Skip to main content

This diary stems from another diary posted here yesterday by JoanMar called, "I Failed Barack Obama!"  I read that diary and almost puked when I read this line from JoanMar:   "If we are honest with ourselves - real honest - we would admit that we are the ones failing Obama."  Since I had worked to both nominate and elect Obama, since I had pounded pavements to get votes for him, since I had contributed money to his campaign, since I had engaged in plenty of conversations with doubtful Democrats, Independents and even Republicans to convert them to Obama, since I had written lots of letters to editors and diaries since Obama was elected to aid the cause, I am left wondering:   how exactly have I failed Obama?  I guess my failure is that I really expected Obama to fulfill some of his campaign promises and to provide the kind of leadership that he promised us he had in him.

Let's review some of the key campaign/election promises that President Obama made and see how he has done on meeting them.  To those of you out there who are about to say--hey, give the guy a break, he's only been in office a little over 5 months--that has been taken into consideration here.  Here you will see mostly things that Obama HAS DONE in those months, so any criticism that he has not had sufficient time has no merit.  To make this a bit easier, I've gathered key Obama promises in clusters of key issues:

#1:  Obama promised to bring fresh, new faces to Washington since "change cannot occur with the same old faces in Washington,D.C."  

I think all will agree that this was a key campaign promise of Candidate Obama's, perhaps even his campaign theme and certainly a critical reason why millions of Americans voted for him rather than that stuffy, old and bitter Republican Senator who has been in Washington since the 1970's.

Note too that Obama has pretty much already selected people to his administration SO HE HAS HAD THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CAMPAIGN PROMISE. The "he's been in office only _ months" doesn't work here.   How has Obama done?  Well, recall that he did not even change the most important position in his government, that of Defense Secretary, KEEPING ON BUSH's hand-picked man, Robert M. Gates for the job.  So no change whatsoever there, it's Bush redeaux.  What about the military leadership running the ever increasing wars we have in the Middle East that have cost more than $1 trillion dollars according to Joe Stiglitz?  Not much change there either.  But Obama HAS selected a new general to head US forces in Afghanistan and he's a real doosey.  Obama's pick:  none other than General Stanley A. McChrystal. This is the same McChrystal who covered up and distorted Pat Tillman's death, even to the point of falsifying official records. From Wikipedia (relying on multiple sources) here is more on McChrystal and Tillman:

McChrystal was also criticized for his role in the aftermath of the 2004 death by friendly fire of Ranger and former professional football player Pat Tillman. The day after approving a posthumous Silver Star citation for Tillman that included the phrase "in the line of devastating enemy fire," McChrystal sent an urgent memo warning senior government officials not to quote the citation in public speeches because it "might cause public embarrassment" if Tillman had in fact been killed by friendly fire, as McChrystal suspected. McChrystal was one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation but the Army declined to take action against him.[3]

SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

The Los Angeles Times Julian E. Barnes even wrote an article entitled "General in Tillman case may lose star - The retired officer faces demotion for misleading investigators in the 2004 friendly-fire death of the Army ranger" but far from being demoted, McChrystal was promoted first by George W. Bush and then by his successor, Barack Obama.  

SOURCE:  http://articles.latimes.com/...

In addition to being recommended for discipline by the Pentagon itself, McChrstal was involved as the head of an infamous task force at an human rights hell-hole.  McCrystal headed task force 6-26 at Camp Nama--notorious for its human rights violations and prisoner abuse:

McChrystal's ... unit, Task Force 6-26, became notorious for its interrogation methods, particularly at Camp Nama, where it was accused of abusing detainees. After the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal became public in April 2004, 34 members of the task force were disciplined; five Army Rangers were ultimately convicted of prisoner abuse at Camp Nama.

SOURCE:  Wikpedia article on McChrystal cited above.  

A New York Times article indicates that Camp Nama--in direct violation of the Geneva and Torture Conventions--was even "off limits" to the Red Cross.  The article by Eric Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall also tells that:

"Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners, and at least 11 members have been removed from the unit, according to new figures the Special Operations Command provided in response to questions from The New York Times. Five Army Rangers in the unit were convicted three months ago for kicking and punching three detainees in September 2005. Some of the serious accusations against Task Force 6-26 have been reported over the past 16 months by news organizations including NBC, The Washington Post and The Times."

SOURCE:  http://www.nytimes.com/...

This diary is not a rehash of the infamous Camp Nama.  What is important here is that Barack Obama, full well knowing Gen. McCrystal's involvement as the head of Camp Nama and full well knowing the fact that McCrystal was at the heart of the Tillman controversy promoted and selected McCrystal to be his head general in Afghanistan.  

Returning to the issue of the faces in the Obama Administration, it is clear that most of them are  old Washington hands, 5 or 6 are Republicans, the rest are retreads.  Remember too that President Obama had picked Tom Daschle to a high cabinet post and wanted him to spearhead "health care reform" before Daschle went down in flames for not paying something like $200,000 in taxes and for having a chauffeur driven limousine that Daschle "forgot" to declare as income. Recall too that Obama had the time to pick Judd Gregg as his Commerce Secretary; Gregg has one of the most conservative and horrid records in the entire Senate and even voted against Obama's stimulus package.  

On the other hand, the number of "new" and liberal faces in the Obama administration are few.  Hilda Solis and Dr. Steven Chu are about the only ones.  Note too that there were NO POSITIONS for a true progressive like Howard Dean in the Obama administration (Obama wanted t.v. doctor Sandjay Gupta instead for Surgeon General).  Note too that 4 star general and former Commander of all NATO forces, Gen. Wesley Clark, who had graduated at the top of his class at West Point, received nothing from Obama despite a number of high military-national security positions open, many of which went to Republicans instead.  

So, it is clear in the area of bringing new, fresh faces to Washington, Obama failed the nation, we did not fail Obama.

#2:  Obama promised a transparent, open government.

I think we all recall that promise, again a key one that led lots of people to vote for the junior Senator from Illinois who only had 4 years of total experience on the national level (and 2 of those were spent running for the presidency).  How has the transparency promise worked out?

Remember in the past few weeks that the Obama administration, allied with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican all but in name Senator Joe Lieberman on a bill that would have kept torture pics out of the public AND would have trashed the key sunshine legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, that has been in place for over 40 years. So again Obama had time to do something; he just did the wrong thing.  Recall too that in the past few days that Obama has denied access of his White House visitor logs to the press even though he had criticized Bush and Cheney for doing the same thing.  

This whole issue has been treated at length by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez over at DemocracyNow and by their recent guest on the show, Glenn Greenwald:

JUAN GONZALEZ: As a candidate, Barack Obama had promised to run a more open and transparent government than his predecessor. And since becoming president, he has repeated those promises in executive orders and declarations, saying the secrecy of the Bush administration is over. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the President’s rhetoric is not being matched by policy.

In his first several months in office, Obama has embraced Bush administration justifications to keep secret key government information. Most recently, the Secret Service rejected requests from two organizations for public access to White House visitors logs. The logs document the West Wing meetings that have helped shape Obama’s policies on banking regulation, environmental policy, economic recovery and foreign affairs.

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit yesterday against the administration, seeking the release of the visits by coal company executives to the White House. And MSNBC reported that their broader request for White House visitor logs since Obama took office has also been denied.

AMY GOODMAN: The move is part of a pattern of secrecy by the Obama administration over the past several months. President Obama initially decided to release photos of prisoner abuse but later reversed course.

Today, the Washington Post is reporting the CIA is now pushing for the Obama administration to maintain the secrecy of significant portions of an internal account of the agency’s interrogation program that describe in graphic detail how the CIA handled its prisoners.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is debating whether to ignore an earlier promise to make public an investigation into a US air strike last month in Afghanistan that killed dozens of civilians.

For more, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald...legal blogger for Salon.com.  

...
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Glenn. Talk about President Obama and secrecy. Go through these issues one by one.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the first thing to note is that the pledge to end the Bush-era secrecy fetish and to bring transparency was not an ancillary promise of the Obama campaign; it was really central to everything that he said he was going to do, because secrecy was really the linchpin of all of the abuses of the Bush administration.

And yet, beginning in, and almost immediately,... in early February, when the Obama administration went into a federal court in a case brought by five victims of the torture and rendition program against a subsidiary of Boeing, which shipped them around the world, the Obama administration went into court and said, in response to questions from the judge, that it was going to adopt exactly the same Bush administration position on the state secrets privilege, which was really the primary tool the Bush administration used to shield its activities from any kind of disclosure or even judicial review for illegality. It shocked the judges on the appeals panel they didn’t even try to hide it, and civil libertarians, as well.

Beginning with that point, it became clear that with regard to virtually every single secrecy power that the Bush administration, to such great controversy, used, the Obama administration was going to replicate. It then asserted the same secrecy theories in cases challenging the legality of warrantless eavesdropping, of cases brought against Bush officials for illegal spying.

As you indicated, in the case of the torture photos, which two separate federal courts had said that FOIA, the forty-year-old transparency law, Freedom of Information Act, requires be disclosed, Obama first said that he would try to repeal that to the Supreme Court on the grounds that anything that looks—makes the United States look bad jeopardizes our national security. And then, once he realized he would probably lose in court, he actually got behind an amendment by Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to exempt the President and the Pentagon from the requirements of FOIA when it comes to all photographs dealing with detainee abuse.

And as you indicated...even domestically, they’re now starting to assert these broad secrecy theories, as well, with regard to things like—there are numerous coal plants that are leaking hazardous waste, and the Obama administration refused to say where they’re located.

And they now even refuse to give access to visitor logs, when, of course, one of the main controversies of the Bush-Cheney administration early on, pre-9/11, was Dick Cheney’s refusal to disclose with whom he was meeting while formulating energy policy. And Obama, the candidate, vehemently criticized that secrecy policy, and yet now is replicating it, as well. So it’s really transformed from isolated disturbing incidents into a clear pattern of obsessive secrecy.

JUAN GONZALEZ: ...in 2006 Obama, while on the campaign trail, criticized Dick Cheney’s secret energy meetings, and he said, quote, "When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it’s no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks." But on his first full day in office, the President issued these orders to agencies of the government that there had to be more transparency when it came to the Freedom of Information Act. And he said that all agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in the Freedom of Information Act. So, is this turnabout, especially with White House visitors now, astonishing to you?

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the reason why it’s sort of surprising is because, as I said, it was really—everybody remembers the controversy over what Dick Cheney did, in terms of asserting that...it was nobody’s business with whom he met in the White House. ...

there’s clear tension between what Obama said he was going to do as a candidate and what he ultimately is ending up doing as president, but in the case of the visitor logs, you can go back and look at statements—and you just identified one of them; there are several—where he very directly criticized the Bush administration position that these visitor logs are presidential records and therefore not subject to disclosure and transparency laws. Two courts have already rejected that theory. And so, he’s not only in tension with the principles that he enunciated as a candidate, he’s betraying a very specific position that he took while as a candidate, and I think that’s the reason why it’s so surprising.

SOURCE:  (edited down; it's a long interview and I encourage everyone to see/hear/read it all at Democracynow.org  Also, Glenn Greenwald discusses this, the transparency issue and other issues related to this diary at length in his blog over at salon.com).  

http://www.democracynow.org/...

#3:  Obama and the Wall St. Bailouts.

How about the economic fiasco?  Remember Obama belittling Sen. McCain and W. for being out of touch on the economy?  EVEN BEFORE OBAMA was in office, his hand picked man (and yes, Obama had time to pick his economic team well before taking office) Obama's man, Tim Geithner, worked with Bush's man, Paulson, to fashion TARP. So there was not an iota of difference between W's bailout proposals and Obama's.  Then, the Obama administration funneled billions to Wall St.  Obama has long been owned by Goldman Sachs (don't believe me?  Type "Hamilton Project" in Google and read the speech given by Sen. Obama addressing his friend "Bob" Ruben, CEO of Goldman, at the Firedoglake website) and of course they had their investment repaid in spades.  What has Obama done for average Americans and the working class other than deliver sweet talks?  Nothing.  The official unemployment rate is 9.4% and the underemployment rate (a more accurate record) is at 15%. Michigan's unemployment rate is 14.1%, California's 11.5%, Rhode Island, 12.1%, Oregon's 12.4%, Nevada's  11.3%, Florida's 10.2%.  Obama has done next to nothing to create new jobs. Note too that Obama's help to the states was quite minor, as I recall, less than $150 billion (a huge amount but much less than that given to Wall St.) and that help is short and running out soon.  As this is being written, states from Virginia to Wisconsin to California are instituting cutbacks, job cuts and cuts to social programs.  All of this will make the unemployment situation much worse in a short time.  Economist Roubini is forecasting unemployment to reach 12% next year with underemployment at almost 20%.  Again, Obama had time to do something:  he passed an economic stimulus bill BUT IT WAS NOT ENOUGH.  It was insufficient in conception.  Obama was warned about this at the time of the stimulus package creation by Joe Stiglitz, by Paul Krugman, by Samuelson, and by Roubini--but he continued with his band aid effort in the face of this expert analysis.  The reaction here at Dailykos?  Apologists attacked the messengers.  In truth, what we saw was a failure of leadership on Obama's part.  As in many other areas, Obama failed to show bold, decisive leadership, acting instead as if he had lost the election rather than having won it, and acting as if his party held a minority in Congress rather than the 60 seats it holds in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House.  

Before leaving the disastrous economic terrain of the Obama administration, let's look at NAFTA.  Recall that Candidate Obama especially during the primaries in union vote rich Pennsylvania, promised to reform the North American Free Trade Act.  He wanted to make it fairer, he said.  At the same time Obama was sweet talking voters, one of his key economic advisors was talking to the Canadian government.  Word leaked that the advisor assured the Canadians that Obama was just talking politics to get votes:  he really didn't mean what he said.  Obama slapped the economic advisor's wrist.  But in hindsight, it is clear that Obama outright lied to the people in the primaries and the election campaign to pander for votes. Obama has always been a complete free trader (again type in "Hamilton Project" and read the transcript at Firedoglake) and had no intention of changing NAFTA. He distorted his record and made promises he had no intention of keeping:  something Obama routinely does.

So Obama has failed average Americans, average working class Americans have not failed Obama.  Only Bob Reuben and Goldman Sachs are pleased with Obama on the economic front.

#4:  Obama as a "fierce defender" of gay rights.

Yes, those are Obama's own words but they belie his dismal record with regard to gay rights. Recall that Obama campaigned and promised that he would repeal DOMA and do away with Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Instead, he's done jackshit for gay people.  Note too that even some tentative steps forward (a frontpage diary at Daily Kos reports that the DOJ will meet with some gay leaders; and by executive order, Obama has ordered some same sex benefits to federal workers) have occurred only after gays have threatened to withhold money and votes from the Democratic Party.

In a long interview with Cleve Jones, once an aide to Harvey Milk, Amy Goodman explores this issue in depth:

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s promise to work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Wednesday came one week after his administration filed a controversial legal brief supporting DOMA, an action which greatly disappointed activists fighting for marriage equality.

In a strongly worded letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, the president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said, quote, "I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones."

The President also has been criticized for not pushing more strongly for an end to the military’s discriminatory "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. Taken together, the administration’s actions have angered a number of gay rights activists. Some prominent voices in the community have decided not to attend a gala LGBT fundraiser for the Democratic Party next week, which Vice President Biden is expected to attend.

...

Cleve Jones, Welcome to Democracy Now!

...

AMY GOODMAN: There has been a lot of action in the Obama administration in the last few days. Is it really because there’s this big fundraiser planned and some of the leading gay rights activists and donors are pulling out?

CLEVE JONES: ...I think the people pulling out of the fundraiser is part of it. I think the momentum building for the march on October 11th is part of it. I think that they understand that the anger and frustration is not diminishing, it’s getting much stronger. We’re really baffled by this. You know, we voted in enormous numbers for Obama. We want very much to believe that he has our best interest, as well as the entire country’s, in his heart. But he seems to be continuing this really hurtful policy of doling out increments of rights, fractions of equality. And I think our movement is really beyond that at this point. We’re tired of this state-by-state, county-by-county, city-by-city struggle for fractions of equality. And this latest thing, this is really just crumbs. ...

AMY GOODMAN: One of those who was there was Tammy Baldwin, well-known lesbian Congress member. She will not be boycotting the fundraiser. She said she’ll be there, but she’ll bring the concerns of those who are boycotting. And she, too, is deeply concerned.

This memo that he signed, it was late in the day. Not to be confused with an executive order, it means whatever of the limited rights that were granted expire on the day President Obama leaves office. And we’re not talking about healthcare here for federal employees who are gay or lesbian—visiting rights, I guess he said, to the hospital.

CLEVE JONES: Well, it feels like Clinton all over again. ...Bill Clinton gave wonderful speeches and told of his vision of a country, a vision that he claimed included us, and what we got out of that was the Defense of Marriage Act and "don’t ask, don’t tell." So, what we’re getting now from President Obama are flowery proclamations, probably a few key appointments for some of our more powerful community members, and very little for ordinary people.

And on this issue of healthcare, I think it’s ironic that this memorandum does not extend healthcare benefits. But that’s also an example of an area where my community could be very helpful, I think, in helping to build support for the President’s healthcare package. My community cares deeply about access to healthcare. So much of the impetus for marriage rights has really come out of our experience with the epidemic, so we certainly would be a staunch ally in his efforts to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans. So I feel that he’s burning some bridges rather rapidly.

...
AMY GOODMAN: And now, decades later, you are organizing this march on Washington. You were also the co-founder of the AIDS Quilt. And talk about the significance of that and how it’s led into this mass march.

CLEVE JONES: Yes, I’ve had a lot of experience organizing protests and demonstrations. ...

I think it’s important to go to Washington. And we’re going back on October 11th. We’re not taking a quilt. We’re not having a rock concert. It’s not going to be Lollapalooza. It’s going to be a demonstration, a protest. It is not against President Obama. It is for equality. And it’s for shifting the strategy.

Back when Harvey Milk was alive, we had no choice with the strategy. There were only a few pockets in the entire country where we could gain any rights at all. When I came out of the closet, it was a felony to engage in sexual behavior with another person of the same sex. People went to prison. People committed suicide. People were arrested regularly and prosecuted. For young people, it may be bizarre to hear this, but it was illegal for us to dance. Two people of the same gender were forbidden by law from dancing. You could be arrested for that. So, in the ’70s, we took whatever we could get. In a small college towns like Ann Arbor or Madison, you know, you might be able to get some kind of job protection.

But that was a long time ago, and we’re not putting up with that anymore. We want full equality, which I define as being equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all fifty states. It’s the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. That’s what we want.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Cleve Jones, who’s organizing a mass march for gay equality on October 11th in Washington, DC.

SOURCE:  http://www.democracynow.org/...

Maybe your response to the above is "so what, I'm only interested in the big issues."  o.k.  What's he done for single payer?  Obama has himself taken it off the table.  Obama called a White House conference on "health care reform" 2 months ago and failed to invite a single proponent of single payer.  Months ago the man he chose to be his point man on health care reform, Tom Daschle, had to pull out because of ethical and legal failures on taxes.  And he-- like Max Baucus-- is paid and owned by the insurance companies and big pharmacy.  Unfortunately, don't expect much on health care reform from Obama.

I could go on to name other specific issues and Obama's flip-flops on them.  Like FISA.  Or Obama's promise to take lobbyists out of his administration.  Remember that one?  Then you'll also remember the "exceptions" he made that allowed him to do just that, effectively breaking his promise.  Or I could talk about Obama's promise to follow the law and then look at his administration's failure to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing related to torture.    Regarding torture and Gitmo and renditions, all still continue under Obama.  It's just that the torture has been farmed out to black sites in other countries.  Gitmo being closed?  The Iraq war being ended?  Nope.  Obama has expanded the wars in the Middle East to include Pakistan and even his "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq talks about residual forces of tens of thousands of troops.

So, when one looks at facts and issues one can see why lots of people are pissed off at Obama's performance.  Note too that his numbers are starting to drop.  Just a week or so ago his approval rating at DailyKos was 69%; today it is 64%.  His disapproval ratings was 29%; today it is 32%. (NOTE:  these numbers today changed with Obama losing 2 more points.  They now stand at 63-33).   The reason for this is not because people think they have failed Obama, but because they believe Obama has failed them.  He is too timid, shows too little fight and acts like he lost the election.  Mr. Obama you ARE OUR President, you have 60 Democratic Senators, you have a huge majority in the House.  Please start showing "leadership with vigor" in Kennedy's phrase, and not timidity, hesistancy, and inaction.  

UPDATE #1:

Michael Moore's website has a good story up about the Obama administration failing to disclose coal dump locations--violating its oath of transparency.  Here's part of the article which comes from the Guardian:

Administration turns down senator's request to make public the list of 44 dumps, which contain arsenic and metals

By Suzanne Goldenberg / Guardian

A rift has opened between the Obama administration and some of its closest allies - Democratic leaders and environmental organisations - over its refusal to publicly disclose the location of 44 coal ash dumps that have been officially designated as a "high hazard" to local populations.

The administration turned down a request from a powerful Democratic senator to make public the list of 44 dumps, which contain a toxic soup of arsenic and heavy metals from coal-fired electricity plants, citing terrorism fears.  The refusal has put the Obama administration at odds with some of its strongest supporters over an emerging area of environmental concern in America.

...
Some 44 of the most dangerous coal ash dumps are known to be located in populated areas in 26 separate locations. The high hazard designation means that a breach, like the one in Tennessee, could cause death and significant property damage if the sludge spills into surrounding neigbourhoods. But that is all the adminstration will disclose.

"Right now we have a blanket gag order," Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who heads the Senate environment and public works committee told a press conference last week.

"We are losing what we cherish in America: the citizens' right to know."

...
"These waste sites may be environmental and health hazards. But they are unlikely terror targets," said the Knox group of newspapers. "As the muckety-mucks in Washington know, the real danger of disclosure is from angry Americans. If citizens realise they are downstream from fragile mountains of gunk, they will demand action and accountability."

Environmental groups see the gag order on the coal ash sites as a betrayal of Obama's promise, during his speech to staff on his first day in the White House in January, of a new era of openness in government.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said in the speech. "That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known."

...

Source:  (emphasis added)http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=14085

UPDATE #2:

Christine Quinn, Speaker of the New York City Council had a strong letter on GLBT rights in the New York Times.  She points out the contradictions between Candidate Obama's promises and President Obama's Justice Department:

Obama and Gays: The Time for Equal Rights Is Now
Published: June 19, 2009
To the Editor:

Re "A Bad Call on Gay Rights" (editorial, June 16), about the Obama administration’s brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act:

The administration’s actions and rhetoric on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues fly against the promises made during Barack Obama’s historic campaign.

The Justice Department’s comparison of same-sex marriages to incestuous relationships is an unnecessary and deliberate sidestep to the fundamental question regarding the Defense of Marriage Act — that it has effectively legalized discrimination since its passage.

The president has talked about the need to lower the temperature on heated rhetoric and for Americans to find common ground on controversial issues. Sadly, his message has not been received by his Justice Department. Instead, it chooses hurtful language and political expediency.

We are a country that believes in the basic fundamentals of freedom, and we need to continue to extend this ideal to all communities. The time for equal rights is now, the time for the president to keep his heartfelt promise to us is today, and the time for legalized discrimination is over.

SOURCE:  http://www.nytimes.com/...

UPDATE #3:

Glenn Greenwald calls the Obama administration "nothing short of abysmal" on Gay rights, civil liberties, secrecy and on the Obama Justice Department:

"...those who focus on gay issues have been understandably furious with the administration, and in the areas of civil liberties, secrecy, and his Justice Department generally, the administration has been nothing short of abysmal."

SOURCE:  http://www.salon.com/...

Originally posted to fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:43 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  That took alot of work (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, BigAlinWashSt, fflambeau
      I hope people are smart enough to recommend it.
    •  EPIC FAIL of a diary. (0+ / 0-)

      I guess my failure is that I really expected Obama to fulfill some of his campaign promises

      As of May, courtesy of Brainwrap:

      obameter-7

      Your failure is that you seem incapable of recognizing the amazing extent to which he has done so.  All you see is your own petty little agenda, and post "Are we there yet?" diaries ad nauseum.

      #1:  Obama promised to bring fresh, new faces to Washington since "change cannot occur with the same old faces in Washington,D.C."

      President of the United States:

      barack obama

      Attorney General of the United States:

      Eric Holder

      Secretary of Energy:

      Steven Chu

      Secretary of Education:

      Arne Duncan

      Secretary of Homeland Security:

      Janet Napolitano

      Secretary of Labor:

      Hilda Solis

      Secretary of Commerce:

      Gary Locke

      Secretary of Agriculture:

      Tom Vilsack

      Secretary of Health and Human Services:

      kathleen sebelius

      Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:

      DonovanShaunLS

      Secretary of Veterans' Affairs:

      458px-Eric_Shinseki_official_Veterans_Affairs_portrait

      Nominee for Supreme Court Justice:

      SoniaSotomayor2009robe7crop

      Seems pretty fresh to me.  Or did you interpret the promise to mean that he was going to fire every single person who worked for George W. Bush in any capacity, and would not hire anyone who had ever worked in Washington before?  How fortunate we have a President more competent than his detractors.  

      What about the military leadership running the ever increasing wars we have in the Middle East

      What "ever increasing wars"?  What planet are you living on?  There is one war in the Middle East in which the United States is engaged (Iraq) - Afghanistan and Pakistan are not in the "Middle East" - and we already have a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq laying out the timetable for withdrawal.  

      Remember too that President Obama had picked Tom Daschle to a high cabinet post and wanted him to spearhead "health care reform" before Daschle went down in flames

      He did not "go down in flames" - the Senate was fully ready to confirm him, and no one would have given a damn after that.  The President had him withdraw after learning Daschle had deliberately kept him in the dark about his tax issue, and then publicly apologized for his mistake in initially trusting him.  How many other Presidents were that quick on the draw to take responsibility instead of playing the usual spin games?  

      #2:  Obama promised a transparent, open government.

      And has delivered the most transparent, open government in generations.  But since you still can't waltz into Langley during your afternoon stroll and peruse the day's covert operations logs, you apparently believe yourself to be behind the Iron Curtain.

      #3:  Obama and the Wall St. Bailouts.

      How dare our President fail to allow millions of jobs to disappear overnight!  The cascading failure of civilization would have been a great thing for government transparency - after all, if it ain't there, you can see through it!  Good for the environment, too: With a drastically reduced population and nonexistent industry, pollution would be limited to campfires and crematories.  Probably not so great for women's rights and gay rights when the Republic of Gilead rose up to fill the vacuum.

      Obama as a "fierce defender" of gay rights.

      And by that I assume he means actually working to protect and extend them, not taking symbolic stands to please activists at all costs.  Once again, we are fortunate to have a President far more competent than his detractors.

      Glenn Greenwald calls the Obama administration "nothing short of abysmal" on Gay rights, civil liberties, secrecy and on the Obama Justice Department

      Glenn Greenwald is an anti-Obama troll, as are you, and you both post lying, deceptive bullshit by the bushel.  Your diaries are sickening, and drip with hate and mendacity.  Either your claims to have supported the Obama campaign are outright lies, or your commentary is the raving of an obsessed fan who can't get over the difference between reality and fantasy.

      o.k.  What's he done for single payer?

      Single payer is not an issue, it's a proposal.  Healthcare is an issue, and what he's doing about it is working tirelessly (and I mean that literally - the man is practically fusion-powered) to bring about universal healthcare.  As far as I can tell, what you're doing about it is attacking and belittling Barack Obama - all you seem to have done since he took office, if not before.

      "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

      by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:39:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  America Loves Obama (14+ / 0-)

    If that is so, then we must tend our own gardens then.

    by Otherday on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:46:00 PM PDT

  •  And Obama claimed he preferred single payer... (15+ / 0-)

    but says it's not politically possible.  I cited an article that says it's the only solution.  This is news because it was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

    If this bastion of capitalism can be for this plan, just why isn't Obama even trying.

    Here's the Diary.

    •  Because one opinion piece in the WSJ doesn't mean (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pascal, csquared, jemman, MnplsLiberal

      that there isn't a lot of opposition. Moving directly to single payer is hard with the amount of inertia that there is. Look at how much of a fight there is to get public option through Congress. Do you really think he'd be able to slam single payer through? Sometimes you have to get what you can rather than shoot for the top and end up failing so miserably that it reduces the chances of other stuff passing.

    •  but says single payer is not politically possible (7+ / 0-)

      He twisted plenty of Liberal arms, and made threats, to get his  war funding. Why can't he threaten the Blue-Dogs who refuse to support single payer the same way? Could it be because he's also a Blue-Dog?

      If it takes 183 times to make it work, the ticking time bomb will already have exploded by then.

      by William Domingo on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:56:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What have you done to advance single payer? Do (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urizen, pascal, Bene Gesserit1

      you understand how this government works?
      Do you understand that single payer is not a change that one man can make?  Senator Obama told you during the campaign that you could not work to put him in office and then go about your life for the next four years.  Did you hear him?

      Have you called your Senators and Representatives? How many emails have you sent to the cable channels/Congress in support of single payer?

      Did you attend the first set of meetings to arrange the June 27th activities in support of Health Care reform?  

      You have been invited to participate in governing.  Have you RSVPed?

      Hate, lower taxes for the rich, increased profits for corporations, love of the flag image,and guns; what else do Republicans stand for?

      by Blogvirgin on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:41:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A politician can't keep his promises? (7+ / 0-)

    I remember when Bush promised to maintain a humble foreign policy and balance the budget. Obama's not much of an improvement so far.

  •  President Obama has not failed me. If anyone (21+ / 0-)

    is guilty it is entrenched congress and higher powers.  

    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

    by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:49:18 PM PDT

    •  Look at the number of INSIDERS in his admin. (12+ / 0-)

      That is a telling sign, wouldn't you say?

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:50:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Congress, what's congress??? lol n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  Part of the President's job . . . (8+ / 0-)

      . . . is whipping Congress. Recall that the President has the most soft power of any political figure in the United States.

      Throwing your hands in the air and saying, "Oooo, it's that dirty Congressional leadership!" is admitting that President Obama isn't up to this critical task.

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:11:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't agree. Are you saying the president (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sleepwalkr

        is weak?  He doesn't have the charisma, stamina, or 'mojo' to move the congress?  Then who is really in charge?

        Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

        by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:24:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no...what I read is why isn't the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, Johnny Q

          President using those traits...is it because he isn't up to the task...

          "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." - President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

          by justmy2 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:28:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm confused. (4+ / 0-)

          Didn't you just say "Don't blame Obama, he has no power!"  But now you're saying that Obama is really in charge?

          I think it is not possible to disagree with the statement that Obama has the biggest bully pulpit in the world.  I, for one, would like to see him actually use it for things that mattered.

          Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

          by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:28:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm trying to get to the bottom of who is really (0+ / 0-)

            in charge in american politics.  Is it the president?  There must have been a reasn why te people were for him.  but all the reasons we were for him, don't seem to translate into the change we want in congress.

            Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

            by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:32:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  His performance was easily predictable. (7+ / 0-)

              For me it crystallized when he told us to STFU about Roberts.  He actually said, and I quote,

              I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning.  But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

              It's like he was born yesterday.  He actually believed that the actions of the Republicans was going to depend upon any precedent set by the Democrats!  That he has run into the buzzsaw that is Republican obstructionism and Democratic capitulation is hardly surprising.

              Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

              by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:42:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Corporate lobbyists. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thethinveil

              The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

              by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jemman

              Have you heard of checks and balances?  It means there is no one person, or even one body, in charge of American politics. No single person to blame.

              "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

              by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:57:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yet President Obama gets it all. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

                by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:09:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That is how it is supposed to work (0+ / 0-)

                Instead the bully pulpit has extraordinary power by comparison to a disorganized congress.

                BOTH of the parties have to unite often to over power the president.

                Sometimes it can be the bureaucracy and media that can over power the presidency.

                He is the leader of the Dems he has to lead on these issues he has neglected his responsibility on even his own campaign promises let alone looking out for Democrats and Progressives.

                So since he ain't steping up to the plate and in many cases moving against us on numerous policies some of which are expected some unexpected.

                In those times the grassroots has to find new leaders and work with those leaders to push Obama and make him turn the US government policy in a progressive as we turn the american People more progressive and active.

                "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                by thethinveil on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:49:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You tell me. (9+ / 0-)

          I think he handicapped himself with his bipartisanship fetish on the stimulus, making it a much less effective package than it could've been.

          The Administration's abject failure to get the funding for decommissioning Guantanamo Bay is a direct consequence of the failure to whip Congress.

          And he's relying on Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to rescue him from following FOIA.

          Does this sound like a President with an effective working relationship with Congress to you?

          The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

          by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:31:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What power is higher than POTUS, Publicy? (6+ / 0-)

      And remember that Democrats control congress overwhelmingly.  There just is no leadership, no will, no fight at all from them on the people's business.  They do have some fight to finance overseas wars, though.

      "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

      by fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:13:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They don't represent the people, congress. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety, deePA

        they represent special interests.  the president has a number of things he wants to accomplish, with popular support from the people.  All the polls say so, yet the congress, who is elected by the people, don't want to pledge their allegiance.  they side with corporations.

        Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

        by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:22:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Country is controlled by Robber Barons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        publicv



        The Country has been under the de-facto control of the powerful International Banking dynasties ever since 1913, when Congress gave away its own duly assigned powers, and the private "Federal" Reserve Bank Monopoly was setup, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, to control our Nation's money.

        The side effects of this was a Banker usury financed Wall Street corruption of our government, and the ascension of globalism "World-wide Empire" policies that has stolen the wealth away from Americans, and transfered it into the pockets of profiteers and wealthy industrialists.

        Some of the known owners and profiteers behind this corrupt "Federal" Reserve system are:

        Rothschild Bank of London
        Rothschild Bank of Berlin
        Warburg Bank of Hamburg
        Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
        Lazard Brothers of Paris
        Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
        Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
        Goldman, Sachs of New York
        Lehman Brothers of New York
        Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York


        A coterie of Rockefeller/Morgan/Rothschild financed "Think Tanks" then grew up around this Nation and succeeded in promoting and indoctrinating the political class into championing plainly corrupt policies totally against the public interest.  NAFTA, GATT is one such example, and well as the whole Orwellian Military-Industrial Complex.

        Corruption became enshrined and Institutionalized within our government operations by these private money powers:

        "These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."
              --Theodore Roosevelt, 1919









        _________________
        "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for
        people of good conscience to remain silent."
             --Thomas Jefferson

        by FreeSociety on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:22:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Congress (0+ / 0-)

        Dems control the House overwhelmingly, yes.  In the Senate the margin is much thinner.  That has been a problem.  I'd also add Harry Reid in there as probably a bigger problem.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:33:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So you think Obama isn't calling the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      publicv, thethinveil

      shots....

      well maybe that is the problem...

      "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." - President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

      by justmy2 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:26:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama doesn't call the shots (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fishwars, publicv

        The oligarchy does. Obama can effect some change but he can't touch their money. Which is why we bailed them out after they lost all that money gambling in the casino, ermm... I mean in the financial markets.

        In every cry of every man/In every infant's cry of fear/In every voice, in every ban/The mind-forged manacles I hear.

        by MnplsLiberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:52:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A President has the power - if they use it (0+ / 0-)

          A President has the power to bring a halt to Military aggression and Foreign Occupations; To uphold the Rule of Law without favoritism (Bush & Cheney);  and to reassert Constitutional methodology and constructs thus bypasssing the corrupt Oligarchs demands.

          Most Presidents are too corrupted, and lack either the courage or the integrity to even try.  Those who would, are typically prevented from getting the media exposure to win, and when they do they are just only sneered at by the major Corporate controlled media.

          But the power resides in the White House to make fundamental change. But to do so they cannot then pick decidely status-quo advisors and surround themselves with BankMonopoly/WallStreet/War-Establishment affiliates (Obama).  

          It is that development reflects their true intentions -- not their words.

          _________________
          "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for
          people of good conscience to remain silent."
               --Thomas Jefferson

          by FreeSociety on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 08:52:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, greeseyparrot, Johnny Q


      Obama chose to compose his own cabinet around nothing but the "higher powers".

      The corrupt Banking usury Monopoly is now being given even more powers (not less), because Obama's "financial reform" was designed by a Federal Reserve-Goldman Sachs swindler, Tim Geithner.  The Fed now has the power to buy out whole Corporations (as well as run the money supply into the ground with no checks or balances, loot the public money at will, and destroy the U.S. Dollar).

      He also chose to bring back from the dead Bush & Cheney' outgoing Defense Secretary to continue 8 more years of corrupt Wars, Occupations, based on lies, and Trillions of dollars wasted away overseas (as well as mass-violence) into the pockets of War Profiteers.

      Obama hand picked the Foxes and put them in charge of guarding the Hen House. Instead of selecting government reformers, he handed the keys over to the Elite higher powers, to continue the selling away and hollowing out of this Country.

      _________________
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for
      people of good conscience to remain silent."
           --Thomas Jefferson

      by FreeSociety on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:54:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was hoodwinked by the contrast between (19+ / 0-)

    Bush and Obama.  At least Bush's actions versus Obama's speeches and promises.  Now it has become clear to me that there is a machine running our country and Obama had joined that machine and never intended to disrupt it.  

    "Peace cannot be achieved by force. It can only be achieved by understanding" Albert Einstein

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:50:50 PM PDT

  •  Ok (21+ / 0-)

    So what do you want to do about these things?  I don't agree that the public or activists have "failed Obama".  However, I do see a failure among all of us (which includes myself) to continue the work that got us the big wins in November.  The work doesn't end with winning that election.  That's where it begins.  If we want policy changes we'll have to use what we built over the last two years:  the amazing grass roots organizational structures that won us the White House and congress in 2008.  We must make our case to the public as well as to our reps, senators and the President.  I actually think it's more crucial to reach out to the public, but both are invaluable.  If you're unhappy then lets do something constructive with that.  I think we've all vented enough for now.  It's time to talk about what to do next.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 08:54:50 PM PDT

    •  I agree wit that, but the failure starts (9+ / 0-)

      right here with the 'you didn't get a pony' idiots, who obviously care only about slogans, not policy. If we don;t face them down--we all lose.

      "The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." - Mike Gravel

      by Wilberforce on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:00:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'idiots' (9+ / 0-)

        Again, how is that constructive?  We all need each other.  Sure, there are people here who are knee-jerk defensive about the president.  They're often responding to comments that seem just as knee-jerk and pointless though.  There's nothing to be gained through this polarization of our community.  We all need to take a step back and some deep breaths and remember why we're all here.  There's some amazing talent and energy among all of us.  Let's not waste our time with calling one another names and attacking each other on ideology.  Supposedly we're all Democrats (or we were...I'm dismayed to see some folks planning to abandon ship).  Let's talk constructively about these problems and put our heads together to find solutions.  I can't imagine what will be helped by splintering our coalition, pushing liberals and progressives into the political wilderness.  We have power now.  Lets use it.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:07:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My solution is here: (3+ / 0-)

          http://www.docudharma.com/...

          As for the Democrats; they're done. Insert fork.

          "The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." - Mike Gravel

          by Wilberforce on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:11:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Umm I'd be lying if I said I wasn't annoyed with (0+ / 0-)

            the democrats now but to say they are done is just a tad premature.

            •  Really? What will it take for you ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BigAlinWashSt

              "The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." - Mike Gravel

              by Wilberforce on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:17:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                awcomeon

                Done how? lol As long as Barack Obama is a democrat they are far from done... I'm sorry to disappoint you but the president is still very well liked in the real world.

              •  Massive electoral reform (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not ready to quit the Dems until I see changes in the system that make me believe that a third party has better than a snowball's chance in hell of winning/being even remotely relevant on a national level.

                Cause until that happens all quitting the Dems does is help the Republicans.

                Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

                by Whimsical on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:33:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I don't understand (9+ / 0-)

            If you believe this:

            As for the Democrats; they're done. Insert fork.

            ...then why are you here, at a blog that is dedicated to electoral victory for Democrats?

            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

            by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:15:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because docudharma is lame (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buhdydharma, awcomeon, FistJab

              At the cost of sounding like a bitch but they only come over here because they don't have enough traffic over there.

            •  Remember this is a Democrat site (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whimsical, Triscula, skohayes, thethinveil

              The key remains which Democrats and which policies? That is the essence of the initiating diary. It is a lament that advocates withdrawal, which is a weak negotiating tool - if you do not do what we want, we will withdraw. The problem is that when we use this tool, we have nowhere to go. So we are in a lose-lose situation. Without a coherent and forceful opposition to the trends listed in the beginning of this diary; without party organization and actual power; elected Democrats will continue to ignore large percentages of the voting population. This means accountability to a percentage of voters, and if we say we will vote for you regardless of your policy as long as you're a Democrat and not a Republican - Progressive Democrats have no leverage.

              So it remains that Progressives have to do more than grassroots to get out the vote - Progressives have to get themselves hired as key staffers, advisors and policymakers, legislative analysts and attorneys, think-tank scholars, military professionals, journalists of record; whatever. Because until there is a more than 50% population of Progressives - or Progressives control key legislative and executive positions in the government and the military, the Democratic Party will simply remain a lose-lose proposition.  

              •  Recognizing the problem is the first step (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wilberforce, Johnny Q, thethinveil

                Joncleir, this diary is an effort to show others Obama's failings.  Just as with AA, it is necessary to first be aware of the problem because denial is very frequent, look at the apologists here.

                So the very first step is to analyze the situation and recognize we progressives have a problem.  That was my goal.  What steps are to follow are a completely different matter.

                I personally will do this:

                1.  not vote for any individual just because he has a D next to his/her name.  That person must be a progressive.  If the person who is progressive is an independent (like Bernie Sanders) or even a Republican, I would vote for that person.  So, progressive comes first, not Democrat.
                1.  Other posters here have noted that part of the institutional problem is the 2 party system.  Both parties know this:  they have their periods out of office, but then come right back to "feather their nests".  What we need is a more European style system with more parties.
                1.  I personally will support the formation of a progressive, national party whether that might be called Greens or the Progressive party.  I will also support its national nominee, even against Obama, since he has been a complete and utter disappointment to progressive causes.  Gore Vidal long ago wrote that America has but 1 party:  the corporate party and it has two wings, Democratic and Republican.  Vidal was right.  We need to change that.  That can best come about at the state level first.  There are state progressive parties out there in many states.  Support them.  
                1.  I will NOT give money or time or effort any longer to Obama or the national Democratic party he represents.  My reasons are obvious in this diary.  I think people who think they can still work within the 2 party system are deluded: it's very old, it works very well for the 2 parties and their members but not for the nation.  It's time for something new.  This is NOT to say I will not work for progressive Democrats.  Russ Feingold, for example, is up for relection (his 4th term as senator) in 2010 and I will support him in every way possible.  He's a true mensch, Obama is not.  

                "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

                by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:02:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We have to know the terrian on which we fight (0+ / 0-)

                  and when Pro-Obama progressive forces line up against ACTUAL progressive change - the ignorant become counter productive.

                  People need to know that Obama will not look out for them because he isn't.

                  And that they have to recognize that before they can join the fight and stand up for themselves and progressive causes.  

                  "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                  by thethinveil on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:12:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I think people who think a 3rd party (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TiaRachel, skohayes

                  can be even remotely relevant on the national level under the system as it currently stands are deluded.

                  Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

                  by Whimsical on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:35:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Goals (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skohayes

                  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is feeling like a coordinated effort from some members of this community (Docudharma regulars?) to split Progressives off from the Democratic Party.  Do I have that wrong?

                  If it's true I think it might be instructive to remember how painful it was for us, as liberals, and the nation as a whole for the eight years following the 2000 election.  A lot of lefties chose to support the Green Party candidate that year.  We sure could have used those votes in Florida.  

                  When we divide our strength we all lose.  When we work against each other we're not working for the policy goals we care about.  We need everyone, and not just for votes.  We need a strong, united coalition so we can organize and push congress and the president for what we want.  We also need the inner strength to recognize that losing a battle doesn't mean losing the war.  We can't give up after a mere 6 months.

                  "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                  by Triscula on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 05:04:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Some good points Triscula BUT (0+ / 0-)

                    You write, "When we divide our strength we all lose.  When we work against each other we're not working for the policy goals we care about."

                    You make it sound like progressive Democrats are alone the cause of "divisiveness".  What about Max Baucus?  What about Lieberman?  They're not working for us, they're working for industries and corporate groups and they certainly don't work together with the progressive elements of Congress.

                    Your arguments cut both ways.  Obama himself doesn't seem to work with progressive Congresspeople but against them.  

                    "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

                    by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:00:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Your first point (0+ / 0-)

                  is a good one. However, for those of us who live in red states (I live in KS, for example), we don't usually get to choose between progressive and not progressive Democrats. We get to choose between a Democrat and a right wing Republican.
                  What is the solution? Is it better to have a Blue Dog that votes 50% of the time with Democrats, or a Republican who votes against the Democrats all the time?

                  Point 2 and 3, yes more parties would make the system run a little more evenly, but that takes lots of money and lots of years, most 3rd party candidates don't last that long.

                  Point 4- I haven't donated any money to the national party since before the election. I donate to specific candidates that I think can win, and have the progressive values that are the most important to me.
                  More and better Democrats is the only practical way to move the party left.

              •  Yes! Well said but . . . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wilberforce

                where in the case of health care 76% of America want a public option yet we STILL have trouble finding consensus - clearly this is an issue of our tactics not the size of our forces. With this issue it is the lack of accountability of Democrats.

                The Vote isn't enough - it is a psychological condition that comes from living in the Beltway where, money and lobby influence, and Media and Bureaucratic inertia that says that it is acceptable for the issurance companies to dictate the conversation not the people - this is not a left right issue here this is a violation of the most basic set of democratic mechanisms - the people decide.

                Campaign Finance Reform should be a goal as we convince more people and gain their support.  

                "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                by thethinveil on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:09:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Not so quickly now. (5+ / 0-)

          The first step in extricating ourselves from the present political quagmire is understanding just how we got into it.

          There was more than enough evidence for plenty of us to decide that Obama's "Hope" and "Change" was a just a quadra-annual rerun.  A lot of people didn't want to hear that then.  I suppose it's a hard lesson to learn.  Nevertheless, learn it they must.  And coddling their feelings about it isn't going to help.

          Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

          by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:34:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Quagmire (5+ / 0-)

            I think a lot of people would strongly disagree that we're in a quagmire.  Additionally, I don't think much is gained by scolding people about being hopeful about the person they supported in an election.  If they're unhappy or concerned enough to work for change then they already understand that casting a vote for even a very good candidate isn't enough to press the issues that matter to them.  Giving people shit about someone they supported (and probably still strongly support) is a distraction.  We need to work together and support each other.

            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

            by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:41:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Being a dick is one thing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nippersdad

              Not giving them an easy pass is another.  Especially after all the shit that's been rained down upon the heads of anybody who dared to suggest that Obama isn't the best thing since sliced bread.  A little humility is in order.

              Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

              by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:45:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  *shrug* (4+ / 0-)

                I guarantee that the sentiment is identical among those folks you're referring to.  So now what?  We're divided.  I don't see how that's beneficial to anyone.  We're all grown up enough to understand that advancing good policy is more important than satisfying our personal pride or landing a good zinger against someone you've clashed with.  I really think it's time to step away from that stuff.  It's not going to get better until we agree to set it aside and get some work done.

                "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:50:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now we recognize that Obama is a politician. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  azrefugee, NCgrassroots, Johnny Q

                  How that got lost is beyond me.  This is, of course, not all bad.  It means he is susceptible to all the pressures that implies.  Adulation is not one of those.  Bitching, moaning and failure to show up at fundraisers on the other hand ...

                  And that is what is going on right now.  When people say "I'll vote for the Nader 9000" or "that's the last dollar I send to the Dems", that is political action meant to apply political pressure.  Something that saying "give him time!" doesn't do.

                  Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

                  by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:56:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree about that fundraiser (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    deePA

                    I don't agree about the bitching and moaning.  I think we'd be better off using that energy and time making effective ads that speak to the public, phone banking, hell, even organizing large scale peaceful demonstrations.  I think we've bitched an moaned enough.  It's time to do some stuff now.  And the bitching and moaning has devolved into very nasty stuff in a lot of cases.  People get preoccupied with feeling hurt or angry about what someone said to them rather than focusing on working together to create change.

                    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                    by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:00:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If we've learned anything from the VRWC, (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TiaRachel, Triscula, Johnny Q

                      it is that bitching and moaning in an organized way is incredibly effective at keeping politicians in line.  Much more effective that popular sentiment in fact.  Of course, "organized" is the key.

                      I should also point out that a number of us feel righteously pissed.  Being told that we are "whining" or bad Dems for that is more than a little annoying.  You can understand, then, why some might be a little touchy now.

                      Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

                      by zephron on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:07:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm probably going to regret this (9+ / 0-)

                        But, while I understand why some of you guys are pissed, I think it's worthwhile to consider that other people are also pissed off at being called apologists or "Obamabots" or attacked for being too moderate (I was actually shocked to see someone call another poster here a "good German" recently).  I know there are people here who are strident in their support and react strongly to criticism of Obama, but I've seen those terms used unjustly as well.  Disagreement about someone's criticism isn't an attack on criticism itself, and I've seen it treated as though it is. Anyway, there are hurt feelings all around.  We all know this.  And more attack/counter-attack won't alleviate that.  It will only deepen the divides.  None of us gain from that.  Since we've all established that plenty of people are pissed off maybe it's time to move on and shift our focus towards what our community can accomplish together or at least try to have constructive discussions about what we disagree about.

                        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                        by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:19:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I wish I could rec this many times (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          highacidity
                        •  Triscula, the first step is to recognize the (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TiaRachel

                          situation and the situation is that Obama is not a progressive and is hostile to a progressive agenda.  It's like being in AA:  you must recognize there is a problem before anything can be done with it.  Lots of people here, the apologists, cannot do that--yet.  Wait until unemployment climbs toward 12%.  

                          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

                          by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:04:40 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Progressive (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skohayes, Bene Gesserit1

                            I think most people understand that Obama isn't a Progressive.  Personally I think he's got progressive inclinations but believes that a more pragmatic approach is necessary.  Obama never sold himself as a far left Democrat.  So, now that we've established that he's not a progressive and that many people voted for him regardless, I'm not sure what else needs to be said about it.  

                            The problem for the left wing Democrats is that Obama's pragmatism and left-of-center politics is and was part of his appeal for many, many voters.  So stating that he's not a Progressive isn't damning and it's also not news.  You could write a diary about Obama's lack of Progressive bona fides, urging people to abandon party loyalty, every day for the next four years and it wouldn't advance the Progressive agenda one bit.  There are just too many more pragmatics or moderates or just Progressives who understand that we're stronger all together than we are when we're splintered.

                            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                            by Triscula on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 05:17:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Obama himself described himself as a liberal (0+ / 0-)

                            Triscula, type in "Hamilton Project" to Google and go to the Firedoglake transcript of a speech that then Sen. Obama gave to the Hamilton Project (sponsored by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs).  There Sen. Obama described himself as a liberal.  

                            What you forget in your analysis is that Obama made a set of promises and proposals to the nation at large to get elected, just as his opponent John McCain did.  But what is quite astonishing is this:  Obama began to run away from his promises at almost the same time it became clear he would be elected (see his flip-flop on FISA for instance).
                            I have followed politics for over 50 years and have never seen a candidate break so many promises in such a short time.  I've also never seen a candidate so completely abandon his base; it was progressive democrats who got him nominated and elected.  

                            His numbers are now going down in all polls.  If the economic projections of a top economist like Roubini are correct and unemployment levels will reach 12% next year (with underemployed over 20%) Obama and the Democratic party will be in big trouble in November, 2010.  

                            I'm sorry, I don't agree with your "splinter" analysis.  Obama made promises, he needs to deliver on them. He and not the progressives is the one who is about to fracture the party.  We are only trying to hold him to his promises; these promises were the basis for our support.  

                            "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

                            by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:31:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good. Hold him to it (0+ / 0-)

                            Probably the least effective way to hold him to them is to walk away.  Then you become marginalized and (politically)irrelevant.  Let's search for functional strategies for pushing the agenda we care about.  This was never going to be easy and no president will ever hand us what we want, even if we know we deserve it.  Government needs to be pushed.  If we split (and it's not important who's to blame for it if we succumb) then we've lost.  That's reality.  When Progressives walk away they lose whatever leverage they had.  A once again divided Democratic party is the GOP dream come true.

                            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                            by Triscula on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:57:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Will Rodgers: "I don't belong to an organized (0+ / 0-)

                            party, I'm a Democrat."  The Democrats have a history of dissent; we are NOT the lockstep party.  If you want that, you'd have to join the GOP.  

                            "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

                            by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:53:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

                            And as a result they also have a long history of inconsistent results (and 30+ years in the political wilderness). There's a lot ground in between 'lockstep' and disintegration though.  We need lively debate AND unified action.  

                            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                            by Triscula on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:04:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Anyone who (0+ / 0-)

                            was paying attention during the primary and the election should know that Obama is not and never was a progressive.
                            Those who are not don't remember Bill Clinton doing the exact same thing- running to the left during the primary and then the GE, and going centrist when confronted by a Republican congress determined to ruin his presidency. Obama's only advantage is that the Congress is dominated by Democrats in the House, but the old boy's club of the Senate is another matter entirely.
                            There's nothing wrong with people who still have faith in Obama, any more than there is wrong with those who criticize constantly, both are just different sides of the same coin.

      •  We don't win much with the whining (11+ / 0-)

        The work begins after winning the election.  The job begins after you get hired.  

        Too many around here just want to piss and moan,  Now is when we need to get to work.    

        •  Pissing and moaning . . . (5+ / 0-)

          . . . is one of the stages of building community.

          Shared values and a common grasp of the problem are key to effective work.

          That said, I don't believe for a moment that "all people do is whine."

          The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

          by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:18:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and we did plenty of it when Bush was there (5+ / 0-)

            Now we have the most sympathetic (to our kind) regime since the early sixties.  Maybe it's a better time to do some work than "build community" through whining.

            •  Again, what makes you think we're not? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel, Johnny Q, thethinveil

              Can one talk about the problem while working on the problem, say, through our Congressional representatives, or in how we donate to candidates each election cycle, or in working on campaigns for candidates who actually represent our values?

              One doesn't preclude the other. Then again, most apologista talking points don't make much sense, so I don't know why I'd expect that one to.

              The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

              by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:35:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we need more than that (6+ / 0-)

                Focusing on who we give to or who we work for isn't enough right now.  We need issue campaigns that speak directly to the public.

                "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:37:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No argument here. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Triscula

                  I think to some degree that's already occurring, juding from the leftward shift in the electorate. Stuff that was hot button eight years ago doesn't excite the masses anymore, which is why the Know-Nothings are floundering so badly.

                  I do know that continuing to nominate these ridiculous centrists isn't helping the Democrats create a clear identity and message.

                  The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

                  by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:40:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The Center (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bene Gesserit1, thethinveil

                    What is "the center" is always shifting around.  I think it's likely that any party that does well politically has captured the support of whatever the "center" is politically.  We can make some headway in pushing that "center" leftward.  Politicians will play to that constituency because it represents, proportionally, the largest number of voters.  We need to communicate with the public to push that center.  Something to remember is that conservatives built up an impressive structure over the last 30+ years.  They know how to move the message very efficiently.  Several years ago Democrats were talking more seriously about the need to develop some of those structures in order to gain some of that advantage.  I think we're still really lacking in that department.  It's not so much a lack of will or people so much as a lack of discipline and organization.

                    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                    by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Republicans found their salvation in radio. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Johnny Q, thethinveil

                      The Democrats harnessed the Internet, and our leftward shift coincided with the vast increase in web access by working families.

                      The question is, what's next, and how do we capitalize on it?

                      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

                      by Orange County Liberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:59:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not sure (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Bene Gesserit1, deePA

                        I feel like the answer lies in what we learned about ourselves last year, with the successful and disciplined grass roots organizing around the presidential campaign.  I feel like there's a lot of that structure still possible.  I suppose what's lacking is money and focus but, as you pointed out, we do have dominance on the internets and could use that advantage to begin some focused issue campaign efforts.  I don't know how to begin something like that but I am willing to be of whatever help I can be for someone that does.

                        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                        by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:05:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  The Dems have control of the W.H, Urizen, they (0+ / 0-)

          have 60 votes in the Senate (once Al Franken arrives) and they have a huge majority in the House.  What more is needed?  90 votes in the Senate?  The problem is this president has no fight in him, he has no set of core values, and he has no will or determination.  He gave up on day #1 for single payer.  You never bargain by giving away your original position immediately, before achieving any concessions yet Obama did just that.  That's not smart.  

          Note that Bush was able to push his neocon agenda through a democratically controlled congress yet Obama doesn't seem to be able to achieve much at all with huge majorities.  Ask yourself why?  What more do the Democrats need?

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:34:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q, thethinveil

        We so called "pony idiots" got slapped down when such as you sidelined us and nominated a DLC candidate. As for slogans, would yes we can qualify?

        You got what you voted for and have no one to blame but yourself. Maybe when the "purity trolls" were talking about who is owned by Wall Street it might have been an idea to listen to them.

      •  Re-reading this thread, (0+ / 0-)

        I see that I am attacking the wrong messenger. Sorry about that Wilber.

    •  Your comment makes me think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, FistJab

      of how people are probably going to die in Iran tomorrow.  Fighting for their rights.  what is an american wiling to do?

      Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

      by publicv on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:18:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've kept working as a progressive activist (0+ / 0-)

      since November.  You?  This blogger?

      "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:24:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buhdydharma, deePA, FistJab

        I think I stated that I include myself amongst those who haven't continued the work.  I'm not sure why.  I guess I expected the existing organizational structures to survive in some fashion and that I'd participate in them as I did during the campaign: making calls, knocking on doors, talking to neighbors, contributing whatever money I could afford.  I guess it's not uncommon for us to wait around thinking that someone else will lead and that we can follow.  Regardless, it should be clear to all of us that we can't do that.  We need to pool our resources and figure out how to accomplish what we want.  Isn't that the best possible use of our time?

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:35:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The official campaign is supposed to dissolve (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, deePA

          You can't stand behind a candidate in office and organize.  It ties your hands too much (as you can only say what is politically acceptable for them).  Issue based, or community based, organizing is what we (grass roots left) are doing now.  Many progressive organizations are in trouble for money now, can use your donations, and whatever spare time you have to do volunteer work.  Find an organization that stands for what you believe in, and get involved.

          "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

          by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:50:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Politicians need to be held accountable (11+ / 0-)

    even the good ones.  It's Community Organizing 101...

  •  YES IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Thank you for repeating that again...

  •  Then you should have voted for him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, publicv

    You are never going to get what you want out of a President.  It is never going to happen.  

  •  Good Marc Ambinder post which is mostly on topic (7+ / 0-)
  •  Can I set an alarm for the time (9+ / 0-)

    when we don't have to wade through these diaries?

    Not all campaign promises have been kept. No kidding. Some may yet be, but apparently not fucking fast enough.

    "I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I." - President Barack Obama

    by Pacific NW Mark on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:01:09 PM PDT

    •  Gun to your head? (5+ / 0-)

      Put your wading boots on - or simply bypass them. Still don't understand why anyone would complain about a diary that's documented and well-thought through.

      Oh, you disagree...

      At least you didn't say this means he wants Bush back.

      •  Not all that well documented IMO (4+ / 0-)
        1. I'm pretty sure Geithner wasn't acting as Obama's 'handpicked man' while he was helping to author TARP - Geithner was not SecTreas nor was Obama president
        1. Still only 57 Democratic Senators : - )

        People can diary whatever they please, but this last week has been like Festivus with the airing of grievances. And I'm looking forward to something else.

        Peace.

        "I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I." - President Barack Obama

        by Pacific NW Mark on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:17:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong on Geithner, Pacific NW Mark (4+ / 0-)

          Obama worked closely with Geithner and had let it known he would be his pick.  Obama has tremendous power as President Elect in November especially with the weakness of Bush.  

          Still only 57 Democratic senators?  How so.  It'll be 60 with Al; 59 if you count Bernie Sanders as an independent but he votes almost always with the dems.  

          So you're 0-2 on the factual points you disagree with.

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:25:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why was I hearing a number of different (0+ / 0-)

            names for treasury secretary?

          •  Hey, you're welcome to your rant (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bene Gesserit1

            But - to paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan - not your own facts:

            1. Whether Geithner was secretly working on Obama's behalf during the TARP legislation is unprovable either way - you've certainly offered no proof to support your claim. Technically this was legislation passed by Congress and he was not/is not a part of that body. He may have been part of consultations during the crafting of the legislation as the president of the NY Federal Reserve, but that doesn't prove the connection you assert.
            1. Al Franken has NOT been seated. Bernie Sanders in NOT a Democrat and he'd be the first to tell you so. Neither is Joe 'Connecticut for' Lieberman. Franken CANNOT vote. Sanders is a reliable progressive vote, and Lieberman campaigned for John McCain - he's far less reliable. And the 57 Democratic senators we DO have include such progressive stalwarts as Landrieu, both Nelsons, Bayh, Begich, Shaheen, etc. Numerically, 57 OVERSTATES progressive support in the Senate.

            So I'm scoring this as 2-0 on the factual points. I'm willing to concede the first point provided you document your assertion with some sort of link.

            "I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I." - President Barack Obama

            by Pacific NW Mark on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 10:02:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's the proof on Geithner & Tarp, Pacific NW (0+ / 0-)

              From a Wall St. Journal article dated November 24, 2008 after it was clear that Geithner was Obama's Sect. of Treasury designate:

              Aides to President-elect Barack Obama and President George W. Bush are rushing to craft measures to shore up financial markets and prevent a policy vacuum from further harming the economy during the transition of power between the two men.
              ...
              Mr. Obama's selection of Mr. Geithner for Treasury secretary has, in effect, given his administration a greater role in the current handling of the financial crisis. That's because Mr. Geithner has already been a close partner of Mr. Paulson in managing the bailouts in his role as New York Fed president.

              SOURCE:  (emphasis added)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122747905110751527.html

              There were numerous reports in the mainstream press reporting the same thing.  Remember Geithner was President of the New York Fed, and right hand man to Paulson in Tarp.  

              I know Al Franken has not been seated yet, I said that.  I also know Sanders is an independent but he caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them too.  I recall Obama campaigning for Lieberman.  Lieberman actually has a fairly consistent democratic voting record, and of course, was their VEEP designate in 2000 with Al Gore.  So, 60 it is. You lose on both points, my friend.  I acknowledge of course that there are lots of democrats in name only, that's part of my message.  It also applies in part to Obama.  As another poster on another diary said, had Obama been around 25 years ago he would have been a Rockefeller Republican.  

              "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

              by fflambeau on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 05:49:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Here's the WSJ link again (0+ / 0-)

              "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

              by fflambeau on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 05:49:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  5 Months & a "Failure" - Heck (9+ / 0-)

    President Obama was handed a shovel and a mountain range of bullshit to deal with. A tanked economy. 2 wars. And after less than half a year some "supporters" are bailing already. Not the sort of allies one needs with you in a foxhole.

    Spine people. To their credit, the conservatives are far, far tougher than you are. I don't know what to say: eat some starch?

    If that is so, then we must tend our own gardens then.

    by Otherday on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:02:08 PM PDT

    •  Conservatives Have the Global Superpower and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rogerdaddy

      global economy at their back.

      Did you think such morans could win decade after decade because of their intelligence?

      Jesus Hussein Christ.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:27:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who Mentioned Intelligence? (4+ / 0-)

        And, yes, when you have limitless funding, basically, filling your sails it is easier to win a race.

        Still, why would any Obama voter be dumping all over him already?  Clearly their support was very weak to begin with. None of these whiners can handle the marathon that is required to achieve the goals they claim to have in mind.

        If that is so, then we must tend our own gardens then.

        by Otherday on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:35:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I want -- nay, demand! -- everything to be... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical
      100% better right now! I'm an American. Patience is for wimps!

      Why isn't every American troop home yet?

      Why hasn't national health care passed yet?

      Why hasn't the First Lady's garden fed and nourished all 300 million Americans yet?

      Why hasn't Bo won the Westminster Kennel show yet?

      And, damn it, where is my unicorn, anyway?

      Could you imagine if FDR and Lincoln had to deal with all these boobs?

  •  Another one who doesn't get governing (11+ / 0-)

    First of all, it's Dr. Steven CHU.  

    Second, the stimulus.  $800 billion barely passed the Senate, and one of the republicans who voted for it had to leave the party because he voted for it.  I would love to know how you think a $1 trillion dollar stimulus would have passed.  It wouldn't have gotten 50 votes, let alone 60.  

    As for the military, do you wnat him to appoint non-military people to be Generals?  Yeah, let's put Bill Maher in charge of forced in Afghanistan.  And I guess you didn't pay much attention while you were pounding the pavement to get him elected.  He said he would remove troops from iraq over time, he said he would launch missile attacks into Pakistan to hit Al Qaeda members.  

    Learn how to read a poll.  His disapproval has gone up among GOP members and independents who lean right.  

    Lastly, Shut up.        

  •  I'm thinking that if we could find a way (11+ / 0-)

    to convert the "Obama is teh suck" diaries into electricity, we could solve golbal warming.

  •  Great diary. And the list goes on: (13+ / 0-)
    1. Torture prosecution/investigations
    1. Not closing Bagram
    1. FISA
    1. Executive Power/State secrets
    •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
      1. No one's got their pony yet.
    •  And which of these things did he promise to do? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FistJab

      He said no to torture prosecutions all the way back in the campaign, just because some assumed he was saying it with a wink and his fingers crossed didn't make it so.

      He said mentioned closing GITMO and never Bagram.  Why didn't people take him at his word, I don't assume somebody will do Y if the promise to do X.

      FISA was a crap move, but instead of moaning about it we should be pushing to find out what the fuck the CIA has been up to.  All of the torture threads go back to them and Cheney, and so do many of the domestic spying and other crimes.  The CIA also seems to be the one overriding the release of anything that sheds light on what they did.  For some reason if it is the CIA versus Us, the CIA wins no matter who is in office, and that needs to be corrected fast.

      Obama has the right to use State Secrets and executive power to block things.  For example, some of the things in the telecom spying case cannot be released without providing a roadmap to every hacker here and abroad with the skills to hack the phone system.  Some of it seems to be to prevent the CIA from getting pissed off, and that worries me because the CIA should not have veto power over anything.  Obama never said he would not use them, and there is no evidence that he has abused the power.  It seems that maybe he is showing to much deference to the CIA, but that does not equal abuse.

  •  This is what us Clinton supporters said all along (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fnb, NCgrassroots, skohayes, thethinveil

    I don't want to play "I told you so" Democrat, but this was just too predictable. Every election there is always someone from "outside Washington" who promises to come in and "shake things up." Every time they are elected, get captured by Washington, and disappoint people.

    Same with George W. Bush. He was the outsider too in 2000, Gore was the insider.

    Same with Bill Clinton in 1992.

    Same with Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter.

    How many times does the American public have to witness the same thing before we learn that elected a 'Washington insider' for President isn't the worst thing in the world?

    I don't think Hillary would have been that much better than Obama, but she had already been in Washington for 16 years, I knew precisely how she would behave. And she had more experience to work with Congress to get legislation passed than Obama. And that's always the key.

    •  I agree with you Wufacta that Hillary has more (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fnb, Wufacta, NCgrassroots, thethinveil

      fight than Obama.  She's tough.  He's more interested in getting on t.v. as Bill Maher pointed out.  

      "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

      by fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:30:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Gist of the Complaint Is He's Another Clinton (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      William Domingo, thethinveil

      So I don't know what going with the Clinton team would've gotten us.

      Well actually I do, I was quite adult when they came in the last time.

      Look what they did for 400 rich families versus the United States of America:

      The red line's the 400 rich families:
      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:31:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're exactly right, gooserock (0+ / 0-)

        Bill Clinton ran as a liberal during the election, then turned centrist when he got into office. He still managed to balance the budget, keep us out of war, and ended up with a fairly healthy economy.
        He failed at health care, pandered to the republicans with regulation of the markets and money, and still managed to have a high approval rating when he left office.
        With Hillary, you knew exactly what you were getting, a liberal (not a progressive) slightly left of President Clinton.
        I think if people had paid closer attention to Obama's record as a state senator, then a US Senator, they would not have been so disappointed.
        He is what he is, I'm not disappointed and I'm still going to support him.

    •  Really? (5+ / 0-)

      And she had more experience to work with Congress to get legislation passed than Obama. And that's always the key.

      Obama managed to get 3 major pieces of legislation through in his 4 years in the Senate. What did Clinton get passed?

    •  DLC or DLC alternate. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, thethinveil

      Quite the choice there. There was little difference then, I doubt there would be any difference now.

    •  Hillary works for Barack!!! n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  I knew precisely how she would behave (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, thethinveil

      Well I did too, she wanted to continue her husband's administration. That's why many of us went for Obama instead, because he "said" he was going to do things different than that, and now as Gooserock said, he's trying to be another Clinton inspite of what he said during the campaign.

      If it takes 183 times to make it work, the ticking time bomb will already have exploded by then.

      by William Domingo on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:47:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Obama sticker's still on my car, but . . . (26+ / 0-)

    .
    . . . my allegiance is to a set of principles and ideals and policies that I want to see enacted, not to a particular person or personality -- I'll leave that to Republican-Americans and their Reagan Worship.

     Then-candidate Obama told us to hold his feet to the fire if he was elected President.  We're betraying our promise to him, if we trade in our ideals for sycophancy.

     bg
    _________________________

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

    by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:20:58 PM PDT

  •  I would be interested in a DKos straw poll at (6+ / 0-)

    this point...

    I wonder if their is a canary leaving the coal mine on this site..

    The applause on Bill Maher when he is going at the President from the left recently is also a big red flag...

    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." - President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

    by justmy2 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:31:01 PM PDT

  •  of course you are right (5+ / 0-)

    i say it all the time but people here are not very mature.

    they do not want to debate the issues or think for themselves.

    most people here come only because the diaries pat each other on the back and they like and need the reinforcement .

    obama is quickly becoming a total failure to anyone who is a real progressive.

    thats the fact.

    "but I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers. still crazy after all these years".....

    by JadeZ on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:32:22 PM PDT

  •  imagine if McCain had control (5+ / 0-)

    of both houses of congress like Obama has...

    what legislation would come of it?
    How many pieces of legislation would the repugs cram through...

    What does Obama, Pelosi, and Reid need....

    80 senate seats???

    •  The Republicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi

      have, at least since 1980ish, consistently been more willing to "fall in line" than the Democrats.

      (This does not excuse anyone, though I put most of the blame on Reid. Pelosi's actually whipping the house into far better shape than Reid is the Senate.)

      "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

      by ChurchofBruce on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's No Surprise. The Man Ran Promising No Radicl (4+ / 0-)

    change at a time when the entire world needs the United States to make radical change.

    Hard testable factuality is radical compared to the United States of America.

    It can't be a pretty picture, as far ahead as we can see.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:33:29 PM PDT

    •  75+ % of the Americans wanting a Public Option... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fnb, TiaRachel, Johnny Q

      .
       . . . is hardly "radical".  It's just what Americans want and what he campaigned for.  He can't "wave a magic wand", and I don't expect him to, but he can't "phone it in", either.

       I'm not seeing him work Senate Dems the way LBJ would, and that's a disappointment, and a legitimate one, in my opinion.

       The Wall Street muckity-mucks brought-in to oversee "fixing" much of what they were part of breaking (or standing by and watching while it broke) are not only "not radical", they're the opposite of the Change promised.

       As I mention in another comment, my Obama bumper sticker's still on my car, but I need my President to begin believing in we who put him in office just as much as we believed in him.

       That's hardly an unfair or unreasonable expectation.

       bg
      ________________

       

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

      by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:55:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama said he'd bring new faces to Washington. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, Sleepwalkr, FistJab

    Not new, liberal faces.  And personally, I am thrilled he didn't make the same mistakes that Clinton and Carter made. They brought in all outsiders and managed to accomplish almost nothing in their 1st 100 days. Obama by any measurement has been much more successful in getting stuff accomplished.

    •  Please name those new faces Askew (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil

      "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

      by fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:45:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chu, Sebelius, Napolitano, Locke, Vilsack, Duncan (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, freakofsociety, deePA

        Donovan, Shinseki, Jarrett, Lisa Jackson, Orszag, Romer, Barnes, Douglass, Girlikowski, Kirk.

        I like how you totally ignored askew's point.  Obama's got more done in his first 100 days than did Clinton or Carter, who brought in all outsiders.

        •  Let's look at some more names & positions, Escam (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sweeper

          Everyone pretty much agrees that the 2 most important positions in any administration are:

          1.  Secretary of Defense:  Robert Gates (a Republican) continues.
          1.  Secretary of State:  Hillary Clinton (certainly not a new name or face)

          As for some others:

          1.  Eric Holder (AG):  worked with Bill Clinton, involved in Mark Rich pardon, been around D.C. a long, long time.
          1.  Gen. James Jones, national security advisor to Obama.  Bush's Middle East Envoy last November.  Worked with Chamber of Commerce too. A real hawk.
          1.  Robert Mueller, retained as FBI Director (another Bush appointee).
          1.  John Brennan, Deputy Natinal Security advisor to the president, has a horrific human right background.  Worked with George Tenet at the CIA.
          1.  Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, another person with a very questionable human rights background.  Likely involvement in atrocities in East Timor.  
          1.  Susan Rice, UN Ambassador, served Clinton on Natinal Security Council.
          1.  Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, political hack, only served 2 terms in Congress, made more than $16 million as an investment banker in 2 years, uncer clouds of suspicion as trustee of Freddie Mac.
          1.  Joe Biden, Veep, long time Washington insider, known as "senator credit card" for all the money he took from banks and in return allowed them liberalities with their lending schemes to consumers.
          1.  Ray LaHood, Sect. of Transportation, another Republican.  Long time face in Washington, D.C.
          1.  Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health & Human Services.  Oops!  He didn't make it!  Mr. Washington insider; took money from anyone willing to offer it.  Still seems to advise the president on health care.  
          1.  Timothy Geithner, Sect. of Treasury.  Worked under W. as President of N.Y. Fed.
          1.  Ken Salazar, Sect. of Interior, another old Washington D.C. insider.
          1.  Ron Kirk, Trade Rep., Was a partner with the Houston-based law firm Vinson and Elkins, where, according to Texans for Public Justice, he was, as of March 2007, one of the four highest paid lobbyists for Energy Future Holdings Corporation, the group created by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs to acquire TXU.  That's right, a lobbyist in the Obama administration; thought he said something against that at one time?  
          1.  Larry Summers, National Economic Council, worked with Bill Clinton as his Treasury Secretary, kicked out as president of Harvard.
          1.  Leon Panetta, CIA Director, longtime congressman, chief of staff to Bill Clinton.
          1.  Mary Schapiro, SEC Head, headed Financial Industry Regulatory Authority under Bush and we all know how that turned out.  
          1.  Gregory Craig, White House Counsel, longtime D.C. legal broker.
          1.  Gary Gensler, Chairman, U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, longtime Goldman insider.  Bernie Sanders said of him:  "Gensler had worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in US history." He also accused Gensler of working to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron, and supporting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed American banks to become "too big to fail."
          1.  Peter Orszag.  You put him on your list of outsiders.  In fact, he worked at the Brookings Institution as the head of the Hamilton Project, funded by none other than Bob Rubin and Goldman.  Worked as an economic advisor to Bill Clinton.

          So by my count 21 insiders to 15 (Orszag doesn't count as an outsider as noted above).  You lose.

          Note I'm also not counting most of the undersecretaries at various cabinet positions (a high percentage of whom served in DC previously).  

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 04:04:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Forgot one Escamillo, another insider (0+ / 0-)

          Mark Patterson, Geithner's Chief of Staff at Treasury, another former Goldman Sachs lobbyist.
          Yup, but he got a "waiver" too; that no lobbyist campaign pledge sure was meaningful, wasn't it?

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 06:12:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  He doesn't have 60 Democratic Senators! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety

    Otherwise I'm in general agreement with the diarist. Declining approval ratings for Obama are an indication that bit by bit people are reconsidering their views of the actuality-of-change, with negative implications. The approval ratings are declining not because Obama is implimenting his campaign promises but because in many cases he is not.

    The good news is the way to regain approval and confidence is quite simple: go ahead and keep these campaign promises!

    For now if there is any defense of Obama it's that many of his policies, while no better are, at the same time no worse than those of former president Bush. It's almost as if there is such an ongoing momentum in many federal policies and programs that making the changes is much harder than we generally expected. There certainly has been an unexpected quantity of pushback from much of the membership of the minority party: a former (and discredited) vice president, former (and discredited) Speaker of the House, various radio and talk show hosts, a few states' governors, and other and miscellaneous officials and party notables.

    •  Oh but he does (or will have) 60 Dem. Sens. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, thethinveil

      Knarfc.  When Al gets to Washington, he will have 60 senators.  (Unless you count Sanders out and tho he is an independent, he votes with the dems on almost all key progressive issues).  Specter is a democrat; even being pushed as such by Obama.  

      "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

      by fflambeau on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  whatever. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety

    "I aint scared of Al Quaeda, I'm scared of Al Cracker"-Chris Rock...

    by vmm918 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:45:40 PM PDT

  •  The Dems are making a strategic error - (6+ / 0-)

    they think they should pick their battle carefully...WRONG -

    with their advantage they should press EVERY BATTLE SIMULTANEOUSLY...thereby forcing the Republicans to CHOOSE which one THEY will try to defeat.

    Terrible generalship by the Dems...

    SIMPLY TERRIBLE

  •  you are a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, Escamillo

    lair OP. here are some facts you should smoke up in regards to promises.

    http://www.politifact.com/...

    If you can't drink a lobbyist's whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in the morning, you don't belong in politics.Jess Unruh

    by FistJab on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:50:20 PM PDT

  •  More anti-Obama BS. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, Wildthumb, csquared

    "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

    by Troubadour on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:56:04 PM PDT

    •  No, expecting a candidate to keep his promises, (5+ / 0-)

      .
       expecting a Democrat to stand by We, the People, and putting ideals and principles ahead of sycophancy.  Is there a problem with that?

       bg
      _____________________

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

      by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:58:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        csquared
        Hidden by:
        fflambeau

        you don't know what you're talking about.

        "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

        by Troubadour on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:59:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a troll comment. I'll let it go this time (5+ / 0-)

          .
           Either state your case, leave the thread, or start getting well-deserved HRs.

           bg
          ________________

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

          by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:01:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When you people offer something more substantive (1+ / 2-)
            Recommended by:
            csquared
            Hidden by:
            BenGoshi, fflambeau

            than buzzwords, the reality-based community will respond in kind.

            "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

            by Troubadour on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:04:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have offered many substantive comments (7+ / 1-)

              .
               throughout this thread and my 4 years at Daily Kos.  You on the other hand are trolling.  Fuck off.

              bg
              ______________

              "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

              by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:06:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm afraid that comment, unlike mine (2+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Wildthumb, csquared
                Hidden by:
                BenGoshi

                actually warrants an HR.

                "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                by Troubadour on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:07:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hey Ben (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BenGoshi, TheMomCat, thethinveil

                Troubador has made many offensive posts. His specialty is calling people who disagree with him mentally ill.

                But MB is patrolling all HR's now.

                You can do more to point out his faults by removing your HR and letting MB see his.

                Apparently he doesn't know that fuck off has entered the lexicon of the acceptable, thanks to Musing85's insistence on it.

                •  Good. I hope Meteor Blades sees this. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fnb, TheMomCat, buhdydharma, rogerdaddy

                  .
                   He and I have corresponded by email from time to time.  People who add nothing to a comment thread and/or who just lash-out for the sake of lashing out need to be banned or HR'd out of a thread.

                   Also, ometimes saying, "Thank you for that comment"  or  "Comment of the Day!"  is just right.  Sometimes saying "fuck off" is.

                   In about 4 years at Daily Kos, I've said that a handful of times.  Very, very rarely.  Sometimes, though, the shoe fits.  

                   By the way, thanks.

                  bg
                  ________________

                  "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

                  by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:00:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  p.s. - This is one of my upthread comments... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buhdydharma

                  .
                   . . . which I invite you to take a look at.

                  bg
                  _______________

                  "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

                  by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:07:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, no. I am not patrolling all ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fnb, buhdydharma

                  ...HRs. At 40,000 comments per day, that would be an impossible task. I only see all the HRs in Tip Jars. I do look closely at HRs when I see them.

                  Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

                  by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:37:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Aww, have I 'offended' you, Budhy? (0+ / 0-)

                  I know just the thing to cure that...

                  deez-nutz

                  But seriously, this diary is pure punditry.  Instead of observing and commenting on the real world, this entire parasitic subculture is exemplified by flailing excuses to attack the most visible possible target.  You have nothing to say, so you speak more loudly to cover that fact up.

                  "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                  by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:38:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No you haven't offended me (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Aunt Martha

                    Meteor Blades is encouraging a lack of name calling. That was just my way of avoiding namecalling that I might have engaged in in the past when I might have called you say, "a dumbass troll," or perhaps an "obnoxious asshole."

                    I was being more civil than that, in respect of MB.

                    Sorry for the confusion, and for the fact that your nuts are the size of a kitten's.

                    •  I applaud Meteor Blades (0+ / 0-)

                      for seeking a more civil tone, as we all know the consequences when adult supervision is lacking.  However, there is no need to apologize for being confused - we all have our off days...err, weeks...err, months...  But if you think your experience with my nuts and those of a kitten is sufficient to compare and contrast, I will defer to your expert judgment.

                      Incidentally, did you have any comment remotely related to the diary or my analysis of it, or can we expect more of your trademark bisque polonaise?

                      "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                      by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:14:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You mean this detailed (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fflambeau

                        and well reasoned criticism of Obama?

                        That you dismiss as parasitic punditry, without ever addressing the content or substance of? That you do not refute or debate any of the points of but instead just insult it, as you do with every thought you diagree wit?

                        No, n comment as you have said nothing to respond to any your opinion has the same potency as a kittens nuts.

                        Which YOU compared your own to, by publishing that picture. Which I found highly accurate.

                        Oh and for future reference, you might want to consider not linking to comments that accurately assess your value as a poster, have six recs of agreement, and a response praising my acuity in evaluating you. In addition to linking to your diary where you had a major meltdown and accused a large portion of the site of being mentally ill merely for disagreeing with you.

                        But if you think that is the way to go, far be it from me to disabuse you of exposing your own offensiveness......along with your kitten sized nuts.

                        •  The diarist is thoroughly anti-Obama (0+ / 0-)

                          and has consistently sought excuses and resorted to the flimsiest necessary pretexts to attack him.  Even his name screams "troll," and yet you are utterly oblivious because you apparently share his agenda.  Or perhaps the fact that the diary is lengthy and truthy, despite being devoid of thought deeper than a Pizza Hut commercial, leads you to consider it "credible."  

                          "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                          by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So because you don't like the diarists NAME (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fflambeau

                            you won't respond to the substance of the diary?

                            Just being 'anti-Obama' somehow erases all the facts in the diary?

                            Yeah you are coming of REALLY well in this exchange.

                          •  That the diarist's name is a blatant (0+ / 0-)

                            admission of trollery is just the plumage on your dunce cap for not recognizing the obvious character of this diary.  Allow me to illustrate:

                            Troll says: Obama [like Republicans, they hate calling him President Obama] promised thoughtful, intelligent government, but just the other day he clearly made a grammatically incorrect statement.  Betrayed!  Promise broken!  He used a preposition at the end of a sentence...we might as well be back in the days of George W. Bush inventing his own language!

                            Buhdy: Amen, brother!  

                            "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                            by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not even worth responding to (0+ / 0-)

                            Your game needs work.

                            But you do have the name calling thing down.

                            Troll, mentally ill.

                            Troubadour: "Anyone who disagrees with me I will dismiss through labeling them!"

                            Your game needs work.

                          •  Incidentally (0+ / 0-)

                            I did address the diary in greater detail than it deserves:

                            "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                            by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 10:07:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You yell louder (0+ / 0-)

                            because your words are weak and empty.

                            "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee

                            by Troubadour on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 10:32:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Friday night, it's partytime /nt (0+ / 0-)

      What's Spanish for 'I know you speak English'? ~Lucille Bluth

      by hhex65 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:07:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which points are BS and why? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil

      The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

      by BentLiberal on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:48:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More Obamabots (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil
  •  argh the whining... the incessant whining! nt (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, Wildthumb
    Hidden by:
    fflambeau

    Whose marriage do we get to vote on next?

    by cany on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:08:17 PM PDT

    •  No, Americans expecting their President... (5+ / 0-)

      .
       . . . to keep his promises.  75% of Americans want a Public Option on Health Care.  President Obama's "support" of the Public Option is tepid at best, and seemingly waning.

       "Whining" is what Republicans do when told that they're hypocrites for boinking their staffers while screaming about "Family Values".  

       Insisting on a President keeping his promises is what patriotic Americans do.

      bg
      _____________

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

      by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:19:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you get it yet? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, BigAlinWashSt, thethinveil

        It's our fault for expecting too much of him.

        "What if everybody thought like you?" "Then I'd be a damn fool to think otherwise."-- Catch 22

        by Johnny Q on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:19:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, expecting too damn much in just 5 months (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Whimsical

          is your fault. No wonder Dems in congress are pussies and flakes, it seems to be a problem for Democratic voters as well. I've never heard so much whinning, bitching and moaning in my life. You all want everything done immediately on your schedule. You complain about getting thrown under the bus by a man who barely has gotten on the bus. I'm sick of it quite frankly. No wonder Dems have lost so many elctions in the past. Why would our best and brightest want to deal with Democrats let alone the GOP? It's not a headache I would want. That God Obama has a loving family because he can't get any support anywhere else. Not from Dems in Congress, not from the media and not from his so-called supporters. I'll leave you to your little titty-baby sob fest. It's getting boring and I need a break from it. I may as well join Redstate if I wanted to deal with Obama-hate every damn day. Whoever said the Democratic Party wasn't an organized party should have said they are bunch of impatient cry babies too. You give potential mates 5 months to prove themselves not presidents with a million problems to solve for 300 million people.  

          Things fall apart; the center cannot hold-Yeats

          by TexasMango on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:37:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dems in congress (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fnb, skohayes

            have been "pussies and flakes" as you pu t it for a hell of a lot longer than five months.  Is the past few years not enough time for them to get their shit together?

            "What if everybody thought like you?" "Then I'd be a damn fool to think otherwise."-- Catch 22

            by Johnny Q on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:36:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  News Flash: The Health Care Debate is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes

            .
            . . . going on right now, not in a year from now, not in 2012:  right now.

            bg
            __________

            "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

            by BenGoshi on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 05:38:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why are you assuming the President sees (0+ / 0-)

        the polls you keep siting?

        There was a great diary about how the White House has stated that they are receiving far more calls AGAINST the public option than for it.

        So, even if the President has seen the poll you mention (which I think is unlikely)- based on what WE are doing, he's perfectly correct to assume support for the public option is tepid at best and adjust his position accordingly.

        Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

        by Whimsical on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:49:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you really believe that politicians aren't (0+ / 0-)

          aware of polls?  You're living in cuckoo land.

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 04:05:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I dont think he sees specific polls, no. (0+ / 0-)

            I think the conversation goes something like this:

            Aide: Newspaper polls indicate high support for a public option.

            Aide2: Hmm, Switchboard operator says calls are running nearly 2-1 against a public option.

            Obama: Guess the newspapers are wrong, again.

            Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

            by Whimsical on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:16:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  People keep (0+ / 0-)

        citing this poll, but ignore the part where the followup question in the poll was to people after it was explained what ''Public Option'' actually meant...then it was 47% for,42% against.

        So, should we grab the uninformed response that indicates 76% are for something they do not truly understand..or

        Acknowledge that the informed response of 47% yes,vs 42% no..more accurately reflects the true sentiment out there.

        Remember, the majority of americans actually like their own healthcare plans right now...so it is a lot like approval ratings for congress...

        They dislike Congress as a whole.
        But they like their own congressman and will continue to vote for him.

        I just do not think that 76% favorable poll for public option is a true reflection of informed amerians out there. Americans are way too selfish to want to threaten their own healthcare plans if they are relatively satisfied for the sake of the betterment of the general society.

        •  First of all, that poll's important. That's why (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          .
           it's cited.  That you're dismissive of it indicates something in and of itself.

           Second, even if that poll didn't exist, pushing hard for the Public Option would be the right thing to do.

           Fourth, as for "disliking Congress", I think that these days that may have a lot to do with the degree to which the Senate is obviously in the hip pocket of the Health Insurance Industry.  Ergo, pushing back against that rapacious insurance goonsquad would be a way for Congress to stand up for Americans and increase their approval ratings.

           Third, I'm not really getting your sophistry, but do thank you for your comment.

          bg
          ___________________

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

          by BenGoshi on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 05:42:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look, I am a big (0+ / 0-)

            supporter of a strong public option.
            I am just playing devils advocate because you absolutely know that the GOPers(and some bluedogs) in Congress are digging deeper than the 76% number and looking at the second poll response that shows americans that have been told what public option entails only favor by 47-42. That will be the argument that will need to be countered.

            I am trying to interpet the poll. When the majority of americans are ok with their own healthcare but still want public option, it must mean they hope a public option does provide competition to reduce the cost of their existing plan?
            That makes more sense than people just being concerned about their fellow uninsured citizens..this country is pretty selfish generally, and so the best way to argue this is thru their pocketbook,probably.

            The Dems and Obama must make a hard case for this saving money for that majority who have insurance and are ok with it except for the cost...which is most people.

  •  the only fierce advocating I have seen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, BigAlinWashSt, Johnny Q

    from him has been over the release of those photos... which I dont want to bring up again, but I do, only to say, he does have the ability to FIGHT and fiercely, just not FOR the things I was anticipating.

    So, we, progressives, we still have to continue to work for all the kinds of Change we had set our hopes sites on, just... its looking like we will have to work a good bit harder than I thought we would.

    No rest for the weary.

    Buy the ticket, take the ride. ~HST

    by Lady Libertine on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:32:12 PM PDT

  •  Is this a late night infomercial? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fflambeau

    Am I suppose to buy something?  Buy this _ and get the second one for half off!  Comes with a free book lamp!

    When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were. -JFK

    by optimusprime on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:41:44 PM PDT

  •  Gates staying was known during the campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whimsical, Theston

    At least it was leaked by a leak proof campaign i.e. the info was given to us.  That people ignored it and imagined Wesley Clark would be Secretary of Defense even though he hadn't been a civilian long enough to be eligible is not Obama's fault.  He certainly never suggested anything other than continuing the war in Afghanistan.

    The bank bailout was endorsed by Senator and presidential candidate Obama.

    I personally don't think releasing the photos was how I ever understood Obama to mean transparent government.

    Disagreeing with him and feeling he misled you are not the same thing.

  •  Magic wand dreams (0+ / 0-)

    Be sure to let us know when you find a successful political leader with a magic wand.

  •  You spend so much time... (0+ / 0-)
    writing nonsencical Obama-bashing diaries.

    Perhaps -- and this is merely a suggestion -- you should find something better to occupy your time?

  •  Russ Feingold (0+ / 0-)

    is such a pussy for his Obama worshiping screed the other nite at that Wisconsin democratic function.
    Feingold has abandoned us...and gone over to the dark side...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site