People - Please do not give the Obama administration a break

[debbierlus]

Because you can be sure the corporate wealth won't lay off for a second...

Do not silence your voice against policies or appointments you would otherwise protest, simply because there is a D after a politician's name.

Do not remain silent as Wall St insider appointments pillage our children's future in debt.

Do not lay silent as the health insurance giants move in to write our mandatory health insurance into law. Organize now for the fight for single payer universal health care. Mandatory health insurance won't work, it is being tried in MA (where I live). It has already been riddled with inside deals, and it will be financially insolvent in less then two years because they didn't take out the insurance profiteering. We don't NEED health insurance. Medicare spends only 1% of its budget on administrative costs. Health insurance can be up to 50%.

Do not remain silent when Obama continues the secret policies of the Bush administration.

Do not shout out the ACLU & other truth seekers because they speak out against certain Obama administration policies. These were the heros when George W Bush was in office. Why do they become the devils because it is our guy?

Hold your President accountable. Empower him to do the RIGHT thing by making the PEOPLES' demands so loud, he will be unable to hear the corporate rheoteric being whispered in his ear.

Remember this simple rule:

POLICY over POLITICIAN

Do a gut check. Be honest. If Bush did the same thing, how would you react?

Don't give up free speech & free thought because of hero worship...or through the understandable weakness of wanting someone to save the country. Obama can't do that anyway. Only we can...by saving ourselves.

[ClarkUSA]

1. We all know YOU'VE never given Team O a break, ever... so why am I not surprised at this OP?

[bvar22]

23. Ad Hominem.

Do you have an issue with the substance of the post?

[ClarkUSA]

46. No, it's a factoid re: the OP.

Do you have a problem with the truth?

[Creideiki]

64. If you're attacking the person making the argument

it's ad hominem.

Attack the argument. Tell us why we should not be concerned about these topics.

That is, unless you're not progressive. If you're just another center-right type then you're probably pleased as punch.

[Teaser]

66. only if

the person making the argument isn't the argument itself. which is itself arguable.

[BlooInBloo]

91. As if credibility isn't relevant to assessing someone's claims...

:rofl:


EDIT: And threatening to revoke someone's membership in the "true progressive" kewlkidz club is just fucking stupid.

[ironmania75]

95. Credibility can only be determined by analyzing the argument in question

If the biggest liar in the world says 2+2=4, he's right, no matter what his past statements on other things have been.

Now, I know the opinion expressed in the OP is not as simple as 2+2=4, but the same process applies.

Did what the OP say have validity? does it sound reasonable to you? Bringing up character assassination will do nothing to help reach a conclusion.

[BlooInBloo]

101. BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

[frylock]

225. that's all you got?!

fuckin weak sauce.

[AlbertCat]

102. Credibility can only be determined by analyzing the argument in question

I disagree.

It can also be reasonably determined by past arguments, and not just the argument in question, if there are sufficient and similar traits in a number of them.

Which is exactly what the 1st poster did, I believe.


Again, Why shouldn't we give Obama a "break"? (please define) Because his enemies won't? Huh. Makes us just as bad, doesn't it?


We should keep them on their toes, but this mess is huge, varied, complex, subtle and it will take time. Much more time than we would all like, I'm sure. And he must work within his environment...to actually get things done. So if it don't go down exactly the way YOU want it, it's not necessarily a betrayal.

[HughMoran]

178. You disrupted poorly

Better luck next time! :)

[Two Americas]

78. it is an opinion, not a fact

In any case, fact or opinion, it is an attack on the messenger not on the message. Therefore it is an ad hominem attack.

[mikekohr]

106. Great Leaders Are Often Betrayed By Their Own,

History if full of such examples, from the betrayal of William Wallace of Scotland to the assassination of Chief Crazy Horse on the Great Plains of America.

Wallace was given over to the English to suffer disembowelment and dismemberment. Crazy Horse was bayoneted in the back by Private William Gentles as his hands were held behind him by his life long friend Little Big Man. Crazy Horse's last words were, "Tell the people it is no use to depend upon me any longer."

In the end it was the betrayal of Crazy Horse and William Wallace by elements from within their own ranks that led to their murders. So it will be with President Obama if he fails. It will be the splintering of his own base, the dissatisfaction of those that clamor for faster more pervasive change, of those that seek to protect their own selfish interests. If President Obama falls, history has written, it will likely be his own people that bring him and his policy of pragmatic reform to an end.

As Hiawatha demonstrated, a bundle of seven arrows could not be broken. But one by one each arrow could be snapped with little effort. If we lose this battle, this is how it will be lost.

In the Spirit of Brotherhood,



International Brotherhood Days
http://www.brotherhooddays.com
mike kohr

[Bjorn Against]

125. Am I reading your post wrong or did you compare criticism of Obama with disembowelment and murder?

[mikekohr]

200. Eating Our Own Face

We spent 20 of the last 28 years digging this economic black hole. President Obama will not get us out of it in a month, or 6 months. This will take time, perseverance, and patience. He has promised us change but has cautioned us against expecting perfection. He will make mistakes as would any other human.

Excepting Dick Cheney and Blackwater, America does not assasinate or disembowel leaders anymore. Democrats however can't wait to turn on our own. We wound and weaken our them with words, crush then kill them with critism, and then wonder why the Republicans have been able to take an economic record of fubar, failure and "F" up and manage to win 7 of the last 11 presidential elections.

mike kohr

[Two Americas]

254. no one expected that

No one expected that President Obama would not get us out of it in a month, or 6 months, nor is anyone demanding that. No one cares about mistakes, or expects anyone to make no mistakes.

Strongly advocating for left wing politics is not "turning on our own." The Republicans get much more criticism from the right than the Democrats do from the Left, and that doesn't hurt them, it strengthens them.

Republicans win elections because of the almost complete absence of any left wing narrative. They move into that vacuum. Telling critics from the Left that they are hurting the party and that no one should listen to them is what sinks the Democrats, not the critics. In the absence of any pressure from the Left, the Democratic politicians drift to the right. That is inevitable, since wealthy and powerful players have their ear and own their careers. Why would any of us bother being Democrats in the first place if we are going to deny that?


...

[JackRiddler]

180. "Factoid" is a term for trivia that distracts from knowledge.

[Teaser]

62. There is no difference between the post's substance and the post's substance abuser.

.

[jhrobbins]

115. I have a small issue with the post and I have no idea about the history of the OP, so...

I agreed a lot with what the OP said, but when he/she said People - Please do not give the Obama administration a break, that's where he/she lost me. Well , actually it was the lead in the post, but I think you all know what I mean. I think it is imperative that we give the Obama administration a break. THat doesn't mean we turn a blind eye, but it does make us the loyal Democrats I thought we were supposed to be in here . And not just here obviously. It reminds me of the Reagan quote, "Trust, but verify". I think we can trust and support this administration and still 'verify'. Let's show the Republicans who are incapable of critical thinking - that we support our president and that we also are vigilant on behalf of our Constitution and country.

[cascadiance]

216. I think we should give him time! But "giving him a break" is kind of a debatable phrase...

I can understand the intent of his statement. Some might interpret it differently and a slam against his motives/character.

Obama is facing not only a slew of many problems happening all at once, which do need some time to wade through, and perhaps some hit or miss solutions too that might miss a few times before succeeding. I think FDR had to experiment a bit too before he got some things right for the long term too.

He is also facing an entrenched infrastructure that rewards corporate interests instead of serving the people that has been built up over the last few decades that will be very hard for him single-handedly to tear down overnight. He might have to live within that and compromise a bit until these barriers can be usurped, and probably needs a lot of help to shut down these barriers too (other pols, and many of us yelling for those barriers to come down too).

The key question is where his heart is, and whether his long term goal is to tear down this corporate-serving infrastructure enough so that he can make real concrete changes, and not just do window dressing that will prolong our tailspin and perhaps make it worse. This is tricky, as most of us don't know what is going on behind the scenes in the trenches, and why he might pick someone like Rahm Emanuel, who would NOT have been my choice to tear down this array of barriers were it me. But maybe he knows something about the dynamic of Emanuel being in charge that I don't. Up until now, when it arguably is keeping out people like Howard Dean out of the government, I'm still on the fence on whether to judge his heart being in the right places.

We need to push him to make even those little steps to stand off against the faces of corporate change, and then when the time comes for him to make a big change, PUSH HARD! If he works with us when the risks are high, but the goal is achievable, we'll know his heart is in the right place, and that we'll be able to count on him in the long term helping us overcome these huge barriers. I've seen small gestures so far, but I'm still waiting for him to make the big moves that might get the K-Street boys hot and bothered, which I WANT to see happen soon!

One more thing to push him to do (which WOULD count in my book as qualifying as this "big move") would be to get federal public campaign financing laws in place with teeth in them, and if nominating a judge for SCOTUS to replace someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, put someone in that will stand on the right side of the fence in tearing down the notion of "corporate personhood".

In judging the credibility of the original post here, it's not enough to say he isn't credible just because he's voiced many opinions against Obama. We all have a right to speak against someone if we feel legitimately that some of his policies are wrong. Now if that person was trying to distort what Obama's about and spread lies about him, then I think it's fair to argue against their credibility and to second guess what he says. I've not seen the case made yet that he's been lying about Obama yet here, though I've not read all of the posts on this large thread yet.

[HughMoran]

136. The "b" stands for "blivet"

I am so done with your nastiness.

[Two Americas]

31. either have I

I have never abandoned advocacy, speaking out for what is right, for the sake of some shallow loyalty to any politician or personality.

We fight for the politicians to give US a break, not the other way around. That is our moral responsibility and civic duty.

I have been called a traitor to the country for marching against the Viet Nam war, and for speaking out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have been called a communist for marching for Civil Rights in the 60s, and much worse.

But never until now was I accused of "hurting the Democrats" or of "trying to tear down" any politician for merely speaking out for the same things I have always spoken out for. This is new. It is very suppressive, and threatens to destroy the party and the prospects of success for the new administration.

Were Labor organizers being disloyal to FDR?

Were Abolitionists being disloyal to Lincoln?

Were Civil Rights protesters being disloyal to JFK or LBJ?

I don't ever remember anyone saying that we should not support Civil Rights or should not oppose the Viet Nam war - or not speak out for many other causes - because it would hurt some Democratic party politician. The very idea is absurd in the extreme.



...

[ClarkUSA]

47. "either have I"?

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

49. right

Exactly.

It is not our job to give politicians a break.

[ClarkUSA]

50. I have no idea what "either have I" means.

[Two Americas]

59. ok

Perhaps "neither" would be better.

Neither have I "given team O a break."

Then I explained why. Seems clear to me.

I gave them my money, my time, my vote, and I canvassed hundreds of people to get them to vote for him. That seems more important than giving them a break, whatever that means. Now people here say that I am not loyal, and shouldn't be listened to or have my opinions considered, that I should be viewed with suspicion as a possible traitor to the cause. What's up with that?


...

[inna]

118. he just (ahem, OBVIOUSLY) missed an "n" in typing "neither". so fucking what?

why are you being so hostile? and - not a personal attack, but honestly dude.... your sig is extremely annoying (and perhaps gives an indication of what your objectives are).

:shrug:

[namahage]

121. "Why are you being hostile?..."

"...your sig is extremely annoying (and perhaps gives an indication of what your objectives are). "
Niiiiice. But hey, insinuating that someone flames is not a personal attack, right?

[HughMoran]

160. "B" is for Blivet

:rofl:

[inna]

117. +1. great post, and thank you so much. nt

[HughMoran]

161. Just another hero worshipper

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

185. Two Americas, awesome posts, as usual, take care. nt

[Enthusiast]

189. +1, Two Americas!

Excellent post.

[inna]

116. please speak for yourself, not for "us all". nt

[HughMoran]

135. You took the words right out of my mouth

less typing - thanks ;)

[GOTV]

2. For a change we now have an adult in office - he doesn't need the protection he gets here ...

... the damage they think they're saving Barack from is a little more personal I suspect.

[debbierlus]

7. And, it isn't about Obama anyway - it is about being a responsible citizen

Being informed...

Speaking out.

[GOTV]

8. Certainly the bad guys aren't waiting around silently to see what Barack will do ....

... but for some reason we should.

[quickesst]

55. "he doesn't need the protection he gets here ..."

Maybe not, but he does need his supporters protection/support against the right-wing nuts and the back-stabbers. My observation is, that for many here, much of the DU "dissent" expressed is just practice.:-) Thanks.
quickesst

[Two Americas]

81. no he doesn't

That is not what people are doing here, anyway.

I think the main thing he needs protection from right now is his overly zealous "supporters" who are using claims of hyper-loyalty as cover for trying to drive us into a very simple minded and narrow partisanship. That weakens us against the right wing. Actually it is right wing propaganda from the MSM that is leading people to take these extreme and zealous and intolerant "loyalty" positions and to attack those among us who are the greatest threat to the right wing. Under the guise of protecting the president from right wingers, people are not hurting the right wing, they are viciously and relentlessly attacking those on the political Left. Obama needs those if us on his Left flank far, far more than he needs sycophants and cheerleaders - if he is going to be successful.

"If he is going to be successful." Some of us are focusing on the "success" part of that statement, and we are being attacks by those who see only the "he" part of that statement.

People are protecting and defending certain personal feelings they want to have about the administration and the President. They are not protecting the President, they are undermining and sabotaging him. "Loving him to death" you might say - intolerant of any forms of support other than the one child-like and naive concept of support that serves their own emotional needs.



...

[Captain Hilts]

196. It's completely personal for many here.

They even defended his voting to keep FISA.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Judging from the media's reaction, they are in full agreement with you....

You asked, "If Bush did the same thing, how would you react?"

I answer, When Bush did the same thing, no one gave a fuck, including the media!
Nor have I located your posts of outrage on the issue of Bush's handling of the economy,
and his role in AIG bonuses.
Can you point me to these posts of yours? I'd like to read them.

[bvar22]

24. Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Poisoning the Well.

Do you have an issue with the substance of the OP?

[Two Americas]

35. turn it off

You are getting a distorted view of political reality by obsessing over what is being said in the MSM.

You MUST know that the very same people you are relentlessly attacking were the MOST outspoken about the Bush administration. You must know that.

Your continual attempts at character assassination, your insinuations and implications, are not supported by any evidence and are destructive and suppressive. This not helping the administration.

Please stop trying to malign the character of those who happen to disagree with you, and stop spreading suspicion and distrust with these insinuations.


...

[JanusAscending]

175. Ahem, excuse me, but

BULLSHIT!! To the origional poster and to yourself. Anyone else here that it applies to, your welcome also!!! This guy is on OUR SIDE, or have you so easily forgotten already??? Give me a freakin' break. I'm so sick of the crap going on here that I barely post anymore. I WANT MY OLD DU BACK!!! :rant:

[Two Americas]

249. I am saying the same things

I am saying the same things I have said for 40 years. What has changed is that there are now people who get very angry about that.

[eridani]

67. Check the archives prior to January 21st, 2009 n/t

[Two Americas]

82. yes

We are all saying the same things about the same issues that we have always been saying.

[NavyDavy]

4. well I haven't seen anything major that would make me turn against

President Obama I am giving him my full support until he doesn't deserve it.....but to ridicule him for everything he does is a repuke thing and if thats what you want to do go join boner....

[GOTV]

10. I doubt there are very many here who have turned against Obama ....

.... and calling out his missteps is what we should be doing.

[Two Americas]

45. what is this imaginary scenario?

How would one "turn against Obama" or not do that?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

We work for, contribute to, and vote for Democrats. As always.

We speak out for the principles and ideals we support. As always.

Reactionary people try to shut us up. As always.

Where does this "turning" or not turning come into play?


...

[eridani]

68. Not "everything," Just those things that favor banking parasites over average people n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Hasn't Obama himself said that CHANGE begins with us?

Wasn't that his message? Then I say, hold him to it. No, I don't expect all the problems solved within 2 months. But tools like Timmy the Keebler Elf, who helped create the problems, need to GO.

[Two Americas]

150. yes

And he said he welcomes dissent. Good leaders do.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

9. Exactly. K&R

[Jamastiene]

11. My policy is to praise him when I agree and say when I do not agree.

That should be considered a fair policy, but some cannot seem to accept that as supportive enough. That's their problem, not mine.

[KitchenWitch]

18. Mine as well.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

20. Hey you.

:hi: :hug:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. That's the only sensible tact to take --

otherwise we become what the GOP were the last 8 years. :scared:

[OwnedByFerrets]

80. Ditto!

Its a shame that for "some" there can only be black or white.

[Enthusiast]

190. President Obama swore

that he would listen when we disagree. This is a healthy approach. There are things I disagree with. I am welcome to say so.

[Tommy_J]

12. I can't agree with you now

The real world is a complex place. We are boxed into making tough choices to get this country back on a track for long term growth and prosperity. I believe Obama is striking an appropriate balance at this point. DO give him a break.

[eridani]

69. Striking a balance between the interests of banking thieves and those of the general public--

--is not something that should be done by anybody, let alone someone we elected to change that.

[Tommy_J]

109. Perhaps Obama isn't worried about protecting bankers

Perhaps he knows that if the $190,000 of derivatives per man/woman/child evaporate we will all loose our pensions - and that is only the beginning.

[eridani]

128. What does imaginary money have to do with pensions?

Even if it were true, it would be cheaper to pay that money into pension funds directly rather than reward incompetent asshats with billions of our tax dollars.

[Tommy_J]

144. Excellent question

This derivatives mess is like a bomb with a match just inches from the fuse. It has potential to cause systemic failure of the global economic system. This probably sounds dramatic and incredible but if it does explode banks that were regarded as to big to let fail will then be viewed as too big to save. The resulting seizure off financial markets would be a mega disaster. It could even disrupt supply chains for necessities like food.

Obama can't explain this because fear itself would trigger disaster. So, some DUer are left with the WRONG impression he's in bed with the banks.

[eridani]

148. It looks more like the banks have decided to kill a bunch of people to maintain the "value"

--of money which does not really exist. How can it even be possible that all these hedge fund instruments are "worth" more than the entire planet's goods and services economy? We have allowed private institutions to create "money" out of thin air. Why do we now have to destroy real goods in order to back its supposed value.

Why don't we just declare that nothing is allowed to exist EXCEPT the real economy, starting tomorrow?

[Tommy_J]

154. I know nothing about --

-- any killings and don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut.

The risk of a chain reaction of derivative defaults is very real and anyone interested should research it for themselves.

I strongly believe our president is trying to avoid catastrophe and this is the only reason he is giving banks one more dime.

[JanusAscending]

177. He's not "giving" them anything!!

These are LOANS!! What is it going to take for the majority of Americans to get this into their heads???

[renate]

183. I see your point but I think it needs to be made clearer-I don't blame the public for not getting it

I don't know who started using the term "bailout" or why (I do know when--during the Bush administration--so it's not the current administration's fault), but "loan" would really help to defuse the anger (and the fear... "loan" sounds like a reasonable business proposition; "bailout" sounds desperate).

[redqueen]

208. Good question. (nt)

[Two Americas]

231. not quite

The corporation is "loaned" money, the people running the corporation put the money in their pockets and walk away with it. They don't owe anyone anything and don't have to pay anything back. The corporation owes the money, whoever that means or will mean in the future. It may or it may not be paid back. No person is responsible to see that it is. It will only be paid back if that fits in with a profiteering scenario for them, if it represents an opportunity to rip us off even more, for whomever is in charge in the future.

This is the root problem. Corporations allow people to run businesses, have rights and standing in court, bribe and control the politicians, but not be personally responsible or liable for what happens.

We are all left holding the bag.


...

[eridani]

184. I meant that back in the real economy, people die if they don't eat

--not that AIG has hit aquads.

Why is it that you passively accept a chain reaction? The government could make any single type of event in such a chain illegal.

[Tommy_J]

257. Funny misunderstanding there --

-- about the hit squads.

Its not up to us to accept or not accept. If bank A is insolvent because bank B can't make good on a credit default swap and bank A sold a bunch of derivatives to bank D which needs them stay solvent and... you get the picture

All the banks are paralyzed because they are all insolvent

Its too late write regulations that would protect us from the current situation - but it needs to be done to prevent this in the future.

[Elidor]

13. Good post

Too many are inclined to accept administration policies under the notion that 'Obama knows best,' as though he were infallible. They would rather question your motives than their own puerile beliefs.

[HughMoran]

145. Unfortunately phrases like "too many" and other similar broad-brush statements

just serve to makes those who state such seem like they think they somehow have more rights to criticize that those who would on occasion defend their leader(s). You don't make many friends with these sorts of blanket statements.

"too many" sounds no different than "some say" (Fox's favorite expression)

[Two Americas]

250. that is funny

On a thread full of vague generalized attacks on any and all critics, it is funny to see you object to the words "too many."

what the other poster said is very specific and does not reflect on any and all defenders of the president.

No one is telling people to not defend the president. No one is saying that critics "have more rights" than anyone else. We all have the same right to criticize and no one has the right to deny that to any of us.

You merely took the telling arguments against you and turned them around.

You talk about "making friends" after the things you have posted here on this thread?


...

[noiretextatique]

14. vigilance

a part of why we are where we are now is that too many people got complacent when the rw escalated its cultural war...and when clinton was elected. the true believers can do whatever they like, but i am not going to be complacent again.

[eridani]

70. Exactly. I quit paying attention when Clinton was elected. Wouldn't just having a Dem as president

--be enough? Sorry to offend the personality clique here, but I'm not making that mistake again.

[noiretextatique]

72. me neither

are for the cultists...i try my best to ignore them.

[yodermon]

15. in other words, can we keep the U in DU please?

[tridim]

16. That's fine with me, as long as I don't have to agree with the all the anti-Democratic FUD..

on DU we've been seeing

[flyarm]

17. Most excellent post ..thank you!! and honest!!

it is our responsiblity to guard our nation..each and everyone of us..no one man is above scrutiny...nor any one body of government....when we have put them in power..it is our responsibility to guard that power!!

We are the employers of our government officials..it is our money they spend ..it is our laws they are to protect and they are given the honor to represent us..not the other way around!

They take an oath to defend and protect the constitution , but it is our obligation to make damn sure they do it!

...and to question everything!!!!!!!!!!!

and i have a few questions..........



Tim Geithner worked for 3 years at Kissingers firm..and then the CFR.........

This is the same Kissinger so many 9/11 families and families and employees of the airlines involved with 9/11 fought tooth and nail along with most dems to get him removed from the 9/11 commission because of his heavy ties with Saudi Arabia!! And because of his nafarious background.

Look into the back ground of Geithners dad , Peter Geithner and his ties to Obama's mom and step dad!!

Google is your friend!!


See Obama sent Kissinger To Russia shortly after becoming president to represent the Obama administration in Russia..
Kissinger who held positions with Nixon, Ford and Reagan !!!!!!!!!!!!

this kissinger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVo&eurl=http ://...

"There is a need for a new world order," Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, "I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system."


This is the Kissinger Obama sent to Russia........representing his administration..

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82may/hershwh2.htm

Kissinger and Nixon in the White House
by Seymour M. Hersh


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm


and that is just for starters!!

and from another poster here at du....thank you Jambalaya

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Larry Summers and California Energy "crisis" / Enron

During the California energy crisis of 2000, then-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers teamed with Alan Greenspan and Enron executive Kenneth Lay to lecture California Governor Gray Davis on the causes of the crisis, explaining that the problem was excessive government regulation.<8> Under the advice of Kenneth Lay, Summers urged Davis to relax California's environmental standards in order to reassure the markets.

.......................................................................

WSJ: Citi's Chief Economist Leaves for Treasury Post


Source: The Wall Street Journal

Citigroup Inc.'s chief economist is leaving the New York company for a job at the U.S. Treasury Department, according to an internal Citigroup memo.

Lewis Alexander, who has been at Citigroup since 1999 and before that worked at the Federal Reserve, will head to Treasury "to work on domestic financial issues," said the Citigroup memo, which was sent Tuesday.

According to a government official, Mr. Alexander will be a counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Mr. Alexander and a Treasury spokesman weren't immediately available to comment Tuesday. A Citigroup spokesman declined to elaborate on the company's memo.
(...)
Mr. Alexander's role as Citigroup's chief economist didn't entail significant management responsibilities. But his optimistic economic forecasts colored executives' views that the U.S. was unlikely to face a prolonged slump.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123732747181462245.html

anyone have warm fuzzies yet?????????

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

who can make this crap up???????????



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4530042/Cold-warrior-Henry-Kissinger-woos-Russia-for-Barack-Obama.html
Despite his pariah status with many Left-wingers in Mr Obama's Democratic Party, the president forged relations with Mr Kissinger during his campaign.

The compliment was returned when the 85-year-old veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations said last month that the young president was in a position to create a "new world order" by shifting US foreign policy away from the hostile stance of the Bush administration.

He publicly supported Mr Obama's notion of unconditional talks with Iran, though not at the presidential level.

Further demonstrating his willingness to work with his opponents on foreign policy issues, Mr Obama turned to two veteran Republicans steeped in Cold War experience to press home his plans.

Shortly after Mr Kissinger's trip, Richard Lugar, a Republican senator from Indiana who has worked on nuclear disarmament issues for 30 years, also visited Moscow. George Schultz, another former secretary of state, has also played a vital role.

............................................................



why did Obama send Kissinger to Russia a few weeks ago , representing his administration and the USA..
lets see shall we??????

http://www.answers.com/topic/timothy-f-geithner

Timothy Geithner
Career
After completing his studies, Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).<

He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.<5> Summers was his mentor,<1> but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.<9><10><11>


In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.<7> At the International Monetary Fund he was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003).<5>

[Hawkowl]

33. We are so fucked

The economic appointments have been mind boggling irresponsible in my opinion. For Obama to appoint these cretins as our economic saviors will prove to be Obama's earliest, gravest error.

Give Geithner and Summers a break?!!? People better wake the fuck up real quick.

[Two Americas]

85. he is a politician

I don't blame him.

He has no Left that has his back, so that he can move in that direction.

The problem is with us, not with Obama. The solution is to advocate from the Left - much more strongly than we are now. Yet we have a few among us - tireless, aggressive, domineering - who are angry about the tiny amount of dissent that there is, the feeble attempts at creating solidarity and consensus, and continually demand that it end.

FDR, and Lincoln, succeeded because people did NOT give them a break. They knew that and they welcomed the pressure. That is what makes great leaders.

Obama can never become a good leader if his "supporters" prevail, and shut down any and all voices from the Left. He will then have no choice but to move to the right, and that will fail. Moving to the right will fail because the politics of the right will not work. If any of us don't believe or don't know that, then what are we doing calling ourselves Democrats, or voting for Democrats?


...

[JDPriestly]

96. Two Americas, I beg you pardon, the left elected Obama.

I backed Edwards as my first choice, but when it came to the election, I worked very hard for Obama.

With his appointments to Treasury and Commerce and the Federal Reserve, Obama has turned against the very people that pushed him over the top during the election. Obama needs to set a new course. It is not too late.

Obama's mistake was in hiring people from the financial sector to police the financial sector. There have to be economists with clean records out there somewhere, economists with no dirty dealings in their pasts, economists who are not susceptible to blackmail and extortion by the bankers. Where are they? Obama should have been looking for them during the months between the election and the inauguration.

Obama's choices, in my opinion, reflect laziness on his part. He did not vet his financial team well enough.

[riderinthestorm]

124. Or he did vet his economic team perfectly and chose these people purposefully?

The optimist in me wants to believe your version, the cynic in me whispers my version.

Sigh.

I agree 110% with the OP for whatever it's worth.

[tortoise1956]

131. I beg to disagree-the middle elected Obama

And that is coloring his actions in many ways. He knows that the coalition that was cobbled together could disintegrate almost overnight. There are a handful of issues-gun control, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, universal health care-that could sink his chances at re-election, not to mention cause a change in the political landscape that would equal 2006, 1994 and 1976.
I say that we need to listen to him and weigh his actions as they pertain to the good of the country and the people. Remember, we are not sheep to follow anyone blindly-that would make us Rush clones...

[JDPriestly]

164. The majority of Obama voters were middle voters, but they chose

Obama because of the work of the progressives that compose the "left," and I use that term to mean the relative "left." I consider myself to be "left" in American politics, but I might be considered rather centrist or possibly even to the "right" in many countries. I used to be absolutely a moderate centrist. The scale changed, not me.

Anyway, centrists supported Clinton and other candidates including, in some instances, McCain. It is the people of the "left" who got out and walked precincts and made phone calls fanatically, working very hard at what they did who got Obama elected.

I know a lot of Clinton supporters and centrists also worked for Obama, but without the hard core of the left, they could not have won the election. That is why I say it was the left, the Move-On contingent, the real activists of the left who put Obama over the top, who worked hardest for his election. Many of them are African-American voters. They are decidedly to the left based on their views on discrimination and many other issues. That's my point, and I stand by it.

I also worked on the Kerry campaign, but the people who were most enthusiastic were more centrist. A lot of the left worked but not so hard. The enthusiasm of the left during the Obama campaign made them tireless. That's how Obama won. That's who he owes his victory to. And he needs to realize that. Because if the left begins to doubt him, and that could easily happen if he sticks to the economic course he has followed thus far, he will not be re-elected. The right will overpower his support. Centrists will go either way. They get pulled in one direction or the other by the activists at the ends of the spectrum. That is why Nader hurt the Democrats in 2000 even though he did not get a significant part of the vote. The activist left in many cases supported Nader. Therefore, Gore did not have them pulling their weight in his campaign in the crucial states like Florida.

[Two Americas]

237. not representative

Those working on the campaigns are centrist, yes, but they are not representative of very many people. They represent maybe 10% of the people, and are relatively upscale and aristocratic and profoundly conservative politically.

Politics is always driven by several small factions competing for the attention of the public. We should not confuse any of those small groups with the public. The media has created this illusion - that all who vote Republican "are" Republicans and are more or less all the same and think the same. That is not true. They merely voted Republican because they were swayed by that small faction.


...

[JDPriestly]

247. That is what I am saying. The people who talk to their neighbors

and friends and walk the precincts can swing undecided, disinterested voters. That's the role of the activists at the ends of the political spectrum. It's the candidate that motivates these people who can change the course of an election.

[Two Americas]

253. I see

Yes, I see what you mean now. Thanks.

[Two Americas]

232. there isn't any middle

That is a meaningless concept, promoted on TV.

The people are moving dramatically to the Left. They rejected Reaganomics and the religious right. No "coalition" was "cobbled together."

It is moving toward the right while the public is going the opposite direction that will sink the administration.


...

[Two Americas]

153. I agree with what you are saying

I was afraid that I might be misunderstood with that post. Didn't put enough time into it. We have several issues here mixed together.

Sure would be nice to have in depth discussions, but it is hard to do when the war of talking points rages.

The general public elected Obama. I am certain, from talking to hundreds of everyday people and from studying the excellent surveys from Pew Research, that the election was a thorough and historic rejection of Reaganomics and the religious right. MSM is presenting a different narrative, and those who watch that cable news stuff are the ones arguing otherwise here.

So yes, the people have moved, and are moving to the Left - dramatically. In that sense the Left elected Obama. But we really have no Left in this country. The consultants, the insiders, the pundits, and the conservatives among us here are all denying that and waging all out war to prevent any serious Left from emerging from this.

But we can't know how Obama would respond were there a strong Left, and were that Left bringing pressure to bear. I suspect that he is no better and no worse than most politicians. In the absence of any strong voice from the people (from the Left - same thing) of course he, like all politicians, will play it safe and listen to the wealthy and the powerful, the insiders.

Hope I didn't cause more confusion. Many issues involved in these questions, and we are in a very hostile environment here.


...

[Fedja]

193. No offense, but there is no "left"

The US political polarization starts right-of-center and spans all the way to fundamentalist nutjob rightwing. If there was a credible "left", there would be no need to pander to the majority.

You forget that the politician always works for the majority.

[TBF]

206. I guess this is partially correct, because the left did go with Obama

early on, rather than putting their support behind Hillary. But it's sort of disingenuous to imply that the left willingly and happily elected this guy. How did we have any kind of choice? Edwards, Clinton, McCain on the other side - all centrists or worse. Palin's a Nazi, imo.

You're not hanging this one on the left. It was the centrists who did this.

[Autumn]

19. Excellent post

really like the simple rule" POLICY over POLITICIAN", Thank you.

[elocs]

21. I'm confused. This post yesterday said we need to give the administration a break:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8269525

and it got 50 Recs. What to do, what to do, what to do?

[JDPriestly]

97. That post was rubbish.

[HughMoran]

146. "That post was rubbish"

:rofl: Damn, funniest post all day!

[elocs]

174. But, but, but....it got 50 Recs. 50!!! DUers were falling over themselves to Rec it. n/t

[Maven]

22. K&R

[Runcible Spoon]

25. KnR. He's a politician, not an emotionally fragile and reactionary toddler.

He doesn't need his feelings protected from those who critique his agenda, nor does he need a lolly every time he does something right. And guess what, he agree with me! It would nice if some of his more ardent supporters would stop taking everything so personally.

[pecwae]

26. K&R.

[H2O Man]

27. Mandate Elmer Fudd's collar.

[Cha]

28. Blathering strawman..

No one is saying to shut the fuck up and your throwing out "hero worshipping" is your argument for everything.

You lost me when you were attacking Obama about how much the Inauguration cost.

[dionysus]

40. oh, i forgot about that...

:spray:

is that the poster who thinks the WH should be a museum?

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

43. that is true

No one is saying "to shut the fuck up" because that would not work.

Instead they say, "don't get me wrong I am not trying to suppress freedom of speech, BUT..." which is then followed by personal attacks, the planting of seeds of suspicions through the use of insinuation and character assassination, hints and implications, and charges that the person is disloyal or has hidden motives or an evil agenda.

That is effective at suppressing freedom of speech.


...

[DevonRex]

65. Yep. I called bullshit on this one, too.

Sheesh. The "hero worship" line is an intended insult, one which I no longer tolerate.

[Laurab]

86. Thank you!

It's common sense for us to watch over our politicians, and it was a HUGE relief for me when Obama was elected, and I felt I could feel a bit safer, and I enjoy feeling that way. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with him about everything, but I WILL give him a break now and then.

That being said, one of the reasons I will, is because from the day Obama was finally sworn in, it became clear to me that there were people on this board who were going to give him a hard time about EVERYTHING he did. They are quite vigilant, and I feel sure that they are working overtime from what I've read here. I'm not sure what their motivation is, but I don't have that same motivation....

[JDPriestly]

98. Nobody is giving him a hard time about his appointment of Hilda Solis.

Nobody is giving him a hard time for signing the bill regarding health care benefits for poor children.

I support Obama when I agree with him, and I give him a lot of slack. But he is just plain wrong with his picks for financial consultants.

Just wrong. There are no two ways about it. It's Sommers and Geithner who do not have Obama's back. Geithner in particular really let Obama down by not renegotiating the TARP and other AIG bail-outs to safeguard the interests of ordinary Americans. Shame on TImothy Geithner. Shame on Sommers for his betrayal of the interests of the American people.

[Laurab]

217. Oh, I agree with you.

He made mistakes there. My point, really, is that there are some on this board who just plain don't like Obama, and they've made that very clear - I said after he was inaguarated, but, in truth, it was even before the inauguration. There are people who stand out to me, and I have no respect for their posts, or their OP's.

[Two Americas]

155. not true

That is a generalized smear of hundreds of the best people here. Shameful, really.

[HughMoran]

137. Deb's usual rhetoric

She's full of blathering strawomen.

[redqueen]

210. But a very popular strawman nonetheless.

Anything to make the righteous feel even righteouser... doesn't have to be fair or balanced.

Oh, wait...

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[empyreanisles]

30. It's precisely because Obama ISN'T Bush, that I am more patient with missteps

Because I KNOW, that whatever stumbles happen, it is on the path to eventually getting things right. His head is in the right place and given the magnitude of the challenges set into his lap he deserves our support in the tough times.

It is not worth it to deride him over trivial things.

[firedupdem]

32. From someone who hated him before the inauguration? Nice. n/t

[dionysus]

37. shhhh...

this is their new angle, see, they think they're fooling everyone...

:rofl:

[jhrobbins]

123. OK, I'm obviously not new to DU, but I don't keep up with who said what last

fall, etc. So, what I don't understand about what you have said is what are the options here? If the person(s) didn't like Obama before, so be it - I supported Hillary up until the nomination. Then it was Obama for me.
Since Obama is president and the people that don't/didn't like him have to live with this, please explain what you think their point is in passive aggressively attacking the Obama administration. I am really very confused. (which may explain the difficulty I am having in expressing my question - but you people are smart, I have no doubt that you will be able to extrapolate what I am saying)

[leftstreet]

36. K&R

[K Gardner]

38. There you go again. Why not just make a generic "Screw Obama" post and plant it here

everyday instead of trying to feign intelligence over some outrage or general outrage or just trying to disguise your well-known Obama-hate under the issue of the day?

Just sayin.. gettin old.

[Two Americas]

42. because it isn't about Obama

I know that for some that the current political situation is a drama that revolves around supporting one politician kn one particular way. That is fine and can play a constructive role. But using that to attack others, to suppress dissent and break up the free and open discussion, is what people are objecting to - and well they should.


...

[Hawkowl]

39. Very good!

Very eloquent post! Be true to your principles, not to the politican and you will never lose your integrity!

This "the glorious leader" can do no wrong is dangerous. "Fuhrer" means leader and is completely antithetical to a democracy. I like Obama, I just think in order to succeed he needs to move away from his right center position on the economy and sack his useless economic team.

[polichick]

41. But DO give the administration a hand...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8272605&mesg_id=8272605

PLEASE GET INVOLVED PEOPLE ~ make calls, do some canvassing, we were supposed to stay engaged for the long haul, not just the election.

[Peacetrain]

44. Gee, I would have had a heart attack if Obama got support ..

[countingbluecars]

48. So if I support the president

and give the administration a break in these difficult times, you think I am giving up free speech and free thought? To suggest that is not a very liberal way of thinking in my opinion. I believe the president has done a lot in 60 days to get the country back on track and to reverse Bush policies. Do I agree with everything he has done? No. But I do think he has been a great president so far.

[zulchzulu]

51. Be vigilant...but also give the guy a chance...

The situation is comparable to a new fire chief being hired to take care of 30 raging fires and he has two firetrucks. Unraveling 8 or more years of bad policies will take more than 60 days...

[Danger Mouse]

52. There's a difference between vigilance and pettiness.

[JDPriestly]

99. Nothing petty about complaining about Sommers and Geithner.

It is they who are bringing Obama down, not those of us who are pointing it out.

Remember the story about the emperor's new clothes. Don't criticize those who tell the truth.

It's Sommers and Geithner and the Wall Street infiltrators in Obama's cabinet and advisers who are bringing Obama down.

t's not those of us who are trying to warn Obama not to lie down with the dogs of Wall Street who are bringing him down. It's the Wall Street dogs that have the fleas, not us.

[Danger Mouse]

110. That's not what I meant.

Criticism of Obama isn't petty. Criticism of Geithner and Summers is not petty.
Please don't think I'm of the sort who wants to see criticism stop. :hi:
Yet some of Obama's critics here are quite petty. It is a very small, but very vocal minority.

[Two Americas]

238. maybe

But so what?

It is easy enough to call all who are being vigilant "petty" and then dismiss them.

If the things people are saying seem "petty" to you, then make the case. Merely implying that what they are saying might be petty, so therefore we are precluded from even considering that they might be being vigilant, is not an argument, it is merely a talking point.

"Petty" would be the last word I would ever use in talking about the crisis the country faces, about the various things that critics have been discussing - before, during, and now after the election, the same way, about the same things.

Perhaps some here so desperately want to believe that because Obama has been elected that all of the crushing issues - torture, illegal war, spying on the citizens, the shredding of the Bill of Rights and the rise of a police state, the collapsing economy, jobs disappearing and wages declining - will now go away, or need not be faced or worried about, that they refuse to hear anything that spoils that hopeful and happy mindset. So they attack anyone bringing any bad news that spoils their illusion.

People are traumatized and desperately need to feel, to believe that things are going to be OK, and are fighting to protect that feeling of hope as though their life depended upon it.

It reminds me of dealing with a roomful of drunks - people are so crazed by all of this that you can't talk to them.


...

[steelmania75]

53. Well I'm waiting to see what happens.

[lynne]

54. Agreed! Anything less makes us . . . THEM! EEeekkk!

[JimGinPA]

56. Why Do You Hate America?

I knew this thread would make "The Greatest Page" when I first saw it. The anti-Obama threads nearly always do.

At least I know I can continue concentrating on fighting the repubs, since so many here have our back by fighting the Democrats for us.

[stillcool]

57. But whatever you do...Don't under any..

circumstances call your own representative and request that he vote in your interests!! Wait..until the next time..and then try to vote him out of office. But..by all means, complain, complain, complain...on the internet!!

[Mithreal]

58. K&R, POLICY over POLITICIAN. nt

[BootinUp]

60. Freedom of speech is fine,

but what I generally find about political blogs in general, is that many participants do not frame political issues within the realm of the possible. The possible is quite simply where elected officials must live if they are to have any real impact.

The Obama administration not only lives within that universe, they expand that universe whenever opportunity presents itself. I give them excellent marks so far in taking advantage of the current situation to make changes we all want.

By all means continue to push the issues you care about, but to compare Bush to Obama is a pretty low blow in my book.

And lastly, there are some things you probaby are just plain wrong about when it comes to National Security and the economy and who knows what else. Obama has a solid team working for him, they know their shit, they are qualified. Are you?

[countingbluecars]

63. Well said! n/t

[eridani]

71. "The realm of the possible" is bullshit

What is possible politically is in large part determined by what we attempt to actually do politcally. Enough of this "I surrender, now let's negotiate" horseshit!

[BootinUp]

76. No its what the country as a whole determines it is. nt.

[eridani]

87. So why are you insisting that some of us stop being a part of the country? n/t

[BootinUp]

89. I don't recall saying that. nt

[countingbluecars]

90. It is the OP who is doing

the insisting. It is also insulting that she says that those who choose to support Obama are giving up free speech & free thought and are hero worshipers. When someone doesn't agree with you, call them names? That's not liberal thinking in my opinion.

[Two Americas]

235. not so

The OP is not saying "that those who choose to support Obama are giving up free speech & free thought and are hero worshipers."

Rather, what the OP and many of us are saying is that those who are trying to suppress free speech & free thought are claiming to be doing that to support Obama.

Turning it all around backward is a common stunt now, injected into the political discussion by the various right wing "reverse racism" arguments and other similar reversals. This leads people to illogical thinking, to think that those complaining about being abused are actually abusing people by complaining about it. It so corrupts the discussion, that it is almost impossible to untangle things. Rather than actually thinking about the issue, people spend their time thinking up talking points. So if GLBTQ people complain about the way they are being treated here, in short order people are complaining about "the gays" and claiming that "they" are causing the problems.

But what motivates people to concoct these illogical "reverse" arguments? I think it is embarrassment and discomfort because they know they are wrong and that the critics are right - the critics are making telling points. That is why no rational counter-arguments are offered. Instead we get talking points, and personal attacks as you can see throughout this thread.


...

[JDPriestly]

100. Obama's economic team is too closely linked to Wall Street and to banking.

Obama needs to at least get some team members who have distance from the financial sector. They may be hard to find, but there are bound to be some like Galbraith, Krugman, Stiglitz. There are most likely also young people whom Galbraith, Krugman, Stiglitz and other progressive economists could recommend. The revolving door from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and AIG into the Obama administration needs to be shut once and for all.

An administration cannot regulate the financial industry if it puts the foxes from the industry in charge of the regulation. Obama should remember the ancient common sense of the fables and stories he must have read to his children and apply it when he picks advisers.

[BootinUp]

104. When you make such judgements

do you consider that Giethner is a lifetime public servant that called for regulation of derivatives before the crash? Or do you just spout off bs you get from the blogoshere?

[JDPriestly]

157. Geithner is too close to Wall Street.

I don't care if he was a "public servant." He worked for Kissinger. He worked for the Fed. He has too many cronies on Wall Street. He does not have the independence and distance to regulate his buddies. He has shown that by not realizing the fact that these AIG bonuses and the payments to foreign banks are unacceptable to any normal tax-paying, hard-working American.

Speaking of foreign banks, one such is USB, which Robert Scheer pointed out on Democracy Now is getting a larger gift from the bail-out than it is paying back to the U.S. government for the unpaid taxes of Americans hiding taxable income in its accounts.

The basic concept of the economic policy of the Obama administration is wrong. We do not need to encourage more credit, more borrowing. We need policy that will increase wages to Americans and give Americans the opportunity to earn the money to build our economy and avoid accruing debt they cannot pay back.

The fundamental approach is wrong. A strong house is built on a strong foundation on solid soil. Obama is trying to build the house in an inverted pyramid, strengthening and widening the top of the structure (the financial sector) and weakening the base (the incomes of ordinary people and manufacturing). Such an edifice cannot stand.

[HughMoran]

139. The Realm of the Possible

If only those who would criticize from dawn to dusk about how Obama isn't raising the dead would sit down and think for just one fucking minute about what he's actually up against and how well he's doing. Some people think he's a fucking king and can just say it and it will be so - it's mind-blowing. Then when you say "hey, you're kinda off in left field, then you're some kind of hero-worshiping zombie that can't think for yourself. Funny, in real life I'd simply walk away from these fools.

[redqueen]

213. They're probably still sore about not getting ponies. (nt)

[HughMoran]

230. WHERE'S MY PONY?

Oh, you mean I get a PONZIE as a substitute? :(

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

61. You completely lost me wtih the "hero worship" insult. I don't read ANYBODY"S

OP that throws that language in. It's a calculated insult and you know it and you use it anyway.

So piss off.

[cali]

73. Sorry, I view Obama through a very different prism than you do

I don't see him as this evil corporatist. I'll speak out when I disgree with him, but my view of Obama and yours are very different. And your posts, historically, make me take everything you say with a carton of salt.

[BootinUp]

75. A carton?

lol, thats a lot of salt.

[NorthCarolina]

74. I agree with this post. Complacency is what lead us to 8 years of GWB n/t

[emilyg]

84. You got it.

[hoosier_lefty]

77. well.... bite me.

Every time there is a "flap" over something Obama takes the blame. He himself takes the
blame. I can't remember any other president in my lifetime that did this.

I'm going to cut him ALL kinds of slack!

[Brucie Kibbutz]

79. K&R

The OP is obviously an American Patriot.:patriot:

[emilyg]

83. Thank you.

I have never given any administration a break.

[greguganus]

88. KICKIN' AND #44 REC. n/t

[HughMoran]

167. Rah! Rah!

Let's blindly cheer on our leader - Debbie!

:woohoo:

[greguganus]

188. Thanks for the kick? n/t

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[countingbluecars]

94. Really? Bullshit?

Stems cells
Stop loss
Fair Pay Act
CHIP
Renewed Respect in the World

[eridani]

130. No non-corporate Dem would have been allowed anywhere near the White House

The MSM decides who is "serious" by looking at whether or not they have enough fat cats backing them.

However, FDR was a genuine aristocrat. He was pushed into the New Deal by popular pressure, and the same has a chance of working with Obama.

[HughMoran]

147. ok

bye then :hi:

[JTFrog]

186. Try getting over yourself. Then read a book or two. n/t

[JDPriestly]

93. Thanks for your post. It is our job to keep our side on the right track.

We should defend Obama when he deserves it and demand that he change his policies when his policies are wrong. It is not about a person or a party. It is about what is best for our country.

[SnoopDog]

103. Remember, Mr. Obama has asked for our help - and that means...

Support him when we agree with him...

And, massively protest when he does something we Do Not Agree with...

Its called being a citizen....

[defendandprotect]

113. Remember . . . E-mail and Telephone . . . all the time . .. !!!

[mdmc]

105. kick & R .....................ALTHOUGH

I don't know the deal. Obama does. My unknown unknowns (Rummy!) force me to trust Obama. In the same way the forced me to distrust Bush. I opposed the immigration bill (the bill was well crafted and worthy of support) simply because it gave Bush a black eye and robbed him of his feather in his cap.
I didn't know then how few feather's w.'s cap would end up having, but at the time, he was somewhat viable.

simply put

OBAMA'S got a POSSE'

[kaygore]

107. Obama needs pressure from the middle and left--I agree

It's not being unfair...it is being balanced.

We need to keep up the pressure.

[natrat]

108. the fact that wall st, big pharma are still obviousl in control makes me want to puke

[defendandprotect]

112. Maybe we should remind them that Obama is new and needs some time . . . ??????

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

111. Absolutely right . . . and great debate points --- !!!

Small "d" democracy ---

[antimatter98]

114. Agreed. So far, it doesn't look good. I see more BushCo ahead. n/t

[HughMoran]

140. lol

OK, so you're begging to be on ignore. Your wish is my command.

[ShortnFiery]

119. Gee, like clockwork? = evening time "concern" grows exponentially.

:eyes:

[BobRossi]

120. K&R Kudos to you, truth is the truth.

I took a beat down last night for far less than your post, but the truth will always rise above mantra.

[ShortnFiery]

122. If your not willing to take baby steps and work for "the team" - the right wingers will prevail.

I'm as liberal as they come but dammit, he's (Obama) the best we've got right now and I'm not going to add fuel to the crazed M$M fires. :thumbsdown:

[eridani]

133. Yes, he is the best we have. FDR was an actual aristocrat, if you recall

He was PUSHED into the New Deal. If we don't push Obama, we will never get another New Deal like we need. The MSM are pushing him one way, and the left should be pushing the other way.

Where in goddam bleeding hell did you get the stupid notion that rightwingers have prevailed since 2000 because they were willing to take baby steps? They got their way by 100% of their agenda from the getgo and never let up. We will never fight them off by starting with wussy compromises.

[pengillian101]

126. POLICY over POLITICIAN

[CTLawGuy]

127. Criticism is fine

the invective that often accompanies it is not ok. Obama is doing the best he can and is trying to work in our best interest. I will challenge anyone who says otherwise.

Maybe he doesn't always get it right, but he is not a corporatist sellout, nor is he the same as Bush.

[Jennicut]

129. Criticism is good and healthy. Bush demanded everyone not ask questions.

That is bad for Democracy. However, there are some posters here who never seem satisfied and are to the point where everything they post is negative and it gets a bit annoying. You don't even need to read their posts anymore to know exactly what they will say.

[Oilwellian]

132. I can show DU a perfect example of what the OP is saying

Yesterday, I posted a thread on an article Jeremy Scahill wrote about Obama still using Blackwater and paying them millions for contracts that will last til at least 2011. Now you all remember Scahill, right? He was very outspoken against Bush's policies and in particular focused on Blackwater and their horrendous behavior in Iraq. He was very popular among us lefties because he had the nerve to expose such a murderous bunch of thugs killing in our name.

But now, suddenly, everything's changed. One DU'er said the following of Scahill:

"Believe all you want; I'm learning not to be so trusting, especially with people who write books."

Another DU'er wrote the following of Blackwater:
"I'd say they're pretty much harmless gun nut retards."

And then there are the wonderful comments written to me:

"There are a lot of what are probably disgruntled supporters of other candidates who are just looking for Obama to royally screw things up. its a shame."

Actually, I went door to door for Obama, made phone calls for Obama and worked the crowd when he visited my town. Oh, and then there's the money I donated to his campaign as well. So I didn't support "other candidates."

"DemocraticUnderground has been co-opted by far more greens and socialists than I think anyone would want to admit. The utter lack of support for Obama by the screaming-class of DU has been very, very enlightening."

"Seems these folks would have at least enough smarts to understand it's only been, what, seven weeks since Obama took over? It took Bush 8 years to screw us over this badly, anyone with the bare minimum of brain cells is going to understand that it will take more than 7 weeks to set everything right again.

I'm tired of the stupid loudmouths."

What the writer of the above comment fails to understand is, Obama's State Department made it very clear they were not going to renew Blackwater's contract in Iraq. We all celebrated thinking it was going to be the end of them. They were relegated to the new name of "Xe." Evidently, that's just not the case.

More comments:

An ignorant loudmouth. You forgot a very important modifier.

You're no better than the RW thugs ... Its your version of the truth or nothing. Skewing the facts to make them fit you agenda creates fiction!"

"Do you want pepperoni or sausage?"

This person was suggesting I be tombstoned? THAT made me think of Free Republic and their total disregard for a difference of opinion.

"And I, too, am starting to run low on patience for the loudmouths around here. I thought it was bad during the Bush days with the whole "we should be an opposition party" nonsense (and now we're getting a glimpse of just how badly that would've turned out, thanks to the current GOP). This is a whole other breed of zealotry/ignorance that I naively didn't think was possible of this place."

See, I had no idea so many DU'ers decided to embrace Blackwater. Scahill even mentioned they were going to train local police departments. Color me surprised to see so many of you suddenly defending them and viciously attack me for questioning why Obama still has them on the payroll.

DU isn't the same place it used to be...that's for sure. But guess what, I'll continue to be a "loudmouth" when I see something I don't want my children or grandchildren to deal with in the future. The idea of a policeman who was trained by a Blackwater thug, having power over my community and loved ones??? You're damned right I'm going to be a loudmouth about it.

[chill_wind]

159. Prime illustrations. Which will be studiously ignored...

eom

[HughMoran]

179. Darn, there isn't 100% support for your way of thinking?

Horse feathers!!

What's DU coming to!!?

Next you're going to tell us that there are some on DU who aren't as swift as the rest of us. Oh, but that would be offensive like the Special Olympics comment. Darn.

Better yet, just broad-brush the whole site - yeah, that's it! - then you don't have to worry about offending any one person, just swipe wildly at everybody.

I'm not crazy - it's the rest of the world that's insane!!!



This place is a riot. :)

[TBF]

209. WTF is "horse feathers"? n/t

[HughMoran]

220. Should have been one word - "a term used to say that something is nonsense"

"Horsefeathers" is a term used to say that something is nonsense, often used as an exclamation after hearing something which one totally disagrees with. It is supposed to imply that an idea is as silly or as unbelievable as horses having feathers. The word is fairly new in origin; its first recorded use was in 1927 (with the Marx Brothers' film being released in 1932 of a similar name), perhaps as a polite replacement for "horseshit." "Bull butter" is a similar euphemism, alluding to the absurdity as a bull producing butter, and at the same time avoiding the profanity of "BS".

Since horses are mammals and not birds, horses do not have feathers, but there are a few mythical creatures which are horses (at least in part) which have feathers, e.g. the hippogriff and pegasus.

The word may also have originated from the now-archaic builder's term "horse feathers", meaning feathering strips in roofing.

In journalism, horsefeathers is sometimes used as a bracketed substitution for the word "bullshit" in a quotation, when it would not be appropriate to reproduce profanity.

[TBF]

227. I thought it might be a southern term I hadn't heard yet (I've heard many new

ones since moving to Texas six years ago!). thanks!

[pecwae]

192. All this happened just to you.

Every day there are the same accusations and attacks on someone else for daring to speak to their convictions or questioning this administration.

Blackwater=harmless gun nuts?

[HughMoran]

221. God forbid someone should DISAGREE or ARGUE with you

Fucking lame ass wimps.

[chill_wind]

226. A tad defensive, are we?

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

229. Not in the least.

I'm enjoying seeing the really defensive people squirm - those who can't stand the idea that some people actual like and trust the President - as if that is forbidden amongst Democrats.

This entire back and forth between Frenchie and Debbie (and their respective "followers") is a hoot!

:)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. Clue: We elected Obama president, not dictator

As such, we have the right to ask for what we want as much as the fat cats do.

[ShortnFiery]

138. Clue: Bush WAS a dictator and the right wing is more disciplined. Choose. Your. Battles. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

151. Sorry, but this nation has never needed fundamental changes

as badly as this since the Great Depression, and nothing Obama has done so far has convinced me that he intends to make such changes. All he has even proposed to do is tinker around the edges.

Remove troops from Iraq only to redeploy them in Afghanistan? (How about redeploying them back to the States?) Better funding for NCLB? (How about repealing that soul-destroying piece of garbage?) Health care reform that leaves the insurance companies in charge? Financial reform run by the people who got us into this mess? Everybody has to cut back except the financial fat cats and the military? Not one progressive appointment--all center-right types?

Sorry, not good enough.

[ShortnFiery]

158. If you let the right wing KICK the "hate" door open by not choosing your battles YOU are part

of the problem. I know that leading democrats is like "herding cats" but we must be a part of The Team = Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

162. The only "team" I'm on

is the Do the Right Thing Even if Your Campaign Contributors Don't Like It Team. If that's the Democrats, fine. If nobody's doing the right thing, then I don't have a team.

[ShortnFiery]

168. Then it's dysfunctional PURISM, because HUMANITY runs via "the buddy system."

:thumbsdown:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

169. If nobody is a purist, then there's no incentive to be anything but impure

Who's going to challenge the status quo if there are no "purists"?

I happen to think that morality is more important than team spirit. This isn't a football game. This is the fate of the nation.

I'm not going to adopt the attitude, "Yes, sir, anything you decide is fine with me." That's the mirror of the Republicans' attitude toward Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

173. You just don't get it, do you? LIFE and HUMANITY are struggles and they're NOT "puristic."

Wake up to reality or get out of the way ... all this self-righteous outrage is PART of the PROBLEM. If you are not part of the Democratic Team, then hell, you might as well be a right winger.

This is for ALL THE MARBLES ... our blessed Democratic Republic. As liberal as I am, I sure as shit would rather have a "centrist" Democrat than a warmongering right wing republican in office.

This is the REAL WORLD not some college seminar.

[Two Americas]

239. nothing there

That is an empty and meaningless idea. Thinking and saying the same things is not being part of a team, rather it is joining a mindless mob.

You are asking us to stop saying and thinking things that supposedly hurt the team. That has nothing to do with cats or herding or teams. All of that is some comic book fantasy, promoted by the MSM.



...

[HughMoran]

141. True

And all the critics who think he's some sort of King who can wave his hands and stop all wars and put Bushco in jail and stop all corporate corruption instantly are idiots.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

152. For starters, he could NOT redeploy the troops into Afghanistan

That he COULD do by waving his hands.

[HughMoran]

156. But he would be breaking a campaign promise if he did that

Sometimes when people get married, they think they can change their spouse after the vows are taken.

These marriages rarely work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

163. I voted for him IN SPITE OF that, and it was a dumb campaign promise

Afghanistan is the Land of Ever-Shifting Goalposts. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and I'm hearing the same excuses for not getting out.

[HughMoran]

166. I just liked the idea that it diverts attention away from Iraq

We need to get out of the latter, Afghanistan hopefully won't become as bad as Iraq was, but we need to get out of there at some point as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. Afghanistan isn't a "diversion"--It's a country full of real people

who have suffered as few people on earth have.

[HughMoran]

171. In the US, relative to getting out of Iraq, my context was correct

You want to start the nit-picking game now?

:P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. Avoiding a pointless war is not "nit picking"

And I need to get some sleep, so enjoy your illusions.

[HughMoran]

176. Haha - nice parting shots - Not only am I a war monger, but I'm delusional

Nice - you got nasty quick. Go tell your friends over at circumference/diameter about your run in with the DU warmonger.

:eyes:

You're as predictable as sunshine in the morning.

[Bluenorthwest]

202. A nation filled with living people

is not a political diversion to be toyed with.

[HughMoran]

204. Which one? The one we are trying to help the people or the other one where we want to help?

It's not as if we're deliberately there to kill people (at this point), though it could be argued otherwise.

Your post makes no sense however, I was saying it was a GOOD THING that we are getting out of Iraq. Just because we're not simultaneously withdrawing from Afghanistan (and Obama IS FOLLOWING HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISE) does not mean I don't care about the people of either country.

Talk about a false choice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

234. The war in Afghanistan was never about "helping people"

The Taliban came to power in 1996, and Bush didn't "discover" their human rights abuses until they refused to allow an oil pipeline through their territory.

[HughMoran]

246. Absolutely true

Our reason for being there in the first place was only somewhat related to the Taliban whereas they had allowed a "for profit" arrangement with a bunch of thugs who would nuke us if they could. Views may have changed since, but the vast majority of DU was for the original invasion if you remember.

At the present time, civil and humanitarian concerns are very much a part of the equation. I personally find the Taliban to be vile people who would enslave women and murder their opposition just for existing. If the Taliban were to once again overrun the government and reinstate their archaic rule, it would be a humanitarian disaster and it would likely allow the band of thugs to set up shop again and develop their weapons to attack us with. I can live with losing what we gained after all those years, but the result would not be good for the Afghan people nor our long-term security goals (yeah, I hate to say it, but there are legitimate concerns there.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

248. The military option is the worst one

because it only creates martyrs.

Recall that the Taliban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. if the U.S. offered proof of his guilt. The Bush administration didn't even try. They went in with guns blazing.

The Taliban were defeated, and that would have been the time to rush in massive humanitarian aid, preferably with the cooperation of the moderate Islamic countries such as Tunisia and Bangladesh.

But no, the Bushboy had to have his war.

Afghanistan is a complicated, multi-ethnic country. Our biggest mistake was to support Islamic militants in 1979, six months before the Soviets came in. The Marxist government that our government was so afraid of was for women's rights. But no, they were big bad Communists, so we had to arm and train the Afghan equivalent of freepers to fight against them.

Whatever we owe the Afghans, it's not more war.

My solution would be to pull back to areas that our forces actually hold and invite in aid groups from liberal Islamic countries to set up humanitarian projects and self-help groups. Pay them if necessary. It would be cheaper than the military option. Stay in the background.

Buy the opium crop from the Afghan farmers, give what's needed for medical purposes, and destroy the rest.

Step out of the quagmire and walk around it.

[HughMoran]

252. I agree with everything in your post

I hope this is how it's done as it makes the most sense. Alas, I doubt that we will find the right balance, but we can hope. I have infinitely more confidence that Obama will find a better solution than Bush, though he's got a LOT on his plate.

[mvd]

255. GREAT plan, Lydia!

:hi:

[Kalyan]

142. well said

:applause:

[HughMoran]

165. Cheerleader

:rofl:

[Kalyan]

198. what's the issue?

I don't get what your issue is ...

I believe that Democrats getting elected doesn't mean that they assume the voters gave them a blank cheque. It means that the voters gave Dems huge responssibility. Hence Dems need to have a higher standard than the repubs. Do you have a problem with that ?

[HughMoran]

201. I was being sardonic

I just get a kick when people cheer on the person who criticizes DUers for supposedly being cheerleaders.

It's funny IMO. :)

[Two Americas]

240. I am flattered

Think about that. You just complimented me more than anyone else has on this thread.

You are looking for any way to wound people, to hurt them, to upset them or disrupt the discussion. Let's not pretend anything else.


..

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[Two Americas]

251. "sock puppets" lol

You really are pulling out all the stops.

[anonymous171]

143. I agree to an extent. If we are too bombastic we will simply be ignored.

Pressure is needed, not shoves and most definitely not outright attacks.

[Enthusiast]

191. No one is in favor of attacks.

This is what I want to avoid, attacks on President Obama. I fear Geithner's influence. I could be wrong. But I get some bad vibes here. The financial system needs to be regulated soon and strictly regulated. To accomplish this influential toes must be stepped on.

[bertman]

149. Thanks, debbierlus, for a timely reminder.

[JackRiddler]

181. Well said! K&R.

[Exen Trik]

182. Quoth FDR:

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

The greatest boon of having Obama as our president is not what he himself does or believes. Whether he is truly misguided or acting despite his interests or even "playing chess" as some may say he does, what ultimate sets his administration apart as that he does not act against us. We are not silenced and ridiculed, spied upon and arrested by the ones who should lead us. Though much of the powers that be still stand against us that single barrier removed is enough to give us back just enough of the power to change things, and the freedom to strengthen it.

I believe he knows what is right and what works, but he can't unilaterally change everything to the ideal. He is surrounded by people tainted by one or another culture, because it is inescapable to appoint many who are not. Even if he did, would such outsiders who go against the grain truly be the best to steer those ships around? The best person to solve a problem is sometimes those who had a hand in making it, if you can get their error through their thick heads. It's our job to help pound that into them, and to keep them on their toes not to commit further mistakes.

So, when the administration floats a flawed idea like privatization idea out there, we raise hell and point out - loudly, clearly - just what is wrong with it.

When conservatives, corporatists, DINOs, and all other manner ne'er-do-wells take actions and form coalitions against our democracy, we throw democracy right back in their face and campaign against them with the very wrongs they seek to inflict.

We shine a light on and raise hell over the crimes of the rich and powerful and corrupt, both those in acting against the law and those in the laws themselves.


This is exactly what he needs of us, I think he knows that well.

The advance of populism is the job of the populace.

It's our job.


So let's support our man in power, don't let anybody bring him down, and be sure to give him along with everyone else all the hell they need to do the right thing.

[JHB]

194. Exactly! FDR laid it out in those "14 little words". And Welcome to DU.

I was going to make the same point, but it seems you get up earlier than I do (or stay up later).

Thanks and welcome to this little corner of the net.

[deacon]

187. I WILL give him a break. The GOP. NO! Our media. NO! n/t

[Marrah_G]

195. "If Bush did the same thing, how would you react? "

More people need to do this.

Frankly, Obama will not be president forever. We have a chance to change things. If they are not changed and we let things slide because he is our guy, then the next Repuke in the WH will be another Bush and we will have NO RIGHT to whine about it.

[freemarketer6]

197. Excellent post. It is up to DU to be a fair and just monitor. No one

else will do it.

[alarimer]

199. The fucking cheerleaders will be on your case, but I agree.

I am pretty disappointed with many decisions so far. A Democrat does not get a free pass from me. I belong to no party. He has done many things wrong and appointed many of the wrong people and deserves to take heat for it.

The hero worship of Obama here is no different that the hero worship the right had for Bush. it is blind idolatry and completely void of any critical thinking whatsoever.

[TBF]

212. I agree. The fan club will be relentless, but it is Obama himself who

said "move me left". We sure are trying, sir, over the objections of your most staunch supporters who have confused the role of presidency with that of a teen idol.

[IdaBriggs]

203. Thank you for this post. You are right --

It is our *duty* to keep standing up for what we believe in, even when it is unpopular. No one is 'owed' anything in this country; we all have to work for it, and that includes justice, civil rights, and common freaking sense.

Bravo, and cheers! :) Best, Ida

[indepat]

205. Any of junior's policies/actions not rescinded at the earliest moment is a failure

of this administration because everything junior did was driven by an extreme RE PAC ideology harmful to this country and most of it's people. EOS :P

[DinahMoeHum]

207. You cannot play your allies like adversaries. . .

most especially not when the other side demonizes our side ALL THE TIME.

Give Obama, the Democrats, ie. our side carrots when they do a good job - and a prod when they need encouragement to do the right thing.

Just sayin'


:kick::kick:

[cascadiance]

211. Also remind him that the term "Clean Coal" is an oxymoron, and that he should stay away from it!

[earth mom]

214. Excellent OP!

:applause:

[TBF]

215. K&R n/t

[fascisthunter]

218. will do.... hope others do to

[Gman]

219. And of course there's always 100 or so that will rec something like this

poor disconnected souls they are.

[EstimatedProphet]

222. I don't intend to - BUT

I also don't intend to bash him for things that are out of his control either. I've seen just that going on since his inauguration, and there's been criticism stating how he was failing so miserably on keeping his promises since day 1. He's been in office for just 2 months now. Did Bush accomplish one single thing in his first 2 months, other than pissing off China?

Next year, maybe in 2 years, it'll be enough time to look at his record and demand different things from this administration. right now it is absurd to think Obama can turn everything around. He's still trying to figure out what's going on, just like anyone else would be in his situation.

[redqueen]

223. deleted

[WCGreen]

224. I have resisted posting here ...

But I must say that if you really think we can have policy without politics you are sadly mistaken.

The process of implementing any given policy demands the cooperation of at least 50% +1. That, under almost any circumstance you or I can think of demands a political response, ie give and take.

So unless you truly believe we can implement policy in a vacuum, get used to politics.

[ihavenobias]

228. I reject and denounce you! Why are you part of the Hate Obama Crowd?

How DARE you EVER criticize any decisions? It's only been 55 days. Like with Bush, you need to let *history* be the judge, who are you to judge?

;)

Sorry, but I'm disgusted by this "see no evil, speak no evil" cheer-leading bullshit. If you care about someone and want them to succeed, you don't pretend to be blind to their faults and mistakes. That enables failure, not success. Unfortunately some people can't seem to make that distinction.

I agree that there are some who aren't constructive in their criticisms of this administration, I would never dispute that. But to lump together EVERYONE with any criticism (constructive or otherwise) and suggest that they hate the president, want to fail, are unpatriotic, etc....it disgusts me.

Let's leave the partisan cheer-leading for the Republicans. They gave us a great template on how to do that the last 8 years, and I think we'd be doing ourselves, our president and our country a great service by NOT following it.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

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

[chrisa]

236. The OP does have a point.

For instance, I believe that Obama should do more to counteract the rights-stealing Bush policies of the past (warrantless wiretapping, rendition) instead of accepting them.

Overall, I do agree with how Obama is handling himself so far.

[Two Americas]

241. k and r

That is a really good post, reading it again now.

There are no attacks on Obama nor any of his supporters - though all through this thread people are claiming that there are.

There is no name-calling in the post, though people are claiming that there is.

There is nothing in the post that could even remotely suggest some deep dark motive to hurt Obama, although people are insisting that there is.

The people attacking the OP are unwittingly contradicting themselves - they are so frantically denying that they are trying to suppress freedom of speech, that they are demanding that we all think and speak the same way, that they are making the case against themselves more strongly than could ever be made by anyone else.

What on earth could any Democrats find wrong with this OP? The reactions on this thread are very strange, and very revealing.


...

[LuckyTheDog]

242. I agree, but...

We also should be realistic, give Obama some time and, to some extent, pick our battles.

I don't have the energy to be outraged all the time about every little thing.

[omega minimo]

243. Yeah and do all that back when Clinton was in office, when there was still time!!

:bounce:

[berni_mccoy]

244. Downer Debbie FTL! What garbage.

[polichick]

256. Incredibly rude - which of her statements do you disagree with?

[berni_mccoy]

258. It's a back-handed attack on Obama and you know it. Everything she said is righteous, but framed

against Obama. She's been doing this consistently painting Obama as the bad guy.

[MadBadger]

262. +10

[global1]

259. I Agree - Putting The Pressure On Obama - Even From Us Supporters.....

in my mind just gives him that much more leverage against his corporate critics those in Congress. It allows him to say - see - this is why I was elected - the American people want this - I'm just their means for them to get this for them.

If we let up the pressure on President Obama - he won't have the 'ooomph' he needs to get things done. When I say keep the pressure on President Obama - we also need to keep the pressure on all of Congress.

Those in Congress - more than President Obama - are concerned that they keep their jobs going forward. If they know that we're pissed to the point that they won't get re-elected unless they come through for us - then they might do their job for us.

I'm a staunch supporter of President Obama. I was from the first time I heard him speak at the Dem Convention that introduced us to him. That doesn't mean - I'm going to say something like - "Stand by President Obama - right or wrong". No - if he does something I don't agree with - I'll call him out on it.

He did say that he wants to listen to us. Therefore - it is our responsibility to keep him honest and on a path to be able to make the change that we believe in and we elected him for.

It is not heresy to disagree with him. As with all our elected officials - we need to hold them accountable.

[NYC_SKP]

260. I'll worship whatever hero I wish to and practing my fucking democracy my way.

And you can worship and practice your way.

[MadBadger]

263. Whatever I say is going to get deleted, so I'll just post a big pile of Dogshit

That would get deleted too actually.

[cooolandrew]

261. Exactly the work is mostly witth the people that was President Obama's main message. But criticisim>

must be as constructive as we can make sure his approval stays at level that can keep mementum. There ultimately has to be enough public support to get any of these things done and that part should never be lost either. So we gotta do this extra smart.