I DON'T WANT a President that reaches out to Teabaggers

and I don't want a President that panders to Independents either.

I want a President that makes a stand on issues... and stands by them!

It's on the front page now.

They just want the attention.

of the conversation away from criticism of Obama.

They are doing exactly the wrong thing. If they would join us in telling the president he is on the wrong course, he would benefit. Obviously those that have his ear are doing a world of harm to his chances for re-election.

I do not believe the un-recommenders are seeking attention at all.

As long as there aren't enough votes with Independents he will need some of them. Teabaggers are a lost cause because they were a Trojan Horse for the nuts in the Republican Party.

I'm an Independent who is more liberal than, say, Obama's "base" these days.

that has almost always voted D, is very liberal and he has never voted for a republican. I had always thought independents were more on the conservative side until I met him and quite a few other independents.

Caving in to declared enemies doesn't look strong. Did Bush ever give a shit about what the left thought?

You are right. They vote for someone who acts like he knows what he is doing and gets it done.

They vote for competence as shown in performance.

Obama appears competent when he speaks, but his performance does not appear competent.

... unfortunately, they are the same interests as the corporate robber barons.

in and of itself, and that he should never ask for something he might not get.

That is why we are going backwards under his weak leadership.

Compromise is an end in and of itself, that is if you believe he is actually compromising. I've come to believe that he is playing 11 dimensional chess, but his opponents are the people who voted for him, not the GOP. Fortunately, the scabs have fallen from some of our eyes.

he wants. That's why he has so much contempt for progressives. He thinks we're fools for believing his lies in 2008.

Oh c'mon!

I don't think he's week either. I think he's weak.

You blue dogs really are at a loss when it comes to defending this guy.

Tearing down Obama helps the GOP nominee, likely Perry.

See, at some level your statement confirms my fears that things have really went off track when it comes to this Administration's policies. Can't you think of SOMETHING more positive?

Please?

:applause:

his habit of catering to Republicans and Teabaggers rather than the American People who on almost every issue supported by Progressive Democrats, are overwhelmingly in favor of them.

People do not understand why he will not take a stand for what is right. Why he attacks his own party and supporters every chance he gets.

You are not going to make much progress with 'well, he's better than insand, crazy, fringe morons on the right'. Just about anyone is better than them. This is not a persuavive argument. Sooner or later his supporters are going to have to come up with something better than that. I want to support him, but I cannot argue against the fact that he will not stand and fight for Democratic Issues, and that is the question EVERYONE is asking, 'why'?? Do YOU know why?

Then read it again.

It looks like you agree with his point.

Obama acts. We just comment.

Usually I act during campaign season. I think I will sit this one out.

If he showed the courage of his convictions, he'd have Holder fill a thousand-page document full of "WHEREAS"es, and with the stroke of the pen, declare the RNC and their Teabagger attack dogs terrorist organizations, sieze their leaders, freeze their assets and start doing what's right for the country.

Teabaggers have proven by their terrorist tactics that they are racists of the worst kind, pure and simple. They need to be given a taste of their own medicine. They love their little Chimpy so much - how'd they like it if THEY got done like Chimpy did innocent women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Obama needs to understand that 47% of America is un-reachable. They're a racist, hateful, intolerant minority just like the whites in South Africa. But the truth is they don't get to have their apartheid any longer.

If the Pukes and the Baggers are allowed to steal THIS election like they've stolen every single one in the past, you just watch. Women going out of the boardrooms and back into the kitchens. African Americans swinging from trees (and you KNOW who they'd love to go first!).

I won't go so far as to say the only good Puke is a dead Puke but these people need to PAY for what they've done. 500 continuous years of slavery, Jim Crow and hate-crimes have gone unrecognized and unpunished - they STILL won't apologize for owning PEOPLE, forpetesake! The only successful genocide in history has gone unpunished.

It's time to clean house. We're at a crossroads. Get rid of 'em now or get rid of 'em later when the cost is so much higher.

But I believe the number is more like 40% or even 37%. The media gives them a much larger voice that is warranted by the actual numbers.

If Obama took a stand against cuts to the social safety net maybe even advocating boosting it and if he stood fast with organized labor, including public workers, his poll numbers would soar.

Welcome to DU.

those poor delusional people!:sarcasm:

If he is "everybody's president" why does he do the opposite of what 80% of that everybody wants? (tax the rich and leave entitlements alone).
Doing the opposite of what one runs on is not leadership, it is either lying or cowardice, I personally think he agrees with the money people and that is why they get everything they want in negotiations while the people get the bill, he is not weak, just a Republican that ran as a Democrat to get elected off a platform of lies.

Leadership my ass, he is being led by the nose by the republicans at every negotiation, you may think he is just too weak to fight them, I am convinced he is one of them just running a con job of promises he never even tried to keep.

he does NOT represent anyone but the wealthy interest. Stop the bullshit already.

:fistbump:

Caving in and not taking stands is the worst possible approach to winning independents. They could mostly care less what the stands are about.

Some of the same people liked both Paul Wellstone and Michelle Bachmann. Why? Because they like gutsy politicians. It doesn't matter what the actual stand is. They want politicians who believe what they say and stick to it.

How rediculous? Independants vote specifically on issues. They just don't vote straight ticket because they think first!

and sadly, most Americans are low-information voters.

Most issue voters agree with the left on everything.

That's the schtick. It's about appearances.

I wouldn't insult independents that way. They aren't that stupid and shallow.

and stick with it.

Anybody who switch-hits between the parties IS stupid and shallow, and has no principles.

He has been posting on this board for a few years and has taken many stands on issues (alway to the left).. He is neither stupid or shallow. You just insulted me, my hubby lame54 and a few other duers with that comment

As I've pointed out in many posts, "Independents" are not a block to reach out to. They range from Nazis to Communists. The mythical 'Independent vote' which supposedly hovers between Dems and Republicans, which conservadems insist we must reach out to, THEY are the passionless, principleless switch-hitters, and THEY are the stupid and shallow, swayed by charm or the most recent headline.

I stand by what I said: switch-hitters are stupid and shallow, and politicians who strive for that non-existant Independent vote are also stupid and shallow.

The way to get the vote of independents is to stand firm on your principles - you can't bend toward where they are because there is no there there.

You do realize there are many independents who are to the left of many D's and that is why they are registered as independents. I guess Bernie Sanders is also too stupid and shallow for you.
I'll be sure to let hubby lame54 know just how you feel about him. He does not have a problem taking a stand on issues he believes in. He does prefer to do it in his own style. Here are a few vids he has made over the years where he definitely takes a stand .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHtap7uUSBM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZoq3gPTgnE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxF4y9tSG08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr8k8WHTzN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM

troglodye American Nazi Party 'Independent'.

True?

nazi's, communist or any of the other endearing terms you have used.
Just like all D's are not equal.


on edit: to answer your question No, it was you that stated Independents were shallow, stupid and range from Nazi's to Communists. You seem to not know that there might be quite a few who more along the lines of Bernie Sanders.

That is EXACTLY the point I'm making - that it makes no political sense to try for the 'Independent vote' because there is NO INDEPENDENT BLOCK. Independents are all over the map, from the farthest right to the farthest left, and the farthest sideways, and only a precious few are the 'centrists' that supposedly lie between the Republicans and Democrats - and that precious few are too stupid to breathe. There is nothing that Obama could say that would appeal to both the RW independent and to your hubby.

You win elections by winning the independents. You lose elections by TRYING to win the independents.

Obviously, more than a few, both in Washington and here, haven't learned that.

nowhere did I state that there was an independent block that should be pursued. What i objected to was the broad brush you used in calling all Independents stupid and shallow and not caring or taking a stand on issues.

Again I ask is Bernie Sanders too stupid and shallow for you? Do you believe he does not care about issues?

as if they WERE such a block, as if independents were that squishy middle who could be, and should be, played to. That poster never replied, but you picked up the ball and ran off the field with it. "Don't pick on the independents - they aren't stupid and shallow" - except a good percentage of them ARE. A great many independets are fascists, are Dominionists, or dwell in the mucky middle with no convictions at all. "Independents" who drift from the Reform Party to the American Patriot Party to whatever because they don't really understand what's going on.

There is not big 'I' Independents - there are just a bunch of independents, and some know what they're doing and most don't.

You are defending a group that does not exist.

It is a media creation - they offer a choice of Republican, Democrat, and Other, and call everyone who chooses Other "Independents" as if it was a coherent group. You know better.

Bernie, hubby and a few friends. With the way my party is heading there might be a lot more who do not wish to identify with the D's and chose to register as Independent.
You didn't qualify your statement with most are many, you said Independents were shallow and stupid.

My only objection was the broad brush you used in painting all Independents as shallow and stupid. I am neither "dense" nor do I need an education on what registering as an Independent means. It means simply that you do not wish to join a political party.

At least you admitted some do know what they are doing. I hope you include Bernie, my hubby and a few others as those who know what they are doing. with that I call a truce. :hi:

They will tell you that they "vote for the man."

They may come in all stripes and colors and a minority of them may be very committed on certain issues, but in general, they will vote for a candidate's personality or perhaps his or her stand on a pet issue.

the independents will come and join him/her. The trick is to overcome the negative republican spin. Those bastards are good at framing an issue, so we need to find a way to counter that spin.

Well, I guess the first thing would be to find a president who embraces good Democratic policies.

Look at Wisconsin and Ohio. Just look at the blow-back against Walker and Kasich. The people are united in an anti Republican wave of anger.

Obama could easily ride that wave of pro-union populism to a second term. People here in Ohio are pissed off at Kasich. And I don't mean a little bit, either. Tens of thousands of Republicans have signed the kill bill 5 petition.

Obama has done NOTHING to take advantage of this. NOTHING. All Obama has to do is stand up for the unions and voice some strong criticism of Walker, Kasich, Scott and Snyder. Where he should be ripping them a new asshole he won't whimper a single word of criticism.

What does this tell us? It tells me that in his heart he is in their corner.

Hey Obama, prove me wrong. Say something critical of Walker. Use some strong terms. We want to see it.

...if he simply STOOD UP unequivocally FOR:

His popularity would SOAR.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want a president that can reach out to all Americans to help empower them against the corporations and monopolists who are in control of our government. There are many on the right (not just the left) who are being hurt in this recession/depression, and who are ripe for a conversion experience. That requires a Democratic leader who correctly identifies the source of their problems, and who champions policies that give ordinary working Americans a reasonable shot at a meaningful and dignified life.

By turning his back on the people who voted for him in favor of the puppet-masters who really run things, Obama has, in the eyes of much of the country, devalued the Democratic brand. We're not seen as being much different than the other side, it's one huge money party instead of a Democratic and Republican Party.

I want a president who crusades against the health insurance industry, trying to entirely eliminate those corporations, since they suck up huge amounts of this country's wealth without really contributing anything.

I want a president who explains that we can no longer afford our insanely bloated "defense" and "security" apparatus, and that it provides us with neither defense nor security. I want a president that dismantles our overgrown infrastructure of empire.

I want a president that truly believes in freedom for individuals, not for corporations. and that dismantles the insane drug laws prison industry in this country.

I want a president that works to create good jobs here in America instead of working to secure more trade agreements at the behest of corporate interests, who want cheap labor and easy access to natural resources everywhere on the planet.

It goes on and on. If we do it right, there are many on the right, and in the center, who will see reality and come to our side. The way Obama is doing it, I can't even defend his policies to a libertarian or a right-winger, except to point out that their guys are worse. We're being misrepresented by a corporatist who triangulates against his base by cozying up to Republicans and their bankrupt policies.

How about reaching out to American Jihad?

You think there is NOBODY who he should compromise with, no matter how much they want to destry this country?

and independents are the plurality, maybe even majority, of the population. So no matter what YOU want, a president who would "reach out" only to a minority of the population, i.e., the left, would be a BAD president.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-party-identification/Democrats-Independents-Republicans plurality, not majority

Nice trend about Rs in the that chart, by the way, not too good for Ds, but better than for teh Rs

If the only objective is to cater to independents to get reelected, (doesn't matter what we do to the country in the process I guess) then we we should define independents.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79246/independent-voters-barack-obama-midterms

the Pew Research Center distinguished between four groups of Republican and Democratic leaners: “Shadow Republicans,” “Disaffected Republicans,” “Doubting Democrats,” and “Shadow Democrats.”

(4) About one-third of independents are important swing voters: The two other groups, the Disaffected Republicans and the Doubting Democrats, who make up 36 percent of Pew’s sample, are swing voters who are not dependable partisans. They are overwhelmingly white. They are not likely to have graduated from college and many of them have not attended college at all. Most of them make less than $75,000. It’s fair to characterize them as white working-class voters

Read it and weep: WORKING CLASS

So would it be better for Obama to follow a Democratic (working class) agenda or a tax breaks for the rich, job killing republican agenda?

Barack should fight for the things he campaigned on, and not divide the democratic party.

the "divide the democratic party" part. There are criticisms obvisouly, I am not happy with everything he is doing either. But polls show that he still has strong support among people identifying themselves as democrats.

Also, I was asked to provide data in support of my earlier claim that a plurality of voters are independents, and I did, that's all.

What I was saying is that independents are not necessarily at the center of the political spectrum. He would do well to listen to progressives and still keep the democrats that just want a charismatic leader.

in the larger scheme of things though, not many.

independents are nearly insane with anger toward Walker and Kasich. But Obama won't criticize these two in the least.

This is where the American people stand on the issues. This is where the 'center' is.

AFAIK the president supports everything on Rachel's board. I don't think he has to criticize Walker and his ilk by name. Maybe he could do more, maybe it's possible, I don't know, I am no expert, and I would guess most around here are not either. I do not make final judgments based on incomplete information and shaky (at best) expertise.

wave of popular resentment toward these Republican governors. It is as plain as the nose on your face but you are going to withhold judgment?

His policies indicate a noted rightward shift.

No wonder the president wants to appeal to Indies. He has to if he wants to win!

However, he doesn't have to compromise with the Rethugs to win. He can CONVERT them by showing/telling them how much better the Democratic way of life is.

Independents are comprised of all who are neither republican nor democrat - and damn near ALL teabaggers are Republicans.

Independents include Socialists, Communists, Greens, Libertarians, American Nazi Party, Democratic Socialists, and a hundred other less than fully franchised parties, as well as a great many who claim no party at all.

On Edit:

In other words, there is NO 'independent' block for him to reach out to. He needs to understand that, and recognise that the way to get independents is to be a strong Democrat, and let that confidence draw people to him. You do that by supporting Democratic principles, and ATTACKING the republicans at every chance you get.

and ignores the rest.

What you want and want 53 million other people want gets added up and that's the President we get.

and the Presidency is not the only elected office. It may be the most prominent. But focusing on just that one office is pretty unsophisticated.

Thank you.

He pretty much ignored us and acted like a dictator. That wasn't fun. As much as the teabaggers sicken me, I don't wish that on anyone. An American president should represent or at least be cordial to all Americans.

the GOP in Congress to act like a dictatorial body.

If the choice is between an actual teabagger, or someone who reaches out to 'baggers, what do you do?

Compromising with delusional incompetents is never going to work.

He needs to stand firm, fight back, educate the american populace and make it clear these folks are just plain loony tunes

is that no amount of reaching out will change their minds. the civil rights movement wasn't about changing the hearts and minds of racists or appealing to their humanity or sense of fair play. it was about exposing the racist system and the racists, for all the world to see, and gaining the support of non-racists. triangulation probably wouldn't have produced the same results :sarcasm:

Pukism is inherently racist. Following "discussion" is illustrative:

I was forced to talk to a 'bagger at work a few years ago. He asked me the same old race-baiting question, "If 90% of voted for Obama, how is that not racist?"

The proper response would have been hitting him in the head with a brick - it's all the response such hatred deserves. But I didn't. I pointed out to him, the f*cker, that it only proves that the 47% of asshats who DIDN'T vote for Obama are scared of having an African American in office.

You just can't reason with those "people."

though that thought is tempting :rofl: did bush or reagan give a shit about "reaching out" or "bipartisanship"...um, no. sense he admires reagan so much, perhaps he could emulate him...oh wait...he is.

and that's without the Red Menace boogeyman backing it up.

I DON'T WANT a President that reaches out to ONLY Teabaggers, because that's how it feels. As of now we know the tea party GOP have been taken over by corporate interests and Ayn Rand libertarians along with bigots who don't care what happens as long as Obama is gone. At this point I'm not sure he can regain his influence with those of us who worked so hard to help him get elected. If he's taking it for granted he might want some smelling salts.

As for independents I'm not sure there is such a thing. Those paying attention usually lean one way or the other. Many republicans left during Bush's last term and became indies but they still lean right. I became an independent in 2008 when the DNC threaten to not seat our delegates(where else but Florida) because the governor(Crist)had moved the voting date up. Couldn't believe my party would deny my vote. In the end they were allowed to enter but it changed the way I think about them. I still believe in the democratic platform however.

As for me I want a president who listens to all of the middle class. Our message is a simple one. Fairness and equality. We make our money the old fashion way. Most of us don't have a hedge fund.

We may not be able to financially support a campaign with huge amounts but our vote is every bit as important as any dollar amount..and we are far more trustworthy than those who buy the POTUS. As far as I can tell the elite are doing just fine.

a few years back, good luck with that.

I certainly wouldn't object to a President who spoke the language of the teabaggers to a certain extent, using populist rhetoric in order to sell policies that genuinely benefited the working poor, seniors and the unemployed. Asking "how high?" every time they say "jump", however...eh, not so much.

Sorry, that's not the way of the world.

the faintest fucking idea what you mean.

:thumbsdown:

makes no grammatical sense, and leaves me as clueless as "a 'yes, Dont' man".

Want to try it again, in English?

...and sit them bare-assed down on an asphalt parking lot in 100-degree temperatures! :woohoo:

That is what you will get if you abandon Obama.

We really are in a situation comparable to selecting a President who reaches out to the insane, or is insane. I would choose the former.

I do not understand why people do not realize that Obama is playing the hand he is dealt. A lot of Americans are indeed greedy selfish people. I great number of people ARE right wing wackos. Sure there is a poll here and there that say otherwise, but basically it's 50/50.

Half the people are in the bottom 50% intelligence-wise, and as a politician Obama needs to reach out to them too. It is illegal to put them in an asylum.

In 2008, The American people gave The Democrats:
*The White House

*A HUGE Majority in The House

*A Filibuster-Proof Majority in The Senate

*A Gasping & Dying Republican party

*Most Importantly, a HUGE Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and an ARMY Standing in The Streets.


He Played that Hand Poorly.

He never used his MANDATE for CHANGE,
and he left his ARMY Standing in the Streets.

A MANDATE unused
is a Mandate WASTED.

An ARMY left Standing in the Streets,
is an ARMY Wasted.


What could have been. :cry:




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interpret this however you want:

When polled on The Issues,
like Taxing the RICH,
ending Subsidies to Big Oil,
Protecting SS/Medicare,
Worker Rights
Expanding Medicare,

you will get very different answers.

...just to be clear.


All your polls shows is that the Media has done a good job demonizing the word "Liberal".

Here are some other polls that are MORE indicative of WHERE the Nation STANDS.



A Political Party, or a President, who would pick up THAT Battle Flag
would become a national HERO overnight.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they are propaganda.

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

when Obama has already abandoned Obama?

The man in the WH is NOT the man who campaigned for the WH.

I will not vote for someone that doesnt support Democratic values even if he is better than the opponent. If you do, you have no principles.

Provided, of course, that his intent is to tighten the laces on their straitjackets.

he will be a one term president and we might very well get a Teabagger president such as Perry to take his place. There just aren't enough Democrats to win national elections on their own.

We worked just as hard as some democrats to get this president elected.

Strength woos indy's. Taking care of the middle class and the poor woos Democrats. Standing strong in defense of the Middle class woos both.

comprise of:
America First Party
American Nazi Party 1959 World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists
American Party 1969
American Populist Party 2009
American Reform Party 1997
American Third Position Party 2010
America's Independent Party 2008
Boston Tea Party 2006
Christian Liberty Party 1996 American Heritage Party
Citizens Party of the United States 2004 New American Independent Party
Constitution Party 1992 U.S. Taxpayers' Party
Communist Party of the United States of America 1919
Democratic Party 1828 Alliance of Democrats
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (freedomroad.org faction) 1985
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org faction) 1985
Freedom Socialist Party 1966
Green Party of the United States 2001 Global Greens
Independence Party of America 2007
Independent American Party 1998
Jefferson Republican Party 2006
Labor Party 1996
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party 1997
Libertarian Party 1971
Modern Whig Party 2008
National Socialist Movement 1974
New Union Party 1974
Objectivist Party 2008
Party for Socialism and Liberation 2004
Peace and Freedom Party 1967
Populist Party of America 2002
Progressive Labor Party 1961 Progressive Labor Movement *
Prohibition Party 1869
Raza Unida Party 1970
Reform Party of the United States of America 1995
Republican Party 1854 International Democrat Union
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA 1975
Socialist Action 1983 Fourth International
Socialist Alternative 1986 Committee for a Workers' International
Socialist Equality Party 1966 Workers League International Committee of the Fourth International
Socialist Labor Party of America* 1876 Workingmen's Party
Socialist Party USA 1973
Socialist Workers Party 1938 Pathfinder tendency (unofficial)
U.S. Marxist–Leninist Organization 1981
United States Marijuana Party 2002
United States Pirate Party 2006 Pirate Parties International
Unity Party of America 2004
Workers Party 2003
Workers World Party 1959
Working Families Party 1998
World Socialist Party of the United

...as well as all those who claim no party at all?

Do YOU see the 'Indepents' as a solid block to campaign to?

people affiliated with minor parties that you listed.

have us believe, are just as all over the map as the non-traditiional parties. There is NO 'independent block'. There is a long discussion above between me and another whose 'independent' hubby is a strong lefty - maybe as far left as myself. I also know far right, and libertarian independents.

Independents don't share a lot in common, other than a distaste for both Republicans and Democrats.

Know why there are so many 'independents'? Because the media lays it out as 'Democrat' 'Republican' and 'Other', and calls the 'other' independents. Most of those 'other' actually belong to fringe parties - parties which never make the ballots. When was the last time you saw a ballot with 'Democratic Socialist' on it?

Frankly, most people who are truly independent don't bother with poliltics and voting. Interest in politics brings people to political stands - and for every political stand in this country, there is a political party. Most 'independents', when pressed, will align themselves with the major lesser parties - the Constitutionalists, the Socialists, the Democratic Socialists, the American White Peoples Party, etc.

So what YOU are talking about is prety much a myth.

Giving credibility and pretending they have rational policies is another thing entirely.

So far I've only been told to STFU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1523263

visionary leadership: the ability to not be unduly swayed by goals of those outside your own tent

I was reading this article about not-for-profit fundraising and it seemed to have a lot of applications to current events and our struggle with our political leadership.

The article is mainly about a not-for-profit that has an untraditional business model and the struggle within their leadership to stay on course despite pressures from a variety of stakeholders.

This microcosm does differ significantly from our current social/political situation because in the case described, everyone has good intentions. In our situation, those who wield their influence are indeed malicious.

Here’s the snip from the article I’m most interested to discuss:

"…we are swayed by the influences of those around us. We have conversations with our team, or our funders, or our auditor, or any of the other myriad stakeholders. Often we give inordinate heed to experts, over the voices familiar with our own agendas. This is a risky proposition we would be well served to examine.

"Perhaps a useful definition of visionary leadership is the ability to not be unduly swayed by the implied or expressed goals of those outside your own tent. I applaud those few who consistently are able to do so. For the rest of us, I suggest a conscious habit of examining and aligning around appropriate goals. The best defense against unhelpful influences is clarity around our own agenda."

Since my first days at DU, there has been a never-ending debate that might be generally, if perhaps not accurately, described as political pragmatism vs. political idealism. We see our leaders betray our core values. We caution one another not to withdraw our support because the opposition is so much worse, because leaders who cannot compromise cannot be successful, because if we don’t stand behind our leaders, they will never have the strength to stop betraying us.

How do we hold our leaders accountable in an environment where we must also stand united against our corporate overlords and their Republican minions? We must stand united AND we must hold our leaders accountable. I really have no idea how to do this. That’s one reason I’ve always found it easier to work against the Republicans than for the Democrats (although I do both.)

When I read this article, this definition of visionary leadership really appealed to me and I wanted to share it. I would love it if more of our leaders saw themselves this way.

Full article: http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/blog/nice-sprint-you-re...

It's funny Hamsher gets slammed for agreeing with Fox but it's okay for you and Fox to share a common set of insults...

if I have to share one word with them, Firebagger I can handle.

but I do not call the Democratic President a lieing sack of shit, a manchurian candidante, a corporate whore, a gramma starver and killer, an anti-education dumb guy

or all those other nasty things that the firebaggers and doublebaggers do here.

so I feel quite fine with myself, how about you?

Frankly what we see here is that the little voices in your head seem to be exaggerating what you read for effect.

"call the Democratic President a lieing sack of shit,"

I said: You know, I really got angry when "we do not support extension of the Bush era tax cuts" WHICH I SUPPORTED WHOLEHEARTEDLY suddenly changed to "we do not support PERMANENT extention of the Bush era tax cuts" because it smacks of being misleading and legalistic.

"a manchurian candidante,"

I said: "You know, I really thought he'd keep is campaign promise about collective bargaining and wearing those comfortable shoes. Based on the campaign speeches I expected a candidate which shared my values a bit more."

"a corporate whore,"

I think my statement there was "when is a wall street banker going to jail or having a tax increase?"

"a gramma starver and killer,"

And on that I think I said: "Wow, it took the Republicans refusing to get on board with him when he OFFERED cuts to those programs to actually get him to be angry with them."

"an anti-education dumb guy"

On that one: Race to the bottom isn't solving the problem, nor is the privatization effort. I'd think we'd do better than trying to extend No Child Left Behind or put the profit motive into education.

So what we have here is you taking immense offence at any criticism of the president's policies and conflating it with all the nasty personal name-calling. I like the President a lot but I am massively frustrated with his policies and I don't think he's going to do well in the campaign if he consistently shows this lack of leadership.

It's not MY problem that you interpret that as "treason" and potty-mouth trash talk.

that I was not saying those things about you personally (I have no idea what your posts are like but you are giving hints) but to the general septic tank talk here about the President.

We are all on the same team here, and we'll work together when it counts. However, among friends I do feel compelled to kvetch about what I think isn't working.

Thanks for making yourself clear! :)

at the expense of everyone else. THAT is not how a Democracy was supposed to work, and right now it not only doesn't work, it's broken.

to others that disagree with them.
When they slap the hand away then just slap them back.
That is something that is lacking right now.
Pandering is a very different story.

I want a President that is not afraid to fight and get bloody in the process if necessary
To fight and lose is one thing, to not fight is not right

Have you never heard of "Be the change you want to see."? He is behaving exactly as we all on both sides of the issues should. It's really time to stop vilifying each other, stop playing politics and get down to the business of fixing what needs to be fixed. He has stood up for progressive issues over and over with the qualification that in real governing you're never going to get 100% of what you want. I can't believe people on this forum don't know that. Take a look at all he's done!

crack some heads to get the Pub Baggers in line.

During the State of the Union when he was heckled Obama should have stopped and said "Say What????, get your country a$$ up here now!"

Then proceed to Pimp Slap him on National TV all the while saying "Who's your Daddy Joe?"

All Obama has to do is slap a few of em around on TV and they will all STFU.

It is all the Baggers and Pubs understand.