The problem is this: Obama is the most liberal guy who can actually be elected in 2012......

I am extremely disappointed in Obama. In 2008 I donated $2600 to him, the first time I have ever donated money to a candidate. I made phone calls. I walked and knocked on doors.

The guy who was running is not the guy I see now. I thought he was going to be a fighter who would call out the GOP when they needed to be called out. I never dreamed he would compromise so quickly on so many subjects.

I am shocked that Single Payer was not even up for discussion and gave up on so quick!

I thought we would be out of at least one war 100% by now and saving that money.

I never dreamed that No Bankers would be punished for this damn economic mess.

I never dreamed Obama would not dig into the abuses of the Bush administration.

I never dreamed the patriot act would be 100% in place after 2 years with Obama.

I never dreamed that we would still be holding people with NO CHARGES and NO TRIAL after two years.

But I cannot see any real liberal having a chance to win in this damn country. Obama is a moderate Dem. That is the best we will get.

In 2008 I donated money, donated time and voted for him. In 2012 I will hold my nose and vote for him. That is it!

That is idiotic.

read my OP and notice that "get elected" was the main point. Simple enough now?

You are welcome to be happy with the Obama administration. Low expectations makes for happy voters.

:evilgrin:

:hi:

That's the purpose of these "Obama bad" threads.

Nothing.

It doesn't matter what opinions people have; it matters what they actually accomplish. That's my problem with Kucinich, too; he doesn't ever get anything done and just showboats.

Grayson introduced a Medicare for all bill that was insulting in its naivete, and as far as I can tell leading that bill out to slaughter was the only thing he got done other than constituent services.

The reason we are getting our asses handed to us in elections is that we have lost the media to the fascists. That combined with rigged elections, and huge corporate ad buys for the wing nuts, and we're pretty much fucked.

If asked their positions on issues in a generic sort of poll, most of this country would vote with us libs.

She agreed with all of it but resented that "Joe" was painted as a conservative. She said that these were all policies that republicans supported & pushed for but that dems were blocking it. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

You know you're having a bad day when you realize your mom drank the whole pitcher of kool-aid.

after just one term....my god, people here are comparing Obama to a loser....HAHAHA!

is probably a 90 -------> www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

He is a realist and knows that change takes time and is done in tiny steps - it's always been done that way no matter how liberal/progressive the president was....it's just that Obama is held to a different standard than other presidents for some reason.

"Realist" is another term for "not a fighter".

He did not FIGHT for single payer. Maybe it would not have ever been enacted but at least start from that position.

He did not FIGHT for tax increases on the rich but caved immediately.

You really think he is the guy who was campaigning? Bullshit!

he is not a fighter because he did not get everything he wanted....CHANGE HAPPENS IN BABY STEPS IN WASHINGTON....Obama told this to us repeatedly during the 2008 campaign....

in fact FDR had supermajorities in congress which Obama never had....Obama faced 24/7 fillubusters and still got plenty of shit done ----->

www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

and blame Congress for not everything getting done in just 2 short years....there are well over 200 bills sitting in the senate that passed the house....it was the DINOs who killed the public options....take your shit to them....not to Obama....WHY IS IT THAT MANY HERE BLAME OBAMA FOR CONGRESS' SHORTCOMING? I just don't get it.

convince congress to vote like he wants. Bush got the GOP to support ALL of his stuff. ALL OF IT! How did he do that and Obama cannot?

And after 2004 he got almost none of his agenda accomplished. He faced rebellions from his own party on NCLB, Medicare prescription drugs, immigration, and social security.

repubs were taught by Reagan not to think and simply do as their leader tells them...Bush also lied to get what he wanted....

While Obama, as leader of the Democratic party, has blown the Democrats' House majority status, as well as that of many state Democratic majorities. And the Democrats currently hold a slim majority in the Senate only by happenstance.

As for your link: 95% of these so-called Obama "accomplishments" are either pathetically pro-corporate giveaways heralded in PR-fashion as "change" (HCR, Dodd-Frank) or fluff pieces of legislation.

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

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

people just don't get how washington works these days....they think that Obama is a king and can pass laws on his own without the approval from congress and therefore Obama is a failure....crazy people here on DU I tell you!

www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

His words are. It's his actions that are not.

I take some exception to the phrase "Obama is the most liberal guy who can actually be elected in 2012". Specifically the bold part. It wasn't too long ago that it was drilled into me from every possible angle that Hillary Clinton was the most liberal candidate "who could actually be elected"- given (at the time) the huge amount of racism rearing its head in the country.

But that's not how it worked.

The majority wanted him and that's who's in office today. And all the while we had to listen to him be described as unelectable. The argument just doesn't hold water. Obama is proof that the supposedly "unelectable longshot" can win.

Who the majority wants in 2012 remains to be seen.

PB

We have to have 4 or 5 of these a day. Always fun.

:popcorn:

The funny part is, even if NOTHING happens, the outrage continues, here and in GD:P.

Consider this OP. Why today? Why would one post this list TODAY versus any other day? No reason at all.

Why? Because this SAME generic "Obama bad" style OP happens EVERY DAY, at least once, usually 4 or 5 times.

The outrage machine feeds itself. And if there is no specific outrage du jour ... just toss up a "generic" outrage OP.

Either way ... the outrage machine spits out the same lines over and over.

without being charged and without being put on trial.
So basically they are sentenced to prison for life without any opportunity to defend themselves. So it pissed me off. I am sure that is 100% OK with you but it is not with me.
Keep wearing the rose colored glasses. Works great for religion also.

IT MUST BE TRUE.....hahahahaha!

the complex issues in bringing certain detainees to trial....hell, Obama wanted to bring them to trial in the USA and the congress went crazy...so of cousre you all blame Obama for congress' weaknesses....that's how it works here....BLAME OBAMA, NOT CONGRESS, FOR EVERYTHING....really narrow minded way of thinking.

YES WE CAN.........if congress cooperates.

Do you understand the difference between "FIGHTING" and "CAVING".

Fighters go on TV and call out the GOP when they need it.

Cavers tell us how nice a guy Boehner is and how he was sweeping his dads stores floor as a kid.

The GOP has made Obama like like a gullible sucker for two years.

I'll vote for him but I don't have to like it.

that Obama is a king and does not need congressional approval for anything? OMG.....hahaha!

and then can say he got a big win. It is easier than fighting.


If you are saying the Obama who was campaigning is the guy you see in office now then you saw a different Obama than I did. Wait until the 2012 election. We will see if the Obama individual donations (not corporate) reach the 2008 total. And we will see if the volunteers turn out like they did in 2008.

And when you add Ha Ha Ha Ha on the end of your post you appear 10 years old.

he's gotten more done in 2 years than any other progressive president --------> www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

Even Rachel Maddow has said this....

I am sure you hate that website...hahahaha!

whatthefuckdidcongressdointhefirsttwoyearsbeforeobamacostthemthemajoritybyrefusingtoliveuptohispromisestothebase

Passing republican legislation and watered down democratic legislation is hardly 'getting things done'. The bullshit site lists each separate aspect of the recovery act as a separate win, when the total bill is 2/3 republican to 1/3 democratic, and the tax cuts to the wealthy undercut the effectiveness of the entire thing.

Isn't it just a bit fucked up to way "Can't blame Obama - it's all Congress" then turn around and say "Look at everything Obama's done!"

Obama has not fought for good legislation, nor has he used the veto pen on some very very bad legislation - so, what the fuck HAS Obama done?

with moving Gitmo northward and only some indefinite detention and only some tribunals while seeking a consensus rather than swiftly acting as the law allowed and dictated before the fuckheads in Congress could do shit in order to not get caught in political games.

Of course Congress gets tons of blame for a laundry list of failures but Obama and the DNC bought that when they opposed primaries for the worst TeaPubliKlan facilitators.

You don't get to protect dumpsterfuck incumbents and blame them for failure. Obama could have called for a Congress to work with like FDR did but chose to play the "inside game " instead and has become an agent of the forces of the status quo.

You also don't blame Congress for the cabinet the President selected that shows his real hand and intentions. The administration has tell tales throughout. Hell, there are more Republicans in high positions than liberals by a long shot. The dude is a scam and finger pointing doesn't come close to absolving him.

This is nothing more than an excuse designed to function much like Dean Smith's old four corners, delay till the clock runs out and the game is over.

immediate release. Release Terrorists?! Oh! No!

Seriously, what effect would there be to releasing 200 people, due to congress being unwilling to put them on trial, in a world population of nearly seven BILLION?

He could say to congress, 'give me the civil trials the law demands, or I will let them go.'

He doesn't have the balls to do that.

you just can't understand. You know, like all those funny financial instruments.

You did exactly what the outrage machine loves. You toss out a whole bunch of things.

And of course some of that will elicit the angry responses. If you wanted to complain about the article, you'd put the link in here ... ask how people feel about that. But that's not what you did.

What you did is feed red meat directly into the outrage machine. And now it spits out additional outrage that has nothing to do with the issue you claim caused you to post.

What I find funny is your suggestion that I wear "rose colored glasses" ... how do you conclude that, because I did not eat the red meat and jump in to bash Obama on one of your points or perhaps better, add my own to generate a new outrage sub-thread?

People being detained without being charged? Are you serious? Wow. Now you know why I mentioned "rose colored glasses"?

Which one?

You still don't indicate which one gave you the impetus for your rant.

All you want if for others to join you in ranting. The specific issue is irrelevant.

Which as I said before, is a common theme on DU these days. Generalized outrage.

But you can't. You can't give a link to the specific article that caused you to post your OP.

Odd. But not surprising.

They have kept the goalposts moving to the right for the last 30 years, and we keep making and it seems buying the 'that shit is our best choice 'cause that other shit really stinks' argument.

That seems to be a losing game. We could lose instead by insisting on an actual center-left candidate. I'd rather lose that way.

a center-right ot far right president would have done all of this -------> www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

Problem is, as President he turned out to be a different man than the candidate we voted for.

His center-left proposals are what got him elected. His center-right move once he was elected is what cost us in 2010.

:rofl:

Sid

If we remain limited to candidates who can secure the blessing of the rich, then we are doomed.

This means that we must find ways of circumventing the big-money, corporate media-dominated Big Lies under which the nation, and to large extent the developed world, are suffering.

I have some hope that battlefields like Wisconsin and London will help to open the eyes of the public.

I recall a dream I had in the early Bush years. I found myself wandering around in a place filled with people under some sort of hypnotic spell, all operating together like some gigantic machine. I knew that they were under the control of some evil force, and I could sense the presence of the evil. I noticed that there were a few others like me, who were not under hypnotic control. I began to be afraid that the force would discover me and the others like me, and thought that perhaps I should try to "pass" as one of the drones. But then I realized that the hypnotized ones couldn't even see me--they moved around me like water parting for a stone in the stream--and neither did we few waking ones seem to be of any concern to the Evil Presence. We started trying to wake up the sleepwalkers but couldn't do anything to jar them out of their trances. Then I woke up. Or thought I did, anyway.

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

that was the thought process in Wisconsin and Ohio....liberals are their own worse enemies!

The DNC just called looking for donations. Sorry! NOT ONE FUCKING DIME.

policy wise progressives and neo-liberals are not at all in the same camp.

it's the most modern problem for our two party system.

both lots of cash, uses their media to create public opinion, and voila!

We either vote for their guy, or vote for someone with absolutely no possibility of winning.

The fix is always in. The SCOTUS closed the deal recently.

As long as we permit lobbying and funding of candidates by corporations, we will never have a real democratic government.

Money talks, and freedom walks.

The real impediment that I see is that Obama's
'bait and switch' likely poisoned the well.

OnEdit: Posted this in the wrong spot but I'll leave it stand because it tangentially applies to your comment.

PB

I believe he may be the "most progressive candidate
who can win the Democratic nomination" (which is to
say, he's not at all progressive and that suits the
"Third Way" folks just fine), but an *ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE
WHO IS NOT AFRAID TO DEFEND PROGRESSIVE POSITIONS*
could kick the asses of any Republican candidates.

Tesha

While I don't like the choice of lesser of two evils, it seems that is always the choice.
Am I happy with everything Obama has done? NO!
Do I feel he has given in too much? YES!
BUT...I do feel we are much better off with him than with McCain/Palin? YES!
And, we Americans often forget the President isn't the only branch of government, if we get a very left President, a moderate to right leaning Senate and House will stop them AND then there is the Supreme Court which very will may over turn any extremely left leaning law.
Go ahead find a great left of left Democrat to run for president who supports all of our ideas and who won't give in an inch. They won't get the nomination and if they do we will be saying welcome President Tea-bagger on Jan 20 2013. Or better yet, start a third party and we will have 2000 all over again.
I know many will disagree with me but I live in a very conservative state, our poor will support cutting taxes for the rich and give up funding for the poor just because a conservative Republican Christian elected official will push stopping abortion, stopping any chance for a homosexual to marry and will push for creationism to be brought back to the schools because that is REALLY what is important. All it would take for a Sarah Palin to be elected is for we progressives to get a nominee who won't disappoint us.

PB

I mean, I'm all for 20/20 hindsight and self-flagellation in the service of learning one's lesson and becoming a wiser person but, really, every kind of smell test that one put to this guy seemed to come back OK.

And I still think he's a more Liberal, accountable, president than Clinton would have made. Which is reason for all kinds of shudders on my end.

PB

And I thought windfall profits tax on oil companies meant they'd get penalized if they didn't have a windmill in the parking lot

Also I think the promise to import Rx drugs meant cheaper dope from Canada

Oh and when he campaigned against insurance premium mandates, I knew he meant only for those people who'd suffer after he repealed the Bush tax cuts

:eyes:

FDR did not have Fox pushing the Republican message 24/7 or Limbaugh shoveling crap daily. Plus the south was 100% Democrat back then. I don't think we can ever again fairly compare any Democratic President to FDR.

SSDD

Because FOX news and Obama supporters say it isnt possible?

Yes, I think what Fox is doing to "fake liberals" is nothing compared to a "real liberal", they would twist and spin everything the candidate has ever done, said or says in to a communist with an anti-American agenda.
But there is more to it, we over and over see the average American voter flip-flop based on the current wind. We know the right will be against such a person and the left would be for them, but then there is middle America who let's face it isn't always the most informed, they vote on the current (last 10 minutes) issue. Remember, if the financial crisis would have held off for just 6 months President McCain may very well be in office today.
Then, I look around me, I realize as a South-easterner (not Florida) I live in the prostate of America, but I see the people I live around who make choices by voting which are against many of their best interest. I know those who because they think they one day will be rich, or because they think rich is making $50,000 a year will support giving tax cuts to the rich. They will support cutting the budget on education because of the deficit while supporting the wars in the middle east. They will support allowing assault weapons for all Americans because they don't want to lose their hunting rifles. They are "good" Christians so they want a candidate who is anti-abortion, anti-gay and pro-teaching creationism in school. And, who are anti-science because it doesn't support the bible. They feel any "sharing of wealth" is socialism although they would be a "getter" rather than a "giver". Overall they would never vote for a Democrat much less a "real liberal". I may be wrong but I don't think those people only live here in the Southeast.
Lastly, I look to states who just in November voted "through our the bums" because of "fake liberal" issues, I can only imagine what would have happened with "real liberal" issues.
Could a "real liberal" be elected? Yes. Given the right set of current issues, but it would be a close election, and there would need to be a "real liberal" congress with super majorities also or we would be looking at 4 years of dead-lock. Then there is the Supreme Court.
I can't but feel if the Democratic party nominated a "real liberal" then it would all but guarantee a Republican win. A third party would do so even more.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

We cant have a true Democrat in office because FOX news wouldnt like it? FOX news has swayed you into abandoning Democratic values?

So southern republicans would never vote for a Democrat, this is a new thing to you? This has been true for decades. You are deluded.

There is no middle in the US political system.

I didn't say it was because fox wouldn't like it, but like it or not a lot of Americans consider Fox the last word in the news, if it is said on Fox it is true. While you and I know it isn't true, come to my state and ask the first 10 people you see and you will understand my point of view.

I haven't abandoned my values, I just know how the system works.

I know the South won't elect a Democrat, no I am not deluded, but from what I see many other Americans have those moderate values held in the south also. Plus, from many of the posts the attitude seems to be if we can just get a true lefty Democrat, the voters will come running, I know that won't work in the south, and I am afraid that is the receipt for 4 to 8 years of not just Republican, but Tea party Republicans rule.

There may not be a middle in the system, but there is a middle in the voters. They are the ones who switch back and forth every two years.

We may think Obama isn't liberal enough, but I am sorry to tell you, many think he is too liberal.

All I am saying is I fear we are going to stand on our values, find our liberal candidate and see the white house go Republican. I may live in the south, but if America wants a more liberal President they would have given Obama a super majority rather than a small majority in the Senate and Democratic House.

Because he refused, as a popular newly elected Democratic President with a clear voter mandate, to make a strong progressive case when corporate anti regulation low tax government imploded in 2008; he defacto adds weight to the argument that a Democrat presidential candidate can't make that argument now when the Republicans can claim a 2010 voter mandate.

What matters is what the swing voters will do.
They're a finicky lot. They can't seem to make up their minds til the last minute.

not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

For which he was later excoriated by many.

just a few short weeks ago.

Things change and nothing is written in stone.

He can't be, because he is not liberal.

I don't know if any liberal person can be elected without the willingness to overcome the propaganda and control used by the mainstream media and the mainstream party powers to limit our choices.

We might start by boycotting the media and by refusing to be moved, or distracted by, candidates' propaganda.

If EVERYONE who wanted to elect a liberal would vote, every time, for the most liberal candidates on their ballots, or write in a liberal when there isn't one, that situation might change.

America doesn't have that kind of courage, imo. The majority will continue to enable their own self-destruction by voting for "lesser evils" in the delusional belief that they will "win" something.

The minority of those who recognize this corrupt process and refuse to enable it can't carry the rest.

and a rapid fall off the cliff to the same destination.

:(

Although it is perhaps possible to delude yourself that things will change at some point as you slide down the slippery slope.

... if that is as good as it gets I'd rather have a stark raving mad Republican that can finish America off soon so we can start over. Because Obama is FUCKING USELESS.

and I don't think anyone in the Dem party or any other party for that matter has much of a chance of beating him in 2012. Given all the mess with the economy he is a very popular president. I just wish he was as liberal as the Repukes try to paint him.

He is as far away from being a moderate Democrat as George W Bush.

because he isn't bat shit crazy. That's why I will hold my nose and vote for him. Now if someone other than a puke who isn't bat shit crazy were to run I would vote for them.

It's called REALITY. The way the electoral college is set up -- people like me (Los Angeles) have a fraction of a vote in real terms. It all comes down to the swing states and we cannot win with a real liberal.

However the alternative is a President Walker type....much, MUCH worse, just like a 6.9 earthquake is way preferable to a 9, Obama is MUCH MUCH better than a Repuke even though admittedly not Liberal, I agree with the OP -- he's as liberal as we can possibly get.

Or at least they believe in a lot of liberal things.

They hate Obama and Democrats because these spineless weasels never stand for anything, break whatever campaign promises they make and generally cave to Republicans every single fucking time.

He will lose not because he is a liberal but because he is a spineless piece of shit who doesn't actually stand for anything at all but caves at every opportunity.

Liberals can win in this country IF they actually grew a spine, stopped advancing the corporate and war agendas and generally started standing up for working people.

I think there's a real possibility that a candidate will emerge within a year that actually stands for all the liberal things we care about too. People like Kucinich and Dean are already out there and there will be a few more, I'm sure of it.

It'll be interesting to watch the propaganda media try to slander them from day 1, which I suspect will result in the candidates being even more popular.

Most Americans ought to be liberals and believe in liberal ideas but they are not. The Republican base consists of working class voters who don't vote for working class interests. Add that to the fact that big money disproportionately favors their side and the odds are simply stacked against liberals.

The only way to overcome big money is when you have a populist uprising and you can't have a populist uprising when half the people who should be populists are acting as foot soldiers for big money. Obama could be as far left as Marx or as far right as Mussolini and those working class voters would still be going to tea-bag rallies rather than engaging in activities that will help them.

Your assertion is absurd.

Spoke to my best friend and told him of this post. He laughed. He first said he felt Obama was very liberal (my friend is conservative). Then he said that was what he loved about the Democrats, "you would rather fight each other, than fight the Republican. As long as you can't get your act together Republicans have it made".

.. you are going to be waiting a LONG time....