To any FOOL who thinks Obama, after just 4 months, is too much like Bush I say:

1) Expanded SCHIP - LAW !

2) Fair Pay Act - LAW !

3) Stimulus Bill - LAW !

4) Churchy Stem Cell Limits - GONE !

5) Churchy Reproductive choice limits - GONE !

6) New female centrist-progressive/female/hispanic Sup. Ct. Justice COMING !

7) Gitmo - On the way OUT ! (Will take some time though. Give him a chance!)

8) Torture - GONE !

9) Major healthcare reforms COMING !

10) Better oversight/rules on financial markets, bankers, etc. (Give him time !)

11) More US Judicial attention to corporate crime and civil rights.

12) Pro-Middle Class Policy Task Force UNDERWAY !

13) Return to international treaties !

14) MAJORITY of troops out of Iraq by next summer. Virtually ALL out a year later !

15) REAL work on Middle East Peace !

16) New Mostly Democratic Cabinet/Executive Staff (very few R's) !

17) Return to RESPECT from other nations !

18) A new, better, wise and thoughtful leader for a damn CHANGE who listens and tries to work with others where he can but also damn well stands by his principles !

** It has only been 4 months folks, and Obama inherited a shit load of a mess from Chimp. It can't all be swept clean overnight. But look at all that HAS been done. Look at all that IS on the way. Give him TIME and SUPPORT him ! Remember, ALWAYS remember, Obama is 100 times better than Bush or ANY RUSH-Ub-Lican !! COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS !!

its just not very nice.

just four months because they are so out in left field and so out of reality they STUPIDLY and FOOLISHLY think the world is going to COMPLETELY change overnight. That is the small group I'm talking to. It is the circular firing squad crowd that would find fault with a person who handed them a thousand dollars for free because it wasn't two thousand. Give our new Democratic President a chance for Christ sake before you go whining and bitching and pissing and moaning and arranging your circular firing squad. I'm not saying people can't have opinions, but Obama is NOTHING like BUSH and I will FIGHT that STUPID and IGNORANT comparison BIGTIME !!

if I disagree with his policies I critique. its simple.

Since when do we have to kiss the president's ass for doing what should be done? We elect HIM. He's beholden to US.

That's about as worthwhile as your last statement.

:thumbsup:

Where's that in the Constitution? Just curious.

the president bows to expediency, using the excuse "Now is not the time", then he deserves neither respect or differentiation from any other - Democrat or Republican - who has come before him.

capacity. It is a very complicated process. Priorities have to be set.

Yes, the decisions are hard, but that's why you're there. And in the end, if you're not fulfilling your mission, what the hell are you doing?

Not to mention worldwide issues; everything is rather complex.

Never to early to castigate the left either it seems. I seem to recall posts within a month of the election reminding us that most of the progressive policies that us lefties supported him for were not his positions.

Also there is a noise to signal ration here that concerns me where more of you "it's a moderate world" clowns seem to dedicate far more energy to diverting, blunting, dissuading, demonizing, and shouting down any criticism from the left than you EVER spend on opposing the right.

:(

RBInMaine speaks for me. Rec #5, more to come!

:toast:

...my wife for instance.

*rimshot*

:P

K&R

:kick:

Let's see....oh, wait. Hasn't been any.

GET REAL !

You propose the choice is between: Obama doing nothing for gays/lesbians; and b) Having George Bush back.

The real choice is a) Obama doing something, or b) Obama not doing anything.

We have b)

To be able to marry and have those marriages recognized from state to state?

To be able to keep our jobs in the military without being blackballed as if we were potential terrorists?

And actually, I'd be happy for right now just to hear Obama say that he opposes Proposition 8. That would be nice.

As President he hasn't mentioned it. Which is what this thread is about.

Now whenever I see this defense of President Obama, I always remember these words from one of MLK's speeches:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

And I ask once again, how does this quote not apply to Obama and other moderate, centrist Democrats? At this point in time, they are the true enemies of progress. Stumbling blocks in our stride toward true GLBT, economic, and constitutional freedoms.

Oh, you are way too funny.

DOMA - Not a word.
DADT - A handwritten note while more gays and lesbians are kicked out of the service

Then we have gay marriages. Half-hearted comments about Iowa's allowing gay marriage, but hey it was good enough to make a joke out of.

As for "patience", I've been patient for more than 30 years. How much more patience do you expect me to have? Especially when the man stood up and claimed to be a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians, but has not made any show if it since taking office?

Call it "single-issue" if you want. Then explain that to the thousands of gays and lesbians who are denied equality under the law.

whether you like it or not, Obama has been in office just four months, so I guess your're just gonna have to dig a little deeper and give the man some more time. And, "single issue" means just that. There are, in fact, other issues besides gay rights. I listed several. Try seeing a larger picture. That's what grown-ups do.

Also don't pout or cry because others can't or won't follow the cheerleaders.

I gave the man my vote based on what he said he was going to be, a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians. When I find the words were true then I will know my vote counted for something. Until then? Not so much.

a long time. He's failed on Wall Street. They're still getting money. He's failed on health care. The plan is pro-insurance.

That was fast.

He failed on FISA; he failed on Habeus Corpus; he failed on torture outside of GITMO (and possibly still on inside); he failed on not issuing signing statements; failed on Patriot Act; failed on health care; failed at having Dean for HHS.

How has he failed this country? Let me count the ways..........

But he speaks in compound sentences!

None of those "advances" have been because of Obama, but because of true liberals finding their voices in this country. I wish Obama could recover his.

He's been handed opportunities to right some wrongs, and has refused to do so. Even so far as to refuse to speak out about Prop 8. It reminds me a lot of Reagan's refusal to acknowledge AIDS.

And as far as "single-issue" I'm also concerned about his incorporation of insurance co.s in his health care program. Is that better?

And he gives really inspiring speeches.

He speaks in compound sentences, using both sides of his mouth at the same time. The guy is simply dazzling. :-)

Better still, let's complicate your life and your family's life with archaic and pig-ignorant cultural moralism and have your President ignore you.

Grown-ups?!

Give me a fucking break.

If not, shut the fuck up about "seeing a larger picture", you privileged asshole.

Dayum, but they're confident.

Unless Obama changes his tune, he's not getting THIS homo's vote in 2012; nor is any other candidate - Democrat or Republican - who does not support full equality.

There are other issues that have been ducked:

Single payer universal health care- Well he was never in favor of that anyhow, maybe if the insurance companies don't mind we might try a trial version of it on a limited basis subject to their approval where we take only the patients they refuse to provide coverage for onthe basis of preesxiting conditions.

Instead lets just let them police themselves.

I normally like Will's comments, but this one threw me for a loop. There are so many issues right now... ones encompassing ALL of us. (18000 people in California might seem like a lot, but in that state the whole population is only a mere 2000 times as many people. 36000000. If "the needs of the many" has any validity, of course... )

Yes, there are a lot of people, but I am not just talking about California. I'm talking about gays and lesbians on the whole. People keep telling us to be patient. To just sit back and let the man play chess.

I'm sorry, I've waited while other issues were always "more important right now". If we continue to sit by and wait without demanding people acknowledge us with more than just lip service, we will always be waiting.

I'm not willing to be a wallflower anymore. They say I'm a single issue voter, but I'm voting for my family, my loved ones, and even for those whom I don't know. That's millions of reasons I use my vote, even if they're not important to others.

you want bush back. thats the new meme.

up any of your civil rights.

Didn't work on me then, won't work now.

I've seen Obama go back on too many campaign promises for me to not speak up. This list here is very misleading.

And I don't care what I'm called. Intimindation doesn't change my mind.

BITCHING" too.

Go have another shot of JD.

You're sure not very interested in equal rights for gays.

Oh well. We wouldn't want to muss his cheerleading outfit. It's so SPIFFY!

That or any of the "Look at the Glittery People!" threads.

He didn't campaign on supporting gay marriage or even actively pushing any kind of civil unions, and my guess is many of the people who voted for him (sadly) wouldn't have if he had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu9mnsZyU7o&feature=related

"When I am President of the United States, gays and lesbians will have somebody who will fight for equal rights for them -- because they are our brothers and they are our sisters."
- Barack Obama

Did he spell out in the next few sentences exactly what he meant by "equal status"? If so, it sounds like a legit campaign promise. If not, it's a purposefully vague statement made to placate the LGBT community.

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/open_letter_from_barack_obama_to_the_lgb.php

Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT Community February 28, 2008

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system."

He's done nothing.

"It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second class citizens in this nation. And I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." - Barack Obama, February 2008

Leadership. Real equality. Full equality. Never compromise. Join with me and I will provide that leadership.
What do you think about that?

Did he ever say what he means by:
"Full equality"?
"Leadership"?

A concrete statement--one that you can expect a politician to take seriously--would be something like, "I will close Guantanamo Bay in my first term." A vague statement--one closer to everything he's said about equality for gays--would be more like "I will use my leadership to ensure prison facilities treat suspected terrorists fairly"

If by "fierce" he meant staying silent, he's a lion!

We have to learn as a society that not everything is available "on demand", especially when it deals with fixing 30 years of right-wing BS.

Filled with tax cuts for the rich.



key word is "centrist". Whoohoo a CENTRIST! That's the change we voted for!



LOL...."give him a chance"..."it's gonna happen".

wishin'...and hopin'....and dreamin'.....



ROFL. You actually believe that it's gone??? How naive.



LOL. More like "Major profits for big insurance COMING!"



"Give him time!" "It'll happen one day!"

More bailouts is better oversight??



Another completely unproven "accomplishment".....



Which administration has he been watching? There's barely been anything "pro-Middle class" out of it.



Key word is "virtually".



Like a "Mostly" Dem cabinet has made any fucking difference.

There's really no purpose to cheerleading, but there is a very clear purpose to advocacy.

Advocacy is what people do when they attempt to pressure their political leaders to do what they believe is best for society and criticize those leaders when they do not - also in an attempt to pressure political leaders to do what they believe is best for society.

That's sort of our role.

I agree completely. I have never understood what the various "shut up and trust the guy" crowd could possibly be thinking. Somehow we are to all sit back and wait for another holiday (election day) to speak about politics and after that stop talking about all our issues and let the wisened philosopher kings just run the show?

How many rationalizations for kicking the activists and the left in the teeth have I heard.

"He's built a team of rivals" (Mostly DLC, blue dog, and centrist corporate creeps)

"Have you ever played chess, he's strategizing around this issue" (mysteriously by not putting the issue on the table you are tricking the opposition to fall over backwards and have an 'aye' vote in favor of what you want to slip from his pocket and be counted on the floor of congress.)

"He is not a liberal he is a moderate" (yeah most moderates use the word 'change' a lot, moreover most voters didn't really want to actually change things that would directly affect their lives-healthcare or education, they wanted to make minor meaningless changes to bank handouts and benefits for the wealthy)

I could go on and on...

...before you would admit obama critics might have a point. you ARE the problem.

because we can't afford to lose the left-leaning Republicans.

IOW, he'd trade us for lukewarm Repugs any day.

alternative. My gripe is not having some differing opionions. My gripe is those who insist on almost NEVER, EVER having anything positive to say about Obama's policies after just four months and even go so far as to compare him with Bush. That is the point. This circular firing squad crap needs to end. This is Democratic Underground. We worked our asses off to win the Presidency and did it. And then, after all that work, after 8 years of Chimp, I have to hear people bitch about Obama after just 4 months in office. Sorry, but there is no need of that. People need to remember what we have just come through after 8 hellish years of Chimp and give Obama and god damn chance ! This is reality time too. He has to set priorities, and not everything can not be perfect. Give the man a chance and how about some CREDIT for all the good that has been done.

Why did you come in here with a rhetorical gun shooting anyone to the left of you? Look at your choices of words ("whiners" "bitchers"), you insistence on using ALL CAP WORDS IN EVERY POST, and you continuous use of false dichotomies.

You are not the solution, but the problem. Perhaps if you want the circular firing squad to stop, you should put down your gun.

:silly:

Stunning.

more progressive on the court obviously than the right wingers there now. This is a GOOD pick. The opportunity for us is to be the progressive/moderate party that can sustain the American center which decides elections. That is the absolute political reality. We are NOT a far left nation. We are mainly a centrist to center-progressive nation at the moment. If we tac too far left, we lose the center and the RePUKES re-gain ground. The opportunity is to dissolve the R's into the far right party of LIMPBALLS, LIDDY, NEWT and CHENEY, and bash them into electoral oblivion. But some peoples' fantasy of a far left America aint happenin' any time soon. Be HAPPY with a centrist, yes, a CENTRIST who today is light years to the left of the REPUKE base but also by no means on the far left. The far wings of the spectrum are national electoral danger zones, make no mistake about that.

I'll tolerate it while we apply pressure to the wound.

wings do not control the electoral nationally.

Honey, I deal with reality every damn day. I don't like it; I don't have to like it; and I'm not ever gonna "like" it until I'm treated like a human being. It's a moral imperative.

So take your "we are a centrist nation" bullshit and shove it.

:thumbsup:

Unless by "we" you mean ruling special interests like those that dominate our government.

As far as the American people go, it has been long established that the people themselves are far more progressive than their political establishment. Only 21% of America identifies with the GOP right now. A majority support single payer healthcare, according to more than one national poll. A majority support public education and desire dramatic increases in federal funding. A majority support women's rights of choice, a majority want us to end our agressive foreign policy in the middle east. A majority OPPOSE our corrupt system of corproatocracy, and want it undone, especially now.

These are all things that are consistently reflected anytime a poll asks working class Americans what they want without connecting it to a political party. It is the meme of the powers-that-be that American is "centrist" or even "center-right" and that the people's government just reflects the mood of the people.

The rest of us know that is a lie, designed to make sure that same status quo power brokers continue to be the same status quo power brokers.

Yeah, definitely centrist except on:

The environment and global warming
A womans RIGHT to choose
Education
Increases in the minimum wage
The right to organize and form unions
Universal and free healthcare
Regulating and prosecuting the worst abuses of corporations
Making the wealthy pay their fair share
Ending occupation in Iraq and bringing our troops home
Opposition to Nafta and unregulated trade
Opposition to Walstreet and financial white collar crime

There are no moderates. There are only issues.
The fact of the matter is this 'centrist' thing is a corporate construct. There are no centrists and no moderates, you may as well be hunting dragons or unicorns as look for whatever the hell a centrist is or where they are.

The repug-niks at least get this. They understand that there is no such thing as an actual moderate as if you ask most people they will have a point of view on most issues. But the Republicans are good at moving the construct of what it means to be moderate by constantly putting it between their dialectical point of view and the democrats. Which means that where ever you are the moderate position will always seem to be between the Democratic and Republican position.

The Democrats chase this supposed moderate position running fast and hard in its direction while the Republicans try to define it by maintaining their position. This is a foot race you cannot win. This is Zeno's paradox where you always have to move halfway closer and never actually hit the target (or in fact get halfway to the target since that always changes.)

If you want an example look at our tax laws. The wealthy pay less in taxes than under that Pinko Bush 41, than that fellow traveler Reagan, than those hippies Ford and Nixon, or that Communist Eisenhower. But we are only moving in one general direction and down one side of the curve, infrastructure and economic justice be damned.

Time to go outside and form a progressive peace party that brings Indies, Naderites and Greens on board, along with many repugs and dems who are tired of war and the attack on the middle/poor classes.

Try it, I dare you. America will hate you for all eternity for destroying the country by splitting the sane 60% of the country and letting the insane 40% back into power.

that might ruin all of this wonderful "progress" the Democrats have given us. Then we might not get environmental ptotections, gay rights, economic regulation, corporate reform, middle class tax relief, single payer health care and an end to the wars.

Oh, wait...

:thumbsup:

This pretty much sums up your post: "Obama hasn't fixed everything in 4 months so he's obviously a falure".

Guess what? FDR didn't fix everything in 4 months either. Also, FDR was perceived as a centrist by many liberals during the first year and a half or so of his presidency. It wasn't until 1936 that FDR fully donned the left-wing persona of the post-war hagiographies.

"I want to do what you say, now come and make me do it" --FDR

Calling things like LGBT rights and the rule of law "pet"/"pony" issues really gets to me.....

Your pony insult probably had that person not read the rest of your post. I wouldn't have either. The insulting little cutesy talking points are damaging to this community.

A person's civil rights are not a fucking pony! Christ, some DUers need to look in a mirror and see what they are becoming.

You want to make a point? Do it without insulting the person you are addressing. Until then, you have no right to accuse them of missing anything you post out of stupidy/ignorance (which is what "over the head" means).

But I knew it would appear. Shallow minds can only dig so far.

I think the big problem is that some just can't understand that the president has to set is priorities, and those priorities won't always be the same as ours are. He is only human, and can only do so much. He has to fight not only the republicans, but democrats who are in the pockets of big corporations and don't want to lose all the corporate money! I think maybe we need to take a closer look at those in congress who are democrats who are not doing what they should for the people. Until we can get rid of those who are backed by money from insurance companies, drug companies, etc., we are not doing to get anything done, no matter how hard the president tries. It is going to take some time, and change doesn't only start at the top, but has to work down to congress, and then on down to the state levels.

He's one of them.

"bad", especially in comparison to what the RePUKES offer.

My skin doesn't crawl and I don't start throwing my head against the wall and banging it repeatedly when he's on the TOOB.

But he also isn't much like a Democrat. Unless you define "Democrat" as owing the Corporate State the right to deprive We The People many of the things that allow a citizenry decent lives.

And that includes a viable economy.

The OP says
10) Better oversight/rules on financial markets, bankers, etc. (Give him time !)

We cannot afford more time. We allowed Geithner and Bernancke to take away eleven trillion bucks worth of Main Street Monies. With almost no oversight on how much money is being taken, where it is going, who does what and where and when and why!?!

No one nesds TIME to figure this out. Obama could have simply -- Repealed the 1999 Banking Reform Act. Gotten rid of Credit default swaps and derivatives. And put Glass Steagall back in place.

In other words, Obama had a choice - simply restore out economy to the same situation it possessed in 1989 before the madness of the nineties descended on us.

Instead Obama is keeping We the People enslaved to Wall Street as it has been ever since the 1990's. While attempting to do the same old thing and for whatever reason, hoping that it turns out differently. (It won't. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and start understanding why this nation is now a banana republic.)

Listening to him speak, I soon noticed there was not much difference between the old Republican party of 1976 and the current DLC "centrist" Democrats.
The hard left, democratic socialist wing of the Democratic party needs to break away and form a party similar to Canada's NDP.

The increasing right-wing radicalization of the Rethuglican party has afforded the Democratic Party a rather annoying shift to centrist politics.

Fighting against Valery Plame from suing in civil court, still spying on Americans, continuing to use state secrets defense, not starting prosecutions against torturers and other war criminals, fighting against the release of torture videos and photos, letting Repukes go free in court cases and nothing so far for Siegelman, not standing up for Gays, giving us another Vietnam soon with an escalation in Afghanistan, killing of civilians in unmanned drones, still quagmiring us in Iraq, having Henry Kissinger play envoy and having Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

In my 57 years I've come to the conclusion that the only difference between Democratic and Republican politicians is that Democratic politicians are kinder and gentler when it comes to domestic policy. For the most part, they are still a blood thirsty, war mongering lot.

Then there are the rays of sunshine..Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (and he isn't even a Democrat) in the Senate and a good part of the black caucus, Dennis Kucininch and Maurice Hinchey in the House. It is because of these people, I am still a Democrat.

:thumbsup:

Hey, he's learned from the masters.

I would leave the presidential section blank.

I didn't vote for a Democrat on a ballot was the last time Hillary Clinton was up for re-election as my Senator. I swore I wouldn't vote for her again when she voted for the IWR.

world.

of law and decency because the "real world" can't handle it? Utter bullshit.

"Ya'll jus' lie down there nice 'n comfortable like. This won't take but a minute!"

we have a one party system, masquerading as a two party system. That needs to end if we ever expect to see REAL change.

The only way true left democrats will ever get a share of power is by splitting off into a third party.
We then will need to be "courted" as coalition partners.
Broken promises to coalition partners = toppled governments.

I would love a Congress of 3 parties: Rethug, Democratic and Liberal Democrats.

Trivia question: How did Canada get single-payor socialized medicine?

Answer: Under the Liberal-NDP coalition government of PM Lester B. Pearson. The NDP side of the coalition put Lester's feet to the fire on it.

a one bi-polar war party.

Go join a grassroots movement to change the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college. That would be a productive use of your time. Being in denial about the current status of our political system is not a productive use of your time.

George Washington was, in fact, a president without a political party and he did not favor them. Go read the Constitution b4 you lecture on it.

Not a plurality -- a majority.

Please explain to me how a multi (greater than two) party system results in a majority of electors going to a single candidate with any consistency.

Let's play along with your fantasy idea of a viable 3rd party. How would this 3rd party candidate win?

That 3rd party candidate would have to start by winning states. Not by competing in states -- winning them. This is in itself not going to happen. But even if a 3rd party candidate won a state -- that would not be enough. They would have to win enough states to constitute 270 electoral votes.

:rofl:

So it's clear that a viable 3rd party really can't win. But such a party can indeed cause damage even if they don't win. If they somehow win even a few small states, that could prevent any candidate from winning a majority of electoral votes. What happens then?

The house decides who will be president. But they don't vote like they do on any other bill. Each state gets exactly one vote. So the great state of Alaska gets the same number of votes as California. Congresspeople from a given state vote to determine how their state's vote goes. The winner must win 26 states. And what happens if no candidate wins 26 states? The voting keeps going on, and on, forever. Eventually, the vice president becomes acting president, and the Senate votes on the vice president. But if the Senate does not have 51 votes for a given vice president, the voting again goes on, and on, and on.

Please tell me how a viable 3rd party is possible in this system. You can clearly read the Constitution. Maybe you should try actually thinking about it.

wins IA. The rest of the states, if history (almost always) is correct, follow suit. People love to vote for a winner. IRV would be desirable but maybe even harder to do at this point, since it favors multiple candidates.

All it takes is to get the ball rolling and for people to believe we can actually do this by cutting off funding to the corporate pols and by getting a huge grass roots going. I'll bet Nader would help. :-) Even thinking about this gives me hope for change.

The country has not been desperate enuf in the last 20 years to form a third party that can challenge the dems and repugs. It is now desperate.

IA is only significant in the Democratic primary (and the Republican primary). Your potential viable 3rd progressive party candidate would not be running in the Democratic primary.

And the center is thusly defined:

1. A point or place that is equally distant from the sides or outer boundaries of something; the middle: the center of a stage.
2.
a. A point equidistant from the vertices of a regular polygon.
b. A point equidistant from all points on the circumference of a circle or on the surface of a sphere.

it is then the job of those who are more liberal on various issues to be as distant from your center as possible, for the center is defined by where we stand.

The time to pass judgement on how progressive Obama has been is in the primary in 2012. Anyone who can't get over a loss in the primary to the point where they don't vote for the nominee in the general is no better than a PUMA and should not be catered to. Obama will have enough trouble getting the 99% of the country that is rational to vote for him than worrying about the remaining irrational 1%.

:hi:

Though it has been argued that Bush more rightfully belongs to the Genus Pan.

but the attitude is not necessary and many of those points have holes in them - gaping ones. Here's one that jumps out

16) New Mostly Democratic Cabinet/Executive Staff (very few R's) !


#1. Why mostly, instead of all? (although I personally think that keeping Gates provides cover for ending the Iraq war, but it's hard to celebrate before 98% of the troops come home

#2. Not all 'democrats' are created equal. You've got your business-friendly, pro-corporate democrats (Summers, Vilsack, Geithner) and then you have better, more progressive democrats (Baker, Reich, Krugman, Dean)

another one

3) Stimulus Bill - LAW !

it was talked about in real-time the number of ways this stimulus bill sucked. Mostly because of Senate Republicans, it is true, but some of that was from Obama's stated goal of being all bi-partisany. Under his leadership, he used his mandate to give up hundreds of miles of ground in exchange for two Republican votes.

1) Expanded SCHIP - LAW !

Drop in the bucket appeasement.

2) Fair Pay Act - LAW !

Obama signing on to other people's hard work. This is simply expected of anyone if they want a D after their name.

3) Stimulus Bill - LAW !

Good, but timid. Won't touch the damage of the horrific bailout fiasco.

4) Churchy Stem Cell Limits - GONE !

I agree this is gone.

5) Churchy Reproductive choice limits - GONE !

Huh?

6) New female centrist-progressive/female/hispanic Sup. Ct. Justice COMING !

There is no such thing as a "centrist-progressive." He's a Democrat. He's expected to not appoint a conservative.

7) Gitmo - On the way OUT ! (Will take some time though. Give him a chance!)

So what? John McCain promised the same. Bagram and other black sites are still open and he's given the CIA a loophole so they can stay open. He's closing an eyesore.

8) Torture - GONE !

Total bullshit. The torture at blacksites continues. That's why they're BLACKSITES. By not removing the troops--who believe me want to come home--he is subjected the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan to emotionally unstable, desperate, lost, traumatized troops who have been stoplossed for the 3rd time. We're talking Apocalypse Now level depravity going on in Iraq.

9) Major healthcare reforms COMING !

Great. And who's at the table? The murderous and unnecessary insurers. Soon we'll all have a Romney-Clinton style plan where we have to hold insurance cards to be employable. More scamming of the American people. That's why Obama's second largest pool of campaign contributors were from health insurers.

10) Better oversight/rules on financial markets, bankers, etc. (Give him time !)

Oh, and that reminds me. THE FIRST LARGEST SOURCE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WAS FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES. Better oversight? You're joking. With whose help? The same bankster crooks that caused the problem we're in?

11) More US Judicial attention to corporate crime and civil rights.

Sure. Whatever that means. He can't even speak out on Prop 8 when he's visiting California.

12) Pro-Middle Class Policy Task Force UNDERWAY !

Cool, some Harvard People get hired to talk. He wants a strong middle class? Push for singlepayer, work to end the wars.

13) Return to international treaties !

It is good not to alienate the world, but it's sad that this is even a "plus" in a candidates column.

14) MAJORITY of troops out of Iraq by next summer. Virtually ALL out a year later !

You are high. ALL TROOPS ARE COMBAT TROOPS. None of them are on the ground with water guns. They're all there to kill the "enemy" and the "enemy" is civilians who are pissed that we killed their mothers and kids. And why is he pulling troops out of Iraq? To spread them to Afghanistan to kill "the Taliban" which is now the name we give civilians who are pissed that we killed their mothers and kids.

15) REAL work on Middle East Peace !

Define "real".

16) New Mostly Democratic Cabinet/Executive Staff (very few R's) !

And very few progressives. Mostly Democratic if you count center-rights who would be Republicans before 1980.

17) Return to RESPECT from other nations !

Except for all the people who are pissed off about him bombing Pakistan, the surge in Afghanistan, and the lies about withdrawal from Iraq.

18) A new, better, wise and thoughtful leader for a damn CHANGE who listens and tries to work with others where he can but also damn well stands by his principles !

His principles? What exactly are his principles? PREVENTATIVE DETENTION? CORPORATE CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTEAD OF FIXING PUBLIC EDUCATION?


There is no doubt Obama is better than Bush. Bush took us 10 steps back every year. Obama is just keeping us there with a three steps forward, three steps back middle of the road approach. He is not "changing" anything. He's keeping us in a "dignified" holding pattern at best.

Only a left of center politician can stop the slide and push us back to where we were before Reagan (whom Obama respects so much.)

I also have to remind myself this as well, but if you have a problem, why not pose a solution at the same time while griping about the problem?

I stopped reading after you claiming SCHIP within a month is "Drop in the bucket appeasement." When people like you say things like that, it is perfectly rational for Obama to ignore them and their votes. Think about that.

Because if he thinks he can be re-elected without us, he's quite mistaken.

Obama will win in a landslide even if you rabid Naderites giver Ralph 5% of the vote in 2012. You guys are just like the extremist lunatics in the GOP that think the majority of Americans agree with them and think they should move even farther right.

Where'd you get that idea.

I though that would have been obvious based on the context, I guess not. :eyes:

I'd rather Obama became the candidate he claimed to be in the campaign.

If you projected Kucinich's positions on Obama that is your problem, not mine.

Opportunities that were deliberately . . . avoided.

And no, it's not your problem at all. It's his.

of votes that went to Greens, Naderites, Indies and others?

Total % was likely 10 plus, no? Anyone have the stats on that?

That adds up to 99%. So all other parties add up to 1%.

However, my neighbor across the street won't vote anymore becuz he says, "Both parties are corrupt." How many more like him are out there? People who would vote for someone other than the *lesser of two evils?* My guess is that they would go for a true peace/populist candidate.

Castigate the left, ignore them, beat on them, blame them, scare them into voting for moderates... but for the love of gods never, ever, ever listen to them. It is sooo much more preferable to a principled stand.

Nothing like a self fulfilling prophesy.

...who is not, I'm a frigging socialist yet I get castigated as an "evil centrist" because I have patience and refuse to scream impatiently for my pony. Oh, and I dare treat social conservatives as fellow human beings first and not automatically assume they are all Christo-Fascist monsters, which pisses off the self-proclaimed "progressives" as well. It's this Boomer-&-GenX Politics of Whining that is the problem. People as individuals need to learn to be the change they want to see in the world, to change people's opinions by setting a good example.

"I want to do that, now come and make me do it" --FDR

I'm sorry but there is good policy and bad policy and all the spin in the world does not excuse tossing the former in favor of the later.

And I find it the height of irony that you would cite FDR at the end of your post considering he actually attempted to make dramatic changes in this country for the better.

I don't know of a lot of socialists that are working to keep the democrats all moderate and centrist. To be honest I don't know of a lot of socialists in the democratic party. I would also suggest that your assuming the mantle of 'socialism' moves socialism rather far to the right of the definition of the term. Is this an attempt to paint all democrats to teh left of your position as communists or anarchists by comparison?

I'm confused here.

He actually criticized Hoover for spending too much. And the stuff he enacted in the first year and a half were criticized as "corporatist" and "fascist" by those on the left. The "Leftist" FDR didn't fully appear until 1936 and his "Rendezvous With Destiny" speech.

What year did the New Deal start in your history books?

He ran in 1932 blatantly on redistributing wealth in a more just manner. He mobilized the poor and minors and ethnic minorities.

He did promise to reduce or eliminate some public expenditures and red tape but NOT services. He in fact ran stating that he would use government to help people and redistribute wealth.

The New deal started up right out of the gate in 1933 with debt and mortgage relief for individuals (not banks), creating the Civilian conservation corp, encouraged unions, and started numerous public works projects to improve infrastructure.



This myth (probably DLC spawned-as it is completely ahistorical)of a moderate FDR is as irritating and irrational as the conservative myth of a failed new deal.

In 1932 FDR basically did triangulation on steroids, saying different things to different audiences. mainly saying "I'm not Hoover"

My main source is "The Great Depression: 1929-1941", the author of whom is a left-wing Keynesian economist, not a DLCer, so you are attaching false motives out of knee-jerk paranoia. That book made very clear that FDR didn't start to shift to the left until 1934, as public sentiment moved further to the left and the business community became increasingly stubborn and dogmatic.

Look at his legislative agenda the first 100 days. Nothing that I said in my post is false and all of it is demonstrably verifiable. Congress actually fought FDR more on his second term.

I'm sorry that yoru wrong about this 'running as a moderate' crap in his first term as you claim. The only way that can even remotely be considered plausible is because to the left of him were legitimate anarchists and full tilt socialists. He really did not triangulate as you claim.

As to businesses resistance and stubborness they never really liked him but realized that they could not fight a newly elected president. Those that fought him in the later part of his first term and his second term were easily identified with the business interests and isolated.

It was OPPOSITION to hoover, not triangulation on steroids. Triangulation would have been saying. I understand and want to welcome the cooperation of people that followed hoover. On this point I would suggest you to stop changing definitions it does not help your argument even a little bit.

The most progressive president in American History (FDR) was a moderate and you claim to be a socialist and yet you are clearly to the right of FDR. I'm confused here.

He didn't start out as one in 1932. And he was skeptical of Keynesian economics until the day he died.

What do you call running as someone looking to redistribute wealth (using almost those very terms) into the hands of the poor and building up the economy from the ground up? What do you call running with the backing of unions (before the Wagner act!!!)? What do you call running with the support of immigrant and ethnic minorities that were not treated at all well at that time?

It was not moderate. It was not Triangulation. It was not running as a centrist.


You end up looking historically ignorant when you make arguments like this, or a really amatuerish spinner from NewDemocrats.com or whatever other blue dog, DLC rock you crawled out from under.

I won't tell you to vote Republican, but stay at home next election day. At least that way you can brag to your fellow whiners that you didn't vote for Obama. We don't need you to get him reelected!

And with your strategy skills, he'll need even more.

At least, popular among people like you.

In reality, rational people vote for who they want in the primary but support the winner in the general.

But you are correct in that there are always irrational people like yourself that (in PUMA style) will not vote for the nominee.

You want to know how Obama solves this problem? He moves slightly to the right. Given that Obama is on the left, Obama's right is in the middle. There are FAR more people in the middle whose votes Obama can get than there are irrational people on the left who think they can hold hostage their votes.

Of course, this ends up going against your interests. In an effort to hold your vote hostage for the nominee of the party because they aren't to the left enough, the nominee solves the problem by actually moving to the right. The more people are irrational, the further to the middle the nominee goes. Have fun with that. :hi:

Wow. And you wonder why we're not thrilled with Obama so far.

BTW, I was never a PUMA either. I was in Obama's corner from the get-go. Contributed, made phone calls, caucused, walked neighborhoods. If you think he can win without people like me, well, good luck with that.

I am just stating what a rational nominee would do. I would of course prefer that progressives vote for the eventual nominee (even if that wasn't their choice in the primary), so that a rational nominee would not have to move to the middle.

When I say "people like you," I mean people who threaten to hold their vote hostage in the general election if Obama doesn't do this or that. I obviously don't mean all people who contribute, make phone calls, caucus, walk neighborhoods, etc.

But really, what else have I got but to "hold my vote hostage"? I gave it freely before, based on what I was hearing and hoping and believing. What power do I have over my elected officials but to "hold my vote hostage"?

Many people did vote for Kucinich in the primaries, and that is a good thing. Candidates should feel pressure from all sides, including the left. If a candidate like Kucinich doesn't win the primary though, that does not mean anyone who voted for Kucinich shouldn't vote for the nominee in the general election (where there are always exactly two viable options). That is the same thing as a Hillary voter refusing to vote for Obama because Hillary didn't win the primary. In the Hillary case, it is more about personality, whereas in your hypothetical case, it is more about policies. But it is the same idea (refusing to vote for the nominee in the general because their candidate did not win in the primary).

There have been many elections where I did not agree with all of the positions of the eventual nominee, but I still respected the fact that a majority of primary voters did agree with the nominee and I voted for the nominee anyway. The general election is really a party election, not a candidate election like the primaries, and as long as I would rather have the Democrat in office than the Republican (which has always been the case), I would vote for the Democrat.

:shrug:

And you can search my posts for that. What you'll find is enthusiastic support for Obama from DAY 1.

middle class smokers. No new taxes for the middle class? I think not.

system. Especially since 80% of democrats seem to think he's doing a decent job. That means I won't have to listen to the remaining 20%. Sounds fantastic!

They are circular firing squaders who should not be posting such nonsense on a Democratic blog. After what we just suffered through with 8 years of Bush, and fair and complete analysis shows stark differences, and this just after only four months. Those who actually compare Obama to Bush have earned to the title FOOL.

The misuse and overuse of the exclamation point detracts from your message, to say the least. So does the name calling.

I don't need to give Obama any time. I knew I wouldn't like his presidency in January of '08, when he and HRC were the last candidates standing.

I knew, because I listened and paid attention, that he was on the wrong side of the issues I was most concerned about. His appointments and actions since last November have proven, repeatedly, that I was correct.

I'm happy to support anything positive that he does. When I can.

Right now I'm a little busy opposing his policies on health care, education, war, the economy, and more.

When those are safe, I'll have time to look at some of the rest.

Maybe in 4 years, 8 years, or maybe, at the rate we are going, not in my lifetime.

Edited to add:

I'm sure you didn't mean to call ME a "fool," since that would be a personal attack.

:hi:

How many brigades have left Iraq so far? He promised a brigade a month. Is he doing that?

He also decided to leave Gitmo open for at least another year. WTF? The place is no longer an embarrassment, it is a complete disgrace. I guess when your dog takes a dump in your living room your ok with just letting it sit there for at least a year before you think about cleaning it up. WTF?

I guess according to you we need to be more thankful that Obama has decided to leave that huge steaming pile in the living room.

And what about the whole load of crap where he is allowing the TARP trillions to go to bonuses for the Wall Street criminals, after promising not to allow it? Why do you think he always makes such a lucid argument for doing the right thing, and then he promptly goes and does the wrong thing?

He made a perfect argument for releasing the torture photos, then a week later he changes his mind with no explanation at all. He obviously KNOWS what the right thing to do is, as evidenced by his original statement. Then, once he chooses to NOT do the right thing, he has no explanation at all.

And what about abandoning the Constitution and his oath to protect it? Should that just be ignored? How do you ignore something as large as complicity in sanctioning war crimes, including rape and torture and murder? I don't get it.

Are you saying everyone should just ignore the law and the Constitution? Because Obama is President?

:wtf:

He will begin moving troops out of Iraq at a faster rate in the near future. He plans to have about all out over the next year and a half. It takes some time. Gitmo is closing. It is complicated. Many legal and logistical issues. A plan has to be devised. Give him time. The bonus contracts were in place well before he came into office, and retroactive microtargeted taxation of them would probably not have passed legal muster. Going forward there are new rules being implemented. His military commanders expressed fear of troop safety and other security concerns if anti-American sentiment was again inflamed by releasing the Gitmo photos. He took another look and decided it wasn't worth it. I agree. It wouldn't have been worth risking that at this time. The goal now is to finish the legal and logistical plans needed to close Gitmo. To accuse him of sanctioning war crimes is very unfair. Very very unfair. He is not doing that. These incidents occurred well before he entered office. Mad? Yell at Bush/Cheney. Obama has ended torture and is working on closing Gitmo. You want him to dish out miracles a few months into office and clean-sweep all the Bush crap overnight. Not happening in the real world. It takes time. I listed many things to be happy about. More is coming. Can you please find SOMETHING you're happy about. People have the right to piss and moan, but for Christ sake wouldn't it be nice to hear folks like you find at least one positive thing to say just once in a while.

Are you expecting there to be some NEW DISCOVERY about Guantanamo over the next year? Is there something that you think has been overlooked for the past six years that will suddenly become obvious to us all?

People are being held without any charges against them.

One second is too long. Why abandon all the things that are so fundamental to Americanism? Does America suck so bad that we have to get rid of the notion that all of us are created equal? Do we abandon completely the whole notion of the presumption of innocence?

Why are you so willing to see people locked up for at least another year without any basic human rights? Is it because they are Muslims? Is it because they are not your family? I honestly don't understand.

Please explain.

And, as to the torture being in the past, that isn't the law. That isn't the way it works. Our leaders have a duty, both morally and legally to pursue all legitimate claims of torture. It is the LAW. He is breaking the law by turning a blind eye. It is it's own separate crime.






What is wrong with the law, what is it about this law that makes you think that this law should be flouted?

Then what is the point of this thread? When President Obama does well, I praise him. When he sucks, I piss and moan. Your post is moot.

It's not like Obama has a magic wand he can wave to erase all the shit Bush left for him. I don't agree with every move he has made, but he's doing a great job overall considering he has only been president for four months.

Off topic. I've always wanted to visit your state. What's it like up there?

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

and if you cannot, then stop it with the false argument.

My god, this whole thread is full of insults, snark, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and community-destroying attitudes. And yes, 90% of it is on one side of this argument. I'll leave you to figure out which side it is.

Single Payer is left off the table - Check.

The administration EPA is tossing out ridiculous environment screwing policy - Check.

We are escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and leaving residual bases and forces in Iraq - check.

We're making Bush-era legal arguments against government transparency, and against civil liberties - check.

We're "moving forward" on the biggest federal crime scandal in the history of our government, proving that there is no accountability and no meaning to the concept of "law" when you have enough power - Check.

The Wall Street bailout is a disgrace to working America, designed to reinflate a false bubble for rich people without fixing the fundamental flaws and excesses that will ultimately bring our economy to complete collapse (you can't ask for a bigger warning sign than what we've just experienced, and instead of really doing something about it, we've punted the problem to our children while propping up the very people who are doing the most damage).

There is silence on EFCA and push make concessions to Business - Check.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is off the Table - Check.

So far the highlight of educational policy reform is the failed GOP idea of so-called "merit" pay - Check.


It's not that positive things haven't happened. It's that the sheer contrast between the scale of the positive things that have happened, vs. the extensive number of major issues on which the exact opposite of anything I could support has happened is simply shocking. It's that every morning I get headlines and find more bad news about something this administration is doing that I completely oppose.

So, the fact that you can generate a list of things that have happened that we both support isn't the full picture or necessarily the point. The point is that the severity of the issues where the current administration is behaving in a way too similar to the previous administration tends to dwarf some of the other things that are getting done.

check it out just above you a little bit.

:sarcasm:

And the orignial OP was telling those that think Obama is just like Bush to look at the good things he has done.

Do you think Obama is just like Bush?

Of course I don't think Obama is "just like" Bush. I think that in some key areas of great importance his policies are far too similar to the policies of the previous administration. At the same time, the President has done many smaller but important things that are clearly opposite (and/or reversals) of the previous administration.

Right now the scale of the policy areas where I have disagreements with the administration dwarf the areas where I am in agreement. However, that may change as time goes on. Ask me in two and a half years and the areas of agreement may dwarf the areas of disagreement.

But for right now, do not expect me for one second to stop speaking out loudly about the issues that I believe are most important for society. This board is really just a place to write opinions, but in my real world, I am a public policy advocate.

Should not let her or Mr. Nafta (Bill) anywhere near the White House.

I think she was an excellent choice, and she is independent of her husband.

I don't understand why your obvious problems with Bill are a reason for her not to be SOS.

With your opening header, you only needed the body of your post to say "You're a hopeless idiot. Go stick your tongue in an electrical outlet".

like this...

I say, get a grip.

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

Many of them having to do with secrecy and civil rights. This despite promises of "change".

According to this article written January 2nd, 2008:

Independents are voters who, when asked by friends or pollsters, identified themselves as "independent" of the Democrats and Republicans. In some states, these voters can register as "independent" or "unaffiliated," but in other states, they register as Democrats or Republicans. Nationally, they make up about a third of all voters, but in some critical states like New Hampshire, they comprise over 40% of the electorate, both in general and most primary elections.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_percentage_of_independent_voters_in_America

This makes a viable third party look doable.

Like Bush ... and you.

It seems to have disappeared?