.

That's all fine and not surprising. Like I said I can see the trend in party doctrine so the challenge for those whose interests are being eroded will be to organize on their own behalf. That will spell trouble for the Democratic party in the form of a left leaning third party if it's well executed.

The challenge for centrists will be to accept the pressure that forms and act on it rather than trying to marginalize like we saw last election season. If the pattern from the last election holds they'll lecture the left and explain how irrelevant they are or call them "whiners" in need of a pony or go on about how they must vote for Democrats because the other side is the greater evil.

They might go even further and claim "left wing activism" is undermining the President or organizing in opposition to the administration will elect President Palin or whichever scary Republican archetype is bubbling to the surface at the moment.

I wonder if centrists will be able to live up to their side of a bargain like this?

a political party, whether its the Democratic party or a third one. So far, the Democratic Party has proven to be a far more effective vehicle to aid progress than any third party.

If you thought the Democratic Party was the movement then you made a mistake, and if you believe a third party will become the movement then you're repeating that mistake.

I'm stealin that one from you. ;)

I smiled when I came up with that one.

:thumbsup:

No one should be since he keeps pushing for more progress. :)

towards policy that used to be considered Republican.

more government regulation over every sector of the economy, but you'd have to go back a long way.

Who established such right wing policies as the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc. At least Nixon ended the Vietnam War. I'd give my left nut if Obama was as libeal as Nixon.

don't amount to a Republican agenda. That revisionist history about Nixon passed around here is shameless.

Yet he didn't. Contrast with Obama who had both houses of Congress AND STILL COULDN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT NIXON SIGNED INTO LAW. Don't get me wrong, I think Nixon was a criminal. A fucking bastard. I just think that Obama needs to work harder to come up to Nixon's standard.

Nixon didn't pass health care. Nixon didn't pass more regulation over the financial sector, lending, wall street. No, Nixon did not do more. Get fucking real.

You're pulling my leg right? The EPA is less than Obama care? Wall Street Reform greater than the Clean Water Act? You get real. Obama has SQUANDERED a once in a generation opportunity of tremendous popular support by throwing his supporters under the bus with his "compromises" with Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street, and any other conservative who dares call him a nasty name.

new auto emissions standards, ending mountaintop removal mining, huge stimulus investments in clean energy, efficiency projects, starting the high speed rail network, investing in electric vehicles. Obama is doing more to get us off fossil fuels that Nixon ever dreamed of.
"Fake" legislation? No, I promise it was real legislation with real bill numbers that real lobbyists fought very hard to defeat.

Cool. :fistbump:

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

With so few active pro-Obama posters left at DU it shouldn't be that hard to guess.

post, Radical Activist!!!

those who can not see these truths, do not want to see them.

I thought he promised to bring about change. Now you're saying we have to bring it about. To me that's an admission he hasn't done it. This "we" stuff is just a lame excuse for someone who didn't deliver on what he promised.

He had the opportunity to turn this country away from war, all by himself. Not "we," not I, not you. Instead of listening to us, he listened only to the generals and his political advisors. He never sought our advice. He really didn't care what we thought. He already knew what we thought. He just didn't give a damn. And escalating a war is not the definition of a "left-wing movement activist." It's the work of a right wing war criminal, on the order of a George Bush. Now instead of just having to go after Bush, we have to find a way to charge and prosecute Obama too if we're going to be consistent. We might get a chance some day. He thinks he's home free. Well, he's not.

He also had a chance to uphold the rule of law and prosecute the war criminals and bank fraudsters. He completely failed to do his job. That wasn't "we," I or you. It was Obama. He decided early on to implement Romneycare, to make deals with Pharma, to disregard people's wishes for real HCR. That was all him. He never cared about how we felt. Trying to shift the blame from him to us is ludicrous. It's looney teabagger type delusion.

I don't understand the necessity to delude oneself.

That is serious delusion and denial.

What's ludicrous is when over the top bullshit that is supposed to pass as constructive criticism (from a "liberal perspective" of course :eyes:) gets repeated here every single day just like it does by the MSM.

Be honest with us.

I do believe he will end the Afghanistan war during his second term. And yes, he will have a second term. I wish he could end it now, but I am convinced he is doing his best to wind it down and start withdrawing troops next July as he promised.

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

The Founders did not intend the President to be a King. They were adamantly against that. You are looking for a benign dictator with that attitude.

Why should not a President listen to generals? Or for that matter even CEOs? He can listen to everyone.

was he a dictator?

Is he a war criminal?

that he couldn't do this alone and that long term change was going to take a movement of the people. He said it in nearly every speech.

Do you remember the conversation in the primary when Hillary said LBJ gave us the civil rights victories through legislation, and Obama disagreed saying that change came from bottom-up movements lead by people like MLK? We got the bottom-up movement guy. So my post is nothing new. Obama genuinely believes in the power of movement politics and I've been disappointed by how few people are willing to make that movement happen.

Obama spent months fighting for a better health care bill before being forced to compromise. I don't see the point of blaming Obama for how conservative the US Senate is.
And I believe Obama is turning this country away from war. Iraq is nearly over. Although he may be wrong that we can create some stability in Afghanistan before abandoning the country to the Taliban, I can understand why a reasonable person would think we have some responsibilities we owe the country before leaving. Of course, I still help organize local peace events to keep up the pressure to leave because I believe in movements and not in waiting around for a leader to do something for me.

People who think we can just elect a leader to do it all for us will always be disappointed no matter who we elect.

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

He did it with the support of Congress, the generals, and the American people who elected him on a platform of escalating and then ending the war in Afghanistan. As it turns out, he had only tepid support from the generals who wanted an even bigger escalation that Obama allowed.
And if you knew what I was still doing to organize against the war you would realize what a gigantic asshole you're being by making assumptions.

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

I didn't claim that people support this war. But, people did vote for Obama knowing what his plans were. He's doing exactly what he campaigned on. He said he would withdrawal from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. Now he's doing it. I don't care if you recognize me or get self-righteous with your childish shaming. Facts are facts.

but at the same time you twist his entire campaign theme.

You state: "I thought he promised to bring about change. Now you're saying we have to bring it about".

His entire campaign was "We are the ones we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek". Absolutely not "elect me and I'll change everything". It was always about inspiring a movement - a "WE".

I've said to people, change is happening now. You get it!!

To those who are still wanting instant gratification and chime in on their one issue no matter the subject......why is that necessary?

and that he would do it all himself.

Hmmm. Guess I wasn't paying attention.

Was honestly beginning to think this place was a goner. This post was a welcome oasis of sanity.

Thank you.

I can't say whether this place is a goner or not, but thanks for the comment. :)

The challenges we face seem too often dismissed, as if it was all to be easy and a simple display of "backbone" from a President (whatever that is supposed to mean) allows everything we want to happen.

Game to convince everyone he was do-gooder so that he could get elected President and stab the working class in the back and become a corporate sell out. His whole entire life up to when he became President is obviously totally meaningless as to what kind of man he is now! He's President now and obviously a corporate sell out! :sarcasm:

In Kenya! :rofl:

I HAVE to use the sarcasm tag now if I say something like that.

and get a good job.


What a country!

to support their programs. Obama was in effect a 1 man movement and after he actually had to govern he stopped being in the public eye and people got complacent.

he has to be in constant campaign mode. If Obama is not out there constantly delivering his message there's hardly any pro-Obama voice in the media defending him. Even allies on the left ignore the positive and "hold his feet to the fire" instead. I understand the need to push him left, but we made a mistake by being all negative all the time.

He just needs more surrogates.

he campaigned as a centrist and that's what he is. If he claimed to be a progressive, then he'd be a liar. But even if he's straight about who he is, if his most fervent supporters engage in deception it sticks to him.

It's not the first time I've seen centrists try to claim a President as one of their own after the election. It's a smart tactic that progressives should copy.
I'd say it's obvious that he ran to the left of Hillary. His top campaign issues were health care, clean energy, ending the war in Iraq, and more government regulation over the economy. That's solidly progressive. He offered more dramatic, transformational change than what we got from a centrist President like Bill Clinton. So no, he didn't run as a centrist and he isn't governing as one, except where he has been forced to compromise with a conservative Senate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4519936#top

Mon Feb-11-08 06:31 AM

45. Obama is not anti-DLC

Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all pretty much centrist candidates, certainly none of them is a DLC-slayer.

as what we can elect to the US Presidency, and he's likely to sign the most liberal legislation we could ever get through Congress.
Personally, I'm glad to see Obama re-regulating industries that were deregulated by the centrist, DLC Bill Clinton. I'm glad to see him take action on clean energy and health care, areas where Clinton failed. I'm not sure what your definition of centrist is but Obama already has more progressive accomplishments under his belt than Clinton had in 8 years combined.

Obama, "far left". :rofl:

might as well call him "socialist". :crazy:

Or did you even read beyond the subject line? I wasn't calling him far left, smarty pants.

Why,
Yes it is.

Unrec.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

They should be able to look into their wallets and bank accounts to find that out.

These threads are a trip. The whole "look- if you would just read this list, you would realize how well you should be doing..."did not work b/f the mid-terms, and they will not work now.

Pretend I'm a swing-voter. Stop giving me lists and instead, dare me to check my wallet and bank account.

Moderates & swing voters are the ones who looked into their wallets & bank accounts and then gave the election to the GOP.

These threads seem to be aimed at DUers and not the moderates who failed to show for Obama.

That's why it's posted at DU. It's a post about what the left and netroots can do to be productive in helping to pass a progressive agenda. You did a good job avoiding that subject.

Marching in lock step with the latest online fad?

n/t

:)

I've never read so much bullshit in one post...

Do you deny that Obama comes from a background of left wing movement activism? Perhaps you should examine why the truth seems so strange and comical to you.

And yes, Obama came from that background. But he abandoned it as soon as he became a serious contender for the presidency. Once he was bought and paid for by corporate America and lobbyists, he changed into a right-wing corporatist, already during the campaign. Right now he's continuing Bush's policies, not closing Guantanamo Bay, doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, leaving permanent bases in Iraq, supporting and aiding the military dictatorship in Honduras, increasing the military budget, not repealing DADT, continuing the Bush tax cuts, still doing extraordinary rendition (torture, but outsourced), etc. Not progressive at all.

Obama is decreasing the military budget and has proposed decreasing it even more in the next few years.
Obama has already done more to get us off of fossil fuels than Carter did, and he's fighting for more.
The Carter Doctrine provided the justification for the wars in oil-rich countries like Iraq. Obama is getting us out of Iraq and has a limited timetable for leaving Afghanistan.
Obama is repealing DADT this year, as he pledged to do.
He ordered the closing of Guantanamo.
He ended Bush torture policies and added judicial oversight to extraordinary rendition.

Your cliche talking points are hollow. Obama is increasing government oversight of every sector of the economy. Carter did not do that as successfully as Obama. Here on planet earth, increasing government regulation of corporations does not make one a "right-wing corporatist." Wake up!

"Obama is decreasing the military budget and has proposed decreasing it even more in the next few years."

Not true. The military budget has been increased since Obama is in office. But then again, you'd have to if you want to open 8 new bases in Columbia...

"Obama has already done more to get us off of fossil fuels than Carter did, and he's fighting for more."

Not true. Under Carter, America's use of imported oil went down drastically (and went up dramatically after Reagan took over). What has Obama done, except for allowing further off-shore drilling, even after the BP disaster?

"The Carter Doctrine provided the justification for the wars in oil-rich countries like Iraq. Obama is getting us out of Iraq and has a limited timetable for leaving Afghanistan."

Not true. Obama is leaving 50,000 American soldiers in Iraq, and the US will have permanent military bases in Iraq. He has also back-peddled on leaving Afghanistan. He's now saying the US will pull out in 2011 if the circumstances allow it. And even then, no doubt, there will be permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

"Obama is repealing DADT this year, as he pledged to do."

Not true. The White House will appeal a court's decision that the military should allow gay people to serve openly in the military.

"He ordered the closing of Guantanamo."

Not true. Guantanamo Bay is still open and running. Almost 2 years after Obama took office, hundreds of people are still locked up without a trial or without hearing charges, including a 14 year old kid.

"He ended Bush torture policies and added judicial oversight to extraordinary rendition."

Not true. The torture is now being outsourced to other countries' secret services (as it was under Clinton). Extraordinary rendition is a violation of international law regardless of any phony so-called judicial oversight.

Add to that: the Patriot Act hasn't been repealed; the ongoing support for the murderous coup regime in Honduras; insurance companies still running the show in Health Care (and lying about never having promised a Public Option); keeping rights that Bush had un-Constitutionally granted himself, like signing statements and the power to appoint any citizens an 'enemy combatant' and have them killed without evidence or trial, and much more of that fascist shit.

Why do you hate reality?
Look it up. The military budget went up one year and down the rest. Defense spending is down since Obama took office, and it's a fact that he proposed cutting it much more. Why does that reality bother you?

Look up the Carter doctrine. Yes, it is true that it provided justification for invading Iraq. Stop lying to yourself. You can make speculative claims you pulled out of your ass about what will happen in Afghanistan but the same cynical claims were made by those who said Obama wouldn't stick to the Iraq withdrawal timetable. They turned out to be full of shit, didn't they? Obama has done exactly what he said he would do in Iraq. Combat operation are over.

What has Obama done about oil? It's unfortunate that you're so ignorant of that. He improved auto emissions and mileage standards, forced the auto industry to sell more hybrids and electric cars, put billions into high speed rail and public transportation, EPA is regulating CO2 for the first time, and but billions into alternative fuel research. Carter gave a speech and did a few things that were quickly reversed. You sound grossly uninformed.

"Obama is repealing DADT this year, as he pledged to do."

Still true, no matter what's happening with a court case. That's why Obama had Gates speed up the report on repealing DADT so that Congress will have time to act during the lame duck session. Why do you deny progress?

"He ended Bush torture policies and added judicial oversight to extraordinary rendition."

Yes, it is true. The torture policies were overturned on the first day Obama took office, and it's still a fact that Obama ordered the closing of Guantanamo. The unrelated anecdotes you threw out do not contradict these facts. That a 14 year old may be locked up does not change the reality that Obama ordered the end of Bush torture policies and ordered the closing of Guantanamo. One fact does not cancel out there other. Work on your basic logic skills.

The fact that we haven't accomplished everything does not negate the progress that has happened.

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

Do you find the truth funny? Is it a clown to you? (with Deniro in "Taxi Driver" inflection).

Seriously, you can complain all day. The OP is the truth. If not, which POTUS would you argue is more "progressive" than Obama?

some like but it's still forward. Plus has totally lived to every word in his speech, he's sticking firmly to a plan that deliverresults always has all is career even when he was studying law. One documentary said that in how he brought people together in law school used to infuriate them even back then but the now concede he got the job done.

But are selfish, cold, political calculations.

And no evidence that Obama is more progressive than Bill Clinton.

and now we have a Repug House...and probably a Repug Senate, upcoming.

Are you trying to point out to us that PROGRESSIVES just have little chance of Winning..and it's cool that "one got through the gate?"

What is the purpose of this post?

wow, not too out of touch, are you "Radical"? :wtf:

well, I suppose from a "certain perspective" (hint: the very far right extremist DLC "new democrats") you have a point.

(don't make me laugh, my lips are chapped) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't see how one can sincerely attempt to do both.