it just dawned on me....Obama is handling this just right

Bushco would be blowing this up right and left
the piles of shit would be covering us all...
Homeland Security would have been bleeping beyond belief


Wisconsin, yes i wish he would go there.........Egypt, Libya, (I waiver)
but there i go again

-back to the top

it just dawned on me....Obama is handling this just right

peace, and ommmmmmmmmmmm
kpete

The Koch Bros are airing ads that say, "Incredibly, President Obama backs the union bosses and floods WI with out-of-state political protesters."

Did those of you outside of WI know that? We're being hit with ads here like it's general election primary season.

For a minute the other day I was pissed that Obama is not more involved - but, fuck that - he needs to keep his distance exactly as he has. He spoke in support - that's all we need. Anymore would turn this into an issue about him. This is a deeper, grass-roots issue. And I saw it with my own two eyes.

Good point. Walker, et al would be crying "Federal intervention in state politics! Who does Obama think he is, US dictator!"

It would likely overshadow the basic, fundamental issues.

Talking to the people, marching with them, screaming for justice alongside teachers, firefighters, cops, correctional officers, small business owners, Republicans, Teamsters, Steelworkers... we've got a good handle on this and we're NOT letting go. We don't want or need the White House to co-opt it and shift the focus to them.

I think a lot of people on DU who are not in Wisconsin don't think as you do. Hearing from someone personally is far better than other people who aren't in Wisconsin saying the same thing.

Obama has bosses who own him politically.

President Obama has handled all of the Middle-East uprisings the same way, he allowing the citizens to shove public policy in the right direction. Wisconsin has been wakened and the Republicans will rue the day they screwed with this specific group of Americans. The more that Republican leadership jumps on the Scott Walker bandwagon, the more Americans especially Repugs are seeing they are the target too......

The Koch Brothers unveiling will be the albatross around the Repugs necks...

the sanctions against Libya so they could get in there and rebuild the crumbling oil infrastructure. Big oil is already in there, so I don't know what Bush's incentive would be. :shrug:

But I DO agree that Obama is handling this correctly - he's done that all along even though we get impatient with his "politics" at times.

Ommmmmm back at ya. :hi:

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

...the leaders will follow.

Obama walking the halls of the WI State House, great camera copy though it would be, makes this all about him, not the people there, not the ones who started it, or have their futures and livelihoods at stake. It makes it easy for Walker to pivot and portray his legislation as a blow against Obama and Obamism, and not the nurse or DPW driver down the block.

Some non-negligible portion of those protesters voted against Obama in 2008, and will in 2010 -- but they're willing to put themselves out for their union, and the union movement. Their support is every bit as important as the ones who voted for him.

The labor movement overlaps, but is not identical with, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party overlaps, but is not identical with, the Obama administration.

It's better this way.

Which is what matters, there, now.

and now regret it.

:kick:

The Koch Bros (and Republicans in general) want nothing more than to REDIRECT the media focus. If Obama steps in now, the focus will be OFF the protesters, and onto President Obama. President Obama is doing the right thing by staying away. (We are playing chess here....not checkers.)

about him. How long have we been apathetic and lazy. The people are getting "fired up" and that is exactly what has to happen to cure all our problems. He cannot go after corporations until he is re-elected and with a super majority in both houses of congress. The people in this country have to rise and see they dont want thieves and corps running this country any more. A president alone cannot do this with wolves at his heels and a knife at his throat and no support. Obama is smarter than 97% of congress, he learned politics in the hell of political fields-Chicago.

He's not slow to action---he knows what he's doing but what we later find out is the massive work he does behind the scenes to get things done. Majority of people ignored that we had citizens lives in Libya at risk and he made sure that they are relatively safe before he said anything. He was not about to risk them. When he made his first statement all we had was the ship of American citizens waiting to leave the docks or on they're out (they were only stuck there due to the weather). Little to no one talked about what he did there. They were like he took to long to make a statement---but were happy he said something.

America doesn't have much leverage with Libya as we did with Egypt. Mainly Europe deals with them and Europe is sitting on their ass. I was speaking to my teacher in France and she was going on and on about how wonderful Obama has handled both situations while her own government didn't know what to do. Anyway he made his comments and then we get information later on that he's spoken to all the Europeans, notably Merckel about them taking the initiative to deal with Libya. Without rocking or interfering with the protests that are being galvanized by the people.

AS far as Egypt---he made a similar move. He supported the protesters with words because the only other course of action is to actually send in troops. We don't have that man power but Egypt does. Egypt managed to win with a few words from Obama and later on---while some on and the right and left felt he did wrong---the protesters screaming his name, in glory, would end up disagreeing with them.

Then we have Wisconsin. I think he's doing exactly what he did with Egypt. He's doing a no touch basis, we have no idea what is going on in the background and he makes a point to throw his support for the unions. Automatically he was attacked for this on the right, some on the left, and totally by the media. You'll see it very similar to Egypt. However, more and more this is about the people of Wisconsin winning the battle. I think people assume that physically him being there starts a war. What it does is causes a war of ideology. Republican versus Democrat. Remember this Governor was voted for by 52% of the State. For those still in the state, who still support this Governor, it is as though the Federal government is injecting their power into state politics.

How far is the federal government allowed to go? He does support the unions, he said as much and Trumka knows very well the President supports them----or you wouldn't see Trumka doing the news circut and really defending the WH at the same time. Additionally the presence of the President makes no sense on a level. I don't know how I can wrap myself around the President----flanked by his entourage of Secret Service walking the streets with the unions. I wonder if people in the United States wanted proof from Kennedy when he supported the civil rights movement to come down with his SS agents to march in the million man march (if he was still alive then. I mean, I find it takes a great deal away from the movement personally. It would just look weird.

Are people looking for him to physically fly in and do a speech? How many are going to sell this as a photo-op opportunity to malign the President and by default malign the movement. I think he's handling this situation much like Egypt much like Libya and he's doing it well.

I think this is very common for him and we're not used to this style. Clinton would have thrust himself into every situation and turned this into a serious mess. Who knows if Libya wouldn't be bombed by now. Bush would have bombed everyone---probably Wisconsin. Obama is doing what he can behind the scenes, throwing his support behind one group, and allowing the people to actively do something to change their lives.

Remember this is not about him---it never was. He said so, it's about us and what we want. We can't expect to have him take everything and sign on it and say---here it's done. We have to fight for it and let people know that we want it and never let that continuous hum of our voices die out or be forgotten. We can't expect the government to do anything we want---because really it's bound by laws that prohibit such actions. We have to do it and change those laws too.

Are also brilliant moves that we mere mortals don't understand.

i do not believe he is a god or a demi-god,
just talking about one hundred thousand people in Wisconsin and beyond...
peace, kpete

yes!
that was easy.
peace,
duh, kpete

am so vein, sorry, kpete

Bill Clinton was absolutely brilliant -- but he pulled some really bonehead moves that we're still paying for.

How did that repeal of Glass Steigal Financial regulation work out for us? That NAFTA has sure done a lot for American workers, and has also really puklled mexico into a better place too, eh?

How do you like the Clinton backed Tellecommunications Deform Act, which gavce Clear Channel and other Media Monopolies the ability to buy up alkmost every radio station in the country?

No Obama is not Bill Clinton. But he too is capable of some bonehead moves that we can regret in the future too.

knows he is more brilliant than the previous 10 - 12 presidents combined!

Looks better in a swim suit as well, I just know it.

First off, you're comparing apples and oranges. All the situations I point out actually are extremely similar. Particularly what's going on in each state and what's going on in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and most Arab countries. Which you conveniently ignore to throw in a strawman argument.

Once again, Obama supported allowing the taxes for the rich to become experied. He advocated for it in Wisconsin and every state during July, August, September, October---and he did this continuously. For someone to say otherwise is nonsense. However, he's not able to just "let it expire." Since the Bush tax cuts for the rich include the tax cuts for the poor and middle class. I'm tired of the falsehoods or misinformation your claim provides---as though the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the rich. The tax cuts for each party are not mutually exclusive. And your statement suggests that.

Additionally, several things were going on in Congress. Several Democrats in the House, about 31 of them wanted the tax cuts for the rich to stay---when Obama presented it. They wrote a letter to him. They basically stated that they would not support ANY MEASURE that would allow the tax cuts for the rich to expire. Twice legislation was brought to the house to allow them to expire and TWICE they failed. Why don't you mention that Congress is directly at fault here and not a fight by the President? What do you want the President to do---beat someone up? He can't force them expire---without allowing the ones for the poor to expire. Would you have preferred the tax cuts for the poor to go out the window too? Times are hard enough, are you willing to eliminate things like extending unemployment and benefits for the poor and middle class because you want to stick to the rich so bad? The rich in the end of that sort of proposition would make it out with flying colors while you'd be killing the middle class and the poor even more. Obama did the best decision in light of the political climate. ie A shitty Democratic Congress and even shittier Republicans. Why aren't you directing the blame there.

This is the SAME thing with the PO. Everyone knows this. He did not have the votes. He had the support, but millions of people were not marching for it----ugh not even the Media cared. If we had the Democratic representatives doing what they're doing now doing that then don't you think we would have had it. If we had Democratic reps who knew things about the health care and not allowing Repubs to run around, don't you think we'd have it. The President was literally on his own on this. I watched everything and all his debates on this topic. He was the only one who seemed to really know what was in the bill aside from Franke. We had a lot of people who had no clue what they were talking about and many more not dealing with the angry people to explain how this would benefit them. One rep was caught using her cell phone while people were asking her questions. I mean this is what was going on. Then he takes up the narrative again---but Landrieu of Lousiana and Lincoln of Arkansas and a few other Senators said point blank they will KILL HCR if there is a PO. Do you read that? We were already struggling to get the vote and we have those two witches along with 3-4 other Dem Senators and the two Repubs we would need saying if there is ANY PO they're out. What did you want him to do? Write it in? It doesn't work like that.

He's not an emperor. Get realistic and move away from these weak strawmen arguments and intentionally selling misinformation. I'm not a dimwit to forget the political climate he was dealing with and what was going on.

And it's not just Obama. It's the pattern that the whole "centrist" wing of the Democratic Party has engaged in for far too long.

Despite what it may seem here on DU, I have often assumed -- or at least hoped -- that Obama would come out swinging for things he claimed to believe in and support. But instead of standing his ground, he caves in from the beginning and allows the GOP to take the upper hand. Health care is a perfect example....The tax breaks for the rich? Well, the democrats knew that was coming for a long time, but they failed to cultivate the ground to fight the Republicans on it until they were forced into the last-minute corner, as usual.

And it's not just about Obama. This movie has been played out time after time by the Democrats over the last 30 years. And that's one reason the country is now owned by a handful of Corporations and Zillionaires.

We didn't fight all the steps that led to this along the way. And instead of owning 90 percent of the country, they'll own 100 percent unless we stand our ground at some point, instead of always playing catch-up to the GOP.

(P.S. I love how you dismiss my supportive statement about his handling of Libya and Egypt.)

And that is the response I'm pointing too. I did not look at other responses, since they were not addressed to me. So I'm not understanding you're point. You used snark and strawmen to dismiss my argument---within the topic I responded too. So I'm not understanding the additional snark in your P.S. It's wasted, unless it was meant to get a rise---well on that... I fell for the bait and responded to that.

When you say swinging what do you mean? Officially veto a bill that could help millions because 1 or 2 of his provisions are not met? Veto a bill that he fought tooth and nail for and met 95% of what he asked? Is that what you mean? I need to understand this "come out swinging". Because I give credit when I see someone really struggling and putting the information out there for months on end and unfortunately they don't get everything, but they do get something that is damn good even if I don't like everything. Progressivism includes, low-hanging fruit---especially when sweeping change is not an option or a possibility.

The HCR went on for a year---actually 18+ months. In 90% of the videos and demonstrations he fought for the PO. Now you're suggesting he didn't fight enough or he didn't fight at all. How far do you plan on moving the goalposts. He fought and fought for until. Until he acknowledged a compromise was in order when these protesters turned into teabaggers who were owning the political dialogue. He had to make a compromise and when the people that are supposed to have his back in office turned on it and no amount of benefits could change their mind---and even going against the most needy of their constituents---he made a compromise that you equate to a "cave." 18+ months seemed battle to you but a joke. He did open forums, he took on Republicans, common people, insurance companies and so forth in order to get the PO and when the Dems in Congress turned on him he had to make a move. Some sort of move that would in future help millions of people. I don't see that as a cave. I see someone taking in his reality. I mean dismiss it all you want and make up your own "stories" but unfortunately that is not taking in the full political climate. If you want to target him, and where I feel he holds some responsibility, on off shore drilling. That is legitimate. He said one thing and flipped on it. I still hold that against him. However, on the HCR....I just don't see what you're getting at.

You might be right in regards to tax breaks for the rich. However, I don't see this 100% Obama's fault. I saw him fighting for it and only a few Dems fighting for it on the house floor. This was not part of the national debate until after the bill failed twice and Obama had to write his own bill because the Dems in Congress weren't doing shit. This is common knowledge. To me Congress---and mainly Congressional Dems in power are forever weak and if we give them power we need to get people in office who are willing to do sweeping change even at the risk of their own political standing. Many of them just want to stay in office and not really looking at the greater good. I find that Obama takes a lot of risks---however, and once again, the people we sent in for the back-up don't back him up. This is what happened with Gitmo. He wants to do good, but Congress tells him hell NO. Congressional Dems do. He wants money to open a prison in the US and they shut him down, because it's not in the budget. What's he supposed to do?! He's being thrawted by his own people. It's ridiculous.

I think what I find on DU. Is that people like to directly blame Obama for everything. When even, with all the facts Congressional Dems are directly the problem. Not only the Dems of course---most definitely the Repubs who abuse their power out of hate, racism, ideology, and/or all of the above. I think what we need to do is see what the root of the problem is. If Obama is fighting for the right side generally----even if you believe he may "cave" from time to time---which I find not to be the case. We have to see what is causing it...what is the root of it?! Obviously it's not him. We then see that the root is stemming from Congress and Congress needs to get stuff done and that means we're electing problematic politicians to represent us.

1) My reference to supportive statements was that I agreed that Obama probably did the right thing regarding Egypt and Libya. I (just speaking for myself) have no problem with his handling of that, and I do not see it as being the same thing as Wisconsin at all.....I was referring to your "strawman" statement, and it's possible I misread that. if so I apologize.

2) Let me make clear. I am almost 60 (ugh) and I have been paying close attention since the 1970's. None of my frustrations are simply aimed at Obama. More that he promised much better, but has been repeating the patterns that got us all into this mess.

3) Speaking for myself, my frustration with Obama is simple. I believed that he did want to change the pattern of the last 30 years, in which the Oligarchs have basically gotten their way with the active support of the GOP, and very little organized opposition (and often active support) from the Democratic Party leadership.

So my disappointment with Obama is NOT about not getting everything I would like to see right away. I was well prepared to see him begin to push in a modest direction -- BUT a different direction than the centrist DLC crap of the last decades. My disappointment is that Obama has been repeating the same old patterns that have helped to get us into this mess. It's even more frustrating because I believe he is capable of making a big difference in changing the national agenda for the better. But -- despite his lofty campaign rhetoric -- he doesn't choose to.

One example, in the whole healthcare debate, the people who wanted substantial reform were shut out from the beginning. No, I didn't expect that we would get single payer coverage right away -- but at least the real reformers should have had input in the whole ;process. Instead it was turned overt to the sellouts, and Obama engaged in backroom deals with Big Pharma and went out of his way to place Big Insurers...His support for the Public Option was tepid at best, and he gave up on that one very easily. Look back at the news reports as that all was going on.

(Strategically, I would have preferred that they start out with more focused and attainable goals, and lay the groundwork for more substantial changes down the line. But that's a tactical issue.)

The way he handles international disputes is the same way he's handling national. He always manages to maintain the criticism of both the left, right, and media. He never really manages to win over one side. And I think he likes it that way. It's very interesting to watch how it unfolds. Funnily enough all the situations sort of mirror each other as well.

Trumka says Obama is "doing it the right way."

"He's not taking on workers like Scott Walker is and trying to take away their ability to come together and negotiate a middle-class way of life," Trumka says.

There's always a reason...always a rationalization....always an excuse not to get involved in core issues.

That in my opinion is why the GOP controls so many states and the Dem's national grip on power is on the ropes.

While some think, in the US at least, that Obama sat out in Egypt and Libya----all of Europe is saying the contrary. I find that what Obama is doing or has done in Egypt and Libya is what he is doing with Wisconsin.

He probably did the exact right thing in those situations.

But I am talking about the much larger mindset in which there is always a "reason" for Democratic politicians (not all of them) to avoid open advocacy on issues of wealth and power or -- worse -- to parrot the CONservative Corporate GOP line.

Let them keep it moving and not make it about the Obama admin, ffs.

And it's cooking. Let it go and keep the national leadership out of this specific fight. I'm telling you as an eyewitness to these events, we've got this one, Armstead. And, while I *will* criticize Obama for a lot of things, this is NOT one of them. He's handling this perfectly.

I just remember how many other times the grass roots have been on fire and the Democratic Establishment poured cold water on them -- Iraq war debate, WTO protests, Media Consolidation in 1990s, letting Roberts and Alito sail through...etc.

I just don't want to see that repeated yet again.

I just remember how many other times the grass roots have been on fire and the Democratic Establishment poured cold water on them -- Iraq war debate, WTO protests, Media Consolidation in 1990s, letting Roberts and Alito sail through...etc.

I just don't want to see that repeated yet again.

Obama spoke in support of the unions - this is where AFP has gotten what little fodder they have to make it about Obama originated.

...a veritable salad bar of panaceas and messiahs.

Quick fixes of decades-long social problems while you wait, by the topical application of charisma.

(Warning, charisma may stain clothing, and harm plastic surfaces. Test first on inconspicuous area.)

Put not thy trust in princes...

"quick fixes"
wtf is that?

Democrats have either sat on the sidelines or actively supported the wrong side for decades as the government and economy have been handed over to the Robber Barons piece by piece.

Always a reason we don't challenge it or fight back as a national party.

This is yet one more example of that distressing pattern.

This is a local issue and the local Democrats are acting like heroes. Be proud of them.

I just want to see the national Democratic Party leaders getting on board in terms of the larger issues at stake in this.

For your perspective and for being there fighting the fight. I am SO proud of our Dems.

Thanks again.

:dem:

The mood was electric, the people so very impassioned. Peaceful, kind, helpful and AMAZING. They hand out water, offer gloves, sweatshirts, food, hugs. It's beautiful.

If you missed my GD thread with pics and link to album, check it out. :)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x517616

:)

Life is not that simple. It is not a sitcom, where a satifying end will be on right after the break. :eyes:

No it's not all about me and it's not all about Obama.

Obviously you have not been reading my posts very carefully.

My frustration and my belief (for whatever they are worth) has much more to do with the Big Picture of American politics over the last 30 years than whether President Obama is a good guy or not. He's a good guy, a great guy in many ways. But the his impact in in the Big Picture is too-often dubious, in my opinion.

I won't bother repeating myself here except to say that This is one of those Watershed Moments in which there is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to either play a role in turning things in a better direction or sitting on the sidelines and allow the GOP Corporate Oligarchy to chip away still more against workers, the middle class, democracy and the idea of a broadly-based economy.

The Democratic Party establishment -- including Obama -- can sit back and twiddle their thumbs yet again and allow the Wrecking Crew to whack away at democracy and economic justice. Or they can give support and backing to the grass roots movements to fight back and preserve our values and policies.

Maybe events will work out positively even if Obama and the democratic leadership sits this one out. But (in my opinion) this is an opportunity for them to do a lot of good, and it is also a potential political opportunity.

for constitutional protection of unions and it would be a perfect opprotunity for obama to come out and speak and march as it would pertain to something AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. obama has to balence supporting unions with supporting the idea of a decentralized federation that our USA is.

The reason the Wisconsin fight is still so alive and so moving, is *because* he stayed away. The Labor leaders understand that.

:kick:

:hi:

just the sight of him will make Scott Walker resign and never take on unions again. Yeah, that sounds good.

The WHOLE country is watching!
President Obama knows exactly what he is doing......uniting the country.:applause:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe even with the National Guard. In spite of the likely unconstitutional nature of the law to be passed, too.

if Obama were to up his rhetoric, Obama vs the DC GOP stories over this issue would crowd out the ones that are now focused almost soley on what's happening in Madison. MSM has had to focus more on the substance of what Walker is trying to do, not verbal sparing between DC pols.

Bush was a war president. He was a fascist. Compared to that, anything is right. I don't know what right is. I just post on a forum. Maybe he's doing the right thing. But compared to Bush he's a god.

In other words, yes. And I don't know.

I'm personally not 100% certain, I just love to see your personal view expressed.

You're usually so shy. :-)

on Mt Palomar, 16 inches,
some days
LIFE IS DAMN GOOD!

thanks
peace, kpete

Good on ya.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.<1> The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I'm not saying it's untrue (DEFINITELY not saying that), but that's cold nonetheless. :rofl:

No different from Birthers, really. No matter how much data you show them that shows their theories/beliefs are completely wrong and without basis in reality, they just dig in that much deeper.

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

And a majority of votes is what elects politicians to office.
and Politicians are who drafts and passes legislations,
and legislation passed and signed is what enacts the
laws of our land.

If we had voted for a ditactorship as of November 5, 2008
where all was handled by fiat, perhaps your comment would apply,
and yes, that would have meant that we could have turned 30 years of
supreme corporate capitalism upside down in two years flat,
but that isn't the reality nor the political system that we live in.....
and when folks don't include political reality into their political analysis,
then it is hard to take them seriously....
even if they've got the list of problems right...because they seem not to
understand that the remedies are much more difficult to achieve than they
bodly assert.

The truth is in about Wisconsin and how the governor was elected.
The other truth is that it is the Supreme Court who allowed Citizens United.
You can blame Pres. Obama for it all, but I blame the unrealistic people
who wanted everything done even if they lacked votes or organized and loud
popular majority support to get it done.

The ridiculousness of these folks who point their finger to make only one politician
responsible for everything, even as that politician requested support time and time again,
and the only response he got were folks throwing rocks at him while jeering his every utterance,
as they insisted while disconnected of any political reality that Obama had the power on his own to get it all done. He didn't, and folks actually know that. That they choose to ignore the power of the corporate media, the power of the fickleness of the average voter, or the power of corporate money does not a realistic political assessement makes.

These Obama critics have inhabited the impossible twilight zone since that November of 2008, and
have lifted not a finger once that day happened.....although they tend to be the first to
open their mouth to spout their opinions as to why things are as they are.
If these same folks would have been more supportive, and at least acknowledge the good along with
what they perceived as the bad, perhaps they would not have assisted so many in believing that
sitting out 2010 was ok, and in fact, might teach this President a lesson. Well so be it.....at everyone's peril including the nation's most susceptible.

The point is that this President understands that politics is equal only to the number of voters
one can have applying direct pressure to the opposition...and since so many believe this president to be the opposition and are acting accordingly, that means your result will be to put the GOP in power, as they are the only alternative, realistically politically speaking. period.

Doing nothing is brilliant! Get it? The Republicans may be at war but at least we have a president who will make sure that nobody on the other side suffers bruised feelings. We may lose every battle and the war, but we're going to be the best of losers and outclass them every step of the way!

even if yours in only an inaccurate snide post. :eyes:

compared to past presidents while the detractors use some imaginary index for rating his record.

Glad I don't dislike Obama so it doesn't affect me. I just think he is a very ineffective and timid president who has blown the best chance for a progressive agenda that we will have for decades.

Now those that think he is a brilliant politician and has done great things - now those people are in the full D-K experience. Nothing will convince them that their preconceived ideas about perfection fall short in any way. Wars, union attacks (teachers), corporate give aways, cuts to the poor while extending benefits to the rich. Nothing of this affects them.

Maybe it also affects those who dislike Obama. I wouldn't know. But it is in full effect for the unquestioning supporters.

"blown the best chance for a progressive agenda that we will have for decades". Unless you conclude that "virtually no chance for a progressive agenda" was and will in fact be the best chance we will have had for decades into the future.

We did not win nearly enough seats in congress for a progressive agenda to have any realistic chance whatsoever, it was not even close. Then we sat down and gave most of them back...

A "progressive agenda" requires that we take congress by a large enough margin that "blue dogs" don't matter. When I can count the Republican Senators on my fingers and toes, and still nothing passes, then I will give arguments like yours some time and creedance.

compared to past presidents. Which, by the way, is the index you would compare his record too.

Don't we all love cock-eyed optimists?

With decent leadership, we could have done great things. But instead, we began by courting the love of those who will not love. Think of a teen-age girl with a crush on the snarky thug. She pays no attention to the very nice young men who made her prom queen, who promised to support her. No. She is obsessed with the bad boy who kills cats. She can't rest until he loves her. She spits on the nice guys and fawns over the bad boy.

What is the point of having a charismatic, eloquent, rock-star president if you still need 90 percent of congress to pass anything? By your posing we have to have 90 percent to win. By that calibration, I assume that you have decided that we will never have any progressive progress and that there is no point to ever combatting republicans since they will always have at least 10 senators.

and at last count, that gives me 20. Should I expect you to read before commenting? Forgive me if I have overstepped.

One could stretch a tad and go to 30, but then blue dogs might occasionally become relevant. If you want a real progressive agenda, they need to be consistently irrelevant. So, 25 repugs max to be truly safe.

Now if an "eloquent, rock-star president" uses his "powers" to persuade Bohner or McConnell to vote for a bill, how do you imagine that would sound? Remember, they pick how they vote freely, so what would have to be given to get this support? Is there anything you could imagine that could be said that would not sound like a sell-out to you, and actually get the votes?

You can't get there from here, because "there" does not actually exist. If you look at things honestly, this conclusion is unavoidable.

You could just say you disagree with me, but you have to go and try to make your argument sound like it made sense.

Okay, rainman. Twenty. The republicans will always have 20 senators. So my statement stands. If you believe that there will be no progressive movement until we have at least 80 senators, then you should just say so. You should just admit that you don't think there is any reason to ever fight for progressive legislation. Of course then you gave yourself an extra five fingers or twos. Polydactyl proclivities aside, you still are saying that there is no way. Name me the presidents who have had 80 senators. Did Roosevelt? How about Johnson? Kennedy? Clinton? Hell how about reagan?

So you made a silly post. You could always just go with the old meme of how the presidency is a meaningless and toothless position so we shouldn't expect anything from one. That would be wrong, but still better than your claim that no president can do anything without an 80% majority senate.

And when did the senate come down to being the sole possession of bohner and mcconnell? Do we have to get !00% to win? Obama couldn't even get moderate republicans. He couldn't even lead his own party senators. All he had to do was try. But instead he courted the opposition like a love-sick school girl.

Finally, playing with words won't help a weak argument. If you look at things (like your post) honestly, the conclusion is indeed unavoidable. There isn't a good excuse for the mediocre performance of our president. He looks good in a suit ,bathing or Brooks Brothers, but that doesn't seem to have gotten us very far.

But the Dunning-Kruger effect won't let you see that. (See, I can misuse theory, too.)

Simply put, his record thus far has actually been quite good for any president. Much better than people want to admit. Thats the key that points to those suffering the effects.

oh yeah. What you think.

:thumbsup:

It did take the knee jerking a few weeks to calm down on the DU.

As much as I'd love him to be in the middle of it all, standing among the protesters, his approach diffuses any sensationalism that would come from the other side. The ONLY way progressive change has occurred in this country has been when the people join together and make it happen; put pressure on the politicians.

Nice to see that we were proven right... again.

One mo' time: President Obama is indeed a Chess Master.

Another case in point: His opening the barn door via HCR last year and just this week letting single-payer and the public option through if states choose to do so. The President obviously knows what he's doing and is way ahead of his detractors. Furthermore, the constant knee-jerk second-guessing and finger-pointing never comes near to being what's best in the long run.

Of course, the next time there's a perceived or real crisis, there's little doubt in my mind that President Obama will be subjected to another round of vitriol and blame for a "lack of leadership" or for not "doing enough to uphold Democratic principles" or some such nonsense. I hope I'm wrong, but so far, it's been two years and counting and nothing has changed.