Why Do We Assume Obama's Actually Trying to Enact a Progressive Agenda?

[ProudDad]

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of "reform." Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a "Democratic President".

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/150642

[bitchkitty]

1. He's actually playing 3D chess with the Republicans, see.

Any day now, you'll see. Just be patient and don't complain. What are you, a hater?

</sarcasm>

[ProudDad]

3. n-dimensional oppression...

Yep... :shrug:

[ProudDad]

2. And more

Just consider the polling data on last week's budget cuts, which most liberal commentators scorned. Americans support the "compromise" by a margin of 58-38%; that support includes a majority of independents, substantial GOP factions, and 2/3 of Democrats. Why would Democrats overwhelmingly support domestic budget cuts that burden the poor? Because, as Yglesias correctly observed, "just about anything Barack Obama does will be met with approval by most Democrats." In other words, once Obama lends his support to a policy -- no matter how much of a departure it is from ostensible Democratic beliefs -- then most self-identified Democrats will support it because Obama supports it, because it then becomes the "Democratic policy," by definition. Adopting "centrist" or even right-wing policies will always produce the same combination -- approval of independents, dilution of GOP anger, media raves, and continued Democratic voter loyalty -- that is ideal for the President's re-election prospects.

That tactic in the context of economic policy has the added benefit of keeping corporate and banking money on Obama's side (where it overwhelmingly was in 2008), or at least preventing a massive influx to GOP coffers. And just look at the team of economic advisers surrounding Obama from the start: does anyone think that Bill Daley, Tim Geithner and his army of Rubin acolytes and former Goldman Sachs executives are sitting around in rooms desperately trying to prevent budget cuts and entitlement "reforms"?

[ProudDad]

4. And More!

When I first began blogging five years ago, I used to write posts like that all the time. I'd lament that Democrats weren't more effectively opposing Bush/Cheney National Security State policies or defending civil liberties. I'd attribute those failures to poor strategizing or a lack of political courage and write post after post urging them to adopt better tactics to enable better outcomes or be more politically "strong." But then I realized that they weren't poor tacticians getting stuck with results they hated. They simply weren't interested in generating the same outcomes as the ones I wanted.

It wasn't that they eagerly wished to defeat these Bush policies but just couldn't figure out how to do it. The opposite was true: they were content to acquiesce to those policies, if not outright supportive of them, because they perceived no political advantage in doing anything else.

[KoKo]

6. And, we have seen

there really isn't any political advantage in doing anything else. It's apparent with the demise of the "liberal" blogosphere since the hey dey during Bush II and to a smaller extent the first two years of his second term before the campaigns began and the election.

Now we are back to Orwell's world. War is Peace...Torture is Acceptable if we do it...Economy is Coming Back...when housing is still down and folks are being laid off and if they have a job they have to spend money on gas and cut back on food. Privatized Education Good under Duncan...bad under Bush...on and on.

But, who knows?...Eventually we will find out how it all turns out.

[jaxx]

5. Oh it's Greenwald again.

He's like a broken record.

[ProudDad]

32. You DO know the legend of Cassandra, right? (n/t)

[MNBrewer]

73. Greenwald hater... probably not.

that would be a GREAT drag name for him though :) Cassandra Greenwald. (I say that as a gay man who wishes he had as appropriate a drag name as that)

[Recursion]

111. You mean the woman who drove Clytemnestra crazy enough to prove her prophecy right?

Yeah, it rings a bell...

[Kalun D]

75. Get His Back

After all, he stabbed you right in yours.

[vaberella]

7. B/c by and large he's enacted liberal policies which are undeniable.

You spend time arguing over topics that are rarely his fault. Sorry we've been through the tax issue. People are having a hard time and he wanted the middle class to have tax breaks. But many on the left are willing for people who don't have much of anything to get hit even harder. Obama has said he's not renewing them again and explained what happened. Also if you paid attention---the House failed to pass that bill twice.

So this topic is dead on arrival. Uh and yeah, he is pushing for medicare/medicaid reform because no one, liberal or right wing can deny that they do need to be reformed. However he's not cutting anything vital from them and is against them facing any cuts. So again, you're topic is misguided and false.

I'm happy to UNREC!:party:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Sheepshank]

20. Yup....

The elephant that fell down the water well is also Obama's fault. There are several sites I can think of that would like to hear and read all these positive affirmations you produce that substantiates that the Reps are better off without the Dems.

[ProudDad]

33. As usual, your head's firmly in the sand

If the past 2+ years of failure is indicative of what we have to look forward to with this corporate capitalist administration...

The next 5+ years of failure should convince you...

[Sheepshank]

38. you think someone else's head is in the sand

yet you fail to recognize anything progressive...in favor of touting another agenda. I find the dichotomy of your statement interesting.

[rug]

8. Probably because he talked about it a lot.

[damntexdem]

10. Why would we assume that he is?

He did push toward a progressive agenda (e.g., health reform) but quickly ruled out single-payer and caved on other progressive features. He has made some progressive moves otherwise; but they come among a flood of nonprogressive moves and other caving on progressive positions. At this point, I don't know why anyone, certainly not "we," would assume that he's trying to enact a progressive agenda.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. >>>

:rofl:

[dionysus]

13. the ROFL guy looks like he's kicking somebody... that reminds me of... fightin!

PUT UP YER DUKES!!! :hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Why so hostile, dion?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:hi:

[dionysus]

18. i'm all scrappy doo like that :D

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Right back atcha!

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

12. I thought Obama was supposed to announce these major cuts last week????

Oh wait .... he was also definitely, positively, absolutely going to announce these cuts during the State of the Union.

Oh wait ... his budget for this year was going to announce those cuts

Why do we assume that those predicting doom and gloom are right ... when they have been WRONG three times in a row?

[dionysus]

14. it's just lord high douchenozzle greenwald repeating himself again...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. And every day it's the same people here on DU. There's a pattern but we continue to take the bait.

[ProudDad]

34. If "Bait" means the truth about

the corporate state...

then yes, you continue to ignore the truth...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. What "truth"? Your "truth"? I don't think so...

[Cherchez la Femme]

58. Yes, it sure IS the same people

isn't it? :lmao:

[Recursion]

110. He's going to announce them in 24 *business* hours... (nt)

[Autumn]

16. I don't expect him to enact a progressive agenda.

he's no progressive, but at least he isn't a bat shit crazy republican. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. I have no expectations.

[ProudDad]

35. He's corporate and pro-war

as are the republicans...

The difference is a matter of degree in the Kabuki theater you're supposed to pay attention to...

In order to deflect your attention from the fuckers who are stealing our future...

Aided and abetted by both-right-wings of the Corporate War Party...

[Autumn]

40. You are right

Both parties have become corporate and pro-war. That's why I have no expectations. No one in these parties are going to come out and fix our problems. One will push us rapidly down the stairs and the other will nudge us gently along.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Maybe not the way that you define a progressive agenda

Some of the things you mention are things that he's had to compromise on (i.e. bush tax cuts) but he also won some concessions for middle- or low-income persons (middle- and lower income-tax cuts and unemployment benefits extension) and/or things that he's tried to do but not been able to win Congressional approval for (i.e. necessary funding to close Gitmo, someplace else to send them).

Last I looked, we're not "at war" with Libya either- we're participating in a joing military action with the UN. If you and/or others want to call it a "war", I guess you can but it's not as though we've invaded and/or are attempting to occupy like it like we did in Iraq. Congress was also consulted before we began participating in the action and Congress (if I'm not mistaken) had already expressed approval of a no-fly zone prior to it happening, so.........?

If getting some health care/financial reforms (including getting a new regulatory agency) enacted isn't part of a progressive agenda, then what kind of agenda is it, exactly (even if you might not ultimately agree with the scope and shape of the reforms, you can't deny that things are going to be at least a little better than they were before)?

[Teaser]

22. DONT YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT HE IS JUST ANOTHER JOE STALIN PINOCHET POL POT HITLER?

.

[truth2power]

23. Why do "we"? I don't know about you, but he's no progressive

as far as I'm concerned.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Fearless]

25. Because everyone's afraid of the Tea Party.

[lonestarnot]

50. my ass.

[Fearless]

66. No thanks.

[lonestarnot]

76. Afraid of the baggers, you KNOW that is bullshit!

[Fearless]

77. Then why has the Democratic Party moved to the right while claiming to be

Ever more progressive?

You tell me.

[lonestarnot]

78. You are clearly confussed. Blue dogs were never democrats to start.

[Fearless]

87. DINO is still a Democrat hence the big D next to their names.

I am not confused.

[Recursion]

112. Umm

They're not called "blue dog republicans".

They were Democrats. We went too far to the left for their seats to be tenable. It was probably worth it, but don't blame them for holding on to our majority as long as they could. And we aren't getting the House back without people like them.

[That Guy 888]

124. In what way did the Democratic Party go "too far to the left"?

Just because the usual rethuglikans shriek "leftist!" doesn't mean the party has gone "too far to the left". If anything the constant lies about "leftist" Democrats has served the rethuglikans well. It is a constant pressure to push both parties further to the right.

[Jakes Progress]

26. Actually his programs are to the right of Clinton.

[Hawkowl]

27. Worse, he did it cause he wanted it that way

The man who could fill football stadiums with enthusiasm and grass roots support, through it all away to service his Wall Street masters. Giethner, Summers, Gates, Holder, :puke:

[polichick]

122. That's the truth - he could've led the people in a populist fight (as he said he would)...

...but chose the corporate/mic way in many instances - beginning with cabinet choices.

[Mimosa]

125. Geithner proposed a cut for corporate taxes.

Obama's cabinet reflect where he's coming from. :(

Good recent article on Geithner's scheme:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/corporate-taxes-enter-debt-debate/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[ClarkUSA]

54. Bullshit. Prove it. Bubba deregulated Wall Street & the media and invented extraordinary rendition.

He also passed up a chance to nail Bin Laden and was a miserable failure in getting health reform passed, along with Hillary. Bubba also sentenced a retarded man to death while governor to prove he was tough on crime. He championed NAFTA and didn't pass any progressive legislation of any note.

And let's not forget his greatest domestic legislative legacies: DOMA and DADT.

President Obama, Clintonian revisionism aside, has spent the better part of the past two years rectifying Bubba's legislative screw-ups. He has passed more progressive legislation in the past two years than Bubba ever even tried to do.

[Jakes Progress]

59. You really love that word. Inigo was right on.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

President Obama has spent the better part of the past two years solidifying Bubba's third way policies. Not only are you light on word meaning, your history is also flakey.

[ClarkUSA]

60. No proof, just more baseless rhetoric and personal attacks.

How predictable.

[Jakes Progress]

61. You would be the authority on baseless rhetoric and personal attack.

You still can't back up any of your "bullshit" claims. Do I need to define the word for you?

[ClarkUSA]

63. Wrong again. I refuted your baseless negative rhetoric with a request for proof which was ignored.

Gee, I wonder why? :sarcasm:

[Jakes Progress]

79. No. I'm still correct. Your "refutation" was your own baseless wishes

of how things are. I gave my opinion. You gave yours. Look up the word "proof".

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

96. Still wrong. Your "interpretations" don't equal fact.

I know you would like to pretend that Obama is a progressive, but even many of his ardent supporters on DU protest that he is not and that he never claimed to be.

Your last line is just a hoot. But you seem to enjoy your fantasy. Go with it.

[Citizen Worker]

28. It's called perception management as in, hope and change.

[quaker bill]

29. Because what he proposes

is more progressive than what he gets. Under our form of government the House taxes and appropriates. When we get him a progressive House and it puts progressive legislation on his desk to sign and he refuses to sign it, your argument might start holding water.

[Jakes Progress]

30. Really getting old.

This poor-helpless-beset-upon president routine is just silly. It bears no resemblance to real life or how politics work. He just sits. He doesn't do anything. He's just occupying the chair for the history books.

[ProudDad]

37. +1000

It's all part of the Kabuki Theater designed to keep the sheeple asleep and potential activists in-active...

Pathetic, isn't it? :hi:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[quaker bill]

41. While I don't know you

I am going to guess that you aren't actually invited to the meetings where policy, legislation and priorities are discussed. On that basis I will conclude that you are speaking on a foundation of knowledge that you do not actually possess. In short you have no clue about what he is doing or not doing.

He is not there to just impress you. Much of the work on that job is done at closed door meetings, and has been for a very long time.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[quaker bill]

47. Nothing special

Just normal course of business stuff. Trying to find the line where you can get just enough votes to pass a bill. Negotiations between adults are always conducted in confidence at some level. Transparency - grow up a bit.

I do not engage in fan worship. In my job I actually get to meet and work directly with elected officials. Given the sad state of affairs here, most of them elected republicans, to include members of the US House of Representatives. I get called on to represent the agency at their public meetings. I have not met the President, but I have met the people he is attempting to work with. Getting things done at all is a fair accomplishment.

Wake up, it is a big bad world out there. There are alot of people elected to office that frankly, aren't all that bright and have no discernable good intent. The US House of Representatives is currently run by them.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Grow up? That's your advice to Obama voters who think he shouldn't lie?

Great new campaign slogan you have there.

"Fuck you if you can't take a joke". How will that run as a slogan do you think?

With pragmatists like you, who needs to worry about right wingers?

[TK421]

118. Actually, Obama was going to run on "Fuck you if you can't take a joke" in the

next election....what, didn't you get the memo? :D

[ProudDad]

45. Actions speak louder than words

And Obama's actions and that of the corporate-funded democrats speak very eloquently...

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

31. Why do you hate the unemployed

The tax cuts where a trade for an extension of UI. Why do you put the budget before real people?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

39. again, why do you hate the unemployed

Why would you grind a political ideological axe over helping people?

[StreetKnowledge]

44. Because he COULD HAVE gotten both.

You're trying to say that he had to do it to help the unemployed. Bullshit. He could have pointed out that the Democrats could have forced the issue through and dared the GOP to stop them from extending them. Who would have been blamed in that scenario? The Republicans, because they did it. Giving away hundreds of billions in tax cuts to get a small extension of unemployment benefits IS NOT A GOOD TRADEOFF. It's a disastrous one.

Obama needs a primary challenger. Not in 2016, in 2012. By 2016, it'll be too late to fix the damage. Hell, it may be too late now. I am quite sure that the next generation of Americans will hate the very existence of the current ones, and I think if the path the United States is taking cannot be changed soon, every one of the 310 million people that live in America will suffer for it. And quite likely, knowing the GOP's attitude, many more in the world will also be made to suffer for it.

[ProudDad]

46. Someday We the People, the Other 98% deserve to have an

actual political party working in our interests...

[JoePhilly]

89. Create one.

[TK421]

119. Didn't we have one?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

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

[ClarkUSA]

91. And you know this how? Because you say so? What experience tells you that?

<< "He could have pointed out that the Democrats could have forced the issue through and dared the GOP to stop them from extending them." >>

That's it? All he had to do was wag his finger and talk sternly and wave his magic wand to get Congress to do his bidding? Perhaps you should email the WH and tell them this amazing strategery! :sarcasm:

[Raine]

51. I know I sure don't

his actions so far have shown him to be no progressive. x(

[harun]

127. Same here. Only Progressive action he has taken...

The speech in Egypt
The consumer protections in the Credit Card Bill
The consumer protections and student loan reform in the Health Insurance Reform Bill

That does not a Progressive make, nor is it even close to a Progressive Agenda.

[LWolf]

52. I've never assumed that.

I thought it was obvious from the beginning that his "progressivism" comes right out of the "progressive policy institute's" playbook.

[DirkGently]

55. Obama is a center-right Democrat. None of us should expect progressive policies from him.

[ClarkUSA]

57. You mistake him for Clinton. On the contrary, Pres. Obama re-regulated all the stuff Bubba undid.

Plus, he succeeded where Bubba failed.

This is not a "center-right" policy idea at all, for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=656758&mesg_id=656758

Raising the income cap for SS tax is the type of progressive tax reform that Republicans hate.

[Jakes Progress]

81. +1000 The beginning of the NeoDem movement.

[DirkGently]

88. Don't know why that would make Obama's die-hard supporters angry. Shows his competence.

As Greenwald points out, President Obama is not a progressive who has managed a few laudable reforms and foolishly given away the game or been beaten by Republicans on core progressive themes like the need to spend, not cut during an economic crisis. Or to meaningfully regulate to avoid future financial industry abuses. Or to end our proxy wars for American business interests in the Middle East.

There's a reason why there is a Republican deficit reduction plan in the House, and a conservative Republican / conservative Democrat "team" in the Democratically controlled Senate.

Obama's getting EXACTLY what he wants. It's politically expedient, and, if you assume "America is a center-right country," it's the "best" way for Democrats to succeed politically. You don't change the paradigm. You embrace it, and nibble here and there around the edges, and make beautiful speeches about making things better, while making SURE to continue favoring entrenched power structures over the good of the people at large.

He IS an effective leader, and a brilliant politician. So long as you believe making corporations or the wealthy pay fair taxes is unthinkable, and that the end of the social safety net is inevitable. That unlimited military spending and expansionism in oil-rich countries and unethical wartime tactics and creeping government secrecy are all just givens at this point.

Question is, is this what DEMOCRATS stand for, or not?



Edited for all kinds of nice additional touches.

[Jakes Progress]

97. I'd disagree with the brilliant part.

I see him more as guided carefully by people that he has selected to advise him. He selected DLC third way advisors and wall street insiders.

But I agree that he is a long way from liberal or a traditional Democrat.

[DirkGently]

105. Giving the benefit of the doubt here. Greenwald's right that Obama's not doing these things b/c he

doesn't understand what's going to happen when you give Republicans the tax cuts they want, and the spending cuts they want, and the narrative on how we can never afford Social Security and Medicare because it would cut into oil subsidies and wars.

He does understand. He just doesn't want what a lot of progressives want. Or is willing to not even fight because he believes it's not politically expedient to do so.

He's not blundering around. THIS *IS* OBAMA. Gitmo, defense of government spying, and domestic spending cut to the bone in a recession. A social reform here and there if it's not too risk. More war in the Middle East. And those hoping or suggesting that we're going to get some kind of "lefty" if he gets a second term I think are mistaken.






edited syntax for

[Jakes Progress]

120. We get the same place

but with different directions. You see him as more a wise and tricky conservative. I see him as an opportunist without much a clue on his own.

[DirkGently]

121. And I'd agree "brilliant" is not necessarily the best word for any center right position. 8)

[ClarkUSA]

56. Glenn Greenwald is a PUMA media whore who draws hits by attacking Pres. Obama more than Republicans.

This op-ed is another example of his axe-grinding.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

82. Glenn Greenwald is a true progressive not prone to fan-based politics.

Nor a neo-revisionist view of events.

[BrendaBrick]

64. Ya'all just hold on a minute little bob-a-looey!!!

Yep. I DO realize the potential for me getting blasted here in what I am about to say....so be it!

(I've got a thick skin ya'll....so - no worries!)

Know what I think? I said it on another post and I'll say it here again:

What IN THE WORLD COULD YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEONE STEPPING INTO THIS PILE OF - YOU KNOW WHAT LEFT OVER FROM THAT OTHER FRICKING IMBECILE??????

Really now? Just ask yourself.....that?....OK?

What in heck would YOU DO...in his position??????????

I do believe...DEEP in my heart of hearts that Obama came into this whole fiasco...well, a little bit naive perhaps.

Coming from the angle/perspective of an intelligent, articulate, acedemic individual (irrespective of color....by the way...) and probably, maybe thought to himself....OK. I think I can handle this.

Let's see and talk about compromise. A middle ground. OK? Surely NOT ALL of these republicans can be absolute block-heads all the way around.....right? I mean............

Let's set an example. To be the actual "adult" in the room - OK? Right?

This really and truly shouldn't be THAT HARD to wrap our brains around....right?

WRONG!

He was soooo, soooo wrong (In the words of Patsy Cline....I was soooo wrong ~ )

Yep. Obama right about now is probably thinking to himself.....damn - I thought "they" would have been more level-headed than THIS!!!

Shoot - I was wrong....AND naive! Trying to lead and BE the adult in the room already!

I'll tell ya'll somethin' what - come 2012 - oh yeah...Obama will have finally wised up and sharpened his teeth and will come out with BOTH barrels firing and taking no prisoners.

Yep. No doubt about it my heart and mind....what so ever!

Say what you will....this IS my story and by gosh.... I'm sticking to it!!!!!!!!

[ClarkUSA]

65. Amen and pass the ammunition!!!

Thank you and welcome to DU! I hope you speak out more often. :hi:

[Jakes Progress]

84. Never thought I'd see you admit Obama was naive.

[ClarkUSA]

94. I didn't. I agree with this part -->

What IN THE WORLD COULD YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEONE STEPPING INTO THIS PILE OF - YOU KNOW WHAT LEFT OVER FROM THAT OTHER FRICKING IMBECILE??????

Really now? Just ask yourself.....that?....OK?

What in heck would YOU DO...in his position??????????

<snip>

Yep, Obama right about now is probably thinking to himself.....damn - I thought "they" would have been more level-headed than THIS!!!

Shoot - I was wrong....Trying to lead and BE the adult in the room already!

I'll tell ya'll somethin' what - come 2012 - oh yeah...Obama will have finally wised up and sharpened his teeth and will come out with BOTH barrels firing and taking no prisoners.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

101. lol! Who cherrypicked one word, made a false assumption and ignored "the point of the post"? Not I.

BTW, I'm in the large majority of liberals who approve of Pres. Obama's job performance. :D

Like my sig?

[Jakes Progress]

104. You did. You missed the point of the post. Did you read it?

The language was quite clear. The poster, quite reasonably said that he could see where Obama had the problems he did, problems the poster acknowledged, and suggested that he would, because of his strength of character come back in another term in office to fight for the progressive agenda that the poster was sure that he wanted. He believed Obama would acknowledge his naivete and do better.

The post was wholly supportive of Obama. You could have agreed with it. You could have said you agreed with everything except the naive part (although that was the theme of the post), but you didn't. You fist pumped and yelled your agreement.

I pointed out that your strong endorsement of the post might indicate that you agreed that Obama had been naive. Your knee jerk reaction seems proof that you will brook no one's view of Obama but your own. And I think that view is exceptionally rosy.

What Sig? You mean the one that makes Obama seem like a potty mouth? As for the message of the sig, I disagree that people should stop being concerned with the governance of the country and trust other people to do things for them. We all have a responsibility to work for a better government.

[Jakes Progress]

103. You cherry picked the language from a post you obviously did not read.

The poster's point was that Obama had been naive to believe the republicans would behave like adults. Even when you "quoted" it back, you left out that part.

[Jakes Progress]

83. I can see this reasonable point of view.

I too think Obama was naive and inexperienced. Maybe that is why he picked all the old Washington DLC crowd to advise him.

I too think that he was blindsided (in his naivatee) by the vitriol and smarmy lying of the republicans.

The main disagreement on DU is really about whether he has wised up or not, and whether he really wants a progressive agenda or really wants people to just get along.

Some think he inherited an impossible situation and didn't know how to react while others believe that any astute observer of the last twenty years would have known what was coming -- indeed what will keep coming.

I like that you have confidence that he will come out fighting soon. His current speeches seem to presage that, but then again, it is campaign time, time to rally the base.

Many feel sorry for the poor guy and want to give him a break, while others feel their winning advantage from the last presidential election was tossed away too lightly.

Then you have the true Obama detesters who feel that, because of the way things have gone, he is a neocon in disguise. And you have the truly love-sick who feel that this is the most successful, most progressive, most wondermous person ever to hallow Washington's halls. There are about five per-cent of the former and five per-cent of the latter, but that 10 per-cent is exceptionally vocal.

I don't quite give Obama the credit and faith that you do, but I am certainly ready to witness actions that show me differently. At this point, we can only hope. Just wish that word hadn't been so hyped and trashed with the last election.

Nevertheless, here's hoping.

[MNBrewer]

67. Because "hope" and "change" were attractive to progressives

and we bought it.

[craigmatic]

68. We assume it because he sounded liberal and he's a democrat but he's really

a pragmtic opportunist. In short he's politicain following the path of least resistnce. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ElboRuum]

70. Do we?

I never did, at least not how the 'progressive agenda' is defined here.

[paulk]

71. I never assumed that

he's what I always thought he was - a midwestern conservative Democrat, one with very little experience in the political arena.

and that is how he's governed.

[MNBrewer]

72. As a true midwestern, I object to the characterization of Chicago as "midwestern"

[paulk]

80. that's nice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States

[Synicus Maximus]

74. He's not. He never has claimed to be a progressive.

[Jakes Progress]

85. He really hasn't. But you wouldn't know that from the posts

here that claim he is the most progressive president since FDR.

[ClarkUSA]

93. He really has. I have proof right here -->

Proof: http://www.democrats.com/obama-i-am-a-progressive

[Jakes Progress]

99. Reall LOL stuff. Your "proof" is a political press release?

So he says he is a progressive. If gingrich said he was a liberal, would that make him one. Proof is in the pudding. And the milky concoction from this administration has been full of gifts to the wealthy class, corporate leaning policies, privatization, and union bashing. That is not progressive.

[ClarkUSA]

100. LOL! Moving the goalpost? I just proved both of you wrong.

<< And the milky concoction from this administration has been full of gifts to the wealthy class, corporate leaning policies, privatization, and union bashing. >>

More false vitriolic rhetoric = more garbage = :boring:

I'm looking forward to supporting President Obama's re-election. Like my sig?

[Jakes Progress]

102. Look up the word "proof" Inigo was right.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Are you saying that you will post even more false vitriolic garbage?

What Sig? You mean the one that makes Obama seem like a potty mouth? As for the message of the sig, I disagree that people should stop being concerned with the governance of the country and trust other people to do things for them. We all have a responsibility to work for a better government.

Oh are you ready to admit your lack of political knowledge? You know, back when you swore that Obama never had a Democratic majority in the Senate. You were using it as an excuse for why his record is so mediocre, at the same time you were trumpeting how he was the bestest president with the bestest record ever.

[Mimosa]

108. ITA re: the potty mouth sig

Jake's Progress, the 'style ' reminds me of the 'What the F*ck Has Obama Done for Me' propaganda website. Remarkably close, iykwim. ;)

As a supporter since November 2006 I've been disappointed by Obama's performance as President. I expected better and have felt like I was fooled for quite a while.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Wrong. "Obama: I Am A Progressive"

Proof: http://www.democrats.com/obama-i-am-a-progressive

[DirkGently]

95. He has, but perhaps it was not to be taken seriously:

Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html

[Stoic]

86. I gave up thinking that a loooooong time ago.

Obama's agenda is that of the DLC-types and so-called "centrist" Dems: supplicate themselves to big money and hope said BM keeps the revolving door of corporate sinecures open for them and theirs. Oh, and play the I'm a Progressive/don't vote for the crazy Repukes card every 4 years.

<sarcasm>I'd rally for that.</sarcasm>

[akbacchus_BC]

106. Let's wait and see if your propaganda is going to pan out! Aren't

you tired of bashing the President or are you running against him?

[akbacchus_BC]

107. Lots of 'Name Removed' guess you not doing too well with your

diatribe!

[Jakes Progress]

115. Have you read the thread?

You've got the wrong idea about whose posts have been deleted. It's about 50/50.

I think the post is running about 80% agreeing responses.

[Recursion]

109. Because some of us leave the echo chamber occasionally...

... and actually work at effecting change out there.

[TNLib]

113. I believe he is trying to enact a moderate right of center agenda

He gives just enough crumbs to the left so we wont' completely turn on him.

[Mimosa]

126. Like battered women, we have nowhere to go

So we keep taking the abuse.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/corporate-taxes-enter-debt-debate/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[WillyT]

114. Many Of Us Don't

:hi:

:kick:

[dflprincess]

116. Who is this "we" you speak of?

I'm sure not making that assumption.

[johnaries]

117. "Assume"? No, he's actually done it, although it's taken some

hard choices. Get your facts straight, most of your post is 180 degrees from the truth.

Would you rather some small concessions be made, in order to move forward? Or stick to your "principles" and accomplish nothing?

Would you rather have a President who actually moves us forward in baby steps, or one who just whines ad rages as the Republicans move us backwards?

I've been on this planet a long time, and I can tell you that if you make 3 steps forward and 2 steps back you are doing damn good, because you're still 1 step ahead. If you expect more than that, then you have some living to do - because Life simply doesn't work that way. And crying about it does no good, either.

[ProudDad]

123. Kick