Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
2. The difference is that Obama sold himself as "bipartisan"
Thu Dec 24, 2015, 11:59 AM
Dec 2015

The problem with President Obama is that he bought a lot of his hype and thought that he could sweet talk the Republicans into going along with him. Shaming them and calling them out didn't become a part of his arsenal until his second term, at which point most of the damage was done.

And that's not even getting into the fact that many of the people he chose as his advisors and his cabinet, who he signaled his closeness to even before winning the election, were all part of the problem.

Sanders has made no claim to bipartisanship or a conciliatory tone, and based on his track record there is no reason to believe he won't use it.

How? Happenstance24 Dec 2015 #1
The difference is that Obama sold himself as "bipartisan" vi5 Dec 2015 #2
Ok, but that still doesn't change Happenstance24 Dec 2015 #3
O.K. so you're saying why bother with voting for President? vi5 Dec 2015 #4
Not remotely Happenstance24 Dec 2015 #5
We did control both houses.... madfloridian Dec 2015 #6
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»NYTimes -Bernie Sanders: ...»Reply #2