I donated to Obama. Twice. I worked for the unions on behalf of Obama. But...

[Atman]

I gotta admit, I'm leaning toward the "one-termer" side of the argument if he sells us out on the public-payer option. We CAN NOT allow the "family values" Republicans to set America's agenda any longer. Sick children, bankruptcies due to health care bills, insurance companies making medical decisions instead of doctors. We were supposed to change that. It was/is the biggest promise of the Obama administration.

He breaks that promise at his peril. We (Democrats) are sick and tired of being in the vast majority on so many issues, yet our "Democratic" representatives continually side with the corporations. I want the change I voted for, campaigned for, worked for.

Is that too much to ask?

.

[crim son]

1. I agree, in part.

It depends what his opponent offers up. I'm sick of being mislead and lied to.

[olegramps]

104. Have you been lied to?

I don't recall Obama saying that he supported a single-payer option. I will agree that in my opinion that he is on the wrong side of this issue. It appears to me that he thought that if he went along with keeping the insurance firms happy that he could win bipartisan support.

I believe that he must be coming to the realization that the Republicans are determined to be obstructionists. They would rather see the nation destroyed rather than cooperate. The real power behind the Republicans are the ultra-wealthy who are totally insulated from any melt down and in fact would profit from a massive depression in order to consolidate and increase their holdings. What a deal when you can buy up property and businesses for pennies and hire workers for starvation wages.

I wonder how many working class folks, Republicans and Democrats, have come to the realization that they drank the cooperate kool-aide and believed their con that unions were their enemy and that they would be taken good care of. Wish I had a dollar for all the times I heard workers say why should I support the union when I can get the same treatment from management and not have to pay those union thugs. The workers are left standing on the dock as the CEO's and their henchmen sail off into the blue laughing their heads off.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Two whole donations?

Wow.

[we can do it]

4. So What About You? Some of Us Gave Untold Hours and All We Were Able

You?

[TheWraith]

5. I gave Obama around $1400.

I'm a little vague because I lost count at some point.

[Atman]

10. How do you know how much I gave in my two donations?

And way beyond my cash contribution, I literally worked to elect not only Obama, but Democrats all across the fruited plane. Get off your $1400 high horse. I have as much right to voice my views as you do.

.

[vaberella]

13. Excuse you. Why are you attacking the poster? S/he made no comment to your post.

Nor s/he sticking it in your face. Other's gave money, others gave time. So the defensive attack was uncalled for, especially considering the poster was not attacking you or your donations.

[mkultra]

34. your proported donations and work give your outrage no greater weight

than anyone else who might be concerned.

[Greyhound]

51. The word you were looking for is "purported".

Function:
adjective
Date: 1836
: reputed, alleged

proported is not a word in the English language.

Now that our mutual fallibility has, once again, been established we can move on to something substantial, M'Kay?

[mkultra]

78. thanks for the copy edit. No one likes a wordsmith

[Greyhound]

96. Thankfully, that isn't true either.

However, I'm sure the Orwell and Huxley would be very disappointed to find that their works have served, not as a warning, but as an instruction manual.
:kick:

[olegramps]

103. Spelling?

"It's a damn poor mind that can't think of more than one way to spell a word."

[Greyhound]

105. LOL!

That's a good one.
:rofl:

[polmaven]

66. I think maybe you meant to reply

to post #2. And I agree with you that that was an uncalled for remark. Some of us may not have the same resources - dollar wise - as others to be able to donate more than twice, or to be able to donate money at all, for that matter.

And so what? This is still America, despite the best efforts of Cheney, Rove & Company. Your opinions and my opinions are as just important as someone who made contributions up the yin-yang.

[Atman]

68. Yes, my reply was to post #2.

My apologies to Wraith.

.

[bvar22]

33. Maybe you should have bought more Health Insurance instead.

Looks like we are going to need it.

[Atman]

63. I have excellent health insurance. I work for real Democrats.

My company covers me and my wife and our son in college. I wish others were as lucky. But I shouldn't have to wish...I worked to elect a man who promised to fix the system so that I am not considered one of the lucky ones, rather just another American with health care coverage.

.

[progressoid]

58. What an assholish statement. Wow indeed.

Some of us gave what we could afford. If it was only two donations, that's not good enough for you?

How about the blisters from walking door to door to door to door for the President. Is that good enough?

Or not being home with your family night after night to phone bank. How's that?



Maybe you should give us a formula for what we needed to do to be allowed to criticize the President. Thanks.

[info being]

60. Well if you gave more...it makes you look a bit foolish now

After all, what has your time and money bought?

[mtnester]

65. Don't you wish you could take that back now?

churl

[Zavulon]

101. Classy.

Wow.

I'd ask you how much YOU gave, but I don't care what the answer is.

Every time I come into this forum, I find a new pompous gasbag to put on ignore.

[texastoast]

3. Work with the congress critters

Obama can set the agenda, but it is Congress that does the drafting.

[ChiciB1]

49. AND, Do Tell... Where Does "The Buck" Stop??? I Too Worked Very

hard in the HOT Florida sun, even though he wasn't my first choice. I wanted CHANGE, I made a choice between what was offered and I too GAVE MONEY!

Why is it that those of us who are asking questions are nothing more than "Bad Guys?"

Dee-Mock-Crazy!!!

[texastoast]

85. Not bad guys

But diluting the power to bring about that change by whining and decrying (not you personally necessarily) rather than digging in for the very long haul (maybe not even your lifetime--that idea really sucks, but it might just be the deal). Saying that we aren't going to vote for any Democrats in 2010 just empowers the dark side and gives them great hope and a leg to stand on when trying to fundraise. We play right into their hands.

And one thing I know is that change comes slowly in law. No matter how good the idea might be (e.g., of late equal rights for women and blacks), this COUNTRY (not just a president) had to birth that idea and accept it. We as a people had to birth the commitment to fight Hitler.

And birth does not happen in the wink of an eye. For humans, 9 months. For a better world, you tell me. There is no instant gratification, unfortunately. That is not to say, give up. We don't want to be remembered as Bush will be for saying, "It's hard work." Yell, heah, it is.

[geek tragedy]

107. He is not the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Congress writes the damn bill, not the President.

[Clio the Leo]

6. I'm sorry but....

.... *I* think NOT voting for a candidate because of ONE issue is as silly as voting FOR a candidate because of one issue (as we often like to make fun of the "sanctity of life" GOP voters.)

But, it's obviously your vote to do with it what you will. You gonna get a Palin '12 bumper sticker or just vote for her and be done with it? :)

(please dont take my snark too hard, I mean this more to Big Ed than you, but he's not here at the moment lol)

[JuniperLea]

16. Yep...

I'm finding that attitude rather selfish, actually.

[StevieM]

24. I think the poster was referring to possibly voting against him in the primaries, not voting against

him in the GE if he is the nominee

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. Who in the world would be foolish enough to run against Obama in the primaries?

:shrug:

[laugle]

97. T. Kennedy ran against Carter,

in politics anything can happen.......

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. Despite Carter's unpopularity, Kennedy still lost

[StevieM]

25. See my post responding to JuniperLea. I don't think the poster was referring to the GE, but rather

the primaries in 2012

[Clio the Leo]

28. There wont BE any Presidential Democratic primaries in '12.....

... and the OP clearly says, "I'm leaning toward the "one-termer" side of the argument."

[StevieM]

30. First of all, you don't know whether there will be a primary opponent or not. Second,

if President Obama is defeated in the primaries, then he is a one-termer.

I did the right thing, Clio. I voted for Obama in the GE. And if he's re-nominated (which I assume he will be) then I will vote to re-elect him. Now, that doesn't mean I like him. I proudly voted against him in the primaries and don't feel bad about it. And if he has a challenger in the 2012 primaries I may vote against him again--and I won't feel bad about it then either.

If you don't like people suggesting that they might not vote to re-elect President Obama in the 2012 GE, then why don't you lead by example. Tell us....would you have voted for Hillary if she was the nominee in 2008? For that matter, if a Democrat defeats President Obama in the 2012 Primaries, will you vote for that Democrat? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you have no right to lecture anyone about supporting the party and the presidential nominee.

Steve

[Clio the Leo]

38. Well, I'm not sure what Hillary has to do with this but.....

.... the Democratic party could nominate ...... I dunno .... say a yellow dog and I'd vote for it.

And, I'm sorry to tell you this, but the Democrat could nominate a BLUE dog and I'd vote for him/her.

I LONGED to see Bill Clinton's sh*t eating grin smiling up there in front of the Capitol holding the Bible while Hillary was sworn in as President. Talk about vindication! .... Up until winter of '08 I assumed she WOULD be the nominee .... then Iowa came along and the whole ball game changed.

I'd vote for Hillary in 2016, LOVE to see her run. I would GLADLY vote for ANY Democrat over ANYONE any other party offered up. If I didn't have full confidence in this party, I wouldn't be in it.

But if you think that Barack Obama is going to have any serious .... no ... ANY challenge in the 2012 Democratic primaries, then let me humbly suggest you are underestimating your President. That's a mistake far too many have been burned by making.

MY point is that I think it's silly to vote or not vote for someone because of ONE issue given the inferior alternatives that are out there.

But to address your question, consider this. I KNOW what it's like to have Republicans leading you in Congress and I'm not sure how much you can image how I'd LOVE to have a Democrat representing me ... even a "weak" one. Goober Pyle is my rep ... I'm NOT KIDDING.



We all saw first hand how Club for Growth help the GOP loose seats last November ... you'll forgive me if I'm NOT excited to see threats of the same tactics used in our party.

[StevieM]

39. OK...I appreciate your comments. It's important that we support our party's nominees and

through your words, you have met my challenge--you've led by example.

I didn't get the impression that the OP was talking about voting Republican in 2012, or even Nader. And a primary challenge, while unlikely, is not impossible. However, I realize that Obama will almost certainly be re-nominated, and if he is then I will vote for him again.

Steve

[salguine]

55. Why is support always a one-way street? Don't they owe us something too? I'm really

tired of being used and then shit on.

[Zhade]

99. Just so you know, Hillary will NEVER be president. Move on already.

NT!

[StevieM]

100. Wow...you have a Crystal Ball? You know what will happen and won't happen?

It's funny how the irrelevant Hillary Clinton was utilized so much by Obama on the campaign trail. I guess he didn't trust your analyses.

I didn't say that Hillary would be the Democrat who might run against him in 2012. Obviously, she will support Obama's re-nomination and re-election.

And I take it from your answer that you wouldn't have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee in 2008 and won't pledge to support a different Dem in 2012 (or Hillary in 2016). So you have no right to lecture anyone.

As for moving on....do you have any idea how arrogant that is? If a person wants to support Hillary in a future campaign, they have every right to do so.

Steve

[shellgame26]

112. Actually

If I recall correctly it was the 'irrelevant' Barack Obama going up againt the self-described "inevitable" Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

[graywarrior]

7. Uh, I'd think more about getting rid of some members of congress.

[Atman]

11. I'm workin' on that, too.

Seriously, every day. It's what I do for a living.

.

[Orangepeel]

8. he can't sign a bill that doesn't exist

Obama is a much better politician than I am and I hope he has a way out of the mess he's in, but I don't know what it is. He can't sign a bill that doesn't pass the Senate and it will hurt him not to sign anything given the emphasis he has placed on it.

Clinton failed at health care reform and still had a relatively successful presidency, so I guess he can too.

[Phx_Dem]

9. You donated twice? OMG. You own him. I can see why you'd be pissed

that he hasn't done everything you want in 6 months.

[Atman]

12. You sound like a Republican.

Use ridicule and ridiculous hyperbole instead of any sort of reasonable response.

Where did I say I thought I owned him? Or how much I donated? Where did I say mention six months? YOU brought on the hyperbole because you can't accept ANY criticism of Obama. I donated to the campaign, I worked with the unions and on myriad local and state organizations, to assure Obama got elected.

I am allowed to express my opinions. As are you. So why be a dick about it, eh?

.

[abq e streeter]

15. Your OP was a very reasonable statement of frustration and disappointment

and I personally am embarrassed at some of the attacks you've been subjected to for it. Nothing new though, and understandable on some level I suppose. Its such a relief to finally be rid of Bush that some people on the left are terrified ( and again, quite understandably) of enough progressives deserting Obama that we'll be back under repub control . But I share your frustration and disappointment; if we get Democrats in office who won't stand up to the corporations and actively be on the side of the working man and woman, then what the hell's the point of working hard to get them elected. The responses that have belittled and insulted you are uncalled for. I expect that kind of thing out of republicans, but not us.

[MissDeeds]

40. I agree

With the concerns expressed by the OP and your thoughtful response. :thumbsup:

[Jakes Progress]

45. OMG. Two reasonable, thoughtful posts.

I'm so used to the attack dogs going after those not deemed pure, that the reasonableness and grace of the two posts leading to this set me back a little.

Thank you.

[abq e streeter]

59. And thank YOU, for the kind words--just trying to write from the heart

and occasionally get lucky and actually make sense...

[Atman]

70. Thank you.

If it is this difficult for us, supposedly of common ground, to discuss this rationally, imagine what it must be like on the House and Senate floors. It takes strength, but more importantly, it takes leadership. Sadly, it appears the for-profit insurance companies, the Republicans and the media are the ones setting the agenda, not the man who holds the support of 80% of the American people.

.

[Phx_Dem]

44. The only dick around here is you for thinking that donating to

a candidate means he has to bow to your every whim. And he'd better fucking do it in six months, or you might cry.

BTW, I'm a woman so find another nasty name to call me because a "dick," I am not.

[tkmorris]

62. Make your argument, and keep it civil

Otherwise I don't care what you are. The OP expressed an opinion, and did so without any unreasonable vitriol. You just frothed at the mouth. You are losing the debate ma'am.

[Atman]

64. Again, where did I say anything about six months?

That's why I said you were acting like a Republican...same tactic as when they keep repeating "government run health care" when no one talking about government run health care. If you'd like to discuss what I actually posted, please do.

.

[Greyhound]

52. She lives in Phoenix, and I'll bet she thinks it's a swell place, we have to make allowances. n/t

[QC]

72. There's an epidemic of that lately.

Did you ever imagine DU would be home to so much talk of "the far left," "ultra libs," and the like? There's more red baiting here than at the John Birch Society convention.

What in the hell happened?

[jenmito]

14. Obama WANTS a public option. The Dems. in Congress are not cooperating. It's not HIS fault. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

32. Time for him to PROVE it

Put up or shut up.

[mkultra]

36. the black bar is set high

[kenny blankenship]

42. I try very hard to make jokes, but you Sir or Madam, are naturally ridiculous

My hat is off to you.

[mkultra]

79. Thank you and my point still stands

reflect.

[shellgame26]

113. ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

[jenmito]

37. How-by vetoing a bill and getting NOTHING? n/t

[kenny blankenship]

41. Many people have called on Obama to lead the people-to rally them against the resistance in Congress

It should not be hard to do. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of a strong public option. Polls place support for a public option in the range of 70% -80%. Obama appears to be waiting for the Congress to send him -whatever- before coming out strongly in favor of - whatever.
Now he says he's indifferent to whether there is a public option or not.

In 2003 he was for single payer national healthcare. When he launched his Presidential bid, he was for Universal healthcare with a public option. Now he's for -well- whatever.

As for your big scary OR ELSE scenario, many people agree we would be better off passing "NOTHING" than passing some of the horrible "reforms" proposed in the Senate - such as forced buying of private insurance, or the farcical "co-ops" for health care that have all the administrative overhead of private insurance and none of the bargaining power of a national health service. I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THEM THAT PASSING "NOTHING" WOULD BE PREFERABLE, BECAUSE IT IS THE RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE.

If he just wants to sign "Whatever" so he can say he did, he can fuck off and be remembered as a coward and a failure.

[jenmito]

43. "Now he says he's indifferent to whether there is a public option or not."?

That's not true at all-not only according to HIM but to those he met with today like Gov. Jim Doyle (WI) who said, after meeting with him, Obama is VERY committed to having a public option and HE thinks Obama would "move forward" and "withhold bipartisanship" like they did with the stimulus.

He's been out doing his part in favor of a public option and if the people in Congress won't send him a bill with the public option, THEY should be voted out-not him. He should sign whatever compromise he's given and then try to get a congress that WILL send him a bill with a public option.

[quakerboy]

48. If he signs a compromise

he will never get a congress that would give him more.

[quakerboy]

46. That would be better

than a bill that will backfire. EG, a bill that forces everyone to pay exorbitant prices with no meaningful improvements for the consumer.

If that happens, the republicans will claim that that IS socialized medicine, truth be damned. And the people will feel the pain. And it will be another 20 years before we can even talk about health care again. Other than when the new Republican majority blames all the financial pain on Democrats, but claims they cant repeal the horrible laws with the Democratic minority blocking them.

There are two ways to win and several ways to loose. We win if we pass true health care reform that benefits the nation. We also win if Democrats stand strong, but are obstructed by a solid R minority, because the people will see where the problem lies. We lose by giving in to the R obstructions. We lose by giving in to the insurance companies. We lose by passing a bill that will hurt people and help only insurance companies.

[sisters6]

50. He is not leading on health care for all--at all.

[Uzybone]

17. More defeatist shit

For all the complaining that the democrats in Congress lack backbone, DUers are so quick throw in the towel even before the fight begins. I've never seen people who are so skeptical of MSM spin so readily gobble up every lie that that they spew.

[JamesA1102]

23. Well said nt

[HughMoran]

29. We do tend to throw our people under the bus - long before it's scheduled to arrive

I will be feeling like this if there's no public option in the bill, but we should be making phone calls now, not discouraging people from calling with excessive negativity.

[politicasista]

47. Bingo

I don't agree with everything Congress does, but it's amazing that people here complain about the MSM, yet buy into whatever spin they fabricate. :thumbsup:

[Cali_Democrat]

54. It's amazing how many people gobble up the daily media spin

The media creates these daily faux stories in order to drive support away from Obama and so many folks lap it up.

Scary stuff.

[shellgame26]

111. You got it

and most often, it's the self-assumed 'smarter-than-thou' folks that lap it right up.

[info being]

61. Maybe we just know what's coming....

after 30 years of no real change coming from Washington.

[Bonobo]

18. I think I have to agree.

I think there are two issue that are at the top of my list of things that need to be fixed before our country has even the slightest chance of turning around:

#1 Health Care. "Public Option" is NOT an option. It is a must. In fact, all US citizens should have it, and it should not exceed $500 per family per year.

#2 Higher Education costs. We cannot continue to graduate the cream of our society with debts of $80,000 or $100,000. It is no recipe for success.

[styersc]

19. Sorry, but I have to agree. At some point we have to hold Obama

accountable. He has the bully pulpit, significant popularity and Dem allies in both houses of the legislature, including senior members and committee chairs. If he travels the easiest path just so he can claim a victory, he will lose my support.

[zulchzulu]

20. Your deep concern is noted

You might wait for legislation to even get in the second inning. Bill Maher, is that you?

[Thrill]

21. How about working on Democrats to stick together. Thats the problem

.You have about 12 Democrats against one. How the hell do you blame Obama for that?

[JamesA1102]

22. So you want a Republican President

for the next 4 to 8 years who will undo what little good Obama has done.

This is the same logic that many on the left used in 2000 and then ran off to support Nader. All that got us was 8 years of Bush. Was that a good thing?

[StevieM]

27. Again, as I said above, voting for a different Democrat in the primaries doesn't mean that you will

vote against Obama in the GE if he is the nominee. Voting for a primary opponent is not the same thing as voting for Nader in November.

Steve

[JamesA1102]

56. I wasn't replying to you.

But do you really think anyone will run against Obama in the primaries? Incumbant Presidents typically run unopposed.

[truedelphi]

26. Hey there Atman

Long time no see you!

:hi:

I think that whatever happened between the time that Hillary and Obama were neck and neck is that some deal went down.

The Powers that Be know it doesn't matter what we all think of any one running for the Presidency. Obama gave The Powers that Be the last dime on Main Street. That was his end of the deal - that he would appoint Geithner and Bernanke, and they would get some ten or eleven trillion bucks.

Now the other end of the deal is that in return the only person Obama will have to face in 2012 is good ol Sarah Palin. Who no one really likes. But the media will hype her being the Repug nominee, and word on the street will be that we better vote Dem or we will get Sarah.

This is all my specualtion, but it is pretty much the only explantion for what went on when for the first time in eight years, the Powers that be let the results of an election in this nation of ours go down, so that seemingly the "People's Choice" made it to the WH...

[Arkana]

31. We get it.

You want a public option. The President remains committed to that. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said so on MSNBC this afternoon.

Christ, do we have to have this many threads threatening Obama with this and that every time the media publishes some bullshit story without getting their facts straight?

[Pisces]

35. Is it too much to ask to wait and see what happens before you threaten to vote for Palin.

[mullard12ax7]

53. Man, you're getting chewed to pieces for a health care question?

My answer is hell no, it's not too much to ask. America is going to go bankrupt just like Argentina did in less than a year unless our people stop being victimized by corruption on a level never seen in America. Seventy-two percent want it NOW so you are not alone, in fact, you and I are in the majority.

[question everything]

57. Sure, one term. And then have Gingrich or Palin

or Pawlenty in 2012? And fulfill Bush's desire of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias?

Don't you realize that politics is the art of compromise? That the "worst" Democrat will always be better than the "best" Republican?

[Teaser]

67. who says he's gonna sell us out?

this is getting boring.

[Atman]

69. Words mean things.

"...if he sells us out on the public-payer option."

I didn't say he is going to sell us out. I said that IF he ignores the will of the vast majority of the people and sides with for-profit corporate health care over a public option, I will have to seriously reconsider my support for him. I understand the need for give and take on sensitive issues. This is not such an issue. There seems to be no giving, just taking. Taking money from the insurance industry (not Obama, but the Democratic "centrists" who are anything but), and blocking the clear will of the people who voted for change.

IF.

I'm certainly not campaigning for anyone else, and don't intend to. Unless...

UNLESS.

Another word that means something.

.

[Teaser]

71. Words don't mean things. People give them meaning.

I will stop supporting the president if he sells us out on not rounding up babies and cutting their feet off.

I worked really hard to elect the president, but if he sells us out on not rounding up babies and cutting their feet off, I'm afraid he will be a one termer.

[FiveGoodMen]

94. Well, that's easily the god-damned stupidest freeptard reply I'll read today!

Goodbye.

[shellgame26]

114. new Obama-bashing meme of the day

Accuse those unwilling to throw in the towel of being freepers or republicans.

[Thrill]

73. Obama is the only one out there fighting for the Public Option

with no Senators out there making the case. Blaming him? Its a joke. Your fight is with the wrong one.

[Atman]

75. It's a fight for LEADERSHIP as much as anything else.

Obama has the people behind him. If he allows these obstructionist Senators and Congresspeople to continually, endlessly thwart the will of people while directing billions more of our money into the same for-profit corporations that created the mess, I'd say that's failed leadership. Obama is the most charismatic, intelligent, persuasive POTUS we've seen in generations, and many of us, me included, had hoped -- no, expected -- that he'd use his powers for good, not evil.

Selling out to the insurance companies and for-profit health care industry at the expense health of the American people is not good. Not by a longshot.

.

[Thrill]

84. Obama is showing leadership. He's been out there at townhalls and speeches

Banging away about how important a public option is. This isn't an easy fight. So no matter what he does if Democrats aren't out there fighting with him. Its not going to happen. He is doing his job. You still need Democrats to push the agenda.

Thats one thing they should have learned from Bush and the Republicans. The Republicans were great at pushing his agenda in the media and Congress

[BlooInBloo]

74. He'll definitely lose my vote if he sells me into slavery.

*IF*.

[dionysus]

77. if he comes over to your house and cuts your balls off... does that mean you're supporting kooch in

2012?

[dionysus]

76. dude, what the hell is with all the people throwing in the towel after less than half a fucking year

around this joint.

you can put up with 8 years of commander dipshit, and already calling it quits on obama.

get
a
grip
people

[Atman]

81. Who is throwing in the towel?

I did NOT say I was throwing in the towel! We don't even have any legislation yet. I merely stated how important this issue is to very many -- the majority -- of Americans. A big majority. And that now is NOT the time to cave in to the party that LOST the election and enjoys historically low approval among the people.

I am committed to working toward achieving the health care goals we've sought. No one, at least not me, is "calling it quits" on Obama. I am firing a warning flare that my willingness to support him is not without limits. If he does not listen to the people who voted for him and accepts the tactics of the nay-sayers and obstructions in the pockets of the for-profit health care industry, why should he continue to deserve my support?

But that's not NOW. I am still hopeful he'll pull this off, and am working to help him do so. But I am not alone, nor do I feel I am out of line, for expressing doubts about my ability to continue to support him should he miss this historic opportunity for true, real reform.

.

[dionysus]

83. patience grasshopper, we don't even have a finished bill yet

;)

[Hieronymus]

87. This is a one time chance for all Americans to get decent healthcare ...

That's a fucking big deal.

[dionysus]

93. so people should be crying before a god damned bill is even presented? act like adults for christ

sake

[emsimon33]

80. Amen! And that goes for the rest of them! Go, 2010!

[Beacool]

82. What can I say?

I don't regret a penny of the money that I donated nor a minute spent campaigning or holding fundraisers during the primaries. Oh, but then again, it wasn't for Obama.

:shrug:

[TomCADem]

86. Have You Called Your Congressional Representatives? Senator?

The Tea Baggers Are Holding Massive Rallies In Protest. Its all astroturf, but quiet support can be drowned out by the Fox News led caucaphony in opposition. The real key is whether folks who really want health care prove it by demonstrating and working the phones.

[rucky]

88. I will donate twice to any viable challenger to any Congressional shill.

[billyoc]

90. I was campaigning against McCain/Lieberman.

But I know how you feel.

[nolabels]

92. Actually i was too

Each and every tidbit Obama is delivering after that is just more gravy :9

[treestar]

91. Yes, because Congress is involved too

And you made donations thinking that a President, alone, could make things your way?

No candidate of any kind really can make "promises." They can only promise to fight for a thing.

[FiveGoodMen]

95. "They can only promise to fight for a thing"

And we'd better see him trying to fight for good things instead of explaining repeatedly that we have to keep Bush's policies in place.

[Zhade]

98. Pfft, he lost my vote when he broke his promise on Iraq and proposed indefinite detention.

And that's just the start of how he betrayed his campaign promises.

[BzaDem]

109. Meh. You'll come around after 4 years of a Republican.

[geek tragedy]

106. Amazing how many ignoramuses there are who never heard of

"Congress."

Apparently they think we elected a king.

[BzaDem]

108. You are contradicting yourself in your own post.

Your second sentence says "We CAN NOT allow the "family values" Republicans to set America's agenda any longer."

Your first sentence says "I gotta admit, I'm leaning toward the "one-termer" side of the argument if he sells us out on the public-payer option."

Hmm. If Obama gets one term, that means a "family values" Republican will be elected to the presidency. So which is it? Do you want one term for Obama (which would mean an actual "family values" Republican would become President)? Or do you want to prevent an actual "family values" Republican from becoming President? You can't have both.

[shellgame26]

110. so you would

rather see the republicans back in power because change isn't coming fast enough for you? That's like taking one little step forward and then 3 giant steps backward.

Wow. Just wow.

I don't for one second believe that the DU bubble reflects the sentiments of the the country as a whole (left, right or in between). At least the polls certainly don't say so...I'm thinking you'll be singing a different tune in 7 years.

[Splinter Cell]

115. I see....

And hoping President Obama loses to whatever scum the GOP can offer up in 2012 will help you get what you want?