Is President Obama a "political coward"?

[pscot]

Charlie Pearce takes a look at the evidence.

"...I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the President of the United States is something of a political coward. The flip-flop on the Rumsfeld Porn Collection is just the most recent example. He's walked back much of what he said during the campaign on rendition and on the Military Commissions Act. Gitmo is still open. His Department of Justice is pleading state secrecy. He has lifted not an obvious finger to put pressure on anyone to get qualified people like Dawn Johnsen confirmed. (LBJ would have had Harry Reid hanging by his entrails in the Mural Room by now.) Even when his administration does something correctly, it turtles in the face of hissy-fits tossed by a discredited political movement adhered to by less than 30 percent of the public.

I think the source of the president's timorousness lies in the fact that, for all his new-politics bombast, he's pretty much decided that he's a critter of the respectable Beltway center. We should have seen that coming when he supported Weepin' Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont or, at least, when he took that ungainly dive on FISA and the issue of telecom immunity. His financial team is straight out of the Retired Wall Street Hiring Hall, and his complete disinclination to call crimes what they are bespeaks an unseemly lust for a middle ground that lie somewhere between Oz and the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

Political cowardice has many sources, and its effects are not always uniform or predictable. Lyndon Johnson was brave enough to stuff the Voting Rights Act down the gullet of American white-supremacy, but he lost his nerve when confronted by a bunch of Harvard intellectuals with a jones for Southeast Asia. It took a great deal of courage for Barack Obama to get to the White House last January, and a great deal of courage to want the job at all during this period of history. It's too bad he seems to have left that courage back in Iowa some place."

Here's a link. Open "Slacker Friday" and scroll down http://www.thenation.com/blogs/altercation/436188/

[msongs]

1. someday democrats will control congress...... lol nt

[mix]

2. Our political class as a whole is rotten and cowardly...

...celebrity and bombast, rhetoric and images they've mastered, but ideas and policy that might make our society and schools better or give our citizens and soldiers peace and prosperity...those things just do not happen anymore in the good ol' USA.

Obama won't change that fact, sadly, not with his retread appointments and Bush-era thinking.

[BeFree]

32. Charles is an idiot, a political idiot

Calling Obama a coward is idiotic. Any man who would attempt to lead the democratic party against itself, the media, and the fascists, is no coward.

One just needs to review Jimmy Craters destruction at the hands of all three to know whereof I speak. Clinton, too, but to a lesser extent.

The system is what it is. It is rotten to the core. Obama can't cure it anytime soon, he said as much the night of the election.

Much has been said about the "I want my pony" reaction to Obama's actions. Even I have fallen into the trap on occasion but looking back realize it was emotion taking over.

As much as I wish Obama was the 'Shining Knight' who would go to DC, and swinging a mighty sword take out all the corruption found therein, the reality is he can't. No one can. This is going to take a slow and methodical process to bring real change, just as herding cats always has been.

Charles, grow up, you weenie.

[mix]

35. i don't want a pony...i want justice and wisdom n/t

[BeFree]

36. You're not the first, or the last

It is, and will remain, a long hard slog with no guarantee of ever reaching that goal. To expect otherwise is to expect Utopia.

(And this from a natural borne Utopian.)

[Usrename]

73. Why does he keep saying one thing and then doing another?

He said he would not vote for telecom immunity, then he voted for it.

He said he would close Gitmo, the he leaves it open.

He said he would end the military tribunals, then he continues them.

He said he would not appeal the decision to release the torture photos, then he files an appeal.

He said he would not allow the taxpayer bailout money to go to pay off executive bonuses, then he lets them pay themselves huge bonuses.

Isn't there a pattern emerging here?

[QC]

39. He is a bourgeois obscurantist. n/t

[EFerrari]

77. Pompous little prick is even more precise.

lol

[Coyote_Bandit]

3. At one time

Obama said he supported single payer. No more. That alone makes him a political coward in my book. And an opportunist. He likely would not hold his current position or personally enjoy the power and prosperity it brings if he continued his support of single payer. I happen to find this particular offense cruel as well as cowardly. Lots of taxpayers fund health care for the president and his family even though they are unable to secure such care for themselves.

[Adelante]

8. IF the system were starting from scratch

He said he would support single payer. I myself support single payer. But he never said what you are saying he did.

[Coyote_Bandit]

28. In my mind it is unspeakably cruel

to require a hungry malnourished person to accompany you to a fine restaurant, require them to observe you eat while being unable to afford to partake, and then require them to pick up your fucking tab.

And that is exactly what elected officials require of the uninsured taxpayers who fund their health care. They are cruel spineless bastards IMHO. The only exceptions are the ones who actively support single payer. I'd happily trade Obama for a politician with the intestinal fortitude to put forth that effort. There are a lot of ways that Dennis Kucinich is far more heroic than Obama will ever be. And it is not because Obama does not have far more opportunity to be the hero simply because of his position.

Taxpayers fund health care for politicians, government workers, prisoners, the elderly, the poor, the young, the disabled, Native Americans, veterans and others. There are already mechanisms in place which would permit us to create a single payer system that guarantees everyone a minimum level of coverage. No one should be forced to die, become disabled or live with a chronic condition because they were denied health care. But it is a common occurrence here in the US.

Our leaders - Obama included - are less interested in serving the needs of the flesh and blood people who populate this country than they are with balancing those life and death needs with the interests of the various corporate persons who also have a vested interest in health care reform. Bottom line is that the politicians who do not support single payer deem the corporate powers and their dollars and multinational interests of equal or greater importance than the life and death needs of the flesh and blood citizens of this country.

From my window, elected officials who do not seek to implement some form of single payer betray me and my interests. I have no loyalties or obligations to them - aside from working to change their selfish little minds and encouraging them grow something resembling a spine, of course.

[glitch]

42. Excellent post. nt

[BeFree]

43. Well said

One small change....

"No one should be forced to die, become disabled or live with a chronic condition because they were denied health care."

might read:

No one should be forced to die, become disabled or live with a chronic condition because they can't afford health care.

[Coyote_Bandit]

56. If only that were true

I know a fellow who was born with a genetic spinal condition. He required his first spinal fusion at the age of 32. After that he returned to his career and worked for several years.

His employer went out of business and he lost his job and his health insurance. Two weeks later he was involved in a seemingly minor auto accident which was not his fault.

He rather quickly became a chronic pain patient. Six months later he was advised that he needed another spinal fusion. The insurance funds available from the auto accident weren't enough to cover the diagnostic work much less the needed surgery.

This fellow sold his home and most of his personal property. He was fortunate enough to have someone who was willing to take him in with no expectation of compensation.

The fellow filed for disability and used his personal funds to obtain medical care. Medical care was required for pain management and it was required to document and enable his ability to pursue his disability claim. More than once he was refused care because he had no health insurance - and more than once he was refused care even when he indicated a willingness to prepay all expected charges including diagnostic testing.

His disability claim was denied. And it was denied again on appreal. Over three and a half years later it went to a full hearing. The fellow was put under oath and asked one question - when did you last earn a paycheck? Shortly thereafter he was awarded full total permanent disability.

Having successfully secured his disability, this fellow expected that he could secure the surgery that had been denied him, be relieved of his chronic pain and rebuild a productive life. That was not to happen. The three and a half year delay resulted in further spinal deterioration and his doctors now advise that any surgical intervention would likely be unsuccessful because they fear his spine would not heal correctly.

There are health care providers who will refuse treatment to patients who lack health insurance but can make personal payment for the services. This kind of crap shold be criminalized and an medical "professional" who engages in such conduct should be permanently strpped of their license.

[BeFree]

60. So

He had to sell all he owned to get care? He could afford the care? I'd say not. If it were truly affordable he'd have gotten the care needed without question.

Thing is that the only entity that can afford to pay all health care is the socialistic union of all people thru the government.

Preventive care is paramount and most folks can't afford it without selling all they own, therefore they can't afford it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

66. He could afford to pre-pay

the fees charged for the office call (and regular follow up visits) and the diagnostic testing and pain medications that he required for (1) pain management and (2) preparation and documention to pursue his disability claim.

He was refused such care more than once by more than one health care provider - and he was refused care by a state subsidized facility that is supposed to care for the indigent and uninsured.

Please understand when I say this fellow is disabled I mean that he has too much pain to load the dishwasher. He can't sit up for more than a couple of hours at a time. He can't travel long distances in a car - or over rough roads. He can't walk long distances. Hell, he can't even come anywhere close to standing up straight. He can't use his hands to do much of anything in front of his body. His day to day existence is profoundly impacted and has been for years now.

What happened to him should be criminal.

[CrispyQ]

47. Damn, CB!

Type that up & send it to your local paper! And send a copy to your senators & rep, too.

Nicely stated! :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

49. Be that as it may, Obama said what he said

And not what you said he said.

[Coyote_Bandit]

63. Talk is cheap

I could care less what he says. Clearly he ran a campaign focused on selling hope.

I am far more interested in what he does. And so far he just hasn't delivered. Unless you're a banker in need of a bazillion dollar bailout.

But if you are a taxpayer without health care then you are just SOL and don't you dare to imagine that there is any hope. Your life and well-being is far less important than padding the egos and bank accounts of the doctors, insuring that hospitals, clinics and medical suppliers are profitable businesses and that insurance companies are permitted to devise even more diabolical rating schemes to exclude coverage to those who most need it. Apparently Obama is so closed minded regarding single payer that he isn't even willing to request that the Senate include testimony from single payer advocates in the health care reform debate.

This president has demonstrated every intention to value corporate well being over that of flesh and blood citizens. It is a general observation that we have seen take many incarnations. Health care reform, of course. Telecom immunity. Bailouts for bankers but not borrowers.

I'd like to be pleasantly surprised. But I have little hope of that from this president based on his conduct. Thus far, I view his presidency as a lost opportunity.

[Adelante]

71. It's very obvious you don't care what he says or you wouldn't be twisting it

to suit your purpose.

[Mythsaje]

75. This deserves its own thread... Well said.

It's one of my hot-buttons too.

[NNN0LHI]

4. If Obama doesn't toe the corporate line he knows the media will destroy him

I don't know how we get around this?

Don

[cascadiance]

53. Which is why reforming the media needs to be one of the highest priorities...

So that it CAN'T unfairly attack him down the road. Otherwise, we're already conceding that we don't have a democracy anymore.

[Lorien]

57. Bingo! And yet he said that he won't reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

we had a far stronger democracy when we had it than after Reagan repealed it. So what is Obama afraid of?

[cascadiance]

64. I think we need heavy reform, but the Fairness Doctrine needs updating if used...

In today's media landscape with satellite and cable TV, and other offline distribution of media like VCRs, DVDs, etc. the way the Fairness Doctrine was implemented/enforced would need complete rethinking, and a different set of rules in order to be practical. You can't apply them just to broadcast stations and not to other entities, when now the audience has so many other media outlets that are more channeled towards more narrow themes, and not try to provide "general" access to media content any more. It's hard to apply the Fairness Doctrine "fairly" in this landscape without some major changes in what it set out to do. I'm open to suggestions, but Mike Malloy also has been saying this as well, and you know him as someone that would champion decent and heavy media reform.

I used to be in the trenches on the front lines at the beginning days of the Reagan administration trying to defend keeping the Fairness Doctrine alive then as cable TV and VCRs were just starting to get out to consumers then. I worked with others lobbying for cable TV local access channels in our college town (Iowa City) that fortunately had Nicholas Johnson (a former FCC Commissioner) residing there and serving on a very strong local cable commission that helped us get a good access cable TV contract that included local access government channels and community resources for citizen content that served as an example for many other communities at that time.

We need to at a minimum break up the media conglomerates into smaller entities with less centralized control for starters. That is a no-brainer, but is one that will be the hardest fight to engage in initially.

An example where I would have done things differently, would have been the Sirius/XM satellite radio merger. The government should have stepped in more vocally and said that having a shared entity or at least a set of rules to enforce one technology to be used by radios (in cars or at home) and not be splintered into different ones by the two companies is a good thing. In fact both Sirius and XM violated their original licenses that dictated that they were SUPPOSED to make compatible technologies and not incompatible ones that they in fact did.

However, there should have been some rules in place that had separate and multiple companies that controlled what content is offered in that channel space, so that there's some more diversity offered there and not "controlled" by one company just in the interest of profit or other less honorable agendas when that control is not made diverse (and also not providing a competitive marketplace of content). We should have a single radio that could be turned on to tune in to Sirius, XM, both, or perhaps even other content entities. Not just different content "packages" from one company. Either that, or if there's only a narrow bandwidth space that doesn't allow for a wider competitive space, have it slice up that bandwidth the way our airwaves were sliced up with government oversight over who gets the various "licenses".

Our government bodies are still too "asleep at the wheel" when looking at deals like this, and are either not doing their job through neglect, or are intentionally not doing their job. Either way, that needs to be fixed.

[Mythsaje]

76. I don't disagree...

What we knew as "The Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't work in this environment.

[salguine]

5. Every word of this is true. Unfortunately if you point that out, you're "spewing Obama-hate".

[Lorien]

58. And don't forget; "you would rather have McCain"!

:crazy:

If we who are part of the base don't demand Change we can Believe In, then who will?

[stray cat]

6. I think he is a rationale realist which is one reason he got elected

There is a reason so far that candidates that only appeal to the edge of the left base or the edge of the right base seldom get elected because most people in the nation are not on those edges.

[villager]

9. so the positions he's bracktracked on were just "edge" positions?

And only sensible moderates continue to fund bank interests, keep military tribunals, hold on to torture photos, and allow ranchers to keep killing wolves?

[stray cat]

11. Do you notice the populist as a whole up in arms? I don't nor am I

Do I agree with everything he has done no. Do I think the sky is falling and America has been vastly betrayed - not in the least.

[villager]

14. It'd be nice if he went to the mat for at least *one* of his tougher campaign promises

So far, he hasn't...

We shall see...

[Karenina]

68. It would be nice if "citizens" pushed him and offered THEIR PROTECTION

as he moved to implement their CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED will which runs counter to the VERY POWERFUL interests of Banksters and their sadist warriors.

Such a movement of "We the People" remains to be seen. In one week your Senate refused mortgage AND credit card relief. Today is Saturday and where are the MILLIONS affected with close enough access to surround their seat of gubmint making their wishes known? At the mall? Window shopping? Staying home taking their frustrations out on each other or "the other" in their communities? :shrug:

[Vincardog]

12. most people in the nation are in favor of Universal coverage single payer health care Like BO

campaigned on, he caved and will not even let single payer advocates a seat at the table now.
Most people in the nation are in favor of appointing a special prosecutor BO refuses to call torture a crime.

Where do you see the "edge of the left base"?

[Lorien]

59. And most people want to get us out of Iraq and believe that BushCo

lied us into that war...the examples of popular "edge of left base" positions are becoming too numerous to mention.

[scentopine]

21. rational realist:: fancy way to say "no leadship vision"

There has been no justice for torture, wall street fraud, war built on fabricated evidence that killed over 100,000.

Health care policy left up to insurance companies. He didn't get elected because his speeches promised no change. Bush was on the edge and spent eight years moving the nation to the hard right. Now we have an extreme centrist who is leaving us there. They stole from our pensions, spent it on lavish lifestyles. We were left without our equity and Wall Street was repaid and put the money towards salaries.

I don't think that's what the American voter had in mind when they elected a "reform" candidate who campaigned on change.

[tabatha]

31. He is a survivor.

[datasuspect]

52. opportunists always make the best survivors

especially when they are very cosy with their corporate owners.

[scentopine]

7. The “Obama” Agenda So Far...

Courting Conservative Commentators
Protecting Fraudulent Investment Banks
Taking Hard Line on Auto Workers
Appointing Lobbyists & Insiders to Treasury
Courting Slave State Republicans
Protecting Torturers
Protecting DoD/CIA/NSA/AT&T
Protecting Torturers
Courting Arlen Specter/Joe Lieberman
Courting Slave State Republicans
Protecting Insurance Companies
Protecting For Profit Health Care Providers
Protecting Credit Card Loan Sharks
Protecting Torturers

Looks like we’ll still be able to vote for change in a few years.

[lonestarnot]

10. calm methodical deliberative calculation ... nothing wrong with that.

[NJmaverick]

13. Well it does open one up to the charges of cowardice

from the politically naive and the wild unrealistic radicals.

[mix]

15. towards what ends? n/t

[salguine]

20. It depends to what ends you apply it. Iraq was a result of methodical deliberative calculation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Does "not as bad" = good? .

[G_j]

27. nope... nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Adhering to the corporate line is the only way to get elected, which is a damned shame

There are certain sacred cows that one is not allowed to touch in mainstream political discourse:

1. Cutting the military budget. The corporate media will immediately attack you for not wanting to keep America "safe."

2. Curbing corporate power. That makes you "anti-business."

3. Real environmental responsibility beyond such feel-good efforts as curbside recycling. "You're trying to force Americans into elitist, politically correct lifestyles."

4. Opposing "free" trade. That makes you someone who is trying to keep Third World countries poor.

5. Single-payer or nationalized health care. That means that you want to ration health care or deny people the option of choosing their own doctor.

6. Not meddling in other countries' internal affairs or regional disputes. That makes you an "isolationist."

You get the picture. No candidate who veers too far from conventional wisdom will get good press.

[pscot]

22. So the situation is hopeless

We, the governed, are terminally irrelevant. The status quo is an immutable fact of life. This is no longer a democratic republic, but an oligarchy of wealth. We are not governed, but ruled. We are a degenerate people, too weak and distracted to hang onto what Franklin and Adams, Washington and Jefferson created for us. Truely, I weep for my country.

[glitch]

45. There are a couple of things we could do, specified in the Declaration of Independence.

And after that we will need to clean up our election process, from the machines to the funding.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[CrispyQ]

51. Yours is the saddest post I've read.

Sadly, I agree completely.

[pscot]

70. I'm more mad than sad

It's just that I've been watching this process for too long. I knew I wasn't going to care for the 21ST century very much, and I don't. It's off to a very shakey start, and there looks to be a long stretch of bad road ahead. It would help if we had our act together.

[NorthCarolina]

18. I think he's simply more of a Corporatist than his supporters allowed themselves to believe n/t

[European Socialist]

19. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama all need a spine, but they are better than Repukes.

[LeFleur1]

23. How Are Democrats Better

How are Democrats better if they are doing the same things? The name means nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

[cali]

34. because in the majority of instances, they are not doing the same thing.

[grantcart]

24. lol yeah he was so scared that instead of

taking the safe route to clerkship of the Supreme Court he went to Community Organizing.

taking the safe route he first went to wallstreet and made millions before going to work with poor people.

taking the safe route he challenged a sitting congressman for party nomination

taking the safe route he stood up against the war when 85% of the country was for it.

taking the safe route he challenged the #1 Democratic family head on for the nomination.

taking the safe route he passed on a certain VP route and never gave up.



Here are your options

1) He is not courageous enough
2) He is not smart enough
3) He is not ideologically pure enough
4) He doesn't really care about poor people and has been conning everyone for decades.


or


5) He has a long term strategy that moves to continue to keep the opposition on the right trapped in the clutches of the radical right and thus allows him to succeed on more issues over a longer period of time, all the while he has to go back in time and clean up the mess of the Bush/Cheney administration which, by the very nature of things, has eliminated all of the simply 'flick of the switch' options.

Guess which one I am picking?

[scentopine]

29. in the words of Obama...

this isn't about the past it is about the future. All you mention is commendable. But, he is used to dealing with street level working people who were motivated to change things for the better. He is now up against a tiny majority of people who have a huge majority of control and for them change may be a loss of power and influence and for them.

This requires a different sort of game. We haven't seen skills of a great chess master, we've seen a puppy who is seeking approval from the very people who intend to spend every waking hour ruining him, protecting their ultra rich constituents and squeezing every last drop of cash and blood from those unfortunate enough to be less than rich.

There will be a huge drop in voter turnout until things really do change.

[scentopine]

30. arrg - apologies for bad editing,

I wish I could catch things before I hit post!

[Barack_America]

25. Anyone who would belittle those photos as "Rumsfeld's porn collection" is not worth reading. nt

[FLAprogressive]

26. All "centrists" are political cowards.

Too afraid to stand for anything.

[Peacetrain]

37. If you don't have the centrists, then you do not have a party..

Just ask the republicans how that works for them

People who are centrists, do not buy the complete party line of anyone. Seems to me that is much more courageous, than just taking the whole spiel hook line and sinker

[Coyote_Bandit]

41. I think that's probably only true

in a two party system.

I personally think it is too bad we don't have fifteen or twenty parties. It would force the fuckers we elect to build coalitions and do the very practical work of government instead of pretending to fight moral and ideological battles. If the work of government is anything it is inherently pragmatic.

[pscot]

69. As Jim Hightower once said

the only things you find in the middle of the road are a yellow stripe and dead armadillos.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[QC]

38. Pearce is an enemy of the people. n/t

[spanone]

40. maybe the cia and military sat him down and told him just how he will be governing?

[glitch]

46. I'll never forget the look on his face when he came out to accept the Presidency.

And said a lot of us would not be happy.

[Adelante]

72. That's why he's bucking the Pentagon on nuclear weaponry?

If they're telling him how to govern, he's not hearing it very well.

Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world. It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested. (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.) But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.

"My colleagues just stared at that line," says Joe Cirincione, a longtime nonproliferation expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund. "They had never seen anything like that." Killing the program, he said, was "the first programmatic impact of the new policy. People have said they want to see more than words, this is the very first action."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/12/obama-breaks-with-gates-cancels-nuke-program.aspx

[AnnInLa]

44. Um, NO

His decision to run as a serious candidate for POTUS
His candidacy/campaign
Many brave decisions since becoming POTUS

Only a few months into office
He asked for patience

I will be patient way past a few months.

[LWolf]

48. Maybe. Or,

maybe he is simply the center-right corporate Democrat I've always thought he was, and he is not enacting a more liberal agenda because he never intended to.

[CrispyQ]

50. I'm reminded of the scene in "The American President"

where the Michael J. Fox character challenges the President (Michael Douglas) to take his high popularity rating out for a spin & try to implement some real change. Douglas doesn't do that & his ratings fall.

Obama is doing the same & yes, it's cowardly. I know a lot of DUers think that Obama is so much smarter than us & that he has some grand strategy of which we don't & can't know. But to me, it looks like he wants to keep his high popularity rating by not making any waves. He's going to discover that that doesn't work.

on edit: clarification

[boomerbust]

54. Coward?

Total bullshit. Any man that becomes the first African American Yankee President in this country is anything but a coward

[Vidar]

55. Certainly looks that way--a likable corporate tool.

[kentuck]

61. No.

He is a pragmatist and a realist.

[opihimoimoi]

67. NO....he is a rare Leader who wants the best for the Nation/Planet...he is PRICELESS and the Pubs

are jealous to the point of distraction driving them into group Delusion...

They tried calling him names: Terrorist, Socialist, Inexperienced, Communist, Hitleresque, Appeaser, etc etc

None of which stuck.....

The Secret Service should triple the guards

[Reterr]

65. The signs point that way

And I am not a Freeper, PUMA etc. Just a liberal Dem under 40 and if these people think the progressive base is going to behave like sheep the way the Repugs did for Bush 6/8 years and just blindly follow along they are wrong. Sure his approval rating is high right now.
Give it time and if people keep losing jobs at this clip and he keeps pissing off his lefty base it will start dropping and he needn't expect tons of small donations, young people canvassing and working tirelessly for him come 2012.

He is a politician -I don't love him, worship him or care about how cute his dog is or how awesome the first lady's wardrobe is. Sure at times when he is doing at least enough stuff policy wise that I feel happier with him, some of that stuff is a cute distraction. But the amount of bullshit he is dishing out right now has nothing to do with "wanting a pony".

This is bullshit and no more small donations from our household come 2012. I wish that all Dems would continue to vote Dem, but start using the system of primary challenges to really start getting rid of these fucking corporate Dems.

[blogslut]

74. No

n/t

[Juche]

78. Totally

Obama in 1996: I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

Obama today: I do not support gay marriage

Obama in 2003: I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php

Obama today: I do not support single payer

Obama in 2008: Don't ask, don't tell is a bad idea

Obama today: I refuse to intervene against DADT firings

Obama in college: I sure do love to smoke pot

Obama today: Pot should be illegal


I'm sure there are more. He is cautious, but the problem is he is cautious with issues where 60% of the public supports him. Gay marriage, single payer, marijuana decriminalization and ending DADT are not unpopular issues, they have support of half or more of the public.

[threadkillaz]

79. No, he's just not in charge of shit.

How else could HIS airplane scare the beejeezus out of NYC without his knowledge?

All presidents today are puppets.

Last president of the people was Kennedy.

[TexasObserver]

80. He is what he does, and what he's doing certainly doesn't show courage.

Or conviction.

It shows expediency and trepidation by our president.