Has DU become anti-Obama?

I am confused. I have been a member for a long, long time - ever since 2000. During the 2008 presidential race, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter until she lost the nomination, and then I got on board with candidate Obama. But I remember the angst and the pain many Hillary supporters suffered during the nomination process, after "somebody" decided that if we didn't support Obama we weren't "Democratic" enough for this board. And now the tides seem to have changed. I'm an Obama supporter now, and I love this guy. I can't find a whole lot wrong with what he is doing, but then I'm not a political activist whose pet project hasn't been paid enough attention to - I'm just a Midwestern Democrat who is happy we have an adult in the White House who is trying to work with the system that exists to make this a better country for all of us. I even like that he is willing to work with Republicans to get things done. Frankly, if he didn't do this, he would be too polarizing for the country - and that is something we don't need right now. We need to come together.
But on this board, I have been shot down for supporting the President. I'm starting to think that the atmosphere here is one that wants to get rid of our President in 2012.
And that is not what DU is supposed to be about - or is it?
As I said, I'm confused.
We were actually unable to post anything negative about Obama during the primary season - we would get banned. Now it seems to be very much appropriate to be negative.

Blame him.

That sounds fair.

light.

(Not accusing you of anything by the way - but I see lots of post that are just made up, or articles that are selectively quoted)

Not the worst articles, but everything. My response was not about the small percentage of posts that you reference, but the larger majority of critical ones.

a damn thing. at some point it became a campaign to get people as many people as possible to despise him.

the people who thinks it's some kind of exercise in nobility make me LMFAO.

That's not pushing anything other than an agenda to undermine Obama.

To see the validity of the comeback "he told us to push him", I'd like to see some constructive ideas, some note to change a policuy wit tangible idea of how to change them, but that rarely happen here.

I know, I know, now we'll get to hear about the *patriotic* stand that we must critisize in order to be good dems.....blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. It's not constructive, it's doesn't push anything, it's doesn't create exchange of ideas. It's unproductive negativity as often presented on this bb.

If they just referenced the small percentage of ridiculous posts then I would have agreed.

and it aint pretty. aint pretty at all. if i had known he would turn out to be this ineffective a leader i never would have voted for him.

i don't know if DU as a whole has turned on Obama, but i am not a fan of his at this point.

It can be argued that it would have never gotten the votes, however, what dismayed many was the lack of even trying

Congress did not pass a bill with it and would not have.

DU posts often treat Obama as though he vetoed a bill with the public option. He just never had one. He signed what he got.

Your idea of "support" might be different than my idea of support. I heard him say he wouldn't sign a bill that didn't have a public option but after that? Nothing.

life? From his party? From the party opposite?

are you saying politicians should take it personally? Act like high schoolers or family court litigants?

I should 'shut up and move on' (on 'Face the Nation') and by Obama himself that I should have my 'head examined' (on '60 Minutes') - those insults did not help.

and lost badly.

His actions belied his words.

Between continuing high defense spending, expansion of military interventions into Libya, there is a lot to be disappointed about.

Then there was the oil spill and letting BP get away with leaving Gulf Coast citizens economically depleted and environmentally ravaged.

Obama also let his minions bash the left.

He doesn't like us, the people who contributed money and worked our fingers to the bones for him, why should we love him?

BTW, unless there's some kind of personality cult around Obama, he's supposed to be working for US, not us working for him!

Oh, and still no action on that other matter.

Many of us on the left feel he has abondoned us. Until I see differently I will hope for a Primary challanger that forces him left.

He sounded good during the campaign, then turned Right and named Republicans/Conservatives to his cabinet.
He has actually done very little to turn the economy around. More jobs are not Living Wage Jobs, just jobs whose numbers sound good on the news sound bites!
He has not let the bu$h's tax cut expire. He has not pushed to raise taxes on those most able to pay them. He has not stopped any wars, merely renamed the operations (Iraq). Nothing from him about changing the tax structure to get our Living Wage Jobs back into this country. Very little to nothing about re-regulating all the deregulating bu$h did. Kept the "No Child Left Behind" so now it is "Most Children Left Behind".

And the list goes on and on.

He wasn't listening to internet toads.

and didn't promise what he in fact promised: Among many things, we'd be redirecting efforts in Afghanistan; that though he supported single payer, in today's political climate, it's too comprehensive of an approach; that he'd push for more regulations on Wall Street, etc. The list of promises kept is very long. The problem is that too many of us on the left refused to pay attention to his record in the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate.

This guy didn't lie about anything. Voters should have known what they were voting for. If they didn't, well, as Cornel West readily admits, they should accept responsibility for failing to do their homework!

Plenty of criticism and very little constructive about it. Me, I can't wait to vote for President Obama again in 2012.

I believe there are a fair number of Republican Operatives posing as leftists and posting deceptive half-truths or outright lies.

Republicans have a history of this kind of Pot Stirring. The purpose is to divide Democrats and lower voter turn out. That's how Republicans win, when Dems sit home.

They are pushing the meme that "the two parties are just the same" expecting us to believe that when we have ACTIVE EXAMPLES OF HOW REPUBLICANS RULE in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.

They post articles and cherry pick them in order to present Obama's proposals in the worst possible light. By basically only presenting part of Obama's proposal, not the whole thing.

When you call them out on this cherry picking, they try to change the subject or pull out their "Crystal Ball" and make a dire prediction about "I just know what Obama is going to do"

They push the meme that "Obama wants to destroy Medicare" when there is tons of evidence to the contrary.

When you say "You may not like Obama, but we have to get back the House and Senate" they answer that "it doesn't matter"

Now I am not saying that all critiques of Obama's policies are coming from Republican operatives. We all wish certain things were being done differently.

But critiques are one thing - deceptive posts, appeals to our lizard brains etc are another thing entirely.

I know for a fact.. that one cave troll is in here doing just that.. and they know I know, it is just so interesting to watch

I believe there are a fair number of shills attempting to marginalize actual librul democrats because they are angered by repeated betrayals.

Republicans have a history of blind obedience.

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

yeah that was a time to remember...

Now I could give a list as long as my arm of betrayals by the Obama administration. It all starts for me with the fact that Obama gave away the public option before the HC debate really started, but I could go on to Guantanamo, the Bush tax cuts, his support for the charterization of public schools, his refusal to support unions in Wisconsion etc etc etc.

But since you can't dispute any one of these arguments, you take the easy way out--accusing anyone who disagrees with the president of being a troll.

Personally I am sick to death of the intellectual dishonesty of the persons who use this pathetically lame tactic.

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

if it's so easy, then dispute it! Calling me a liar isn't an argument.

I edited my original post because I should have addressed you, but seems like you had the mods alerted, and they deleted it without reading it:

Ok just a few examples of your oversimplification.

- Gitmo is open because of a very successful fear mongering by the Republicans. You know that as well as I do.
- Obama made several statements in support of the unionized workers in Wisc, You know that too. Now you can say "it was not enough support" and I might agree with you. But to say "no support" is untrue,
- Your description of the death of the public option is a re-write of history. The public option was killed at the end, by the likes of Liebermann,.

I know that some want to be in denial that there are republicans trolling us. But I see tactics day after day that are commonly taught in "Republican 101"

- tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth.
- spin everything negatively, using perjoritive character terms like "weak" etc
- if your spin is not working, spin the next thing
- if your tactics are discovered, try to change the subject
- electively quoting an article to twist its meaning.
- Willfully misinterpret what someone has said, and put words into their mouths,

I see Republicans use those tactics again and again on TV etc.

Those are the kinds of tactics I see being used here in order to demoralize Democratic voters. Real progressives, liberals etc don't do that sort of thing,

"I edited my original post because I should have addressed you, but seems like you had the mods alerted, and they deleted it without reading it"

I did not alert to your post. I very rearely alert to posts, hiding behind a moderator' skirt. I responded to it, offering specific rebuttals. My post was then deleted, most likely because I mentioned the phrase "personality cult."

I'll make these points again, briefly. Gitmo remains open because we cannot convict Gitmo inmates in fair trials. Too many 5th amendment violations. Obama keeps Gitmo open despite his promises to close it, because he can't get convictions. Rule of law and rights of defendants be damned, as in the Bradley Manning case.

Your description of the death of the public option is a re-write of history.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/daschle-interview/

Despite being “taken off the table” as a result of the “understanding,” the White House continued to publicly deny claims that it was backing away from the provision even as it tried to focus on other aspects of the bill.

The administration negotiated away the public option in 2009, according to Daschle and the NYT.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

The public option was killed at the end, by the likes of Liebermann

Wrong, it was negotiated away in 2009, as I have shown. Liebermann was not the only democrat running interference for Mr. Obama. Blanche Lincoln also ran interference, and this is why Obama supported her in the primary against a union-backed candidate.

Obama made several statements in support of the unionized workers in Wisc, You know that too. Now you can say "it was not enough support" and I might agree with you. But to say "no support" is untrue

So far I find only one quote, in which Mr. Obama said that it "seems" like Walker is assaulting public employees. That's a sentence, it isn't support. He has taken no action whatsoever, never went to support the workers, never used his presidential authority or his bully pulpit to thwart or obstruct walker in any way. He did nothing.

You failed to respond to several points I made originally, and you also have no substantive response to another long list of issues I could mention.

In addition to his push for charterization of public schools, he has failed to even investigate war crimes by the Bush administration, failed to even investigate Goldman Sachs, allowed vicious treatment of Bradley manning, supported the Patriot act...etc etc etc.

I was an early Obama supporter and contributor.I liked where I thought he was coming from. But I'm nobody's fan girl!

President Obama little resembles Candidate Obama.

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

My point is that Republicans are trolling the site.

If you want to be in denial about that, so be it.

I did not call you a Republican, I have never called anyone a Republican. I don't think you are a Republican

SO STOP MAKING UP SHIT ABOUT ME.

that fascist Walker threatened to call out the Guard to break public workers' strikes, Obama could have and should have promised to federalize the Wisconsin guard, thereby pulling a prop out from under Walker's fucking feet. (Not legal, you say? See Eisenhower and Little Rock, AR or JFK and George Wallace's Alabama.)

But what did Obama do? Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Fucking Disgusting.

was supposed to save WI from themselves? Federalizing WI's National Guard? Are you serious? Looks like WI got exactly what they voted for, a Repuke governor who hates the unions. Deal with it.

This has been a concerted effort on DU to imply that all those who criticize the president are republican trolls/operatives.

You have darkly hinted that I was a republican, that all of us are. You accused me of "using republican tactics."

There are coherent defenses that can be made of the Obama administration. I don't buy them, but they are out there. Simly smearing all of us who disagree isn't one of them.

THERE IS NO DARK "HINT" THAT YOU USE REPUBICAN TACTICS.

"You have darkly hinted that I was a republican, that all of us are." UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT. I DID NO SUCH THING. REREAD MY POSTS>

YOU ARE IN DENIAL THAT THERE ARE REPUBLICAN TROLLS HERE. IN MY POSTS I AM EXPLAINING WHAT REPUBLICAN TACTICS ARE IN ORDER TO HELP YOU SEE MY REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES ARE POSTING AT DU.

I EXPLAINED WHAT THE TACTICS ARE. THERE IS NOTHING IN MY POSTS THAT CALLS YOU A REPUBLICAN EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

SAYING THAT THERE ARE REPUBLICAN TROLLS HERE IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT, IT IS COMMON SENSE.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD STOP MAKING SHIT UP ABOUT ME

:grouphug:

I note that you had your little ALL CAPS rant here, but you didn't actually respond to the points I brought up.

What you are doing here, what this OP is doing here, is attempting to lump all of us who disagree in with "trolls." That's what is happening here. The trolls, such as they are, rec these posts enthusiastically, because they enjoy seeing us at each other's throats. I don't doubt that there are such operatives here, but I do doubt your paranoid hintings that they are lurking around every corner. I've talked to a few of these, though I suspect that most just rec and unrec.

You may not realize this, but each and every time you hint darkly about trolls, you are insulting me...you are insulting all of us who criticize the president. Each and every time we are accused of being "obama haters" or "leftbaggers" or "extreme leftists," that is also a smear and an insult.

Each of these posts that smears us by hinting that we "might" be trolls is such an insult. Each one of them paints us as trolls. Each and every one is an attempt to marginalize us and gloss over our numerous criticisms of the president's actions.

I WOULD APPREICATE IT IF YOU WOULD STOP MAKING SHIT UP ABOUT US.

I'm sick to death of it, too.

I can understand why some people want to be in denial about this. We are being trolled,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x558993

Please take the time to read it.

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

I've outlined the strategies, I've pointed you to a known example as well as told you about "The Great Reveal".

I am not talking about "the left" or "the center"

I am talking about Republicans, Republican Operatives, and freeper or Cave types.

Seems to me like it's much easier for a Republican to troll from the center. The ideologies are closer, the right mindset is already in place, and the goals are the same.

I think if most Republicans were capable of even pretending to be lefties, they would be lefties. That's a lot harder thing to fake, IMO, and as evidenced by the horrible job the person in your example did of pulling it off.

I have hardly ever seen anyone trying to say "don't vote for Democrat X - they're too far to the left". I think it's blindingly obvious there is almost no trolling by people posing as centrists on DU. Anyone on DU identified as a centrist, by themselves or others, tends to say "Obama/Pelosi/etc. is doing a reasonable job - vote for them, especially given the craziness/dishonesty of the Republicans".

I'm sure most of the "the Dems are too centrist" complaints on DU are genuine. Some are from people whose views are, or have been, normal to find in the Democratic party; some are from people further to the left than the Democrats have ever been - people who want to end capitalism, for instance. But, given that such views are allowed on DU, while the majority of DUers regard the DLC as evil and shout down anyone who puts forward DLC-like views, it's easier for anyone wanting to demoralise Democrats on DU to do it apparently from the left, with things like "Dems and Repubs are now the same" or "nothing ever gets changed". And I think some Republicans do troll DU in this way. How much time they put into it, I'm not sure; I wouldn't be willing to build up a persona over a number of weeks to try to persuade a few Republicans it's not worth their while voting, but it's amazing how much some people will work at things on the internet, so I reckon there have been some here.

I cannot disagree more with your post.

Again, most Republicans aren't capable of acting like Democrats, because if they could, they would be Democrats.

I think most Centrists want to shed the left anyway--or at least take them for granted at the expensive of wooing moderates. Who was it that called us "fucking retarted" and said "the professional left" needed to be drug tested?

Defending Democratic policies is part of the reason for DU's existence.

"Fucking retarded" was applied to the proposal to spend money buying ads criticising Democrats. Emanuel was against the idea of trying to make Democrats look bad. He was calling for a bit of party unity, rather than infighting.

That's what I see a lot more of than any unwarranted criticism of the President that could conceivable be classified as "trolling."

76% approval last week. 88% for those who call themselves 'liberal Democrats'. Maybe you're mistaking your personal views for 'the liberal base'.

Please tell us.

Question and latest overall result here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Breakdown by subgroups here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

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

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

and it was in Dec. 2010.

Is that what this thread is about, a troll that was immediately tombstoned, over a year ago?

One kook represents everyone who does not like Obama's right wing policies? Strawman much?

So either we have an over representation of the fringe on DU, or they have help from their republican friends.

Darn, and I tossed out my tinfoil hat!

:rofl:

this response and your follow up, just totally cracked my mirror today. lol

but if you say ONE DAMN THING about how irrational some of his liberal "supporters" may be, *poof*

:spray:

Yep... I pull out Doraldina for those posts...

Good morning! I say what a joy it is to look ahead and show you the signs of your future. So much happiness is in store for you the most brilliantly lighted stars are put to shame by the brightness of your light! Oh, happiness what an elusive thing you are, but thank GOD you were born beneath this star!

Drop another coin in the slot and I will tell you more!




I've been saying the same thing for a very long time now... this influence is what drives the best from DU, I'm convinced.

Think about it... if a party must stoop to such dirty tricks, it's only further proof... THEY GOT NUTHIN'!!

That's what happened last fall here in Wisconsin which allowed Walker to be elected and Feingold to be defeated. Too many Democrats were demoralized or in a snit about Obama or what Democrats did or didn't do in Congress and they didn't bother to go out and vote. That's what Republicans need to win election--suppress the turnout by whatever means possible, legal, illegal, or questionable.

Grow up a little.

It would take something catastrophic to discourage me from casting a ballot on Election Day. Take that back--NOTHING could keep me from casting a ballot on Election Day!
:hi:

Hey, maybe I should start a thread about it...

I, as well as other admitted leftie trolls here, do the same thing to them. I'm just more disappointed in much of the far-left's ability to be so easily misled. I expect it from the RW fringe, but not from my side.

Then, there are those that just have their own agenda and don't give a damn how they get what they want. No knowledge of government or procedure. No patience to take the time to understand either. I've said it before, I was that way in my 20s and early 30s. The insider view doesn't make it any easier for me to accept.

Being a Democrat is hard. We let anyone in with any kind of attitude and we don't require purity tests. It's easier for us to disagree with each other than to fight together. Can you imagine what we could accomplish if we actually supported each other and our politicians?

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

That's why I've become less active here, & I've been here (registered since '04) for a long time. I hear enough of the pick, pick, pick everywhere else. I sure as hell get tired of the constant barrage of negative crap that passes as constructive criticism here. Most of it looks to me to be people that love the sound of their own voices & DU's favorite subject to trash is him.

Like I said ... I've grown weary of the constant bashing.

And then some ask me why I am on this board.

Because President Obama isn't black enough.

Attempts to dismiss all political objectives held by the people as 'pet projects' are so lacking in specifics as to be nothing more than passive aggressive attempts to say 'be like me or you are wrong'. Any issue the OP does not care about is not important. The end. Just a 'pet issue'.
The OP's opinion is 'supporting Obama' but another's opinion is 'a pet project'. But what pet projects does the OP mean? The OP needs to be specific.

And I wasn't attempting to belittle a person's individual political wish list. I was simply stating that many were upset with Obama because he didn't push the agenda they wanted pushed. Maybe "pet project" was too flip, but it seemed to be the right words at the time. Agenda would have been better, I suppose.

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

I think it's a technique to stifle debate, but that's just my opinion.

Far from it. I am, however, curious why nobody here was willing to allow constructive discussion of Obama before he won the nomination, but that now he is president, that seems to be all I see here -- criticism. I also believe it is important to question leaders of either party - I don't think blind allegiance is good for our country. But I'm amazed at how little people here seem to understand the political process. If he had pushed the public option, for example, which is what a lot of people are apparently angry about, PPACA would never have made it to the signing desk. All along the process, President Obama worked with the nay-sayers to get them on board. Yes, he worked with big Pharma and he worked with the insurance industry, because if he hadn't, they would have lobbied the bill out of existence. He even worked with the republicans to get them on board, and then, six months later, NONE of the republicans he worked with on the bill remembered that they had helped write it. The midterms were coming and they had to toe a strict party line, lined up against the President. Now, it seems, many here are doing the same thing. Is there no place a Democrat can go these days for relief?

Simply put and well said. It's amazing how we expect more analytical thinking here yet some choose instead to gloss over the prickly details. The only explanation I can think of is that if you've been conditioned to despise someone for whatever reason, no amount of rational thinking can help you.

But I'm amazed at how little people here seem to understand the political process.


Most of us who are critical of Obama totally understand the political process. For instance, we weren't surprised when the Republicans went in the opposite direction on the healthcare bill. That was a no-brainer for us. We also know the difference between compromising and caving in. This isn't our first rodeo and that's why we aren't fooled by the excuses given for governing from the right.

or would you rather stick to bumpersticker non-explanations.

"We also know the difference between compromising and caving in. This isn't our first rodeo and that's why we aren't fooled by the excuses given for governing from the right."

You've proven the Op's point.

Cave: What Obama did. Result: PPACA.
Compromise: What Clinton did. Result: DADT.

a good proportion of donating posters. At least that is my best guess.

I really feel bullied by this type of behavior.

If you cannot handle debate that falls within the realm of the rules, this place may not be for you.

No one's trying to force the poster to honor it, just an attempt at civility.

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

:rofl:

:eyes:

and deliberate misinformation are presented and applauded as "truth."

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

We aren't republicans, we don't just bow our heads and obey the leader. We voted for Obama, donated our hard earned cash to Obama during the great recession. I don't think it is out of line for us to have some expectations.

Put it another way, we support the candidate Obama was. When he follows though on his campaign promises he is praised here. On the other hand when he jumps into bed with the big pharma and big banking etc... we are rightly critical.

Tell me what you would have done differently. I'm really curious.

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't have taken single payer off the table before negotiations started. I we had started at single payer we might have had a chance to keep the public option.

I would have supported our constitution and rule of law by investigating the Bush regimes most heinous crimes for example torture.

I wouldn't have wasted so much of the stimulus on tax cuts when it is the least effect way to stimulate the economy. A real stimulus might have had a real chance to improve the economy significantly, if all the wasted tax cuts had gone into public works we wouldn't be at 9% unemployment.

I would have made the Bush tax cuts a campaign issue in 2010.

I wouldn't have hired Rahm, Geithner, Simpson and so forth.

I wouldn't have fired Howard Dean as the head of the DNC.

I wouldn't have bowed my head to Fox news firing Sherrod and Van Jones based on lies and misinformation.

I would have made the repeal of the 2006 military commissions act a priority.

I would have pushed for real financial reform. As it stand right now the Banks are right back to business as usual and the bubble will burst again, and we didn't stop it when we had the chance.

And so on...

I see you got no response to your response. I guess she wasn't all that "curious".

I really do not see the point of threads like this. This board consists of Democrats from all points on the Democratic spectrum. An obvious troll has a very short shelf life here and clever trolls(do they really exist?) eventually get sussed out. As Skinner once said "if someone wants to spend hours and hours racking up thousands of posts only to have me take them out with a few key strokes fine".

Some folks here are hyper critical of Obama just as some are hyper sensitive about criticism of him. That will, and obviously has led to infighting.

Meh, it's a discussion board. Deal.

And although some will disagree use the ignore function if some bug you that much. It works.

I wouldn't have installed Arne Duncan as SecEd to further the dismantling of public education.

Would you have hired Tim Geithner and Larry Summers? Rahm?

Would you have escalated the war in Afghanistan and increased marijuana arrests?

Would you have extended the Bush Tax cuts or keep Guantanamo open?

Try answering those for a start.

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

I support when he does things like advocating the end of oil subsidies. I don't like his expansion of the bloodshed in Afghanistan, but I do appreciate the fact that OBL is gone.

It goes on and on.

When I'm critical, I'll use harsh language. But that doesn't mean I'm simply reacting from emotion. I have a degree in Political Science and History, so the argument about not understanding how government works fall a little flat with me.

That said, I do believe that their are genuine paid and unpaid trolls out there of all stripes and approaches. But I realize that their sole purpose is to sow discord by any means necessary, disguising themselves as pro-Obama or anti-Obama. As long as the shit starts flying, it doesn't matter what direction it comes from. That is their plan.

I try to avoid the shouting matches like this one nowadays, I've got better things to do with my time. But if I see a nice reasonable discussion of something substantive, instead of a string of "deleted message" posts, then I'll step in.

I'm going to vote for him simply because the Republican (whoever it happens to be) will be many times worse. In the current political climate, Republicans will be lucky to escape with their skins. Here it is 2011 and the Republicans are being lambasted by their current antics at the state level(Scott Walker ,for example) or the Paul Ryan Tax Plan at the Federal level. The backlash is only beginning at the grassroots level but I think that it isn't going to go away. This is what the Teabaggers wish they had, actual genuine grass roots. Poll after poll shows strong support for liberal policies. The problem is leaders that won't lead us where the public wants to go.

Going forward, if Obama can break free of this "bipartisanism" delusion, then we can move forward as a country, and he will have everybody enthusiastically behind him.

a story that has near zero interest here at DU, and for one reason: Obama is president.

and my post got deleted, probably because I pointed out how Candidate Obama was all for transparency and the value of whistleblowers, but President Obama is doing the Nixon thing.

The question is, "Is Obama anti-Democratic?"

--imm

I applaud them.

Unfortunately, it also has a large contingent of paid and unpaid RW trolls whose sole purpose is to stir up hate against him by piling on.

trolls play at full-flag fandom, flaming anyone who has a serious concern. Really pisses some off. I watched in the election how those who were rabid fans turned off serious thinkers. Maybe the right thought that would do the same here.

They wanted President Obama to pound his shoe on the podium and go after Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, the media, corporate interests, Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, corporate lobbyists, the oil industry, China, India, the Sudan, etc. etc. etc. And if he failed to live up to their expectations, then he's a sell-out.

What they don't see is that if Obama did all of that, then his presidency would be nothing more than a joke, and his own party would be working hard to select a different nominee in 2012.

Obama is as progressive as the system allows. If progressives want a more progressive government, then they have to work harder to elect more progressives at all levels in order to make it happen.

You cannot let Ted Kennedy's seat go to a Republican, and then get mad at Obama for not being progressive enough.

:applause:

Well said Yavin4.

that he uses a RW (flip-flopper). talking point against a hardworking Democrat and key Obama ally and Kennedy friend in Senator Kerry.


Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but that's how I see. RW memes are false when it comes to the president, but Democrats they don't like, they are accepted truth when they were proven false to begin with.


But back to your OP, the Anti-Obama brigade started before he was inaugurated. Chickens coming home to roost.

sweep out years of Washington lobbyism, cronyism, and special interest entrenchment.

You want the kind of President they conjure up in the movies, where the bad guys are easily vanquished and the "right thing to do" eventually prevails. But do you really think a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich or an Alan Grayson could part the seas with their rhetoric if they were in the Oval Office?

I think not.

Anyone who LISTENED to Obama's speeches during 2008 was warned that this wasn't going to be easy. There is no way to set a timetable on making the major changes that the country needs. The thing to do is make the incremental shifts to start things headed in the correct direction.

And that is being done.

If you think someone else could do it faster or more effectively, go get them elected.

and the way forward would be difficult?

The remainder of your post is just too foolish to respond to. You have no clue what I want or what I care about.

A lot of us knew this country was in shit shape when the President took over.

We did not expect a miraculous turnaround.

IMO, he's doing as well as he can with the shit he has to deal with and the dynamics of Congress in play. Given the shitstorm left by the Bush administration, I'm fine with who we have starting to steer us out of it. I don't think there's a better-suited temperament out there right now.

That in your opinion he is doing as well as he can given the current situation. I can respect that.

I really wish he could, but according to this argument, he isn't the one who could make the country to in a better direction. The best he can do, your argument goes, is kind of slow down the neocon takeover.

It often seems that Obama is playing a defensive game. And he gives in. And gives in some more with the compromises.

You cannot let Ted Kennedy's seat go to a Republican, and then get mad at Obama for not being progressive enough.

Thank you. Seriously.

What I expected was a president who would stand up to the military industrial complex and various corporate interests. I expected no miracles, I didn't really think Obama would be able to do much anyways with how corrupt the dem leadership and how absurd the republicans are.

I expected him to be right on the issues. I in no way expected him to achieve his stated position on almost any of them given the insane amount of opposition any of those positions would create.

What disappointments me is the fact that his policy positions are wrong when it comes to some of the most important issues of our time. Whether its foreign policy, trade or civil rights there is just an unending list of things he is wrong about.

Afghanistan, free trade deals with India and other countries, the Patriot Act, extending the Bush tax cuts, massive austerity cuts to the budget from social programs, Putting people like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in his administration, support for off-shore oil drilling, blocked human rights investigations at Guantanamo, Supporting the coup of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, bailed on the public option, gave up drug re-importation before the health care debate even began.

It just goes on and on. I'm fucking sick of it, Obama supports the same old imperialistic neo-liberal bullshit.

Some would make the case that Kennedy's lost seat was BECAUSE of the way the Obama sold out on HCR. He disillusioned EVERYONE by his sellouts to big Pharma and his "deals" with Nebraska.

First, the HCR debate was not settled at the time of the Mass. special election. In fact, the Public Option was still a remote possibility. If Progressives truly wanted to have the P.O., then why not work harder to elect a real Progressive to the Senate from that state, a state that is hospitable to Progressives.

Finally, the whole "Progressives are disheartened because of Obama" meme is not only tired, but it's dead wrong. Progressives in Wisconsin are working hard to unseat state Republican senators. Progressives in Vermont are working hard to pass single payer health care. They're not disheartened by Obama.

Both are prime examples of how Progressives need to stop seeing themselves as political victims and instead work hard for their goals.

The primary complaint of many was the process, the back door deals that weren't back door by then. The deals with Nebraska medicare, the agreement with Big Pharma, and there were already stories on the street that they had "sold off" the public option. Whether you supported the public option, or HCR at all, all of this stuff was extremely objectionable. They lost the Kennedy seat because of the independents, not the progressives. If they lose in 2012, it will be because the independents abandon them, not the progressives.

They just want someone who attends to their pet projects or else.

Just do it after you take the oath. It's the best way to avoid looking like a joke.

There is a wee bit of bigotry in tarring all progressives with a 'progressives who are unhappy with Obama wanted an activist instead of a leader' meme. This is both irresponsible and disingenuous.

For those who felt Obama would make manifest the hope and change he promised during his campaign, his lackluster and often antithetical performance is grounds for concern, if not criticism.

Obama's assault on our system of public education is reason enough for me to question his intent and his integrity. That is not only my RIGHT, it is my RESPONSIBILITY as a citizen of this nation.

And, as a teacher, I can guarantee you that I possess the cognitive and deductive reasoning skills to ascertain when I'm being offered a plate full of red herrings.

:thumbsup: Let the haters and/or Koch Bros. pay for the hate.

To label him as "weak", "spineless" and "not a leader", or threatening to sit out 2012 or wanting to primary him.

A lot of things that come from specious sources are heavily rec'ed for saying something negative about the President - even after they're debunked. If it insults or attacks the President it "sells" around here.

People can call it "pushing him to succeed", but in a lot of cases, that's a weak excuse to lambaste him for not dealing with their nearest, dearest issue as soon or as completely as they wanted.

It will be interesting when the 2012 GE begins in earnest.

You can see the standard techniques of Republican 101

- repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true

- spin everything negatively. When your spin is not working, go on to a new subject

- employ terms like "weak" in order to discredit democrats

- selectively quote articles to present Dems in the worst light, leaving out the parts that tell the whole story

- willfully MISINTERPRET Obama's statements so that if he said "I support white" his statement comes out as "he wants to destroy white."

Endgame - divide and conquer, lower Democratic voter turn-out

There's a LOT more money behind destroying the left than destroying Obama.

I think that's a legitimate complaint, but we're probably going to disagree on that.

I don't know what kinds of problems you've been having, doubtless some of them are similar to what I've listed - subject changing. lies, etc. I don't doubt that there may be some conservative dems who don't fight fair.

On the other hand, are they promoting third party voting in order to lower Democratic voter turn-out?

Hahahaha. :rofl:

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

No doubt in my mind.

Probably less than 1% of voters even know what DU is. Heck, I am a committed long time Democrat and I hadn't even hear about DU until 2008.

are leading Democrats to give up and supporting cave-in politics as somehow a good thing. They like to say that Obama has no power and can't get things done so that we should cheer him anyway and just resign ourselves to losing.

My argument is just as valid as yours.

When I hear the idiot right attack Obama, he gets points from me. When I hear apologists and knee-jerk supporters lambast decent DUers and praise every concession to the right as good politics, I begin to question their motives. Do they really want us going right?

It makes much more sense that they would troll this board, than it would that Republican operatives were the ones disguising themselves as critics of Obama from the left. In fact, that seems like something a centrist troll would say.

and entirely deliberate: Louder Than Words

Now, explain why "Obama is running again" is being used as a pejorative (could be the opener for any RW video) to launch a grassroots movement?

From the link:



West screed of late is completely deliberate. He wants people to believe he's Obama's black conscience, standing up for poor blacks, but in reality he's speaking for anti-Obama forces:



The Hedges article was an attempt to go for broke. For West, it's personal.

The question is why can't they start a movement focused on policies and people instead of Obama?

It's also weird because Obama is President, but he's not the entire government. We have a Congress. They've had two years (even before that) to build a movement focus on nurturing progressive candidates and supporting progressive policies, but that's not their focus. Their sole focus is Obama.

:patriot:

It is not like a captive, monomaniacal Repuke site -- nor even one of the Democratic Party itself.

Some of us were big Obama boosters in 2008 who have become disillusioned -- but those like myself will still vote for his reelection in 2012, though not work for him.

Because the election is not all about Obama.

Any President who tries to effect change by working within the system is therefore looked at with disdain.

There are many who wish we would take to the streets and demand our fair share...I.e. Redistribution to the point where no one is excessively rich beyond what they find acceptable.

All the concentration would be on the comfort of the poor and benefits for themselves provided for by the rich.

It's your position too?

That he is a tool of the system? That raising taxes on the rich isn't his line in the sand?

People that like Obama are in the middle. I think both the left and the right would run dysfunctional countries.

and every other Western democracy that has national health insurance.

You are saying that people who like Obama are in a political wilderness?

Just because one wants to bring relief to the poor doesn't always mean it requires punishing or oppressing the rich?

Certainly some want to make the rich pay for their active oppression of the poor, but not everyone does. You are repeating a common falsehood of the right when you speak like that.

...no matter who is promoting or enabling it. For them, each policy/political decision is evaluated separately - good or bad.

Count me in that group.

There is no one opinion on DU. It's a collective of differing opinions. -- the basic thing in common is not wanting to see the GOP in charge.

Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be people are strongly pro-Obama, or anti-Obama or somewhere in between.

That's why I usually go elsewhere to have productive conversation about President Obama. It's also why many of our best chose to leave DU altogether.


-

What gets my gall, is that when he does something the naysayers have to respect, they bray like donkeys that "they" made him do it by spewing their bile.

Thus, he gets absolutely no credit at all. He only does something right because they complained about him. You know, "pushed him" to do it.

on what they claim he did wrong! If they have that power, where were they on the issues about which they did not like the outcome? :rofl:

...there are more people here who think as you do than not.

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

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

It's been nearly an hour now since its completion, and there are maybe three threads--one of which announces how boring it was. None of these threads has more than a handful of comments.

It is clear that very few here watched or even read it (one post contains the written text of the speech and currently has four responses).

But wait till this afternoon or evening, once Common Dreams or Matt Taibi or what/whomever has dug out of it some nugget to flail about and criticize. We will suddenly have hundreds of "experts" excoriating the speech. Though they never, of course, read or saw it.

This is the pattern I see here so often: third-hand hearsay propels discussion, all of it cherry-picked by those looking for something to reflect badly on the president. Rinse, repeat.

I have no problem with legitimate misgivings about this president, but I find that 75% of the criticism is from those who have never taken the time to listen or read first-hand, and who are predisposed to find whatever they can on the internet that would be critical, without ever observing, listening, or thinking for themselves.

Bring it on.

There were extremely few posts regarding the speech or the announcement of support for the 67 borders for more than an hour. It was only after people consulted secondary sources who reported it that we got any reaction whatsoever.

Ergo: few are thinking for themselves about the President. Second-hand sources provide all "proper" responses. And sometimes those sources have biases, one way or the other. I don't like being told what to think, good or bad, and I don't think others should either. It explains the herding mentality here.

This was particularly evident during the health-care debate, when more (negative) misinformation was being pushed around this place than should have been tolerable.

Some are very well meaning and believe that their negative pressure helps this President put things in perspective....

Some support this President and try to understand what he is actually up against and respect
him enough to believe that he will do what he can in the long run to bring us forward all in consideration of our political climate....

while others still simply don't give a shit.....
because playing politics for them is more important than what the results of
their advocacy could bring on the down side.

and some are simply not well meaning at all....

Some don't believe there is a difference between the 2 parties,
and if there is, they are not sure as to what degree......

some don't believe that there is enough of a difference to matter,
of course, until when it does....at which time, they will go ballistic
and freak out, etc...

Some folks profess that they will not work or donate to this president's
campaign....although they say they "care" a whole lot about issues.....but it is
hard to reconcile the amount of their "Care", considering that they are willing to
see a Republican take the office so that they can say "told you so"...which for some
is that much more important to them personally.

Some wanted a socialist President, although one didn't run, and they figured
that if they elected a Black President, he would be radical in his change mantra
and turn the United States of America on its head and totally change our economical
system.

What they really wanted was a Socialist Dictator who would simply impose something close to
Sweden, but even if he had done that they would not be satisfied, cause there's always gonna
be something. Their disappointment should be with their own unrealistic expectations, but instead
they choose to blame the President by his lonesome for everything they haven't yet gotten in
the President's 2.4 years in belief that since this President didn't nationalize the banks, perked walked every banker to the jailhouse, hired only liberals to his economic team and didn't bother to prosecute Bush for his warcrimes, then this President is a failure.

Some will never like any President, no matter who the President is.

In otherwords, everybody wants something, some more than others, and for some, they want a different president and nothing more will do.

Too many aren't willing to do anything more than to sit back and criticize. They believe that is what Activism means, but it doesn't. These are the folks that weren't there at the town hall meetings when the Teaparty got started with healthcare, and they weren't there to support the Democratic Candidate from MA when it was needed, and they weren't there to do all that they could for 2010, and they won't be there in 2012.....

In otherwords, we, who will work for, donate and vote for Pres. Obama for whatever our own reaason are on our own saving this country from itself....because there are those who talk as if they care a lot about our future, but aren't really all into that working to get it done thingie....

Well, there's your problem right there.

very much a demonstration of the problem.


-

Already I'm getting attacked for my opinions here, which is predictable for a subject line like this.

would be allowed to stand all day long. Not saying it wouldn't. Just wondering.

eom

Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be one.

At least that's my impression. People may criticize some of his policies like tax cuts and foreign wars and Gitmo, but that doesn't mean people are anti-Obama.

I think, overall, DU is pro-Obama.

he gets a huge pass at DU.

Peter Fonda calls Obama 'traitor' at Cannes



Keep em coming folks!!

:rofl:

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

But at some point they need get real and come home and support the family.. the enemy lurks nearby.

The Kindness of a Stranger
“Who is this man?”



Mary Menth Andersen was 31 years old and had just married Norwegian Dag Andersen. She was looking forward to starting a new life in Åsgårdstrand in Vestfold with him. But first she had to get all of her belongings across to Norway. The date was November 2nd, 1988.

At the airport in Miami things were hectic as usual, with long lines at the check-in counters. When it was finally Mary’s turn and she had placed her luggage on the baggage line, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.

“You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway,” the man behind the counter said.

Mary had no money. Her new husband had traveled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.

“I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions”, says Mary.

Although she explained the situation to the man behind the counter, he showed no signs of mercy.

“I started to cry, tears were pouring down my face and I had no idea what to do. Then I heard a gentle and friendly voice behind me saying, ‘That’s OK, I’ll pay for her’.”

Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.

“He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was: Who is this man?”

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.

“He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants,” says Mary.

She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

The piece of paper said ‘Barack Obama’ and his address in Kansas, which is the state where his mother comes from. Mary carried the slip of paper around in her wallet for years, before it was thrown out.
“He was my knight in shining armor!” says Mary, smiling.

She paid the 103 dollars back to Obama the day after she arrived in Norway. At that time he had just finished his job as a poorly paid community worker* in Chicago, and had started his law studies at prestigious Harvard university.

In the spring of 2006 Mary’s parents had heard that Obama was considering a run for president, but that he had still not decided. They chose to write a letter in which they told him that he would receive their votes. At the same time, they thanked Obama for helping their daughter 18 years earlier.

In a letter to Mary’s parents dated May 4th, 2006 and stamped ‘United States Senate, Washington DC’, Barack Obama writes**:

‘I want to thank you for the lovely things you wrote about me and for reminding me of what happened at Miami airport. I’m happy I could help back then, and I’m delighted to hear that your daughter is happy in Norway. Please send her my best wishes. Sincerely, Barack Obama, United States Senator.’
The parents sent the letter on to Mary.

This week VG met her and her husband in the café that she runs with her friend Lisbeth Tollefsrud in Åsgårdstrand.

“It’s amazing to think that the man who helped me 20 years ago may now become the next US president,” says Mary delightedly.

She has already voted for Obama. She recently donated 100 dollars to his campaign.

She often tells the story from Miami airport, both when race issues are raised and when the conversation turns to the presidential elections.

“I sincerely hope the Americans will see reason and understand that Obama means change,” says Mary.

And here she is with her husband and the letter.

SOURCE: http://www.zenmoments.org/the-kindness-of-a-stranger/

(Pictures did not copy here for some reason...)

If you go by policies and not charisma.