Are Liberals having ‘buyer’s remorse’ about Obama?

[Playinghardball]

Source: RawReplay
By Roxanne Cooper

That’s the question Real Time host Bill Maher posed to his guests on Friday night’s episode, adding “…this week, I feel like the magic is gone.”

Asked if Hilary Clinton would have made a better President, panelist Joan Walsh replied, “I don’t regret anything in life, so I don’t really go there.”

Watch the entire segment below, originally uploaded by Mediaite on August 5, 2011

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/are-liberals-having-buyers-remorse-about-obama/

[polichick]

1. It's more like liberals like me are having buyer's remorse about the whole infiltrated party.

[daleanime]

4. Amen....

O8)

[woo me with science]

12. +1

[peace frog]

29. +111111 Infinity

[readmoreoften]

43. +999999

[hay rick]

69. More like voter's remorse.

The buyers got exactly what they paid for.

[TheWraith]

70. Funny, since about 85% of liberal Dems still support Obama.

Better question: are certain people who had unrealistic expectations blaming the failure of those expectations on Democrats and Obama?

[tridim]

2. ALL polls say, absolutely No.

[Doctor_J]

5. So we won't be blamed if he & Dems lose next year?

That works for me.

[tridim]

14. Don't worry, I'll blame people like you who trash Democrats every day.

[peace frog]

32. Who's worried?

We know what to expect from you.

[durablend]

35. What else is new

We on the "professional bomb-throwing left" don't count to begin with yet we're to blame if/when Obama loses.

Can't win with the OFA people.

[sabrina 1]

53. And don't you worry, we will blame Democrats who adapted

Republican policies which are working so well for the country, in the 'interests of bi-partisanship'.:sarcasm:

I blame them for handing us the Tea Party in the 2010 election also, and for losing Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican.

If the Dems had gone with the Progressive policies to fix the economy, instead of agreeing with Republicans' draconian and middle-class killing policies, we would not be where we are right now.

Had this President looked at the policies of FDR which worked, rather than the policies of Ronald Reagan, which were disastrous for this country, we would not be where we are today.

I am absolutely furious at the 'Third Way' gang who brought back Republicans to power.

[EFerrari]

61. And that will be so productive. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

3. Not me - but

I never had high expectations for this administration.

[dbonds]

6. I am, I believed his bullshit when he was campaigning

[otohara]

48. Some of His Bullshit Came to Be

Some of it didn't, I'm most disappointed about the Bush tax cut extensions and no public option.

I am thrilled about DADT, free birth control, Lilly Ledbetter Act. and more.

[hfojvt]

50. free birth control for you maybe

for me, it means I get to pay for birth control, but still don't get to have the sex that would require said birth control.

Not a good deal for me.

[otohara]

52. I wasn't thinking about myself

Being an old gal with a 24 yr old son, I am thinking about minority unemployed poor gals in their teens and twenties. Girls who already have one kid on welfare.
Me me me me is the problem with this country.

[hfojvt]

54. really?

I thought it was rudeness.

[freeplessinseattle]

55. same thing:) eom

[otohara]

62. Feel Better

:wtf:

[dbonds]

57. That isn't something I would typically expect to hear here.

[Creideiki]

65. I would be more thrilled about DADT if the Administration took the opportunities presented

to expedite its end. Instead, in some bizarre political game where they were afraid that Log Cabin Republicans (bless their hearts) would get credit, they fought tooth and nail until the last possible second.

[yardwork]

7. This liberal never expected him to be a liberal. He's a little worse than I expected but not much.

Many of us recognized that Obama is conservative from the time he began positioning himself as a national politician. His praise for Reagan was a big clue.

Lately I've seen an effort to blame liberals for Obama's election. LOL. He wasn't our idea in the first place. Neither are the Clintons.

[polichick]

10. I'm with you - imo both Obama and Clinton were corporate players...

...and neither were liberals - and just barely Dems.

I voted for Obama because I thought Clinton was more hawkish.

[Wounded Bear]

11. This ^

I would have voted for Hillary if she was the nominee.

Either is marginally better than a weak McCain and a whacko like Palin. Does anybody think that if M/P had won that McCain would still be alive today? I don't.

There were no progressives on the ballot. I settled for a DLC Dempublican because that's the choice I had.

:shrug:

[Inuca]

15. MARGINALLY better

than McCain and PALIN???? I rest my case.

[yardwork]

46. It sounds extreme but when you look at what Obama has done (and not done)

the comparison is not that ridiculous. I mean, I would never vote for a Republican and I'm not suggesting that Obama is equally bad, but just on environmental issues alone Obama is almost as bad as Palin. Seriously.

[Creideiki]

66. Yeah. Opening up more of Wyoming to coal mining is pretty sucky on the environmental front.

[peace frog]

34. He's a lot worse than I expected

and I knew when I voted for Obama that he was at least slightly to the right of center. The hope and change message was a powerful one and like so many others I foolishly followed it. They knew very well we wanted desperately to believe, so they pushed the false message and we voted for change. Fooled again.

[treestar]

8. Media will do anything to help republicans

[LaydeeBug]

9. Not if he starts fighting for us. I have hope that maybe he will. nt

[Golden Raisin]

38. His performance so far

has extinguished every hope I once had.

[scheming daemons]

13. Another FUD post that could have come straight from FR

[MADem]

20. It's tiring, isn't it?

I did think this was Democratic Underground....it sometimes seems more like "I HATE YOU, Barack Obama, you're a big POOP!" Underground.

Wish some of these folks would spare some scorn for the overpaid and underworked Congress--those guys who actually MAKE the laws....

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. You guys can keep shouting that from the rooftops, but it's less and less likely to stop

conversation. It might have worked before in some guilty way, but the voice of dissent will grow louder and louder as time goes by.

Your pointing fingers and claiming "RW'er! RW'er!" at anyone who is completely disenchanted is not longer effective. Why can't you guys see that?

[creon]

68. I agree

[MADem]

16. I listened to what all the candidates said--I didn't interpret or extrapolate, I listened to the

actual words coming out of all their mouths.

When people parse, there's a reason for it. I'm surprised that so many people who spend so much time involving themselves in politics are somehow stunned by anything Obama's said or done. He's pretty much sticking to his script, with the occasional deviations and slowdowns caused by events.

He wasn't my first choice, but I'll vote to reelect him. He sure as hell beats anything the other team can put up.

[AlabamaLibrul]

45. Parse this:

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.”

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option..."

"Scrap NAFTA, Senator Obama, or fix it?" - Keith Olbermann at the AFL-CIO debates

"Amend NAFTA... Our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street"

"There's no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended" (he talked about this a lot)

Excuse me but when the words coming out of his mouth is "There is no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended," I "parsed" that to mean we should amend or, in other terms, renegotiate NAFTA.

He ran as a flaming liberal and came into office a Conservadem. No amount of "parsing" arguments can change that.

[MADem]

63. OK....sure. I will bite.

Your first quote is entirely conditional ('if') and says "PROBABLY" smack dab in the middle of it, so off the table with that right away. You can only sign what Congress sends you.

Your second quote is one of those "Perfect being the enemy of the good" examples. You really think he should have walked away because he didn't get everything he demanded? Come on. That's just not mature.

Salient amplifying information: http://pub.mtholyoke.edu/journal/thesent/

Contained within the 2,393 pages of H.R. 3590 are provisions which are expected to expand health care coverage to include some 31 million currently uninsured Americans through the erection of a framework which facilitates enhanced government regulation of private insurers and a substantial increase in the number of health insurance options available to consumers. Noticeably absent among the alternatives available – however – will be a public option. In any case, several components of the recently inaugurated federal statute will inarguably go a long way in securing coverage for the most vulnerable Americans, in addition to increasing competence and transparency in the health care sector. Ultimately, statewide – and potentially regional - health insurance exchanges will be established


Maybe he'll get the Full Monty for you in his second term. Maybe he won't, it will depend, of course, on what Congress sends him. You do know that the pesky "public option" was waved about as the Achilles' Heel of the whole effort, the way to get the legislation fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it would be shot down there? It's a "state's right" thing, you see. MA has public health insurance, but that's because it's law in the state. The prevailing opinion is that each state has to go down that same road on their own.

Your NAFTA statement is fine and dandy, but there's nothing terribly declarative in it....and have you forgotten that Congress--not the President--makes law? That might be something else he'll get for you in his second term. We'll see.

He did NOT run as a "flaming" liberal--in fact, his courtship of "pray away the gay" preachers and his refusal to endorse the whole "marriage equality" effort to win the Carolina primary is the exact opposite of anything close to "flaming." Don't you remember that? Everyone jumped all over Bill Clinton around that time, as well, for comments about Jesse Jackson that were deliberately misinterpreted to try to make BC look like a racist. You have to wonder who primed the media pump there, Santa, maybe?

If Obama's No Marriage Equality stance didn't convince you that he was a corporate centrist who understands the importance of safety net social programs, all you had to do is look at his donor list. The Crown family of Chicago, up to their asses in the defense industry, all that Big Coal money....and those are just two off the top of my head. But hey, whatever. Know people by the company they keep.

People hear what they want to hear. He PARSED. You just didn't listen because you wanted to BELIEVE in all that HOPE stuff. And if you think that when a candidate talks tough, that everything they say is going to be word-for-word the way they lay it down, I have a bridge for sale at a great price. I mean, come on--Clinton ran on repealing the ban on gays in the military, but he ran into trouble with Congress and DOD....so he had to do the best he could with what he had, and the result was the less-than-optimal DADT (and it has taken all this time to get past that, but the day is finally upon us, and it would not be if Clinton had not taken that first, imperfect step).

I do think many people thought that the color of Obama's skin, and his youth (people didn't seem to realize that he was older than he looked--hardly a naive young idealist), and his "hipness," made him some kind of retro hippie/radical/lefty....but please. He went to Harvard Law. He was educated at one of the best private secondary schools in the nation...in HAWAII--hardly a tough, urban upbringing. He was thick as thieves with that creepy and corrupt Rezko fundraising fast food/real estate political wheeler-dealer/bundler, who was bringing in the corporate money for him in a big way, and doing the whole "favors-for-access" thing. His wife worked, at an extremely generous salary, for a corporation that is one of the largest sole-source suppliers to WALMART.

How much of a road map do you need? I mean, really!

In this day and age, most candidates have some corporate stink on them. The ones that win always do. He's not as pungent as some.

All that said, he never was a "flaming liberal"--not by a long shot. You just overlaid your own HOPEs and desires on him, because you wanted to BELIEVE--you bought the advertising, and you did not look under the hood. If you'd looked a bit closer, you'd have seen it. I saw it.

He wasn't my first choice, I supported another corporate centrist who prioritized social programs and the safety net. That said, I'll vote for Obama next time round, because he is BY FAR preferable to any viable alternative on the ballot.

[sammytko]

17. no, not in this household or extended family members - 11 of us!

[Silent3]

18. All I hoped for was better than Bush...

...and better than McCain with Palin an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency.

I got that much.

Yes, I know the standard litany of continued Bush policies under Obama, but if you don't think those things would actually be much worse with a Republican President, you seriously lack imagination. If you love screaming about how Obama is a Republican President, at least he's what a moderate Republican used to be, and not a teabagger-appeasing right-wing ideologue.

Would I have liked to seen better than we've gotten? Of course. I was originally for Clinton, then I started to like Obama more as the primary process dragged on and Clinton's campaign tactics soured my view of her. Now I find myself wondering if Clinton's willingness to play a little dirty sometimes might not be an asset just about now. It's hard for me to imagine her wasting so much time on futile attempted bipartisanship as Obama has.

[FBaggins]

23. Unfortunately... The nation's standards are higher than yours.

There's a great big gap between "better than Bush" and "good enough"

[Silent3]

26. The question in the OP was about "buyer's remorse"

In the 2008 Presidential election, there wasn't much better available that I could "buy". I'm not the kind of person who takes electability totally out of the equation in order to soothe my conscience, voting for more idealistic but less realistic candidates.

As for the nation's standards... this nation put Bush into office twice, which seems like a bafflingly inexplicable lack of standards to me.

Now if by "nation's standards" you mean what the nation needs, as opposed to what it's smart enough to vote for... yes, we need much better than we've got or, unfortunately, are likely to get any time soon.

[Ineeda]

19. I've been making calls for my county's Democratic Party

and I'm not hearing that at all. The people I'm talking to blame the Rethug/Tea Party 100% for what's going on and their support for President Obama is steadfast.

[FBaggins]

21. Nope. "Are" is present tense.

Buyers remorse began quite some time ago.

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. I guess I'm the only person on earth who openly admits to having regrets and lots of them so I can

answer this perhaps.

I don't regret voting for obama given that I don't think Clinton would have been any more to the left. I think mccain would have gotten us significantly deeper into wars and focused more on building border fences than higher priority issues. I don't think DADT would have passed.

[KittyWampus]

24. Only on DU & Daily Kos.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I mainly voted against McCain/Palin, thought it was cool to help get the first African American

into the Oval Office. I had high hopes for Obama, but low expectations when it came to progressive policies. Unfortunately, it worked out the way I had expected. Better than McCain and the crazy lady, but not really progressive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Not me. He was a "no-sale" when he said he was going to expand the FUBAR in Afghanistan.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Amonester]

30. Is there something we can do about it?

That is (or should be) the question.

http://october2011.org/freedomplaza

[dameocrat67]

31. I think Clinton would have governed like Obama, so no

I just think I had no dog in the fight once Edwards and Kucinich were gone. The problem is ALL dlc democrats not just Obama, who is one of them.

[kenny blankenship]

33. Buyer's Remorse? It was a GIFT!

[Bluerthanblue]

36. no one purchased President Obama- If you thought you did

then you have a BIG problem.

He isn't a thing- to be purchased or sold. The presidency isn't "ownership" of a person, it's a JOB- one that many people think is they could do 'so well'- but who aren't willing to give up their life to pursue.

:shrug:

un-rec'd for stupidity.

[Blasphemer]

44. Oh, the Presidency can and has been purchased. It is far more than just a "job".. nt

[dbonds]

58. You are right that we didn't buy Obama, but it has the feeling that someone did.

[gulliver]

37. Hillary would probably have handled debt ceiling terrorism better

I agree with the gist of what Maher's panel was saying. Hillary would have taken it to the emotional level it warranted, outrage.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[ellie]

40. No.

[Karmadillo]

41. Unfortunately, we're not the ones who bought him.

nt

[Little Star]

42. I think many are having buyer's remorse. k&r

[bvar22]

47. The Wall Street Bankers who actually bought Obama...

..certainly have no remorse.
They are delighted.

[CBGLuthier]

49. Careful or someone will call you a racist

Buying a black man. tsk. tsk. tsk....

[AnnieBW]

51. I am

I don't know if Hillary would have made a better Prez, though. The wingers would have been all over her, too.

[Rex]

56. No, the thought of John McCain as POTUS made me throw up a tiny

bit in my mouth. :(

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. not me because I never believed Obama or anyone else who would be treated as viable candidate was a

liberal in the first place. If one means by liberal someone who believes in the New Deal and the Great Society and expanding social democracy. I assumed and I do believe it to be true that he and anyone else likely to win the Democratic Party nomination would be "liberal" in the sense that many young Wall Street stock brokers are liberal. They would have a more liberal attitude about abortion and gay rights and would probably have a bit more enlightened attitudes about protecting the environment than people who don't even believe that global warming even exist. But when it comes to economy they would pretty much support a somewhat moderated form of neoliberal economics. When it comes to foreign policy, they would not be as extreme as the neoconservatives - but would assume a commitment to American lead global dominance. This is the dominant view held by the political class. Anyone treated as a credible contender for the Presidency would be expected to embrace that view or be labelled a fringe leftist.

[Raine]

60. Iam ... I actually believed all the hooey he spouted

maybe I wouldn't feel so betrayed if I hadn't believed in him so much. :-(

[creon]

67. No

Why should I?

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. I never fell for his rhetoric. It was all too schmaltzy to be the real deal.

:( Hope and change? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: PUHLEEEEZE. Geeeeeeez. What a joke.