2012 Is Going to be Very Difficult for Some of Us

[Fearless]

A popular quip about presidential elections is that you vote not for the person you want but against the person you don't want. (For more information: http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html) Well for some of us here at DU and across the country this political season is going to be particularly hard. Let me put my cards out on the table:

I am a 24 year old, gay, egalitarian, White male, with a Master's Degree in Education and a BA in History. I come from a solidly middle class background (well as solid as any today). Growing up I didn't have everything I wanted, but I always had everything I needed. Food, shelter, a caring family, healthcare, and opportunity. Currently I am looking for a teaching job in Massachusetts. I'm worried about my future. I'm worried about finding a job and maintaining one with benefits, a retirement plan, and job security. And I'm worried about where we are going as a nation, especially in the wake of Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio's gubernatorial forays.

That said, voting in 2012 is going to be very, very hard. In 2008, I voted for Obama both in the primary and in the general election. The ideas of hope and change struck a chord with me. I felt good about our nation and its leadership for the first time. For me, election night was embodied by the now-famous Rev. Sharpton photo (http://www.life.com/image/83564447), that the world of pain and suffering that was George W. Bush was ending, that somehow our nation had turned a corner, not only for Black America but for the United States of America. Everyone felt like they were part of something special and that our time had come.

We had our man. I don't think anyone honestly believed that he would change the world, but for a night or two we were content to think so. We got down to business as the festivities quieted down.

• Health care reform.
• Ending the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
• Closing Guantanamo, ending rendition, and fortifying habeas corpus.
• Creating jobs and getting the economy back on track.
• Removing the Defense of Marriage Act.
• Ending the discriminatory practice of Don't Ask / Don't Tell.
• Reforming the tax code to close corporate loopholes.
• Finding solutions to this nation's oil addiction.
• And balancing the federal budget in a fair and equitable way.

In the post-election fervor, I believed that all these things were possible and even probable. Health care reform was the first to go though. Our president, our voice, told us that there wasn't public support for single payer or even a public option. Instead he compromised with neo-cons to create a corporate payoff. Yes, everyone was mandated health care now, but the problem wasn't that people didn't want health care. The problem was that people couldn't afford it. And they still can't -- now more than ever. 50 million people, one sixth of this most affluent nation in the world can't afford to see a doctor or get medicine when they are ill. And I am afraid that I will be one of them very soon.

Likewise, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue. We are told that the war in Iraq is over, but that isn't true. The war will be over when we stop paying for it and every last one of our "support troops" leaves Iraq. Afghanistan, which we were told would be winding down with a little final kick (http://www.openleft.com/diary/16306/um-about-obamas-afghanistan-campaign-promise) and then again within 18 months (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/60minutes/main5954261.shtml). The latter is still up in the air, but if the draw down is anything like Iraq, then I'm not holding my breath either.

Regarding Guantanamo Bay, we were told it would be closed, that it was a human rights issue. I understood that it was a violation of the Geneva Convention Accord. Yet again I was disappointed. (http://www.cfr.org/cuba/obamas-guantanamo-shift/p24341) During the election season in 2008, President Obama told America that we should try alleged terrorists in legal trials in our own court system. And again, he went back on that word even after having a policy in place that banned Guantanamo military trials. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-guantanamo-idUSTRE7265KL20110308) Rendition continues thusly. And, while the President claims to support habeas corpus, his actions have stated otherwise. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram)

Creating jobs and getting the economy back on track is a difficult topic to tamp down. It is a very broad topic. Has the president openly and fervently supported job growth and up-righting the economy? Of course. But has it happened? No, even as "unemployment" rates continue to fall. (http://www.smartonmoney.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-it-really-only-9-6-or-are-things-worse-than-that/)

Putting aside the former and latter disappointments that I have, I'd like to talk candidly about DOMA and DADT. As I said, I am a gay male. With that comes certain viewpoints that are (by and large) universal. I am against DOMA and DADT. Earlier this year the President came out against section three of DOMA but fell short of supporting a full removal. (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html) He has directed the US military to end DADT and yet it has not been enacted yet, many months later. Soldiers are still being discharged. (http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/dont-ask-dont-tell-still-not-dead-discharge-hearing-starts-today/)

As a candidate, Obama pressed the need for reforming the federal tax code and closing corporate loopholes. Lowering corporate taxes was not what I had in mind. (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/obama-furman-taxes-biz-beltway-cx_bw_0731furman.html) Economists and middle-class activists alike have decried this as a corporate give-away. And it is. Additionally, corporate tax loopholes have not been closed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html) We are in his third year as president and nothing has changed nor are there any public, specific, plans for change. Just platitudes.

The president stated that we need to find and fund alternative energy sources to wean our nation of oil (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/02/Obama-urges-weaning-off-oil/UPI-30571301738400/) But I would never have dared assume that the things he wanted to wean us onto were more nuclear power (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-says-safe-nuclear-power-plants-are-a-necessary-investment.html), natural gas (http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20110330-obama-embraces-natural-gas-vehicles-with-reservations.ece), and "clean" coal (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_statements_on_coal). This is not even close to what I had in mind when I voted for him. To me it a continued give-away to the corporate interests in this country, particularly Big Oil or Big Coal. To me they are synonymous, an antithesis to my environmental desires. (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rperks/big_oil_big_coal_spend_big_to.html)

In terms of balancing the federal budget in a fair and equitable way, I see corporate tax cuts (aforementioned) and the spiraling deficit (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) as evidence that this has too not happened or even changed from the Bush Administration's policy of tax cut and spend.

I am extremely worried about this election cycle. For me the choice is between whatever Tea Party-touting twit the Republican Party squeezes into their nomination or a Democratic sitting president who has been anything but Democratic in my eyes. There are those who suggest that I should "sit out", but I don't want a Tea Party president. There are those who suggest that I suck it up and vote for President Obama again, but I don't want four more years of disappointment. I do not want four more years of Bush-esque policies. People say: "Well at least he tried ." I do not give points for trying even on those things he did "try" to get right. You can't "try" to support an issue or policy. You either do or don't. And for the policies I have outlined, he did not.

Likewise, I worry about our Democratic base and the youth of this nation. While the number did not increase from 2004, still 13% of voters were first time voters in the last election, based on a Gallup poll. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111331/no-increase-proportion-first-time-voters.aspx) If they, like me, am worried about this election, confused about whether or not to vote, I fear for this nation, for this election, and for future elections. People say that the system is "broken". I don't believe that. I believe our will for what is right has been broken.

I am afraid that we do not have a choice in 2012. Door's One and Two may very well lead to the same place. And there are only two doors. It's President Obama or the Republican nominee. And I do not know what I can honestly do.

I just do not know what I am going to do.

-Fearless

[Botany]

1. But you will vote for and support Obama

Reason ..... The U.S. Supreme Court and all the Judges on the Federal Bench.
Scalia is 74, Thomas is 63, Kennedy is 74, and Roberts has some kind of neurological problem ....
Gingsburg will not be on the court much longer too.

Citizens United, bush v Gore, and so on have had huge negative effects on America
and the world.



"I am a 24 year old, gay, egalitarian, White male .... "
BTW http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/obamas-gay-appointees-sma_n_773898.html

WASHINGTON — Less than halfway through his first term, President Barack Obama has appointed
more openly gay officials than any other president in history.

Gay activists say the estimate of more than 150 appointments so far – from agency heads and commission
members to policy officials and senior staffers – surpasses the previous high of about 140 reached during
two full terms under President Bill Clinton.

"From everything we hear from inside the administration, they wanted this to be part of their efforts at diversity,"
said Denis Dison, spokesman for the Presidential Appointments Project of the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute.

[roguevalley]

16. and that is a sorry reason to support and vote for anyone.

I am sick of having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. This sucks and I will be saying so. OP, I hug you. Take care and keep your chin up. You're smart and talented and you will be hired somewhere. I wish for you a better world but this is what we got. Thanks to quizzling triagulating cowardice.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Just fyi...about 'openly gay' appointments...

In the years since Bill Clinton, there has been a sea change in open living. When Bill was President, there were basically no 'openly gay' people in TV, or in films, or in business as a whole. So the number of people living honest lives in every line of work has greatly expanded. It would be difficult to find any field or large workplace that does not have more 'openly gay' people now than then.
This is why, against all apparent logic, GW Bush was in fact the first President to appoint an 'openly gay' ambassador. Not so much because W was inclusive, but because more of the possible picks were living honest lives.
Of course, kudos to the administration for those hires, but obviously, far more kudos go to the individuals who had the guts to say 'this is me, take it or leave it'. Not only those who were hired, but those who for years before had said 'this is me, take it or leave it'. Many people risked their careers for honest living, and to those people go the bulk of the praise. It was decades of hard work, and we know who did what. Because we were there.

[Botany]

21. As a straight guy i have little idea what the GLBT people ..

.... have gone through. I wish the process was faster and people would just grow up and move on.
For life of me I don't get why it should take so long to let openly gay people serve in the military ...
..... I think they should just give an order such as; Don't be an asshole towards other people and
grow the hell up.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. But you do get my point, don't you?

In the Clinton era, most public people were in the closet, now, not as many. So the pool of 'openly gay' hires is larger, not just in government but in all fields. It is good that appointments are made.
The President says only straights are 'sanctified by God' and we are not worthy of equal rights because we are not. The more straight people who tell him that is not how they see things the better. Let him know that your support is not because he opposes equality, but in spite of that prejudice. That is what I ask of the straight community. Speak your minds to the political leaders. That's it. Not asking anything but that. If you do not agree with the President that Newt Gingrich is Sanctified by God and Rachel Maddow is not, tell him that simple fact, even as you send money or praise on other issues, tell him that you support equal rights for all. If all who support equal rights did that, it would be greatly helpful.

[Botany]

52. I understand your points and I wish I could hurry things ...

.... along as per total equal rights for the GLBT but sooner or later we will all get there
because equal rights for all is in the U.S. Constitution. So instead of going state by
state in gay marriage cases it will wind up in front of the US Supreme Court and keeping
Obama as President is vital because of the make up of the court right now.

Not only just for GLBT rights but for many other reasons too .... the citizens united ruling
is another good reason too.

I wish people would just grow up and move on about the whole "gay question."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. It took black Americans many decades before receving full citizenship rights.

I'm not suggesting that there is an equavalence, but I do believe that the American heart and mind is changing, and changing fast!

I believe that the young people will show us the way.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

down ballot and local elections. that's where i will be focused.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. You are very smart. If people don't like Obama, I understand that.

But to punish strong Democrats at the local levels by not voting is foolish.

This is how the conservative right wing has defeated the Progressive Movement. They focus very squarely on local level elections, judgeships, school boards, etc.

I wish we progressives would grow up. Obama isn't perfect, but with MORE Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, the SCOTUS, 3/4th of ALL governorships, and nearly all state legislatures and appellate court appointments, we can ill afford to back down now.

[elocs]

3. Yes, the reality is that the next president will either be Obama or the Republican nominee.

That's it, and it's as simple as that.

If someone is a Republican and does not vote for the Republican candidate, then they are ultimately helping Obama.

If someone is a Democrat and does not vote for Obama, then they are ultimately helping the Republican candidate.

Like it, dislike it, that's the way it is in a nutshell.

[Vogon_Glory]

8. Agreed.

This election is about a stark choice between demonstrating that Democratic principles like equality, social mobility, hope for a better tomorrow for themselves and their children, clean air and water, and the idea that humble individuals count for as much before the courts and legislatures as rich corporations and the kleptocratic Oligarchy and its TEAbagger constituency.

I have been disappointed at the President's continuing tendency to placate and accommodate when he should have come out swinging, but I think about a Huckabee or a Daniels Presidency and shudder.

If you want a shot at the US becoming a decent place for ourselves and our children, vote Democratic. If you want to help the Republicans turn the US into a Third-World style kleptocracy run by a corrupt, wealthy elite for their own short-term selfish interests at the expense of the rest of society, stay home, pat yourself on the head for your political purity, and don't bother to come to the polls where your fellow-citizens need you.

:grr:

:dem:

[teachthemwell15]

14. Simply put, a very crucial message....

and people need to realize the consequences of a Republican getting in as president.

[Tippy]

4. What do you want a Democracy or a Plutocracy ?

[Fearless]

7. Power is provided by wealth in this country. I am sorry to say, but it's true.

For instance... "Reports over the weekend said Obama could raise upwards of $1 billion for the effort; he raised $750 million in 2008 to get elected. "

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11070295/1/obama-launches-2012-re-election-campaign.html

[Botany]

10. and he will every nickel because of Citizen's United

n/t

[earthside]

12. Is that a trick question?

After three years of Pres. Obama the U.S. is more plutocratic than it was under G.W. Bush.

Sorry to say, as 'unrealistic' as it may be, the Democrats need a different nominee for president in 2012. The original post laid out the case quite well: the Obama presidency has been a progressive opportunity squandered.

And ... if Robert Reich's prediction of a double dip recession comes true, then the prospects of Obama's reelection get dicey at best.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. We gave this president a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats and expected them to vote like

Russ Feingold. If we gave Obama MORE, not less, progressives in Congress, in state legislatures, he'll have something to work with.

But I struggle to understand the logic behind not voting to make Obama do what you want him to. With MORE, not less, wingnut Republicans in Congress, what the hell do people expect Obama to do?

[shraby]

5. Watching what the republicans are trying to do with

medicaid and programs that help people in these hard times and actually doing in the states makes the 2012 vote for Obama a no-brainer. I plan to vote a straight Democratic ticket..no two ways about it. The republicans are truly scary in their desire to move all the money upward at the expense of those who don't have much.

[MrTriumph]

6. Pres. Obama will again destroy down ballot Dem. candidates like 2010.

With 8.8+ % unemployment this will be a disaster.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

80. This is NOT Obama's fault! He was faced with jobloss the likes of which we haven't seen

since the Depression. The House passed countless jobs packages that were stalled in the Senate. Obama tried to give us green jobs. What happened? Stalled in the Senate.

So many DUers failed basic Civics. There are THREE branches of government, not ONE!!!

[MrTriumph]

114. So the campaign slogan should be, "Well, it could be worse!" Sheesh.

[rosesaylavee]

9. I am unhappy with Obama but will vote for the dem whoever that is.

To vote otherwise is what gave us the governor troubles we are seeing in several states now. This isn't business as usual. This is not like voting in past elections. This is a battle. I know how fringe that sounds but voting for anyone other than the dems is setting us all up for worse than we have now. And it will get much much worse if more republicans get their way. They want it all. Dems may be ineffectual and not getting it all done as expected, but they are shielding us from far far worse.

Hope you consider what I and others on this thread have presented.

[vduhr]

58. It's good to see that some people here at DU actually...

get this. I've actually seen some people say they will vote Dem, except for Obama in 2012 (i.e. no vote)! It's absolutely perplexing that some don't understand the consequences of that type of thinking. It's simple; a non-vote is a vote for the opposition. That's exactly what happened this past election, and the people that didn't show up to vote Dem are the ones at fault for giving the Republicans the power to do what they are doing right now. Yet, those same people are the ones complaining about Obama. They don't seem to understand that they have taken away what little support Obama did have in the House. They took away Nancy Pelosi, who was the best progressive voice we had in the Congress, and left us with the-weakest-link - Harry Reid. Now, we are seeing the Governors re-districting their states to give the Republicans the edge (this is one of the biggest reasons that Republicans wanted to get their majority into State governments). We are in trouble folks, and it's very scary! We simply cannot allow the Republicans to remain in power. If you are truly paying attention, you should know this and will vote all Dem, including the Presidential ticket, no matter who that is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. They also are very foolish in that they don't understand very fundamental

basics in Civics:

First, we have THREE branches of government, not one--an Executive.

Second, the president appoints judicial nominees. The Senate confirms. We're already fucked because Republicans stand a chance to take the Senate. With a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate...

Oh, nevermind...

[rosesaylavee]

90. Am curious but know there is no way possible to find out

as to what the ratio is for those who truly don't get it and those who are here on DU and elsewhere to spread mis-info around. AS we do know and have seen evidence of paid disruptors of that sort for years now.

I just make a point whenever I see one of these OPs to state what I think is a good path to follow and for those who are truly confused and not sure what they will do or how they vote, that they will take a moment to think it thru. Elections have consequences and I don't think that many who didn't vote in November 2010 have made that not too difficult leap from their not voting to the state troubles in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and elsewhere. Republicans in power at any level is not acceptable at this point. And a non-vote, or a sitting out has cost lives. Simply put. It costs lives.

I think it's fairly obvious that we all need to vote for the democratic candidate as that is the only way to keep the Republicans in check. It's not a scenario that I personally like, or think it's the best, or prefer... it's just the reality as I see it.

[Autumn]

11. We are up the creek without a paddle.

I don't want to vote for him, at this point in time, I don't even like him, but there are a lot of crazy republicans out there. So I will vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable.

[MissDeeds]

13. Sadly, I'm right there with you

Both doors may indeed lead to the same place. I never have been so let down by a Dem.

[jaxx]

15. I think you are missing a large part of why things weren't done.....

namely the house and senate who get to vote on legislation. Lieberman said NO to single payer and the public option....he was the 60th vote. The SOFA deal by bush says all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011...that is the plan that is in force. Closing Gitmo and bringing detainees to civilian court was nixed by the congress....you might remember the 'not in my backyard' stuff about where to put them until tried. The stimulus package did help stop job loss and turn the economy towards recovery. Other incentives have also helped. DADT is out, DOMA is starting the process....much more than any other President has done. Too slow? Yes definitely. But again the congress votes and the votes have to be there. Financial reform has been enacted, and the corps didn't like it. Alternative energies are being pushed, they have been from the start of the Obama administration.

We would all have liked to see the obstacles fall down, one by one, and have success in everything. Unfortunately it wasn't up to one man to do it. We are at a place in time when 4 more years of progressive movement is vital. Allowing the rightwing to take the WH is unthinkable.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Well that one man could help on DOMA by not opposing equality

The fact that he constantly proclaims that straights are 'sanctified by God' and that gay people should not have marriage rights because Newt's Sacrament needs defending is a negative, it hinders the move toward change. It also makes it utterly vital for those of us who need basic human rights to speak up and out for those rights, which because of Obama's dogmatic position, means speaking up and out against that policy, that dogma.
Last time out, Obama did 'faith and family' events at which infamous gay bashing 'ministers' spoke against gay people openly. That is not acceptable. Much of what happens during this cycle is in the hands of Obama and his 'faith based' crew. If they do the 'we agree with Palin' trip and hire a bunch of hate preachers again, well, that will be spoken against, in no uncertain terms. Of course, after Tucson and all it would be hard to sell the 08 line that speaking venom against others is a safe and sane political tool. I think most voters on the Democratic side understand that rhetoric of elimination toward any person or group of people is absolutely connected to real world violence, so I do not think they will hire the preachers who call for war on gay people again. I sure hope not.

[Fearless]

25. +1

[jaxx]

27. The President::

Published: Saturday, March 5, 2011

President Obama changes position regarding Defense of Marriage Act

The Obama administration's Department of Justice continued to support the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but that has all changed. DOMA simply states that the law treats marriage as between a man and a woman and that no other state in the union can recognize outside states' same sex-marriages. DOMA has been one of the greater struggles for equality in the United States since its' passage in 1996. While other issues have been tackled by Obama such as the repeal of DADT and Hate Crimes legislation, same sex marriage has always been an issue for the LGBT community and Obama.

Last week, the Obama administration declared the Department of Justice would no longer support Section 3 of DOMA, which states marriage is between a man and a woman. Sadly, the law will still be in place until Congress overturns it and the administration technically will have to abide by the law. However, a significant shift has been made here. Regardless of Obama's unwillingness to stand up for the LGBT community on this issue, his administration is acting in accord with what is right.

http://www.carolinianonline.com/president-obama-changes-position-regarding-defense-of-marriage-act-1.2067478

Equality isn't negotiable, it is for everyone. I'm glad to see the President moving into the light on this issue and hope that the congress will move with him. It won't happen while the house is under the fundamentalist teaparty, but that can be changed in 2012.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. My understanding is the president has stated repeatedly that his views on that issue are

evolving. And I think they are evolving right along with public opinion.

We need to be realistic with this.

We need MORE, not less, Democrats in the House and Senate, and we need to work hard to get Obama reelected and to avoid the Republicans re-taking the Senate.

If we can do that, I am very, very confident that we will see progress on DOMA repeal. Remember, this has to take place in the Congress. The president cannot do anything but give speeches and sign the repeal.

WE NEED CONGRESS!!

Stop pissing on Obama. Use your brain and think:

We need MORE Democrats in the House and Senate if you, me, and everyone who believes in equality, want to see it come to fruition.

We don't have time to talk about how much we hate Obama. We need to get it done! PERIOD!!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

86. To add to that, if the left and the liberals works hard

to get more progressive democrats elected to the senate, to the house, and to all the various state positions that will strengthen their position more and more, from election to election as long as its kept up.

Get the house and senate progressive enough(rather then surrender and staying home)and it *Wouldn't* matter if down the line the president was a republican since the congress would be progressive enough to stand up to the republican president.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Excellent summation of the past two years!

:thumbsup:

[young but wise]

24. +1

[stevenleser]

42. I would add two more things to that. The creation of an entire astroturf movement AND the withering

opposition of an entire cable news network and media empire dedicated 24x7 to taking down the President and his agenda.

I'm sorry, no progressive agenda would have stood up to the Tea Party + Fox News/NewsCorp in 2008-2010. It's something we have never seen before and were not prepared to deal with.

Progressives COULD have responded to this by putting together a grass roots movement to rival the Tea Party in order to support progressive change, but that did not happen for whatever reason, at least not until Wisconsin.

[Armstead]

62. He didn't try though -- That is the key

No, he could not have been expected to change everything overnight. But he seemed to at least be ready to begin the pushback to the corporate CONservative dominance.

But instead of using a combination of political hardball and the bully pulpit to really push for popular reforms, Obama did the opposite. He either failed to support, or actively suppressed, liberals and progressives, and instead threw his weight behind the conmservaDems.


When you look at the overall trajectory of health care, for example, he started from a position of placating Corporate Healthcare and the conservaDems. The proponents of meaningful reform had to start with the weak compromise of a "public option" which was unclear.

So reformers compromised from the beginning but were pushed away from the table from the beginning. Obama gave lkip service to a public option and/or a possible slight expansion of Medicare.

And the bar kept getting lowered to a weaker and weaker public option and then -- to add insult to injury -- a MANDATE THAT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO BUY OVERPRICED CORPORATE HEALTH INSURANCE.

Rather than set out a set of principles and doing some LBJ style armtwisting of anti-reform conservadems, he basically empowered and catered to those conmservaDems while pressuring (and often insulting) the advocates of real reform inside and outside of Congreess.

[jaxx]

68. He did try. And kept trying until a bill was passed.

Was it watered down? Yes. Was this the first time in 100 years any president got anything done? Hell yes! Don't be putting down what took generations to start.

LBJ had a 67 majority in the senate, there is no comparison to the weak 60 Obama had.

[Armstead]

70. The point, again, isd that he failed to try....The crummy bill was almost worse than nothing

I won't go over tactics here, but in my opinion they would have been a lot smarter to start with steps in the direction of real reform. Start with provisions that already had popular support or which could have if Obama and the democrats had sold it smartly.

Irregardless, the basic goal of healthcare reform is to make sure everyone has coverage they can afford. Ity is not to tell them "You hyave to buy coverage whether you can afford it, and prices will continue to be driven by 'the market.'"

There are any number of smaller steps in the right direction that could have been taken that would have done more tangible good for everyone, and made it more likely that further ;progressive reforms could have been accomplished in the future.

[jaxx]

79. There will be subsidies for those meeting the income guidelines.

Looks to me like some states are already going on to further progressive reform by starting single payer. The door is wide open to the states. They can improve any of it as long as the basics meet the guidelines and don't raise costs.

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/25-1

Others will follow.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Give him MORE, not LESS progressives who will vote like Bernie Sanders, and I'm with you.

The point is you can bitch at Obama all you want. The bottom line is that there were a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats in the House who weren't going to go along with Dennis Kucinich's single payer bill. They also weren't going to go along with the other three public option bills, no matter what Obama did.

In the Senate, we had the likes of Joe LIEberman and Blanche Lincoln, among many other Blue Dogs who believed it politically expedient to fight against reform.

Bottom line, we elected Democrats who vote more like Mitch McConnell than the great Bernie Sanders, unfortunately. Is that Obama's fault?

[Armstead]

100. I agree....to sn extent

My own frustration I'd much larger and more longstanding than President Obama.

The whole framework and terms for the Democratic Party has been set in stone for too long by an elite bunch of so-called centrist politicians, strategists, corporate benefactors and lobbyists.

This group has set things up so that progressives and liberals have to fight this hierarchy almost as hard as they do against the GOP.

Instead of using his power to begin to looeen that centrist death grip, Obama has joined them -- and in the process marginalizing the progressive congressional democrats.

It was tragic during the health care debate to see a long- time liberal stalwart like Tom Harkin being thrown under the bus while assholes like Ben Nelson were kowtowed to.

And even worse, the whole House -- which has many solid liberal Dems tried to get more done, but were undermined by the Senate and President Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. I'm with you! There are great progressives in the Senate like Tom Harkin

and Sherrod Brown. Unfortunately their voices have been muted by the Corporatists in the party. I have a student who interns for Bernie Sanders and I am amazed at his growth during the course of the semester. He came in being totally against Obama and wanting him to be more progressive. But, with my discussions with him--and I've let him know that I, too, am a liberal--he seems to be changing his view on the way the process works. He told me that he has personally witnessed corporate Democrats going against the president on Wall Street reform, for instance. I know that Bernie was working tireless to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and had heard from White House aids that Obama really wanted him to push this through the progressive caucus and really wanted it. But many of the Blue Dogs and the Corporatists in the Senate are more interested in their reelection prospects. These Blue Dogs, like Claire McCaskell, for instance, are facing tough reelections, and they believe that Republicans will take them to the woodshed should they push for more Wall Street Reform. My student told me that it was hard working in the Senate when he saw some Democrats openly siding with Republicans, no matter what the president did or said.

We need to work to elect more progressives for Congress.

I truly believe that if we target good progressives at the local levels we can catch up to the progress that Republicans have made on that front. It will be harder with Republican redistricting, but it is the price we are paying for not being more engaged and involved in local elections. The Republicans are decadaes ahead of us. This used to be our badge of honor that we have ceded to the Republicans and their so-called Tea Party.

[lamp_shade]

17. YAWN !!

[Fearless]

18. Thanks for your belittling remark.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. YAWN!! +1

:thumbsup:

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. K and R

[cliffordu]

28. this is not a snark.

I usually lambaste folks who write stuff like this mercilessly, but your post is so well thought out and thorough that I will not do it.

I think the spectre of any more baggers in any offices anywhere should drive EVERYONE to the polls, for the local races if nothing else.

Just don't check the box for Prez.

I have felt completely dismayed and hopless about the future here and all seriousness, I've thought about emigrating.

I don't know where to, though.

On my worst days I think about it anyway.

I get the feeling this dark period we are in is only going to get worse, and the best we can do is build and maintain close, liberal, local communities.

[Fearless]

30. Thank you! +1

[jeff47]

29. Almost all of your disappointments were created by Congress

The exception being Afghanistan, where Obama always said he wanted to ramp up that conflict.

So take out our anger on the people who caused the problems: Congress.

[Fearless]

31. That is not my assessment or the evidence I have given.

I'm sorry. I have to disagree.

[jeff47]

34. The President is not all-powerful.

HCR? Congress playing 'punch the hippies'.

Gitmo? Congress blocked the President.

Jobs program? Would have to be passed by Congress. They cut the stimulus by half and replaced that half with tax cuts.

DOMA and DADT? Congress dragging it's feet so that they can appeal to the morons.

Tax code? That's Congress too.

Alternative Energy? Well...you don't exactly specify what your realistic plan is. In the short run, we'll have to keep doing what we've always done. In the long run we want changes....that have to be done by Congress.

Balanced Budget? Congress.

Congresscritters thrive because you blame the guy on the top of the ticket. But pretty speeches and bully pulpits do not make laws. If they did, HCR would have been done by Clinton. Instead we got the Republican alternative to his plan 16 years later.

It's long past time we hold Congress responsible for their votes instead of pretending that the President runs everything.

[Fearless]

35. The President is the head of the Democratic Party.

The head of our Democratic Party is advocating corporatism and what was once considered purely Republican ideas. If you want to know why Democrats are clueless, it is because they don't have a leader. Cut off the head and the body dies.

[jeff47]

40. So make him change.

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

Elect Democrats to Congress that are to the left of Obama. That will drive his policies leftward. And in your particular case, you need to make Scott Brown lose sleep at night.

Meanwhile, you need to elect better Democrats to local and state office, because they become the next generation of Congresspeople.

Look, we've had 30 years of rampant corporatism running our government. One election can not fix that, no matter how great an orator is elected President. That election is just one battle. This will be a long war.

But liberalism always wins in the end. Yes, there are setbacks. They can even be decades-long setbacks. And the rate of change can be extremely frustrating. But stopping the fight just means longer setbacks.

[Fearless]

43. One person cannot make him change.

60 million can. And we need to wake up.

[jeff47]

47. Those 60 million are made up of individual persons

"Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has."

If you want people to wake up, get out there and wake them up. Whining on a message board isn't gonna fix anything.

[Fearless]

50. Can't hurt.

[Armstead]

63. When people try to get him to change they afre called "Obama haters"

or the "professional left" or other insults.

[jeff47]

76. People resist change?!?! Golly, who wouldda thunk?

Of course they're gonna resist change. Change is hard. They'd be much happier if we kept our mouths shut and happily opened our wallets.

But who cares if Obama, et al. call you names?

(This assumes, of course, fair statements on your part. For example, "Obama didn't close Gitmo!!" isn't a fair attack on Obama, since Congress blocked his efforts. Obama didn't go after the banksters hard enough is fair.)

[Armstead]

111. he's never going to call me names personally -- I'm a nobody. But...

I don't believe it is either wise politics nor good governance for a Democratic administration to lump together dissatisfied liberals and progressives into a group called things like the "professional left."

[jeff47]

129. Again, so what?

First they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.

So you're at stage 1. Keep going.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. Thank you. I don't know why this is so difficult for Fearless to see.

We put spineless, milquetoast Democrats in BOTH houses of Congress.

If Democrats in the Senate are joining Republicans in filibusters, is that the president's fault?

If Democrats in the House are bucking Nancy Pelosi on the Cap n' Trade bill and the Employee Free Choice Act, is that Obama's fault?

We need to put MORE progressives in the House and Senate. That's the ONLY way to help Obama get a progressive agenda passed.

We must be more realistic about what's happening in the world.

Elect more progressives at the local level and put MORE of them in the House and Senate, then Obama will be able to get more *comprehensive* change done, rather than incremental, small steps.

[NorthCarolina]

44. Wow, Congress must be forging Obama's signature too then. nt

[jeff47]

46. He can only sign the bills they pass

Do I have to dig up "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock?

[NorthCarolina]

113. I think you missed the point; that being 'he doesn't Have to sign them'.

Now does he? Unless of course he's simply hunkie-dorey with the legislation put before him. Maybe you should dig up that Schoolhouse Rock spot, as a personal refresher.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. But if we can get you and others to understand that the problem was and has always been

Blue Dog, milquetoast Democrats in the House and Senate who have been impeding progress since Obama entered office, I think we'll feel better.

I'm not at all suggesting that Obama did everything right. He was a punk-ass on several fronts, believing that pragmatism would win out the day. In the end, he ended up playing grown up while the Republicans and their Teabagging syncophants stood back and watched from the sidelines, lauging at the Democrats all along.

The House could have taken up the Bush tax issue before the elections. They could have introduced the Appropriations bills prior to the elections, but they were too cowardly to do so.

These actions, including DADT and DOMA, are congressional or legislative actions. The president can do little to intervene besides making a speech.

Think about the media and its corporate ownership. Obama made thousands of speeches, going out on the stomp day after day. Ask yourself if any of those speeches were televised outside of C-SPAN. They weren't.

Our job is to work to get MORE, not less, progressives elected to the local levels. That's how we make true progress. If we gave Obama more progressives, he won't be able to back down, no matter how much he may fight back.

And finally, give him a second term, and put more progressives in office, I think he'll move leftward. He doesn't have to worry about being reelected, so that frees him to be who he really is.

It won't help us, however, if we allow the Republicans to take the Senate and/or put more Blue Dogs in office.

[Fearless]

132. Bluedogs have stopped him from ideologically supporting points of view?

I think not. My problem with Obama is that he hasn't even TRIED to keep many of his promises which were attractive to me and that more often than not he has done the OPPOSITE.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. "I just do not know what I am going to do." Uhhh...

How 'bout you throw your own hat in the ring? You obviously have all the solutions to all the world's problems. Stop carping from the sidelines, and take the plunge? :shrug:

[Fearless]

36. The president must be 35 or older as per the US Constitution.

Otherwise I am doing everything in my power. :hi:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Fearless]

39. The quote of mine you made was in regards to what to do at the ballot

First of all. Secondly, personal attacks are unwarranted.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. If you thought that was a personal attack, then you certainly don't have...

thick enough skin for public life. Perhaps, my earlier suggestion wouldn't be a good one for you, no matter your age. :hi:

[Fearless]

51. Way up there on the snark-o-meter.

I still don't think you've made a valid point though just some backhanded comments. Have a nice day though.

[Armstead]

65. That's a meaningless response -- Not everyone is cut out to be a politician

That's one of those knee-jerk responses that is so prevalent here. "Then YOU run for office" or its close variation "Why don't you do something about it instead of complaining on a message board."

Being a politician is a particular skill set -- not everyone has it. (For example, if you want a Republican elected, just put me on the ballot to run against them.)

And the assumption that writing on a message board precludes doing anything else is another snarky fallacy.

[Rabblevox]

37. Excellent post, Fearless. I will vote Obama, despite the disappointments...

but my energy, and what few dollars I can spare will be going into local and state races. Obama will be the lesser of two evils, no doubt, but his pretty speeches no longer move me, and I won't believe a word he says during the campaign.

There are SOOO many things that Obama could have done by executive order (like reversing most of Bush's executive orders).

[NorthCarolina]

41. Quite an excellent, honest OP. I believe your sentiments are reflective of a majority of Dems

right now. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post as it certainly reflects the position I find myself in. I too voted for "Change", and looked forward to leaving the Bush legacy to the history books. Unfortunately, the promise of "Change" proved nothing more than lofty rhetoric crafted to energize a presidential campaign, and post election, this "change" was translated into "status quo". I hold hopes of a primary challenge by someone who's Liberal/Progressive ideals actually match the campaign hype, but I seriously doubt anything of the sort would be allowed to happen. Sad.

[stevenleser]

49. I would say its the majority of people on DU, not a majority of Democrats. All the polls suggest

that a large majority of Democrats are very happy with President Obama.

[onenote]

59. I doubt its even a majority of DUers

[stevenleser]

128. Well, a majority of those that are still here and havent left in disgust at some of their DU peers.

n/t

[CakeGrrl]

88. Agreed. The most discontent from anyone on the Left I've heard has been here. n/t

[lamp_shade]

57. The majority of dems? Really? Yathink?

[whatchamacallit]

48. I know what I'm not going to do

I'm not going to whore my vote to corporate tools of any stripe.

[CakeGrrl]

53. It isn't all on the President. Get Teabaggers, Wingnuts and Blue Dogs out of Congress. n/t

[bvar22]

54. Most of the votes for "President" will have ZERO effect ...

...in determining WHO sits in the White House in 2012.

Some here will be outraged by this electoral TRUTH,
but depending on WHERE live,
you may be able to use your vote Strategically,
and still be a Good Democrat.

The LAST thing I want is a Republican president.
The 2nd to Last thing I want is for the Centrist New Democrat Party
to use re-election as a MANDATE for MORE warmed over Republican Anti-Working Class Policy.



Who will STAND and represent THIS American Majority?
Rhetoric, broken promises, and excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[onenote]

61. could you elaborate?

Let's say I live in NY (I don't). Let's further assume that NY is a "safe" state for Obama. Are you suggesting that there is a strategic benefit for DUers to not vote for Obama? What would that benefit be?

[FrenchieCat]

55. You sound smart and your post is nicely done.....

So I suggest you do whatever you decide to do, and be prepared to live with the intended and
unintended consequences, as you are not exempt in being judged for whatever decision you make.

Personally, I believe that I have a great choice in 2012,
and it is to vote for Pres. Obama.

It is easy and simple to blame Pres. Obama for not fixing years upon years of fucked-up shit
that we let happen in this country.....
and you can do so based on his 2.3 years of being on the job,
especially if this sounds right and just to you. After all, many have been blaming him
for any and all outcomes for at least the past 2 years...which means they became unhappy with
him really very shortly after he became President (and those posts will live on here in DU's archives).

Me, I'll blame all of this nation's citizens, for relying on others
to get done for them, what they might have done for themselves
if only they could have stopped complaining long enough to organize themselves,
and to make it their aim to speak loud and long to other citizens of this country
to change minds and hearts on those issues they care so deeply about. Instead too many
waited for the ones that they had been waiting for, which in many instances wasn't even
them. An example was when the Teabaggers were made deliberately famous by the Corporate media....
Where were the countering forces? Most were busy complaining that this President was a sell out
and chanting "Kill the Bill".

To those who have solely relied on one man to clean up all of this nation's shit,
and giving him 2.3 years to have achieved it is not only unreasonable, but it is unfair,
while I don't recall any other man having been expected to get all of this done before.
In particular when folks ignore the role of congress, because they expected this President to simply be more like a dictator and just get her done, by screaming, scheming, lying and ignoring all
opposition (a la Bush) and whatever else it might take.

It is one thing to have unusually high expectations,
it is another to literally want to punish the one that the expectations were loaded on to,
while the only thing that one contributed for the past 2.3 years is a bunch of complaints about
anything and everything.

That said; your vote is yours to do with it what you will....
just don't point elsewhere when they come for you....

Good luck with rationalizing why you may opt to not participate,
while pointing fingers at those of us who will try to save everyone else's ass
letting us know that we ain't doing it quite right.

[vduhr]

60. Well said!!!!

[grahamhgreen]

66. "Me, I'll blame all of this nation's citizens," Well, thanks for blaming the victims. We happen to

live in a representative democracy, and it is our elected leaders DUTY to represent the will of those who elected him, not the corporatist powers that represent the will of the party that was defeated.

Obama has failed to do this and has consistently sided with the power of the plutocracy over the people.

We do not live in a broken society where the only recourse ins for the people to take to the streets like in Egypt - or is that what Obama has driven out country to?

[FrenchieCat]

71. The fact is clear in your response,

you blame one man....
and consider yourself a victim.

and so be it.

I suggest you Vote accordingly, since obviously you find no difference
between what Obama has done, and what Republicans will do.

and yes, of course we live in a broken society....
and considering your endless complaints since day one,
I'm a bit surprised that you don't think so.

Our only recourse is the ballot box,
and for those who have decided that trip won't be worth it
for the person at the top of the ticket,
well, you will only have yourself to blame if your actions
are multiplied enough to make a difference.

Good luck to you and whatever it is you believe you will achieve
by standing strong by your "principles".

[Fire1]

97. I agree, Frenchie. No, I don't agree with everything but I'll be

damned if I vote to have this country more screwed up than it already is and that's exactly what you'll get with Trump, Palin and any other republican ass hole.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Thanks, FC, as always. I just think it's royally fucked up that out of anger,

people will stay home, thus punishing good Democrats who are running at the local level, many of them probably progressives.

I've had it, really.

If this country has yet awakened to who the Republicans/Teabaggers really are, then so be it.

We have to take responsibility for our actions.

If these Republican governors didn't do enough to shaken people, I can't imagine what will.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. Thanks, FC, as always. I just think it's royally fucked up that out of anger,

people will stay home, thus punishing good Democrats who are running at the local level, many of them probably progressives.

I've had it, really.

If this country has yet awakened to who the Republicans/Teabaggers really are, then so be it.

We have to take responsibility for our actions.

If these Republican governors didn't do enough to shaken people, I can't imagine what will.

[politicasista]

107. +1 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

120. It is not just one man, it is his enablers as well.

Those who allow him to get away with half-truths and broken promises are also at fault.

Those who would be led to the same place that the Republicans are leading us, but by a different route, are also at fault.


The solutions to our countries problems are simple:

Tax the rich at the rates of the greatest generation.

Get out of the wars in the middle east.

Get out of the so-called "free-trade" agreements.

Stop torture and rendition.

enact single-payer health care.

Wind power instead of Nukes and oil.

Repeal the media and financial regulations of the last 30 years, etc..

Basically, we need a person who will fight to undo Reagan and Bush policies, not talk us into meeting them halfway.


Far from victims, we are the loyal opposition.

If you want our votes, fight for our solutions.

[archiemo]

56. Unfortunately, I share your sentiments.

[grahamhgreen]

64. The other side of the coin is that a tea bag presidency may lead to

a real Democratic presidency, once the lines are drawn and there is a clear distinction between the parties.

As it is, the voter can not distinguish between the party of war and the party of war.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

67. I guess you could teach Obama a lesson and not vote.

:sarcasm:

[Township75]

69. Trust me, you are going to vote Obama and LOVE doing it!

This post may sound insulting to you, but it honestly is not my intent. My intent is to describe what goes on here every election cycle.

People whine and moan about the Dem nominee and what he has or hasn't done. They threaten to leave, they threaten not to vote, they threaten to vote for the Green party, and on and on and on. It was bad between Dean and Kerry, and got worse during Obama vs Clinton, but everytime, despite everyone's whining, come October, DU is fully supportive of the Democratic nominee, and all the whining and bitching turns into praise about the nominee, and absolute hate for the republican nominee.

Everytime. EVERYTIME. It works that way EVERYTIME! You will be so happy to vote for Obama. Go ahead and whine and wail, gnash your teeth, curse me, but your posts will be very positive towards him...and the hate will flow from your republican nominee related posts like water from the mountain tops. S/He is so evil. S/He must be defeated. That is how you show what a good person you are...there was evil and you stood up to it!!!

Again, sorry if you feel slighted by the post, because that isn't my intent, but this is how it will work out for you and anyone else feeling a little down about Obama.

[Armstead]

72. The downward nature of that cycle is why many of us are so frustrated

You are correct. There's nothing like a common opponent as a way to unite people.

But the problem is that as the GOP Right gets worse and more extreme, the Democratic leaders don't fight them with a clear alternative. They reject alternatives that are not just ideological but mainstream common sense.

As a result the whole discourse of the "center" keeps getting pushed further to the right, and politicians like Obama are complicit in that.

So it is the same every cycle -- but gets worse and worse with each cycle.

A lot of us who bitch and moan would prefer to be genuinely excited in a positive sense, and would support Obama if he would actually wealk the talk more. But since the opposite keeps happening, regardless of the individual candidate, we get more and more pissed off and frustrasted and LESS enthusiastic every time this shell game is played.

[Fearless]

73. +1

[Township75]

74. Im with you dude,

but I'm just commenting on why the OP will end up voting Obama and being happy about it. It is all relative, despite what we like to think of ourselves. As long as the repub candidate is a repub, s/he will always be getting worse...sometimes true, sometimes not. I think this is why most people don't care for politics. You ahve to shut off your brain in order to actually be enthusiastic and supportive of just one party.

But just to be clear, your post is spot on. I understand why the OP is struggling to vote Obama NOW, but come October, it will be a different story.

[Armstead]

87. I guess my quibble is with the concept of being "happy" ablout it

For many the only real emotion will be "fear" of a complete GOP takeover and, if Obama wins "relief" that we averted disaster.

But that does not include "happy." --Merely resignation to the fact that things will continue to get worse -- only slightly more slowly.

Obama still has time to change that,and give more people more reasons to vote for him in a positive sense (like they did in 08)...But he would have to do some real course corrections in both his message and his governing for that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

105. I think you're wrong. Obama has been the most progressive Democratic president

that we've had since LBJ. Even President Carter was very socially conservative and did a lot of things that were not traditionally in line with Democratic Party principles when he was president.

People make excuses for Clinton when it comes to the DADT/DOMA issue, but look at the totality how he governed: to the right of Obama in many instances.

It was Clinton who was responsible for NAFTA; Clinton responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall; Clinton responsible for the deregulation of the communications industry that gave us the Corporate Media we have today and a talk show circuit dominated by wingnuts; Clinton responsible for the Omnibus Crime Bill that put more black/Hispanic people in jail; Clinton responsible for welfare reform that was too harsh and demonized the poor.

I could go on and on.

Now, think about what Obama has done to undo some of that damage. With a recalcitrant Democratic Party in the House and Senate, and a Republican Party that is a whole lot different than the Republicans were during LBJ's and Clinton's tenure, you can't really blame Obama alone for the outcome.

But if we get rid of these wingnut Republicans and start working from the bottom up, electing more progressive Democrats at the local levels, I believe that we'll begin to see a change.

Change doesn't happen overnight. It takes time.

I don't think Obama ever said that he'd make changes in X time.

We need to try and be patient, and work to get more progressives in office.

[dionysus]

118. +1

[dionysus]

117. as a long time DUer, you jogged my memory. the Dean\Kerry wars (i liked Dean)

were bad. i thought that was a nasty, bitter fight here.

Then, the 08 election made that seem like patty-cake. Edwards\Hillary\Dennis\Barack supporters going toe to toe, to the bitter end.

2012 will be the first time for DU that we have a sitting President in office.

yet I have a feeling this election cycle will be the ugliest yet, even though a Democrat is in the WH, and no primary challengers...

[Lorien]

123. Sorry. Won't happen. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

75. If you're worried now, let the Republicans take over the Senate and the presidency, too,

and see how that works out for us.

[emilyg]

82. k/r

[JoePhilly]

84. The GOP's goal all along has been to block Obama at every turn ...

make sure he can't deliver in full on any promise, and, when he does delivery something we want, to make sure that it includes something that would discourage you.

Their strategy is comprised of 2 primary tactics.

1) Rile up their insane racist base so that they gain a view percentage points during the elections.

2) Do what they can to knee-cap the President, so that they discourage folks like you, such that the dems LOSE a few percentage points in turn out.

Obama won by about 6%. If their tactics can cause a 3% swing in BOTH #1 and #2, their nut job candidate has a shot to be President.

People at times complain about the chess metaphor regarding Obama. As a person who plays chess, an activity I often find useful is to "spin the board".

Stop playing from YOUR side of the board, and go sit on the other side of the table and try to determine what the other side is doing, and WHY they are doing it.

When I "spin the board" on today's political situation, the GOP's strategy and tactics make perfect sense.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

108. I've been waiting patiently for you to come up in here and drop some knowledge!

This is a strategy that the Republican Party has perfected since Watergate.

Get people disinterested in politics and hope that that'll keep them home; or, that people will blame the government for their woes.

What's the outcome? DUers hoping that the government shuts down. Democrats becoming "Reagan Democrats." Blue Dogs and DLCers siding with Republicans on taxes, war, and corporate greed.

This systematic brainwashing of Americans--even liberal Americans--has worked brilliantly for the Republican Party.

As they sit on the Senate floor, blocking every single piece of legislation that the House Democrats put forth, they are banking on rank-in-file Democrats like Fearless and others to blame the president. And the president, only.

I continue to witness DUers take shots at the president rather than the Congress or the Senate Republicans who blocked every good idea emanating from the White House.

People become disenchanted, disillusioned, disengaged. Meanwhile, the Teabaggers are riled up and really to work to elect more wingnuts to office.

I'm so jealous of how the Republicans operate and stick together.

I'm not suggesting at all that we act like them, operating in lockstep.

I do, however, wish that Democrats were more realistic than they are and understood how the political process actually works.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[DemocratAholic]

89. i think

what this post is saying is not necessarily that he would consider voting Republican, which would obviously not be in his interest. but the feeling of disappointment that leads to cynicism and ambivalence.

obama has taken a huge risk, assuming he can piss off his "base" to such a degree. i fear the consequences of taking that risk. more than just just risking losing the White House, but the cynicism and ambivalence it creates throughout the party, and the effect it will have on all Democratic candidates.

on a side note, i will say that something i find really, really disturbing and disgusting is when someone takes the time to write a post like this, which is obviously just expressing personal feelings, and how some respond with rude one-liners...like "cry me a river." i really wish that those people who do that would have a little respect for other Democrats. the degree of rudeness that i see from many obama "supporters" on this board, whenever someone states their feelings of disappointment, that kind of rudeness is not going to help obama...it only adds to the problem, by causing people to think that his "supporters" are not very nice people.

[Armstead]

92. +1 The politics that breeds cynicism is as big a threat as the GOP strategies

Among other things it leads to the "They're all the same" mentality about politics and politicians among the coveted swing voters, and given the superior salesmanship of the GOP will lead them to say "What the hell, I'll vote for the republican. maybe he'll (she'll) do better."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

109. But that's what the Republicans want you to think. And by and large, they have suceeded.

We have a large number of so-called Independents unlike Bernie Sanders, more like Dick Lugar. They are typically very uninformed and very easily swayed. They are the ones that Obama/the Democrats lost in the midterms of 2010. Those so-called Independents went back to Republicans after having voted for Bush twice.

You wanted Obama to be a purely liberal politician, and yet did not think about this group of people and how they have been brainwashed to latch on to any bumper sticker slogan that sold well.

We have to be much more realistic about how politics works.

JoePhilly is so right. We need to "spin the table" and predict how the other side will behave before they behave. Republicans have been playing offense for many years. The Democrats have been on the defense for many years.

Either we need someone like a Frank Luntz on our side to help craft a sellable message or we're doomed.

Sure, Obama could have done much better with this, but he is only one man. And let's be honest: did the Corporate Media really air all the speeches and town hall meetings that Obama made across the country during the health care debate and beyond? No. They were too busy demonizing "Obamacare" and championing the Teabaggers to appease their Corporate Masters than responsibly cover the other side of the argument.

And what did many cowardly Democrats do? Scared of the Republicans, they went the other way, siding with Republicans.

[Armstead]

110. I want liberal bumpersticker slogans

I am able to spin the table. I am much less dogmatic as I sometimes seem here on DU. I can see things through the eyes of conservatives and independents. (Part of that is the nature of my real-world job.) I know the appeal of conservative principles, and I even agree with some of them to an extent. (The sane parts not the crazy or deceptive ones.)

Frankly that's one of the reasons I admire Bernie Sanders. He is a clear progressive populist who can translate that into the real lives of working people.

He is able to take a progressive message to working hard-asses who would never consider themselves to be liberals -- much less socialists -- because he is clear and makes it clear that he and the policies he pushes for is on THEIR SIDE.

A Democratic Party that is as clear as that would kick the butts of the GOP (in my opinion, of course)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. I've had the distinct pleasure of meeting Bernie many times. I am a Sanders Democrat.

However, I understand that we didn't elect more Bernies, sadly. We need more of him. Until that happens, we sadly have to work within the parameters set.

We must work to change people's minds about what liberalism is and is not.

Tonight, one of my college students made her presentation on the psychological interpretations of political ideology. Her assumptions were based on several false premises about what liberalism is. I challenged her to think more critically about how we define ourselves because much of what has been defined for us is based on messages that we receive.

And I think you're right. If more Democrats were to stand up for what they believe and not cow-tow to Republican demands--on the belief that Republicans have the right answer and Dems can't possibly win--only then will we succeed.

But, the Democratic Party did not take up a budget and refused to engage Republicans in a debate on the Bush tax cuts prior to the midterm elections, falsely believing that they would lose those debates. What I don't understand is that many of them lost, anyway. If you're going to lose, do so fighting. I'd rather go down in a fight than not even fight at all.

I think that one of the main reasons why people are attracted to the Republican Party is not they perceive Republicans as always winning, hence, having the right argument. It's not true, but as long as Dems refuse to fight that fallacy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's up with the inferiority complex that most Dems suffer from? We are RIGHT on the issues. And yet we act as if we're wrong.

[Armstead]

124. You hit the nail on the head

The part about inferiority complex and acting as if we are wrong. And the self fulfilling prophecy,,,,I've seen it in action for 30 years and it still baffles me.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

91. Bill Maher: "...the difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy".

There is a distinction. A major one.

If you think a Republican administration would have given half a damn about doing what the Obama administration HAS accomplished (either look it up or turn a blind eye, your choice), then I don't know what to tell you.

You don't know what to do? It's not difficult. Vote or don't vote.

And if you don't, you may help usher in the chance to be reminded that there is a HELL of a difference between that disappointing friend and that deadly enemy.

[democrat2thecore]

94. Very well said - and about health care

Health care "reform" is the one that really upsets me the most. The fact is Richard Nixon offered a more progressive health care reform bill in the early 70's than this Obama/Insurance Company scheme. Remember, Ted Kennedy said his biggest regret in all his years in the senate was to not work with Nixon on his bipartisan health bill. The Obama "reform" is more of the same, but worse in the sense that many think we've now "done reform." We haven't done CRAP except tweak it here and there with a couple of good things, but made it worse by turning even more over to the big insurance companies. This action by the president I, and so many of you, worked to elect is scandalous.

[Mass]

98. Door 1 and door 2 will lead to the same place? Really?

As a woman, I can still see the difference. With a democratic president and congress, my body still belongs to me. As a person with low income and having had a cancer in the last five years, as poor as the healthcare bill is, it still allows me to find care, something the GOP insists I should not get. I can continue.

So, is Obama what I hoped for? No. But is the alternative even acceptable? Hell no.

[Efilroft Sul]

99. I only have one good reason left to vote for Obama.

My reason is something that extends well beyond Obama serving a full second term: He can nominate judges that swing the Supreme Court back to the left, those who will impact the judiciary for the next two or three decades.

Other than that reason, I totally empathize with Fearless. Those taking a superior attitude with the OP come across as DNC versions of Delores Umbridge.

[DH of Oregon]

106. Me too.

[RBInMaine]

112. My advice: YouTube Rachel Maddow for the HUGE list of Obama's PROGRESSIVE accomplishments.SLAM DUNK!

[craigmatic]

115. It's a small world we have the same degrees.

I share your concerns but for me my problem with Obama is education. He's pretty much kept the worst parts of NCLB in place which is closing down many schools in the country and duncan is no friend of the teachers' unions.

[Ikonoklast]

116. If still don't know, that's pretty sad.

It's glaringly obvious to me.


You are young, and want immediate fixes for thirty-five years of decline.

What took a long time to destroy will also take a long time to repair.

We are moving in the proper direction, although the speed of which isn't to your liking.

[Lorien]

122. Whoever runs to the Left of Obama has my vote

hopefully that will be a Democratic challenger. If not, then I'll write in a candidate. America can't take four more years of a guy who is to the Right of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Nixon.

[FrenchieCat]

125. Good luck with that!

When the Repubs win and take away medicare, Social Security, and swear in a conservative Supreme court justice, That will be what you will be taking for years and years and years and years, bar none 4 years.....of which Pres. Obama has only served 2.4!

I'm starting to kind of wanting to see Obama lose,
just to sit back and watch the people suffer.....
It must gonna be kinda of fun, hey?...cause so many are wishing for that too.

[graceastrology]

126. Run For Office...

...seriously. Get involved in local politics. Work to change the system from the inside. We need more people like you to win elections.

[Safetykitten]

127. The election is over now. The republicans are assured a win...

by Obama, being Obama.

[Peacetrain]

130. If you cannot see the difference between the tea party and the Democrats..t here is nothing

nothing, nothing, I or anyone else can say.

I am afraid that we do not have a choice in 2012. Door's One and Two may very well lead to the same place. And there are only two doors. It's President Obama or the Republican nominee. And I do not know what I can honestly do.


I do not know whether to spit or put a line in the sand and dare you to cross it.

[okieinpain]

131. really too funny. oh my that evil President Obama has let us all

down. he hasn't delivered the unicorn's where are the unicorns. remember he promised unicorns, he said a unicorn for every house. yet at last there are no unicorns, I can't really say I can trust him again.......

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[quaker bill]

134. It really isn't difficult at all

Voting is not a sacrament. You pick the one you think is the best choice available on the ballot cast your vote. This is not an essentially emotional task or a particular challenge. I have never had the opportunity to vote for any candidate I fully agree with, so I just pick the one I agree with the most.

There is no compromise of principle involved here, the better candidate is simply the better candidate. I might wish for other choices, but what is on the ballot is what it is. I happen to prefer the better candidate over the worse one, so I vote that way.

I vote in every election because I would not feel right complaining about things if I did not participate.

It is not a fripping sacrament, it is just chosing one politician over another. Either way it turns out, I am going to get a politician, not a saint, but I prefer the better ones, even if they aren't all that great.

[DCBob]

135. more like "Clueless"..

Nicely written post but clearly you do not understand politics.

[LatteLibertine]

136. Unfortunately

most elections in this nation have simply been an exercise in choosing the lesser evil.