when you voted for Obama, did you expect or want him to give up so much to the GOP, so far,

for very little in return?

However, it's clear to me that Obama won this one, hands down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x729581

It's clear he got everything he wanted.

Note: I don't necessarily agree with everything he wanted, in fact, I considered him a mediocre candidate to begin with. I'm merely pointing out the fact that he won this one.

I haven't read it yet, gettin ready for work.

Obama could announce his decision to end Social Security and his desire to legislate all the powers of the executive branch directly to the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and that would be a win for a certain faction of DU members.

But those of us who expected it were pretty roundly abused back in 2008.

I even used the word "plutocrat". I was basically told to shut up and throw more confetti.

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

I expected Obama to be a corporatist like Clinton or Bush Sr. on important things, and his social policies to be more progressive but more shallow and showy. Even so, not-Hilary was apparently qualitatively vastly superior to the Republican offering.

As the Republican/Tea Party begin spiraling down the toilet, I didn't expect Obama - hell, I wouldn't have expected ANY Democratic President - to follow them in lockstep, round and round, one step to the left, one step to the right.

I think that while running for office, and before, he defined his positions relative to other Democrats - stay right in the middle of the pack and ignore outsiders screaming at you. Now he finds himself surrounded by the Tea Party and Wall Street, and seems to be practicing the same technique, with, well, interesting results. Wall Street is, at least, consistent. "Give us all your money. We'll plant it in our secret garden and the magic of compound interest will grow ponies for everyone. We promise."

Trying to compromise with the Tea Party is like trying to please that abuser who is only happy with that moment of your despair when you realize you are going to be hit again, and are not going to leave.

Are you for real?? Not that you have an agenda with those questions or anything!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Big ol' unrec and I can't believe you got 30 lost souls to even vote in this foolishness!!! :rofl: :rofl:

Obama hasn't "given up" to the GOP, except in an imaginary progressive narrative.

And good returns.

Ultimately would I like to have seen DADT repeal, UI Extension, the Dream Act, and the tax cuts expired for people over $250,000. Of course. But it is a straight up lie that we got nothing in return. We got UI Extension and DADT repeal for the extension.

Now, you might say we should have just let them expire for everybody, and gotten no UI Extension and no DADT repeal. That's your choice. Those were the choices.

If Democrats had started an out and out fight with the GOP by submitting an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and expiration on the top incomes back in 2009, they would likely have not gotten to the point where their backs were to the wall.

If they had submitted that and resubmitted it over ands over, and loudly challenges the GOP for protecting the rich at the expense of the middle class, it would have likely come to a real vote a lot sooner. And even if not it would have given the dems the chance to tar the GOP as "blocking your tax cut so the wealthy don't have to pay."

These are not "only two" binary choice issues. But they do require a desire and willingness to be more proactive against the GOP.

He understood the big picture during the primary, to squeeze every delegate out of the par 3 states, making Hillary's domination of the par 5 states all but meaningless.

Similarly I thought he'd realize how short his honeymoon would be in a tanking economy, and that the major revenue issues had to be dealt with immediately. Your summary is perfect. Obama attached easily remembered themes to his campaign but nothing similar to his presidency.

Now he's in jeopardy of becoming a reference point for decades, with every nearby Democratic nominee belittled by the GOP as another Carter or Obama.

Democrats who are elected to the presidency in this period of history are beholden to Wall Street and to some sectors of corporate America. If there is any doubt of where their loyalty lies, they are eliminated. This doesn't have to be bloody, Assassination by media is a tried and proven method of getting rid of someone who might, just might, challenge the Powers That Be (witness Ross Perot, Howard Dean & maybe Elliott Spitzer)

Though the Powers That Be for obvious reasons prefer Republicans, Democrats are preferred to do the unpopular things needed to clean up the messes left by Republican presidents. Bill Clinton cleaned up the budget deficits left by Reagan and Bush the Elder. They can also advance the corporate agenda in ways that a Republican would never in a million years be able to do. NAFTA & GATT were championed by Bill Clinton. The results have proved Ross Perot's prediction of a "giant sucking sound" as manufacturing jobs went to places where wages were low, unions banned or tightly controlled and environmental regulations. He also signed the repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. This enabled many of the abuses which led to our current financial mess.

Hopefully Obama will be able to get through his term without causing major damage as, unfortunately, Clinton ended up doing (He now regrets signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall).

Despite this, I do believe that America was in better hands under Bill Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes especially George the Lesser. Barak Obama is far better than John McCain would have been or than any of the current crop of GOP Presidential wannabes. Dennis Kucinich is not going to be President of the United States. Neither (Unfortunately) will Howard Dean, Russ Feingold nor anyone else who embraces an openly populist agenda without a major shift in the attitudes of people in this country.

Am I thrilled with this? No. I am, however, a realist. Until those of us who advocate a more fair and humane society learn to talk to those who should, by virtue of their financial situation, should be on our side but instead are our most fierce opponents, this situation will remain.

:eyes:

This should be an OP.

as he has. The list of major accomplishments is LONG and has been posted many times.

Did anybody expect that we'd get any tax reforms/increased revenue with them running the House and/or that there would not be some cuts (austerity) coming no matter what? Besides those things, what have the Republicans won in the long run? So, they can go to the voters and brag about their "cuts" next year or the vote for Ryan's "Ayn Rand" Medicare-busting budget? Are any of them going to licking their chops about possibly causing/voting for draconian spending cuts (or even tax increases?) before standing for re-election in 2012? :shrug: This deal sucks IMHO but let's not pretend that getting what we think we should've got was actually realistic in the face of not getting the debt ceiling raised and defaulting because of the Mad Republican Tea Party. :shrug:

When you begin with an unreasonable position any concession is a "cave" or "capitulation."

I didn't expect dozens of Tea Partiers would seize control of the republican party. I didn't expect that the economic recovery would be as slow or uneven as its been.

It's THAT simple?

Good god this shows a propensity to blame EVERYTHING on Obama to the point to absolute obsession. You are not objective.

we are paying for it.

It amazes me fools like you love Obama so much and consider him such a leader when he had not done much leading on major issues.

Keep on the rose colored glasses. Believe me, I wish i could be in the mode many of you are. It would be much more fun.

they didn't exactly go gang-busters. We are lousy as a majority party, and lousy as the opposition party.

no, you can carry that burden

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

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

as a community organizer. You don't answer these things, just turn it around and redirect. If the shoe fits wear it. The name calling is appropriate in this instance as it points out how deranged you
sound when you call Obama a neocon.

I certainly figured he would have to deal with whatever realities faced us.

Your question is loaded with your own opinion and thus cannot be answered by anyone except yourself and those who agree with you 100%.

And by the better end of the deal do you mean what those who voted for him want (which is often the same as what most people want) or what he himself wanted?

"those who voted for him wanted", I've yet to find any agreement on that. It seems everyone wanted something different. What I find to be arrogant are those who think that what they wanted is what everyone else wanted.

I thought nothing of it. I figured that Obama wanted Clinton's supporters and he didn't want to be confrontational with her.

Also, he was very calm in the GE even though he was savaged by the Republicans. He seemed calm, cool and collected and the American people appreciated that at the time.

However, now is the time for him to really fight and he just seems so lifeless, no fight at all in him. He can't seem to adapt to the political environment. He still wants to be Mr. Nice Guy while the GOP wants to walk all over him and that just ain't gonna work right now.

in reality, he seems to largely agree with Republican priorities based on his actions.

He gives minimal lip service to progressive priorities, but when the rubber meets the road, he ACTS on republican priorities.

Given what he is up against, I'm happy with Obama. He has not made any concessions that would cause me to re-think my 2008 vote.