Why are so many DUers turning against Obama?

Have they given up already? Do they forget what he inherited? Do they think he has had enough time to clean up everything?

Or is it that they think he might not be the "populist" that they voted for? It seems to me that he has spoken out for the working guy at every opportunity? When they had the walkout in Chicago, he took the side of the workers. When they were going to cut the pay of the health workers in California, he threatens to withhold federal funds. He gives his morning speech today in support of Credit Card holders over the big banks. And when the Chrysler negotiations were going on, he explicitly said that he was on the side of the workers. I know words are cheap sometimes, but what else do you really expect the man to do?

work this hard to do what he said he would do, to the point that I'm almost worried about his health.

I wish people would be patient and give him some latitude.

The worst thing we could do now is to push him over the brink barely four months into his presidency.

And if we do, next election, we will go back to what?? Another rePuke.

I do think there is something wrong with throwing in the towel all together this early in the game.

My fear is just that we not overwhelm him right out of the gate.

You have every right to push him to do whatever you want.

But he seems to be trying very hard; I'm afraid of burning him out.

Some of them put up a good front for a long time, and then turn, but they were never actually Dems to begin with.

...into believing that they've "turned against" the Prez.

NGU.

This is hereby nominated for a DUZY for the most ridiculous post of the week.

:thumbsup:

the Obama left.

You know, the Democratic wing of the party.

and even moderates, especially in regards to the bank bailout and the actions of Obama's Treasury appointees.

as coming from the left wing of the party is an attempt to marginalize that criticism.

It's not that some don't see, IMO, I think it's a purposeful tactic whose aim is to shut down discussion - and it's a discussion that we, as Democrats, need to be having...

There's nothing leftist about defending the rights granted to prisoners and suspects by our Constitution. There is nothing far left about criticizing Obama for handing barrels of money to the banks and starving out the middle class especially small businesses.

In fact, there could be nothing more middle of the road than my criticism of Obama in these two areas. Lots of Republicans agree with me, but I am a staunch, life-long, activist Democrat. Your dismissal of those who criticize Obama s extremists is just plain wrong.

You are implying that anything a "Nader Left" person says is not to be considered because they are "Nader Left," and that "Nader Left" is defined as "people who say things that should not be considered."

This is a variation on what the right wing media pundits do to shut down discussion. They say "of course you would say that, you are a liberal, and that is what liberals say. You know how they are." In other words, there is no intrinsic value, nothing to consider about what the person is saying, because they "are" a liberal and we should reject anything liberals say. But what is it that makes the person "a liberal?" Anyone who says anything that we want to reject and don't want people to consider they call a liberal.

You are saying that we should reject things that people say when we can label the messengers as the "Nader Left" and we can label the messengers as "Nader Left" if their message is anything that we want to reject.


...

Honestly, this stuff is borderline paranoid.

I support Obama but at the same time, I consider myself free to disagree with him publicly.

Zombie conformity is something best left to the ditto-heads.

just another smooth Bill Clinton/Tony Blair triangulator and that's all he ever will be.

It seems to me like the open-door policy started during the primaries.

I'm probably closer to getting banned than any of the trolls.

There it can be hard distinguishing the trolls from the sincere but deranged. "But"? I should probably say "and" -- they are after all conservative.

he's breaking his campaign promises to us. He's postponed them off beyond the horizon, and now he's taking them off the whitehouse website entirely. We're entirely off his radar. We've got good reasons to be upset.

That doesn't make us "RW Trolls." That makes us Dems who were used, lied too, and thrown away. :(

Unfortunately, a whole lot of straight democrats don't see any problem with that. This is apparently supposed to be our role in the party. We're supposed to support the party loyally every time but never, ever expect the party to be loyal to us.

I hadn't heard this?

and the language that described DADT, Civil Unions and our other issues as civil rights issues are all gone. It was all removed, so apparently he doesn't consider our issues to be civil rights any more. At the very least, they aren't on his agenda of goals any more. :(

All his campaign promises for overturning DADT, supporting civil unions, overturning the DOMA... it's all gone.

Now that he's in office we're apparently a public relations liability to him, not allies he needs to court so his promises to us all disappeared. :(

"He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/

about it.

He's not speaking up as President when each state is bringing Equal Mariage or Civil Unions up for debate or a vote. He's silent.

He's not signing an executive order stopping the enforcement of DADT. He's the head of the Democratic Party, and he's not pressuring the party to repeal DADT. He could be doing both, and instead he's silent.

He could be doing a lot of concrete things. Instead his support is limited to a blurb now that says he supports us. That's all we get from him now. :(

and he realizes that Civil Unions are now making their way through the states and just waiting for the moment when it comes through on a National level for his signature. Sometimes people forget that a President (at least legally) cannot just create laws on his own.

and he said this long before taking the presidency, during the primaries iirc.

in fact his wording was very similar to miss runner up

i voted for him DESPITE that position, but it was hardly to be expected by anybody knowledgeable of his positions that he would be an advocate for gay marriage

any law that crosses his desk legalizing Gay Marriage?

They're leaving it to the states.

At the federal level it would start with an executive order, and he's refusing to sign one.

Desegregation of this kind starts with an executive order that forces the desegregation, and then when everyone sees that it works THEN the lawmakers get up the nerve to pass a law to make it legal because it takes no political courage at that point.

That is how the military was racially integrated. And that would be the way to end DADT. But but Obama Isn't Going For It.

As for repealing DOMA, it would start with the head of the majority party using the bully pulpit to rally the party repeatedly until they get the will and the voting block to repeal it. Obama is the head of the party, and he stands behind at bully pulpit. But he's not saying a word about overturning DOMA. So there won't be anything to sign.

You're giving him credit for being willing to do something that won't happen, and it won't happen because he's not doing anything to make it happen. So how can he get credit for being willing to do something if he's making sure he'll never have to do it?

Straight people are bending over backwards to try to give him credit he doesn't deserve, ignoring everything he's really doing, and everything he could be doing but isn't.

He has the "Bully Pulpit." He's refusing to use it in even the most timid of ways for our benefit.

He has executive orders. He's not signing any.

He's not waiting. He's blatantly breaking his promises and erasing them. He's taking us entirely off our agenda. That isn't waiting.

It's nice that you're willing to fantasize scenarios just to defend him, but we really need to deal with reality here. That's the only way we're going to move forward. If he's not willing to work with LGBT people then the fight goes on without him.

with anything like impunity, but you're exactly right.

Just because you don't have 1,000 posts shouldn't hinder you in speaking your thoughts.

Post 'em if you got 'em!

:hi:

our real post count is not displayed .Senority means nothing here

and I have a LOT of it

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

The support for LGBT equal rights here at DU has been marginal at best for a long, long, long time.

It's what straight people think is support for LGBT equal rights, but not what WE think is support for LGBT equal rights. And very tellingly, there isn't much concern about what WE think is support for LGBT equal rights. :(

It's always nice when people in the majority get to tell us what equal rights means and how it should be interpreted and expressed and discussed. x(

You are correct that support for LGBT equal rights here at DU has been marginal at best, and people betray their lack of support when they describe LGBT equal rights as "your" cause. If we do not see it as "our" cause, then we do not really support the cause at all. I am not saying that it should be our cause, I am saying that it is is in fact our cause.


...

I wish more people felt that way.

Unfortunately, very few straight people actively support LGBT rights. :(

A fair number pay lip service to supporting our rights. But that lip service disappears as soon as WE try to define for Ourselves what real equal rights would look like and what it would mean. A lot of straight people are willing to say they support us as long as they are allowed to put limits on us and they are allowed to say what our rights will look like, how close to equal we will be allowed to be, and when we need to just shut up and deal with inequality because they think it's for the best.

Equal rights isn't really equal rights when it comes with the condition that the majority is in charge of deciding how much, how often, to what extent, and with what limits.

You are in the small minority of straight people who really do seem to stand with us and take us seriously. You and a group of wonderful DUers. I just wish that it was a much larger group of DUers.

We all stand together, or we all will fall.

That is not merely a noble phrase, nor is it just a theory. It is a hard and fast reality, and it is a reality that we deny or ignore at our own extreme peril and at great cost to every aspect of our lives.

The battle is between the haves and the have-nots, and the same haves who would would deny GLBTQ rights would also deny jobs and fair wages, access to health care and safe food, the right to organize, the right to speak out, the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, the right to self-determination, equal access to opportunity and resources - for all of us.

One does not need to be gay to potentially suffer from persecution of the GLBTQ folks. A neighbor could think you were, a bigoted murderer could think you are, a boss could think you are, an enemy could spread the rumor that you are. All of us suffer from the rigid demands for conformity and the dangers inherent in differing in any way from gender and social expectations. Women, intellectuals, artists, people of color, people born into poverty, immigrants all suffer from enforcement of gender and ethnic stereotypes and expectations, and from the domination by and privileged status of one small but dominant group - WASP hetero males. Vastly more people suffer from this than benefit by it - 70% - 80% of the people, or more.

Those who think that the cause of GLBTQ rights is not their cause are denying reality, and are aiding and abetting the bigots and the extreme political right wing.

The question that all of us who happen to be hetero need to be asking ourselves is not are we tolerant of "the gays," not do we "like" them, not do we "support their cause." We need to ask ourselves this - will we or will we no tolerate any of our brothers and sisters - on any pretext - to be isolated, marginalized, targeted and persecuted? I say "no."


...

There are a lot of trolls lately and I am quite sick of them. They attack everything and everyone democratic. I don't even post on most of those threads but I wish they would go away.

I use it not just on people who are rude, but also on those who apparently want to undermine everything we stand for.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a "Freeper." Many people on the left disagree with Obama's positions, too.

I know that DUers get banned for a myriad of reasons, and being a RW troll is only one reason. However, if you go through threads archived from just 3 months ago, click on the "dead looking" profiles (the ones with no avatar or star), you will see that some of the threads look like graveyards.

But they usually reincarnate.
Rinse, lather, repeat.

I have watched to right go lockstep with the last resident of the White House and thought them wrong for it. I can't be a hypocrite and then say I must think everything happening under the Obama administration is good, when it isn't.

That's not giving up in my book.

Not things like "I disgree with A, B, or C." or "I am disappointed with A, B or C."

Unless you can find me more than that who say Obama is a "grifter" or same as Bush.

Not a significant number, but on a Democratic site where people go to avoid that kind of talk, it's noticeable.

but still aren't they the exception? Threads like this tend to incite people who haven't given up but are not known for holding their thoughts back. I see a thread like this and I automatically think they are talking about anyone not marching in lock step. Especially when the poster always includes the "he doesn't have time to do everything" clause at the end. I have yet to complain about something Obama hasn't done yet but I am vocal about the wishy-washy political safe positions he takes on legalization and gay marriage, not to mention the bailout money... THere are decisions he made that I disagree with, I thought that's what DU was for to air these grievances and work through them together. Posts like this seek to divide us IMHO.

As I mentioned down thread, I think everyone is just very high strung and seeking some sort of help/relief. There was a thread earlier about how Obama is a huge disappointment and the OP has given up and now there's this thread.

and we can work through this stuff. And I will say this, anyone who thinks Obama is no better than Bush has to be a troll or a moran.... At least we're not Republicans throwing each other under the Rush Limbaugh tour bus every other day... :rofl:

I'm still behind Obama but I'm not going to sit here and march in lock step because someone on DU got his feelings hurt. Obama has made some good moves. He has also made some really stupid moves. I'm not going to cheerlead the man when he plans to give more bailout money to banks. I'm not going to cheerlead his stance on gay marriage and I'm not going to cheerlead his stance on legalization.
I'm also not going to be told "he can only do so much". That's a crock. He could have just as easily said no more for the banks, yes to gay marriage and yes to legalization. I'm not saying he has time to do everything, I'm saying some of the things he does I don't agree with.

Frankly I think Obama wouldn't have it any other way in spite of what some DU'ers think. Which is one of the reasons I support him but not all of his policies.

What are you thinking by speaking reason and truth. How the hell can we get all riled up and self-righteous with that kind of stuff?

are anothers Obama basher. It just kills me to listen to Obama say "I want to hear all opinions, I want to do my best to represent everyone" then to come to Obama central and have those statements null and void.

hate our President. I suspect you are French. :)

:thumbsup:

Many make a living here finding NOTHING, NOT A MOTHERFUCKING THING that Obama can possibly do right.

There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and being a rageaholic.

on health care?

If Obama is for us, I am for Obama.

He's my dream President. Not perfect, but far better than the unwashed masses deserve. It makes me nuts. I feel like I'm watching, 'The Poseidon Adventure' and everyone is Ernest Borgnine.

Unbelievable.

are unwashed masses who don't deserve a president a good as Obama? This sentiment denigrates the role of citizens to be self-governing and active participants.

It is quite believable tat one would see such nasty, undemocratic sentiments expressed here. Happens all the time.

And thanks for the clarification.

It's something I have been complaining about since the beginning. For a lot of people here, it's all about our team beating their team. Progressive ideology, making the world a better place, helping others, etc. just doesn't enter into it.

I've spent the past 36 years, my entire teen & adult life, supporting and fighting for unions, the environment, LGBTQ rights, an honest god real health care system, prison reform, and against the tyranny of the military-industrial complex, the lawlessness of the elite (Enron, Iran-Contra, torture, the S&L debacle, etc., etc., etc.) and now I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut because Obama is in office?

and i hardly ever use caps. (ok, only for emphasis...)

:hi:

Simply getting into office isn't enough. We need to accomplish stuff.

Wanting to accomplish stuff isn't enough.

There have to be good plans so that we'll eventually accomplish stuff. Those should be cooperative plans that involve our WHOLE constituency. That includes the left wing of the party that keeps getting left out. And that includes the LGBT wing of the party that keeps getting used and thrown under the proverbial bus. So far all the plans we've seen are corporate plans that move to the right. Moving only to the right and listening only to lobbyists isn't enough.

There are a lot of good reasons why people aren't satisfied.

If you're satisfied then your standards are pretty damned low.

That's why the majority of the presidents elected are repukes. Thanks pushers. :eyes:

The fact that every democratic president caters to the corporations and moves to the right.

Moderates don't really stand for anything except having power. Getting elected and rewarding donors is all that is important. That's an invitation for inevitable corruption. That's what brings down the party.

Thanks moderates. :eyes:

a good way to be. Push for more.

All people are "never satisfied" - it is called "life" and things can always be improved, and there are always new challenges.

I think you mean "some people will never be silent or go away." That is true, and it is a good thing.


...

it's hard for me to blame anyone for being a little hair triggered right now.

Obama has to try to keep, hold or earn trust even in these times. It's a difficult gig.

We've had to be hyper vigilant for how many years?

We're in transition here and it doesn't help the process to be called trolls ever other second. lol

Which results in both sides using hyperbole which ups the tension and feeds a cycle.

We need an "under reconstruction" sign.

lol

I might add that many people pinned all of their hopes and desires on Obama without taking into consideration the realities of our country's situation. I think he's doing a good job so far, and I believe he will get better as time goes on.

Spelling edit.

to make such a sweeping statement?

That's not post-Obama. We need to give people a little room to make the transition, imo.

of significant concern in this instance.

:)

I never had much "hope" of reducing corporate ownership of our government. I remember have such "hope" for Clinton.

That said, I still love Obama and think that he is doing a good job. Not better then Nader, but America didn't elect Nader.

regardless..
he will never do bad enough to justify supporting a primary against him.
and
the GOP will run a worse candidate..
:shrug:

I still hope for the best..

the pressure from the right-wing media that he will face.

Once we elect "our" President there's nothing wrong with letting him know we want him to vigorously pursue his promised agenda.

I don't think that's "turning against" him.

and almost entirely embracing an agenda from the right.

Since taking office he has come to a complete stop on LGBT rights, and he wasn't doing much of anything to begin with.

He has turned around entirely regarding Free Trade and he's now embracing NAFTA type Free Trade. Instead of dismantling or revising NAFTA as promised he's keeping it intact and negotiating additional free trade agreements. Most importantly with a Panama, a tax haven country. If that goes through then far more corporations would have the ability to shelter even more income from the IRS because Panama's tax laws would be protected.

He has embraced the cliche of Wall Street vs Main Street by ignoring Main Street entirely. Trillions of dollars are going to corporations with no accountability. He's even creating special rules for the stock the government is buying so that the government will NOT being able to govern any corporation through the shares of stock of any company that the government owned. He's making sure that the money is being given without any strings of accountability attached.
:wtf:

Meanwhile, the real unemployment rate is over 15%. This means 1 out of ever 6 adults is out of work. Think about that. 1 out of ever 6! And he's not aiming one single policy or even a fraction of the bailout money towards doing a damned thing about it. He's maintaining the Republican framework of government that says the top levels of government can only deal with corporations, not people. He's a Democrat, Damn it. It would be nice if he acted like it.

He's INCREASING the military budget. We already spend more than every other nation on earth combined. That budget has expanded obscenely under each of the last four presidents and he's continuing that trend. Why? The military is already getting More Than Half of our federal budget every year, and he's increasing the amount and percentage that they get!

He hasn't closed Guantanamo yet, or the CIA not-so-secret prisons. He hasn't given the people held prisoner in those places trials or even the promise of trials. So how is he restoring the rule of law? He has turned his back on that promise too.

Where is the supposed agenda from the left? What is he doing that we are supposed to be so proud of?

Perhaps?

The way I interpreted it was: Losing faith that he will do what he aspires to do.

And my point is just: Please, give him some time. It takes time to turn the Titanic around. Give him the benefit of the doubt, please...

That doesn't mean don't push your issue, but let him do what he will do... Attacking him doesn't help.

... but I would like to see him take advantage of the numbers in the Congress he has, and get the heavy lifting done before the mid-term elections.

...in other words... criticism is not turning against Obama. Criticism is just... criticism.

But, just to make your day, I'll take a leap and define "turning against". Turning against would be to say that X (probably a R-random state X) has a better policy regarding... Y. For instance, were I to say/type (and mean it when done so) that Mike Huckabee has a better strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, and if I were to go on to say that, rather than firing gays that come out of the closet in the military, Huckabee's strategy of trading them to the Taliban, so that they can get some waterboarding pay back, in exchange for peace negotiations and the Taliban giving up Al-Qaeda suspects... if I were to say something like that with anything approaching a straight face, then that would constitute "turning against" Obama... especially if I kept claiming that it was not only a reasonable alternative to Obama's plans... but a preferable alternative.
Criticizing Obama for being slow to end DADT despite all the military voices saying that it's counter productive and a generally stupid policy, that's not "turning against", that's criticism. Constructive criticism, most would even argue.

So, is the definition by analogy sufficient? Or would you prefer a painfully didactic attempt to define it in a Webster's style fashion?

:)

A tiny, vastly wealthy ruling class above the law and gaining in power.

The rest of us with spotty access to justice, diminishing wealth and compromised rights.

We were kind of hoping to see that turned around. Instead, every new crisis just widens the gulf.

:thumbsup:

I banking on Obama to change our outlook for the better...the BEST....He is Priceless....

Some quickly jump to the worst conclusion about things he does while others have realized that frequently is a mistake.

I wouldn't worry about it. Governing is harder then running - especially cleaning up Bush's mess. You are bound to tick people off frequently. I have no doubt that some decisions he makes cause repercussions even he dislikes but that is reality.

Completely spot on about the realities of being the POTUS.

turning against. Define "so many".

Kind of vague. Is expressing dismay at a political decision "turning against"? How many is so many? 5? 3? 87?

How about a reference to what you mean.

He'd get a lot more support from me in that case.

in my life and would again.

I do not agree with everything.

Rahm made me unhappy but I am comfortable now.

Clinton made me unhappy but I am comfortable now and feel more favorable towards her than ever before.

Vilsack gives me shivers.

Geithner Summers et al I did nopt like and at best they are buying time IMO still.

I worry about Gates, Jones, and in general Obama's control and being fully in the loop over military and intelligence matters.

POTUS Obama is walking a tightrope and I worry more about direction than speed and worry most about economics for the common person and war and healthcare and the environment.

Also I am more socially liberal than the POTUS in regards to the gay community and marijuana.

Movement towards a populist democracy (rather than corporate/MIC oligarchy) unfortunately is a long and nuanced process and Obama is the best chance we have had actually elected since I first voted in the 1972 election.

Claims that Obama is a "center-right corporatist" is an instant red flag that the poster is a Naderite. When a poster says "Obama is the same as Bush because I disagree with him on X" that marks him/her out as a One-Issuer.

He will transform this country and take us
into the 21st century.

Generations of Americans will honor him
and thank him.

that the GOP would not steal the elections again, that Obama would be safe and that he would be a transformative president.

At the time people who read PC's posts thought
them unrealistic.

PC will be happy to provide the links to the posts
with date and time marked by DU.

Please know that there is no doubt whatsoever that Obama will be one of the best American presidents
and be adored for generations. Most Americans
are too close to the situation to see it right now.

:silly:

At least we don't have to put up with this crap any more...

just acting out of "habit." While all the Obama worshipers are the ones who are thinking.

Sheesh

just like the primaries. Don't those lines ever get old?

Have you ever counted the number of threads along the lines of "Oooh -- just look at these pictures. I get tears in my eyes."

That's a cult of personality.

the President is part of a 'cult'? Can you not get pissed at a person for actions they take, but still have a good opinion of them? Or do you just like to throw insults at anyone who doesn't prescribe to the same attitude as yours?

Just one motherfucking stereotypical "worshiper".

I want to see just one of these so called "worshipers".

Well, in the media you have Olbermann and Matthews, probably much of CNN, NBC, and CBS. The NY Times seems to love him too.

Olbermann had Obama as "worst person in the world" last week and he's also criticized Obama's administration on their lack of torture prosecution. Seems Olbermann comprehends the concept of "constructive" criticism quite well.

I was following up on what was posted above - that people are much less trusting after 8 years of the Chimp.

It's a very small, very vocal minority--mostly freeper trolls and rump Naderites.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8342260

So did my husband. When we finished voting, I smiled and told him that Obama is now my enemy and must earn my trust.

His reaction was :wtf:


President Obama has been earning my trust steadily, with a few exceptions:

1. torture investigations. I want them.

2. his choice of economic advisors.

3. nafta and all other trade agreements. I want fair trade.


I'd also like to see some heavy handed anti-trust action. Start with these @#$%^&*&^%$# too big to fail corporations and then go after microsoft... again.


Obama is a politician & must be watched carefully. But I have not given up on him, or his presidency.

People can disagree with things any politician does. That does not mean they have "turned on" them. My opinion today about the UAW, for example, is the same as it always was, no matter who is in office, and I am saying the same things I have always said. If people see that as "turning" that is in their imagination and is their problem.

For those who see "support" for rulers as an all or nothing affair, and who think our job as citizens is to be public relations agents for politicians, and cheer on team blue, any criticism may sound like "turning on" the politicians.


...

like Ralph in Joseph Heller's "Good as Gold."

"This President does want yes-men. What we want are independent men of integrity who will agree with all our decisions after we make them."

Yes, that is exactly what is happening - agreeing with all their decisions after they make them. Do people raise their kids this way? - "whatever you do, my precious little darling, I will stand by you and say only encouraging and supportive things."

I have some cheese in the fridge that is starting to turn, but It hasn't mentioned any specific politicians.

That is me - I am just some cheese that is starting to turn, but I prefer to call it "aging."

I love how you can be alternately accused of holding to the same opinion, or of turning. Which is it? Depends on the context, I guess. And the context is whatever the MSM defines as the best way to support team blue, "support" the way you would your favorite sports team. Someone here once actually said that supporting Democrats for him was exactly the same as supporting the Yankees, and that no Yankee fan internet board wuold allow people to trash his beloved team. We do things a little differently in Detroit, but of course we have the Lions so that could explain that.


...

I criticized Clinton, I criticized Bush and I will criticize Obama if I need to.
Its called informed critique. Its my duty as a citizen.

posting the same things, and that's about it. It's not like people here are even interested in what their own representatives do. It's all Obama, all the time. I quit this joint every other day, but I always come back. Got to get my fix of negativity I guess.

our planet, loss of civil liberties, and ONGOING corporate rule at all levels

is it too soon to demand progress in these areas?

what evidence of such progress in any of these areas have we seen so far, if only symbolic (admitting the obvious....that not much of tangible value can get done this soon, but, on the big things, with a few exceptions, it all seems to be going in the opposite direction)

:thumbsup:

But he doesn't seem to be.

Despoliation of our planet: He's a vast improvement over the republicans, but he's still embracing the idea that corporations set the agenda and decide the solutions. That means that there isn't an agenda and isn't a solution. Environmentalists aren't even seriously at the table.

Civil Liberties: If the way he's treating the LGBT community is an indication then this is definitely not looking good. He has not only broken his promises to us, he has erased them from the white house website as if they are no longer even on the long term agenda.

Ongoing corporate rule: He is giving trillions of dollars to banks with no restrictions, no reforms, and no stakes or ownership of the banks. He is concentrating only on the major corporations and ignoring non-corporate avenues entirely. It is as if the precedents set by FDR and LBJ don't exist at all. Instead he's following the Reagan/Bush Sr methods of handing economic issues.

If he was really standing up to corporations to protect the environment, to protect workers throughout the US, to protect the poor and the sick then he's be loved by everyone here no matter who we initially supported.

The people who keep repeating that "they never supported him" seem to expect that people will magically support Obama now that he's President simply because he's a Democrat even if he keeps making Crap decisions. If he was making good populist decisions everyone here would love and support him now. But it won't happen unless he shows us that there is a reason for it to happen.

Being better than Bush isn't enough. Any Democrat is better than Bush. Let's see that Obama is at least TRYING to do the right things. So far we haven't seen a lot of that. He keeps moving farther and farther to the right.

People are cheering him because of who he is and because of his charisma regardless of what he does. With him turning more and more to the right, and people ignoring it, it is celebrity worship at this point.

It would be nice if he was doing good things and even trying to enact parts of a progressive agenda.

Why would you hire Geithner.. to correct a problem he caused in the first place?

hire people who support and promote NAFTA for trade positions, and push for a free trade agreement with a country that is one of the biggest tax havens for tax cheats?

He's doing a whole lot of things like this that should be outraging every democrat. :(

However, there are some that might have given up on him already? I think this post is a good barometer of the support he maintains with most of us.

We put a hell of a lot of effort getting him into office. Even if he wasn't our first choice, he was our final choice.

But some of us are judging him recent actions and choices in office and don't like some of what we see.

While some people are still just celebrating his election.

Not everyone is paying attention to what he's doing, and not everyone really cares about the details of what he's doing.

So of course there are different reactions to him. This is the Democratic party. We have always had a wide range of responses to everything. That's not going to stop now just because some people want lock-step support.

Personally, I think the way he has broken his promises to the LGBT community, reversed course on free trade issues, and concentrated all his economic attention on helping corporations instead of people SHOULD be generating more criticism than it has. People are giving him too much credit for being populist when clearly he isn't.

politicians. They support Obama on the issues one which they agree with him and they express disappointment when he takes a conservative/ corporate position on an issue. I don't think that it's a case of all or nothing, or even "giving up on him". There are victories and frustrations. I guess we'll be able to weigh how many of one we've had vs. the other in time, but everyone has a different opinion about what a reasonable deadline on that should be.

Obama is servant of the people and should be held accountable for his actions just like any other politician who works for us.

In a democracy we hire presidents to do the people's work. When they fail to do so our satisfaction, we should express our dissatisfaction with our words or our votes.

Whether he has an (R) or a (D) behind his name is irrelevant. Whether he is better than his predecessor is also irrelevant.

Were less pro-Obama during the primaries than they were anti-HRC.

i love the guy...but i question some things...as we discussed in my post earlier...it is patriotic and intelligent to question and not believe blindly especially when certain issues dont logically resonate..i expect everyone here to do that as well..ive been posting here for a long time and just because i questioned today, i was personally discounted...thats ridiculous..im not a moderate..but im not stupid either...and the issues i raised were legitimate...and have nothing to do with me being a troll or starting a flame bait thread..which i never have done...the day i stop questioning is the day i die...

And I have criticized him myself on Geithner and the bailouts and other things. I agree with you that we should question and not follow blindly. But, judging from the responses on this thread, it seems that a lot of folks believe he is being unfairly criticized by our own. I think this will help all of us keep our eye on the big picture but also, retain the right to criticize the President whenever we think he is wrong. In my opinion, that is patriotic.

Each day that he stubbornly refuses to confront the truth and commit to ensuring that the DOJ has all the resources required to prosecute ALL the government officials responsible for torturing in the name of the American people, the number of outraged Americans will grow.

The Americans who refuse to tolerate Obama's http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE53H1Y020090418">violation of our treaties haven't "turned against him." They are calling on him to fulfill his presidential oath and do the job they "hired" him to do. They believe he is capable of doing the right thing. If they'd given up on him -- if they had actually turned against him -- they wouldn't be calling on him to act. They'd be calling for his impeachment.

From a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=443901&mesg_id=444621">recent post on the subject:

though it's natural to feel let down when you have such high expectations to begin with. So many of us were so thrilled to be done with Bush that our expectations were too high for this administration. It takes a long time to untangle ourselves from the mess left after the last 8 years.

... "turned against" Obama, but I think he is a disappointment.

He's doing nothing about getting us out of the ME, he's doing nothing to redress the crimes of the previous administration, but most of all his BANKER BAILOUT is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, as Americans will see in a few years.

but I don't buy for a second that anyone against it would be allowed to be President. McCain, I don't think even wanted to but it was made clear that going against this would mean game over.

"I know words are cheap sometimes, but what else do you really expect the man to do?
______________________________________________________________________

Walk the talk. And he isn't walking it.

dog. I like his sentences.

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

in Alexandria, Virginia. I think our frustration is that he is a smart and compassionate person so we expect him to do the right thing. Then, when he fails to use his bully pulpit to push for at least a public option to health care, or to hold Bush-Cheney accountable, or to nationalize the banks, etc., etc., etc., we call him on it and get angry.

Sure, he inherited a lot, but that doesn't excuse not doing the right thing. Yes, he is better than Bush but he can't squander his high ratings--he needs to act and act on things that really matter. He needs to call out those in Congress who have sold out to special interests and who do not support workers and their right to a safe and just job that pays them a living wage.

He DOES have a lot to deal with, and if America's economy crumbles, so does the world and all the rich people will be penniless too.

He's on the side of all AMERICANS. We have to make concessions, as do the corporations. He has said that too. Amongst other things.

He can't do everything at once and he can't do it alone.

I'm sorry people have the attention span of modern day movies and television.

"in a depression money returns to its rightful owners"

andrew mellon

who give up their principles to remain team players.

were never "for" him in the first place.

She came on and was going on and on and on about how she just changed her registration from Democratic over to Republican. It didn't take long for her freeper nature to leak out over the air for her to blurt out the word socialism at which point the gig was up.

Isn't that a favorite tactic of the reich wing, to go and make all this hot air about how people are turning against Obama, don't support him, etc etc?

Over time it becomes apparent that no praise for Obama will ever be typed by certain posters.

I am not yest disappointed since I had much lower expectations than many. I understand the real limitations he is working on and I find some of the naivete here almost hilarious at times.

He picked Geithner - a jaded, cynical choice as Geithner and Goldman Sachs are joined at the hip and Geithner has shown nothing but disdain for oversight and accountability. On torture - we look forward, contractors like CACI and gov. employees will not be prosecuted for torture. On wiretapping, amnesty for AT&T. On health care - only insurance companies allowed to set policy.

Each violation of constitutional law and intent by an administration is more severe than the last. Because there is no justice, corporations and government agencies like CIA, FBI and NSA are out of control and the seeds for an even bigger abuse are being sown now.

We have a weird proxy government run by corporations. Obama is playing bi partisan reindeer games. We need FDR style leadership, not Monte Hall let's make a deal.

Let's see if he puts a "centrist" conservative on the supreme court. Wouldn't surprise me at all. Hell has a place, its in the center. I'm sick of the mushy middle spinning in circles and digging a giant hole into which our tax dollars get thrown.

1) During the pre-negotiations for the Chrysler bankruptcy filing, it was stated that Obama's administration tried to strong-arm the bond holding creditors to take a lower position in claims against Chrysler assets than unsecured creditors. If this happens, it's a big time violation of UCC and will destroy confidence in bond investors.
2) Unfortunately, Obama seems to be a little naive about foreign policy as it pertains to Iran and North Korea. These two nations are threats; period, and Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
3) Honestly, this Byzantine maze of bail-out, TARP, and such seems to be fascist in nature. It sincerely worries me.
4) For all the criticism of Bush using Reagan/Bush 41 cabinet officials, Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton's cronies.
5) For all the talk about "change", Obama seems cozy with lobbyists.
6) Where's mortgage relief and access to affordable healthcare? Oh, right, it's gone to two dead auto companies.
7) Napolitano is going to prove herself the new Brownie. When we get hit with another big crisis, I can't wait for Obama's version of the "Heck of a job, Brownie!" speech for Napolitano. She's proven herself incapable of grasping the concept of homeland security and its relationship to secure borders.
8) Is anyone kind of concerned about the continual media love-fest with him? Don't get me wrong; I was as enthusiastic as anyone, but no president is beyond accountability.

The Uniform Commercial Code governs transactions between private parties in commerce. I question whether the Commercial Code applies once to direct transactions once the government is playing the role it is playing in the Chrysler matter. Is there any precedent on that?

§ 1-103. Construction of to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of , the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-102

negative? I don't get it myself. I think the country is in the midst of huge change and we need to stay positive and keep pushing for more change. It's not all up to Obama, we have some responsibility in this whole thing as well. I refuse to criticize Obama at least for a year or two. Things take time but I believe many of the changes we want are in the process of happening.

All I have to do is think of the previous eight years and any fears I may have are mollified.

you have a memory problem. that much is clear . the cabinet is a mixed bag. some very good appointments, some meh, and some bad.

The rest I really like.

I wish people here would do some checking before they make half assed statements.

when Al Gore and Howard Dean were available; do some checking before you make half assed statements!

Presidents have to deal with a flowing series of events and problems that need management and sometimes a steady hand.

This is why, for the most part, there isn't a sea change every time a President is elected. For the most part, if you look at their politics, especially recently, there isn't a whole hell of a lot of change when a new President takes office. And there will never be, for he is just one man in a gigantic framework which is ultimately way too large for one person to steer competently.

People tend to project their hopes and dreams onto the presidential candidate they support, and doubly so when that person wins. And the presidential candidates themselves have all these huge hopes and ambitions for how things are going to change when they enter office. But then they get to see how things REALLY work, and are forced to work within that system, and that's how you get disappointed supporters.

The only way to see a true change in the way the Presidency is handled is when you have successive, elected governance from the same party. That's how Reagan and Bush I changed the Presidency, and it's really never snapped back since.

Which is why I opposed his nomination.

I'm not "turning against him." I was never with him.

I did, at about 4 am election morning, send him a note of congratulations along with a book about education policy, hoping that he would really listen to those who disagree with him.

I got the book back with a note from an aide explaining that he doesn't take "gifts." Not that it was a gift; it was a bound policy position. They sent the congratulatory note back, too; unopened.

I guess he only takes books from Chavez.

Then came the cabinet appointments; one disappointment after another, until we got to Arne Duncan.

At this point, the next 4-8 years were looking pretty damned grim.

To answer your question: it's not the mess he inherited. It's what he plans to do with that mess.

Does he plan to end the bogus war on terror? No. More lives and dollars playing bully on the planet.

Does he plan to implement single-payer health care? No way.

Does he plan to repeal NCLB? NAFTA/CAFTA? Not at all.

Does he plan to put a stop to the privatization of public education? Not with Duncan at the helm.

Maybe he'll nominate someone adequate to replace Souter; that gives me a little hope for a short time, anyway.

It's not, Why a turn 'against' Obama. Obama's a great guy, personally, an improvement over the predecessor, but only a small part of the overall picture. It's time to see past the presidency and daily Beltway rhetoric of the two-party show.

You should ask yourself, why are so many people (still) demanding, as they have for many years:

- single-payer universal health care as exists in all of the world's civilized countries, not a program to require everyone to purchase private for-profit health insurance. That is not what Obama is offering, so long as that is the case, people will protest or, as you misleadingly put it, "turn against" him.

- an end to the power of the big private banks (known roughly as "Wall Street") who created the present economic crisis by getting all of their demands serviced, who have committed fraud on the world and taken trillions from the people and want to do nothing other than take trillions more. This system is a global disaster, but Obama has stuck with the Bush-Paulson "bailout" (plunder) plan. Long as that is the case, people will protest, and their numbers will grow with each month as the illusory nature of the bear-rally "recovery" becomes clear.

- an end to the wars, which means out of Iraq with apologies, no new Afpak escalation, justice on those who waged aggressive war and killed millions of people on consciously false pretexts, and a roll back of the Pentagon, a withdrawal from the 700+ overseas bases, an end to world military domination (or the implicit threat thereof) as the centerpiece of American policy. This is not what Obama offers or promised, and so people are going to keep fighting for what is right until he or someone else starts delivering. At least as long as the majority of your income tax bill (i.e., federal discretionary spending) goes to the military-industrial complex, and the US spends more on it than almost all other countries combined, and fosters the world arms trade instead of moving to shut it down. You may like some of the measures Obama has taken, but he hasn't put to question 99 percent of this system.

- an end to the drug war, to the practice of secret government by covert operation, to the dominance of corporate money in the political system. Obama has made some nice little baby-step reforms in these directions (less repression on medical marijuana, release of a few memos), but it can hardly even be called a start. He has expressed support for prohibition, for example.

- and what about justice and the rule of law, coming on the heels of the most criminal (and unelected!) regime in modern US history?

These are among the causes and injustices that motivate people to protest, and if they protested and criticized Bush (and his predecessors) for these policies, they will continue to protest Obama long as he follows these policies. Being likable, intelligent, reasonable in day-to-day decisions as they come up (as in your examples) and "better than Bush" are worthy qualities, but hardly touch the issues we confront, and hardly give cause to shut up about the basic issues of justice and human progress.

Absolutely right.

Just because a democrat was elected doesn't mean we throw our goals out the window. If he gets elected and suddenly isn't doing what we elected him to do then we SHOULD be criticizing him.

Well said.

democratic political process. Additionally, many of the policy proposals they advocate are far from clear in their implications. As a result there tends to be a moderation from what is perceived to be an "ideal" policy.

Damn DU members should know better than to go against Obama. How dare they do that. Oh the humanity of it all.

and they love to criticize him for everything. It started the day after the election. Pay them no attention.

Fiddle dee dee, torture torture torture - its spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. His response to torture and the coddling of CIA, NSA, FBI, AT&T and Wall street is more than disturbing. If this infusion of corporate control over government isn't raising the hair on the back of your head, it should. One day we will be a horrible price for sitting on our asses and letting corporations grow too big to fail. Congress is still non-functional. We are trying to change but it takes three or four reformers to move just one overweight and entrenched ass sitter and we are out numbered.

The score so far:

Ass Sitter "Centrists" 10
Reform-Minded Democrats 0

And FWIW - I was an Obama delegate. That doesn't mean I've given up my right to protest the extreme middle.

You need another pigeonhole for them.

I'll get you your decoder ring.

Wall Street and he is not standing strongly enough against the human rights abuses of the Bush administration.

We have to have war crimes trials. This is an issue that cannot be decided by just going beyond it. The fundamental question about the powers of the presidency in war have to be decided once and for all.

Please see my post here, in which I explain why it is imperative that attorney general Holder try Bush for his war crimes and in particular the torture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5628939&mesg_id=5628939

In addition, the Holder Justice Department's stances on the wiretapping litigation are inexcusable.

great causes? might it be the pullout of troops from Iraq which keeps getting rescheduled? might it be single-payer off the table? Might it be placing Goldman-Sachs representatives in charge of our treasury? ignoring Howard Dean? maybe there are a few reasons. There isn't going to be any way to fix what the Treasury is doing now, compounding BUsh's handover of wealth.

it totally ignores the fact that we're the ones paying attention to what Obama is doing and critiquing it, instead of just cheering for him as a person. Politics is about what gets done, not about celebrity worship.

But feel free to go about your celebrity worship if that makes you happy. :eyes:

and he was such a relief after that imbecile we had previously. However, it seems to me that he is trying to avoid persecuting bush et al. I dont care who they are or were - if they broke the law they should pay just like the rest of us. That is where real change comes in and if he was sincere in his campaign proomises to change anything, this is a good place to start. Let everyone in congress or other positions where abuse is a daily ho hum that they will end up in jail and then jail the bastards. Just dont jail them in some country club somheyewhere with conjugal visits - let them try leavenworth, and if they want sex buba will be only too happy to oblige.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The Military Commission GITMO trials (he as against them during the campaign)
His DOJ is taking many of the Bush positions on executive powers (see the many court cases)
And many others I probably don't remember right now.

And of course he opposes single payer (though he used to be for it).