Skip to main content

Whatever Robert Gibbs said, about whomever he meant it, and why he ended up walking it back, it's best to remember the words of President Obama himself. To Netroots Nation. Last Month.

Note that his own video used professional leftist Rachel Maddow to emphasize the good that he has done. But also note that Obama himself insisted that we all continue to hold him accountable. He knows very well that holding him accountable will, at times, include strong criticism, from both professional and amateur leftists, from the bloggers he was addressing both at Netroots Nation and throughout the left blogosphere.

Not only does President Obama have no problem with being held accountable, he welcomes it. He invites it. We all should remember that. It speaks well of his character. We all should remember that, too.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:32 AM 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

  •  What he meant was "keep holding me accountable... (14+ / 0-)

    ... but not in public" . . . apparently.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:33:33 AM PDT

  •  Holding him accountable (26+ / 0-)

    means: "This policy should be completely changed".

    It does not mean: "Since he allows assassinations of Americans overseas, he's evil."

    One permits honest discussion; the other ends discussion.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:34:00 AM PDT

  •  We Need Huey Longs and Robert La Folletes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, AlphaLiberal, Uberbah

    if we're going to keep the pressure. Make a viable, truly radical alternative. Triangulate and we'll get serious results from Obama.

    Triangulation is not a bad thing just because some putz named Dick Morris once used it. It's damned effective.

  •  Unlike 43, This President can even pronounce it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarackStarObama

    n/t

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:34:11 AM PDT

    •  But does he understand it? Or mean it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      What I've seen suggests he doesn't.  His Administration so far is scoring at the same level as the previous occupant when it comes to accountability.  Geithner still has a job, ditto for Summers, Salazar, Rahm, Gibbs, etc.  

      He hasn't exactly been tough with BP or Goldman or AIG or the Bush folks that wrecked the nation in various ways.  Transparency has been squashed.

      He's supported the conservadems that worked against the Democrats, including Lieberman.  All of this suggests he doesn't really understand what "accountable" means.  

      Note to Democratic leadership: I'm all out of carrots, but I still have my stick.

      by Celtic Pugilist on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, right............ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro

    okay, all you professional lefties, you heard the man.

    Here we are now entertain us, I feel stupid and contagious

  •  Yes... (10+ / 0-)

    do hold him accoutable for that which he is accountable.

    An obstructionist Congress is not one of those things.

      •  Always works (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ANY THING TOO ADD

        They know really well where our soft belly is.

        "Arizona is the meth lab of democracy" Jon Stewart

        by Iberian on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:55:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        yeah, laugh all the way back to your fake pollsters and fake news shows, hmm?

        how much of a spineless fuck do you have to be if you can't stand up to peacelovin' liberals?!!--onemadson

        by o the umanity on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:12:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why the GOP strategy is working (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, barkingcat

        With the majorities that the Democrats have the GOP strategy is only working because there are too many Democrats who are enabling it to work.

        What I have not seen is any concerted effort by the Obama Administration to pressure those right wing Democrats who work to undermine and dilute the President's agenda. (That is, unless they are tacitly carrying out Administration wishes to water it down and subvert it for corporate interests.) In fact, quislings like Blanche Lincoln get rewarded with Obama's full-on backing in her primary.

        I'll bet the DCCC and DSCC continue to throw money at Blue Dogs despite the fact that they are Democrats in name only. Blue Dog collaboration in GOP obstruction is the number one reason why the Democratic Party looks feckless and unable to govern to too many people. They do it, they get away with it and--as the example of Blanche Lincoln shows--they are rewarded for it.

    •  But putting child soldiers on trial is. (15+ / 0-)

      Permitting the use of confessions extracted under torture or the threat of torture is.

      Claiming the right to imprison people forever without trial is.

      Giving a pass to torturers and war profiteers is.

      Ordering the assassination of Americans is.

      Prosecuting whistleblowers is.

      Appointing two of the architects of the biggest rip-off in human history, Geithner and Bernanke, to his economic team is.

      Appointing Vilsack and Emmanuel is.

      Not firing Ken Heckuva Job Salazar for his incompetent oversight of MMS is.

      Having a prominent, homophobic backer of Proposition H8 give the invocation at the inaugural is.

      Caving in to the right-wing noise machine instead of confronting it on ACORN, Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod is.

      Forming a Cat Food Commission on Social Security stacked with people who are on the record in favor of slashing it is.

      Sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of 30 billion dollars a year is.

      Letting BP try to cover up the size of the spill through the massive use of dispersants is.

      And so on.

      Barack Obama: Ignores his legal obligation to prosecute people who tortured prisoners to death. Good at photo ops, though.

      by expatjourno on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:54:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  blaming Congress doesn't wash either (0+ / 0-)

      What job did Obama have before running for president again?  Oh yeah, serving in the U.S. Senate.  Which means...

      Obama already knew how the GOP abused the filibuster
      Obama already knew Reid was a weak majority leader

      Obama didn't have any problems promising Hope and Change with a mere 51 Democrats in the Senate.  After the November election that goes up to 60 seats - the largest majority since the 70's - and he can't even try to push his campaign platform?

      Either Obama was lying then, or he's lying now.  Pick one.

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Or, I'm speaking for myself, (9+ / 0-)

    but my staff doesn't share my opinion.

  •  L'Affaire du Gibbs.......day 3. (7+ / 0-)
  •  for the millionth time (27+ / 0-)

    if you can't criticize the admin without calling Barack Obama "evil" "a coward" or "a fraud"

    you're not holding him accountable.  you're just being insulting.

    and if you've done that (used those words in your criticisms of the president) and raged against the pressec you're a hypocrite.

    if you don't use such editorialization in your criticisms I have no problem with them, and may even agree with some.

    Opulence... I has it.

    by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:37:54 AM PDT

    •  Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed. (16+ / 0-)

      ...fifthed, etc. etc. etc.

      if you can't criticize the admin without calling Barack Obama "evil" "a coward" or "a fraud"...

      I'd also add "sellout" and "corporate owned" and "neocon" to that list.  All of which I've seen on this site - recently.

    •  Oh good (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, mallyroyal

      Glad that's established.

      Can I call him Lucifer? How about the second coming of Lucius Cornelius Sulla?

    •  So what. People are pissed off, so... (5+ / 0-)

      they turn to insults.

      Do you know how many names people called the last president? Why should this president be any different, because he has a (D) after his name?

      Seriously, why can't people use invective language if they're upset with policy? You want everyone here to talk politics in a polite civil manner now simply because we have a Democrat in the White House perpetuating some pretty nasty policy?

      No, I suspect there are deeper emotions going on when it comes to defending this president.

      •  "why can't...?" (2+ / 0-)

        obviously they can.  it's just immature and useless.

        nobody responds to

        "yo you're doing it wrong, jackass!!  and since you are you're obviously evil.  you've lost me forever."

        the same way as

        "I didn't like that decision AT ALL and don't understand the motivations behind it.  what gives?!"

        Opulence... I has it.

        by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:27:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  because when you do the latter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah

          you're generally less than politely told to join reality.

          So skip all the niceties and cut to the chase. It's not like one side of this tent is perpetually polite, while the other is perpetually rude.

          how much of a spineless fuck do you have to be if you can't stand up to peacelovin' liberals?!!--onemadson

          by o the umanity on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:14:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  this is bullshit lol (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            because when you do the latter you're generally less than politely told to join reality.

            and you know it...  but ok:  quote me one example  of someone doing that WITHOUT THE INSULTS and getting that impolite "join reality" response and I'll concede that point.

            Opulence... I has it.

            by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:33:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, it's not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah

              because, again:

              It's not like one side of this tent is perpetually polite, while the other is perpetually rude.

              how much of a spineless fuck do you have to be if you can't stand up to peacelovin' liberals?!!--onemadson

              by o the umanity on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:34:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you see my challenge to you (0+ / 0-)

                and I do admit when I'm wrong.  ask around or check my comments from yesterday.

                Opulence... I has it.

                by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:35:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you seem to be laboring (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Uberbah

                  under the delusion that such a challenge has any real point whatsoever.

                  As if it were the least bit germane, let alone important enough to pursue further, when bloggers are no more influential than a bucket of warm spit.

                  Right?

                  how much of a spineless fuck do you have to be if you can't stand up to peacelovin' liberals?!!--onemadson

                  by o the umanity on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  alright I'll rehash my problem with the doom (2+ / 0-)

                    and gloomers, just to answer the snarky "bucket of warm spit" thing (which I've literally never said):

                    according to the doomandgloomers NOTHING GOOD's been done.  and when you try to muster some enthusiasm to KEEP THE REPUBS OUT OF POWER on this DEMOCRATIC BLOG they unfailingly hit you with their list of things they don't like.

                    cries of "but the repubs are WAYYY WORSE!!!" are met with "strawman!!" like it's not true or something!

                    for every person on here who comments I think many lurk.  for every person on here who's opinion is pretty much set I think there are many who dont know how they really feel about things and are looking to those of us more vocal than them to see what we think.

                    when there's a contingent on here (again a DEMOCRATIC BLOG) that can't find one thing this DEMOCRATIC ADMIN has done right, or to their satisfaction... that is SURE to depress turnout over the what... hundreds of thousands of people who lurk on this blog.  elections are a zero-sum game.  I can't credit allowing my anger at whatever I don't like about this admin to cause me not to do WHATEVER I HAVE TO to make sure that next year this time we're not arguing about the republican controlled congress impeaching obama over questions of his citizenship or whateverthefuck.

                    if you think thats some "strawman"... I dont' know what to say.

                    meanwhile:

                    you seem to be laboring under the delusion that such a challenge has any real point whatsoever.

                    you're the one who made an assertion to me.  if you don't wanna prove it, thats fine.

                    Opulence... I has it.

                    by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:52:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  of COURSE we can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill

      Assasinations without due process are inherently evil.

      Prosecuting a child soldier, using a confession gained through torture is evil.

      Giving in to right wing fearmongering (closing of Gitmo) is cowardice.

      Promising 6 million GLBT voters that you will be a "fierce advocate for gay rights" and then sitting on your authority to halt DADT with the stroke of a pen, as over a thousand more gays are discharged, is being a fraud.

      When you have spent the last year and a half establishing a nice record of FAIL the way Obama has, it's entirely reasonable to speculate on his motives.

      And none of the possible options make Obama look good.

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Laurence Lewis

    Bookmarked for future reference :)

    This is what chump Change looks like.

    by Wamsutta on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:38:03 AM PDT

  •  Maybe Gibbs should return to Alabama (6+ / 0-)

    His boss relies on professional lefties like Rachel to shore up the base, and within weeks Gibbs hurls right wing insults at the same group. It's time to review the '08 election, at the very least.

    "Life is short, but long enough to get what's coming to you." --John Alton

    by Palafox on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:38:28 AM PDT

    •  Oh, did Rachel compare him to Bush, too? nt (4+ / 0-)

      "The joy of activity is the activity itself, not some arbitrary goal which, if not achieved, steals the joy." ~John "the Penguin" Bingham

      by sheddhead on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:41:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She shredded him on DADT last night (4+ / 0-)

        pretty damn good.

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by bobdevo on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:00:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one, not even Gibbs (2+ / 0-)

          said not to criticize.

          Good for her.

          "The joy of activity is the activity itself, not some arbitrary goal which, if not achieved, steals the joy." ~John "the Penguin" Bingham

          by sheddhead on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:05:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rachel is Rare and one of the Few (0+ / 0-)

            Rachel has been one of the rare few on the left that has actually put together compilation of the President Successes... While others have done nothing but whine that it wasn't good enough...

            When you have the Right attacking you with lies and the Left attacking you because they either couldn’t get everything they wanted or they couldn’t get what they wanted right now... Rachel become the welcoming fresh air..

            But

            This is the Woman who wasn’t scare to take on the Acorn Story while everyone else was running away from it.. and because of her thoroughness, she was able to use that story along with the Shirley Sherrod Story as well as many others as proof of Fox News Racial Profiling Propaganda... and since then O’Reilly foolishly believed, he could take her on... and she has been embarrassing him every since...

            Is she probably frustrated about DADT, well yeah and she has every right to be; and there are times I  where I haven't agreed with Rache's  approach on this but she gets more of my praise than she gets of my criticism...

            •  let me fix your framing: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chumley

              The reality-based community is, surprisingly enough, also a results-based community.  This means that when Obama delivers a good result - like having the DOJ back off on state-based medical marijuana - it is hailed as a great action.  And when Obama does something obscene - like put Americans on CIA hit lists - he gets called out for it.

              Funny how principles work that way.

              Whereas the personality-based community cheers on regardless - even if President Obama is directly contradicting firm positions held by Candidate Obama.  They manage this constant cheering by defining their principles around whatever stand Obama happens to be taking at the moment.

              ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

              by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:08:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Except he didn't walk anything back (10+ / 0-)

    He doubled down. He has nothing but a Rahm Emanuel type contempt for Liberals and Progressives.

    •  What have liberals done lately (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ANY THING TOO ADD

      except complain about every thing under the sun.

      My perception is that liberals are never happy about anything period.

      •  nothing like painting with a broad brush (10+ / 0-)

        Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have. Margaret Mead

        by byteb on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:51:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your perceptions are remarkably like those (6+ / 0-)

        of the idiot Democrats who supported the war in Vietnam for 15 years.

        Or like those on Faux Noise or Freeperville.

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by bobdevo on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:01:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  liberals went out and got people registered (9+ / 0-)

        made phone calls, knocked on doors, sent money to the campaign.

        Or do you mean "this morning"?

        "pardon me for interrupting but your straitjacket's showing" - Bob Hope

        by Shahryar on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:12:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  liberals deserve our contempt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, ANY THING TOO ADD

        good to hear that message getting through here.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:09:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you aren't a liberal, what are you? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chumley, Uberbah, lenzy1000

        That's a serious question. Why are you a Democrat? What issues/principles are important to you?

        This liberal hasn't been happy about much of anything for a long time. Why? Because the politics of the country has been pushed to the Right: toward war, toward disregard for the economically disadvantaged (a class war of the rich against the working and middle class and poor), toward a shredding of the Bill of Rights. And conservative and so-called "centrist" Democrats have been complicit in that rightward march every step of the way.

        So, I ask again, what do you hope for from Democrats when they are elected?

        •  I (0+ / 0-)

          am an INDEPENDENT Democrat and that's how I like it...

          I don't have to fit into any group... which gives me the freedom to speak freely without someone telling me I am not one of them because I am not...

          •  but what does that mean? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm seriously curious. What issues, what principles are important to you so that you support the Democrats?

            I'm not being presumptuous and putting you or missliberties in any group or sticking any label on you. I tried to be quite careful about that.

            I AM asking how you view politics and policy because, after all, that's what this is all about. And, in missliberties case, she made a blanket attack on "liberals."

            •  Views on Certain Things (0+ / 0-)
              I am Pro Choice... am I 100% Pro Choice absolutely not... I believe in a Woman's right to choose but not when the baby is 4 Month along in her stomach (But this is a Gray Area, there are going to be times were you have to consider the circumstance of the woman's Pregnancy, and that shouldn't be a Black in White Choice)

              Gun Right: I am for Gun Right but i am not for Unlimited Gun Rights... If you are a Hunter that's one thing but why would there be a need for you to take a loaded weapon to a bar, church or park. A gun should be safely kept in the house unless needed for hunting or an emergency... Why would anyone want or need any automatic weapons...

              War: I am for Necessary Wars...I was strongly against the Iraq War... and I strongly supported the Afghanistan War


              Healthcare:
              I support the Healthcare Bill; do I wish we could have gotten more... of course I do, but we have to start somewhere and considering that my daughter will be turning 18 soon, she will still be able to be covered... and can anyone tell me of a Bill that stayed in it's original form...

              Whistleblower vs. Wiretap: What's the difference... I actually have a problem with both if they are not exercise properly...

              Religion: I believe in freedom of religion... as long as it's not causing harm to anyone... Every has to find what Spiritually benefits them... I have never tried to denigrate anyone's religion nor do I group an entire group together by the bad actions of a few...

              DADT: I believe this has to be carefully handled... Not for the troops sake but for the troops that are being asked not to tell...but also believe that those who have been outed unfairly, should be allowed to remain in the military because my suspicion is that after 20 years, there are probably many of those in the military who are already aware of who you are....

              Marriage Equality: Same Sex Couple should be allowed to be miserable in marriage too LOL!!!!

              There are some Republicans I like and then there are some I don't like.... There are some democrats I like and then there are some I don't like... I don't like Extremes on either side....

              Now if you want to ask me something specifically I will do my best to answer...

              I have been told that sometimes I am hard to read, when you expect me to be a certain way, you almost get the opposite of what you are looking for...

  •  Gibbs wasn't talking about accountability. (12+ / 0-)

    Last I checked, accountability was built in the constitution. He was talking about people who are bitching 24/7 for past 18 months and who disapprove of pretty much everything Obama has done. They will never be happy and so it makes sense for White House to completely ignore them.

  •  The blog circle jerk continues (21+ / 0-)

    The Gibbs incident, followed closely by approximately 0.1% of the population, has been an amazing excuse for us to stare out ourselves and have immensely passionate discussions which have no bearings on the lives of real people anywhere

    I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

    by dansac on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:40:04 AM PDT

  •  Credit (6+ / 0-)

    Hold me accountable for the bad AND the good.

    I'm tired of being the shovel brigade after those elephants. - Sen. Tom Harkin

    by RhodaA on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:40:12 AM PDT

  •  "Are not." (6+ / 0-)

    "Am too."

    "Are not."

    "Am too."

    "Are not."

    "Am too."

    "Are not."

    "Am too."

    Remember: if you think I'm making fun of you, that's only because I am.

    by turnover on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:40:16 AM PDT

  •  And...... (4+ / 0-)

    we should honor his request.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:40:30 AM PDT

  •  Accountability: He should fire Gibbs (12+ / 0-)

    and Rahm - for undermining his bond with liberals, that is, "fucking liberal retards." Fire them for mocking liberals in the WH, mocking Kucinich who gave in to him to get him his HCR victory. To "save his presidency."  Now Kucinich is tossed like used tissue, mocked n the corridors of the WH, and in public. Makes me sick.

    I still went to Patty Murray HQ last night to phone for GOTV - but I'm sickened.

    CLEAR Act would sell carbon shares to fuel producers and would return 75 percent of the resulting revenue in $1,100 checks to every American.

    by mrobinson on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:40:34 AM PDT

  •  what i don't understand is, why can't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, CS in AZ, lightshine
    the administration criticize back, why is this ONLY one way?

    the left have been criticizing them since day 1, they criticize you (you being whoever is pissed) and you cry home to mama (write a rant criticizing them for criticizing you).

    PLEASE!!!!

  •  the video of obama vs. obama (8+ / 0-)

    shows the contradiction between what he said to get elected and what he has done now that he can serve the corporations, the surveillance state and the military.

    Yes he has done some good things. After Clinton and then 8 years of Bush, there was a back log of crap that needed to be changed. Thank you for doing that.

    But Obama has NOT taken on the forces that are pushing us into "Dark Ages America" a 2006 book with that title by Morris Berman. In fact he is pushing us down.

    There is a crisis in rationality itself in our crusade against the Enlightenment ideas embodied in out constitutional government.  

    •  See, that first paragraph (11+ / 0-)

      is not accountability. It's just insulting Obama.

      You cannot convince me that Obama wants to "serve the corporations, the surveillance state and the military". Work with them, especially the military - well, yes. Serve them? That's absurd.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:47:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  absurdly burring your head deep into... (0+ / 0-)

        ...a pile of sand.

        You cannot convince me that Obama wants to "serve the corporations, the surveillance state and the military". Work with them, especially the military - well, yes. Serve them? That's absurd.

        Then you're willfully ignoring reality as badly as a climate change denialist or board member of the Creationist Museum.  The Health Insurance Reform mandates millions of new customers while doing virtually nothing to reign in industry corruption or price gouging.  Hell, insurance companies were already exploiting loopholes in the bill before it was even signed.

        Obama has expanded the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex, at both high cost to the national pocketbook and our civil rights.

        Then of course there's Obama giving offshore drilling away to the oil companies and Republicans without getting a single concession in return.

        Pull your head out of the sand.

        ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

        by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  He certainly talks about wanting to be held (10+ / 0-)

    accountable.

    At some level it's actions versus words.

    At many levels, actually.

    They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too. - Ed Schultz, NN10

    by itswhatson on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:42:38 AM PDT

  •  But, if his opinion really differs (6+ / 0-)

    from that of those in his administration who attack critics, it speaks poorly of his management skills.

    Actually, the frequency with which his administration attacks critics and persecutes whistleblowers indicates that the President has not made an effort to stop them.  All who have been punished were those who  criticized his administration in one way or another.

    Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. - James Russell Lowell

    by Deep Harm on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:43:45 AM PDT

  •  Obama's covering an (apocryphal?) old FDR tune. (0+ / 0-)

    To paraphrase, "You are right, I agree with you, now make me do it."

    I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

    by labradog on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:44:10 AM PDT

  •  The GOP strategy is working (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, lostinamerica, lightshine

    No stimulus means the economy is getting worse.

    It is the Democrats who will get blamed.

    Somewhere, somehow, Obama needs a victory here, a feel good story,  a hero to turn the tides.

    NOt sure it that's gonna happen.

    In the meantime... all politics is local.

  •  Rachel Maddow sure the hell did last night (16+ / 0-)

    Rachel Maddow: "If you are changing the policy soon, why not hold off the ruination of lives under the policy now, in the meantime?"

    Why not, indeed, why not?

    Trickle down Equality isn't working

    by Scott Wooledge on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:45:46 AM PDT

    •  But.. She's a PROFESSIONAL.. (7+ / 0-)

      Obviously she should shut up.

      Or, if she can't do that: Say Everything's Fine.

      We're taking a STUDY on DADT.

      We're Bailing out everyone, except the American People.

      Everything's WONDERFUL.

      Whatever isn't Great, It's Rachael Maddow's Fault.

      •  funny I didn't see her (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clarknt67, ANY THING TOO ADD

        call the pres. a "coward" "evil" "sellout" any of that.

        Opulence... I has it.

        by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:19:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure many, many people did (4+ / 0-)

          if only in their own mind.

          Trickle down Equality isn't working

          by Scott Wooledge on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, She querstioned the President.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pithy Cherub, Uberbah, o the umanity

          Tried to hold him accountable..  Apparently, when a Leftist questions Endless Wars, the Inaction on DADT, The Inaction on Gay Marriage, the Inaction on the Single Payer/Public Option, etc..

          SOMEONE always says he isn't a "Coward", "evil", "Sellout", or anything like that.

          Well, Let me ask you this:

          DO YOU feel Torture, and defending and not prosecuting people who torture is Evil?

          DO YOU feel that taking 2 major planks of ACTUAL Health Care, and Deals with PHRMA is "Selling OUT" to PHRMA?

          DO YOU feel that taking things like importation of drugs (A Campaign pledge) "Off The Table"  is "Selling Out" to PHRMA?

          Do you feel that Saying I will veto a Bill that does not have a Public Option, then putting pressure on Representatives to pass a bill that allows Insurance Companies Unlimited Profits without a Public Option Cowardly?

          Do YOU feel the Inaction on DADT and Gay Marriage, things that at least one judge feels is partially a basic civil right not up to a vote, is cowardly to its opponents? The Right, and less than half of Americans?

          Do you feel that immediately Firing Mrs. Sherrod was Cowardly, because Glenn Beck may play an edited tape on his show?

          And Do you feel that people, professional or not, who call the President of the United States to account on what he said as a candidate, and as President, should be drug tested, are crazy, and (Per Rahm Earlier) "Retarded Lefties"?

          On that Last Point, I don't.

          •  ok (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, ANY THING TOO ADD

            DO YOU feel Torture, and defending and not prosecuting people who torture is Evil?

            torture is evil.  I understand the admin being loathe to worsen the political climate with prosecutions.  understand the decision but don't agree with it.  

            I don't KNOW one way or the other but I really don't think the president is evil.

            DO YOU feel that taking 2 major planks of ACTUAL Health Care, and Deals with PHRMA is "Selling OUT" to PHRMA?

            not necessarily, no.  If I were in the room when that happened and saw the pres chuckling it up with pharma representatives like "we're gonna so fuck the american people on this and that is AWESOME" then sure I would.

            DO YOU feel that taking things like importation of drugs (A Campaign pledge) "Off The Table"  is "Selling Out" to PHRMA?

            not necessarily, no.  If I were in the room when that happened and saw the pres chuckling it up with pharma representatives like "we're gonna so fuck the american people on this and that is AWESOME" then sure I would.

            Do you feel that Saying I will veto a Bill that does not have a Public Option, then putting pressure on Representatives to pass a bill that allows Insurance Companies Unlimited Profits without a Public Option Cowardly?

            no.

            Do YOU feel the Inaction on DADT and Gay Marriage, things that at least one judge feels is partially a basic civil right not up to a vote, is cowardly to its opponents? The Right, and less than half of Americans?

            I don't understand the inaction of DADT but can't go to knowing someone's heart and calling them "cowardly" as easily as you, apparently.

            Do you feel that immediately Firing Mrs. Sherrod was Cowardly, because Glenn Beck may play an edited tape on his show?

            it was obviously the wrong thing to do, but the day of the controversy I was calling for her to be fired too.  cowardly?  no.  rash.

            And Do you feel that people, professional or not, who call the President of the United States to account on what he said as a candidate, and as President, should be drug tested, are crazy, and (Per Rahm Earlier) "Retarded Lefties"?

            those of who leap to the judgments I enumerated in my first comment, most times with no hard proof, only an internal narrative... I have very little respect for.  I don't go around calling what people do "retarded" and don't make comments about people's use of controlled substances.

            the people I reserve my ire for are the aforementioned and the folks who obviously didn't pay attention to what candidate Obama said about topics like Afghanistan.

            I personally think the Press Secretary was talking about people who get paid to pundit.  not amateur bloggers.

            Opulence... I has it.

            by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:10:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Worsen the POLITICAL Climate? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah

              there is this little thing called Rule Of Law.  And What is Right.

              Notice how the Health Insurance Companies and PHRMA Profits grow, Unlimited Lifetime Earnings.

              And without Single Payer and Public Option even though he said he would veto a bill without one.

              We Listened to him when he said that too.

              I wouldn't be surprised if the Laughter couldn't be heard in surrounding states.

              And Cowardly actions /= coward.  Nice jumping to conclusions on my thoughts too.  However, If I take your extremely faulty premise to its logical conclusion:

              If Being afraid of what you stated about another subject above as the "Political Climate", and assuming the "Political Climate" you refer to is the climate concerning the opponents of civil rights -- the Republicans-- and being afraid of what they would say and do:

              Is that not what a coward would do?

              And yes, He said Escalation in Afghanistan.

              We Listened To Him When he said 1-2 Brigades, then it went a great deal more than that.  

              And We Listened to him about being out of Iraq by now.

              And We Listened to him when he said Guantanimo will be closed by 12/31/09.  It's August 12, 2010 and no closing in sight.

              And We Listened to Him when he said DADT will be overturned, even though there are both provisions in the Constitution (C in C) AND THE LAW ITSELF to stop it by Presidential Action

              We Listened to him then too.. We always listen to him.  He makes some of the best speeches anyone has heard in decades.

              •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ANY THING TOO ADD

                Worsen the POLITICAL Climate?
                there is this little thing called Rule Of Law.  And What is Right.

                hence me saying:

                understand the decision but don't agree with it.

                really don't understand the purpose of having this discussion if whole phrases of mine are going to be ignored by you, to "score points" or something.

                Opulence... I has it.

                by mallyroyal on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:31:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't agree. but acquiesce.. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Uberbah

                  There are 2 thoughts I have on that.

                  Understand the decision?  OK, Um,

                  I technically am about to "Lose Points" here..

                  Would you have said the same if you thought that the Reichstag made a bad law about another minority taking away one of their Civil rights (The right to Marry, in fact).  

                  understand the decision but don't agree with it.

                  You wouldn't want to "Rock the Boat"?  Speak Up? Worsen the "Political Climate" (OK, the other parties were outlawed by then, but maybe you really wouldn't want to worsen the "political Climate".)

                  Is the "Political Climate" the be all end all?  Or is the Right Thing the Be all And End All?  

                  If the Right thing isn't important anymore, I fear for the Republic, and the Teabaggers have already won.

                  I understand you "didn't agree with it", and I am not even saying I am upset at you.  

                  But, when I am told to basically shut up by the one person whose job description is to speak on behalf of the President of the United States, it's Upsetting.

                •  But that's their (0+ / 0-)

                  purpose, they are not here to have a conversation, they are here to post the same naive rhetoric over and over again..

              •  How (0+ / 0-)

                shockingly naive you are... Is it possible that once he took office more information was available to him that wasn't when he was Candidate Obma...

                and yes, some of those other things didn't go as planned, but I take it everything you've set out to do has worked out perfect correct? There have never been any bumps in your road?

            •  Worsen the POLITICAL Climate? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chumley, Uberbah

              You mean like when the POTUS' press secretary says flat out that some of the party faithful should be drug-tested for daring to criticize?

              Yeah, that's really contributing to the happy happy, joy joy motif in a positive way...

              how much of a spineless fuck do you have to be if you can't stand up to peacelovin' liberals?!!--onemadson

              by o the umanity on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:32:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As long as he's not covered in blood (0+ / 0-)

                 DO YOU feel that taking 2 major planks of ACTUAL Health Care, and Deals with PHRMA is "Selling OUT" to PHRMA?

              not necessarily, no.  If I were in the room when that happened and saw the pres chuckling it up with pharma representatives like "we're gonna so fuck the american people on this and that is AWESOME" then sure I would.

              ... up to the elbows, he didn't do it, nobody saw him, you can't prove nuthin.

        •  funny you're still serving Kool Aid frames... (0+ / 0-)

          ...after Obama has strongly opposed most of what he ran on, and strongly supported most of what he ran against.

          ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

          by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:44:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This quote (7+ / 0-)

      Q: What do you say to progressives, who, on reading their comments yesterday, say, well, if that's their attitude, I'm staying home in Novemeber?
      A: I don't think they will, because I think what's at stake in November is too important to do that.

      They don't intend to lift a finger. As far as they are concerned they have our votes no matter what they do.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:54:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I got paid what Maddow gets paid... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clarknt67, ANY THING TOO ADD

      ...and someone called me a 'professional leftist', my reaction would be to smile and say "Why, why yes! I am! Thank you!"

  •  There's going to be some tension in this kind (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, Laurence Lewis

    of dynamic.  Both sides are going to step over the line at some point.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:45:53 AM PDT

  •  He is 100% accountable for ... (11+ / 0-)

    the ruination of the careers of each and every American soldier who has been discharged under DADT since he took office.

    100%.

    On this issue, he has been abysmal.

    Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

    by emsprater on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:46:11 AM PDT

    •  Congress passes a law (5+ / 0-)

      The job of the President is to enforce that law.

      It's called The Constitution. You should look it up.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:48:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The law already on the books ... (11+ / 0-)

        has a provision within it to be used at the pleasure of the POTUS / CIC called 'stop loss'.

        You might want to 'look that up'.

        It was there for his use on 'day one'.   His refusal to pick up the tools already provided for him within the law to aid relief for LGBT Americans  is depressing.

        Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

        by emsprater on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:52:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Executive Order, Stop loss plans.. (11+ / 0-)

        There are many ways to stop it under his Leadership..

        He IS the Commander in Chief, and it is the Military.

        The Title Commander-In-Chief is under the Duties of the President of the United States.

        It's in the Constitution.  You should look it up.

      •  Here's something for you to look upo (9+ / 0-)

        Three legal, viable executive options Obama could exercise to halt DADT discharges (you know, like his admin halted the deportation of widow, in violation of immigration law).

        I doubt you'll look it up, it contradicts your, "Obama is just an impotent, powerless spokesmodel" meme.

        Trickle down Equality isn't working

        by Scott Wooledge on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:53:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hi, Clark67 (0+ / 0-)

          #1:

          There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says.  First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, "Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation"  Under the law "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" during a "period of national emergency."  The statute specifically defines a "national emergency" as a time when "members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty."

          As of March 10th, 123k reservists are deployed. So that works - but it appears to my reading that the President has to suspend the applicable provision of law in each case, individually. In other words, the law is still there, person X has to go through the discharge process, and then Obama issues an EO that person X is essential to the national security. Might work for a Dari translator, but not so good for a cook.

          The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the "don’t ask, don’t tell" legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense... in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation."  Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members "if" a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the "authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made."

          This says that the law requires that processes exists, but doesn't say what they are - so the President can order the Pentagon to devise processes that don't ever result in a discharge. That is, pull a Dubya and don't enforce laws that you don't like. Or order that no finding of homosexuality ever be made - which is essentially decreeing the results of cases in military courts.

          Yes, this could work until it faced a legal challenge. Just as the Bush era EPA was forced by court order to actually do its job - all it would take is one commander who felt he should be able to discharge a gay soldier, and I suspect the SCOTUS would order that the law be followed.

          I therefore find the first basis to be allowable but impractical, and the second and third to be likely to fail judicial review based on separation of powers. IANAL, but I think this is a weak tripod upon which to base your hopes.

          Therefore, I retain the opinion that the ball really is in Congress' court.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  trying to have your own facts with your opinion? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emsprater

            Therefore, I retain the opinion that the Obama is totally blameless.

            Fixed that for you.  Obama has two magic wants to stop DADT with the stroke of a pen, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with.

            And again, it's funny how Obama "just has" to follow the law on DADT and prosecuting whistleblowers, while Wall Street fraud and torture goes unprosecuted.

            ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

            by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:51:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess we'll have to disagree, then (0+ / 0-)

              Because I read that article, and what it says does not end DADT with the stroke of a pen. It just doesn't.

              Either he has to undo every case after it has concluded - "stop loss" only applies to those who are being lost; or he has to order the Pentagon to not enforce the law.

              Not enforcing the law only works so long as no one with standing sues - that's how the EPA got ordered to enforce the law. If someone with standing would sue to enforce anti-torture laws, then prosecutions might take place. But there are lots of officers with standing to sue over not enforcing DADT.

              In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

              by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:30:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  too damned bad (0+ / 0-)

                All the facts are against you on the halting of DADT, as has been proven multiple times to you now.

                Deal.  With.  It.

                ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

                by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:56:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe I'm just dumb (0+ / 0-)

                  But I don't see how something that could be challenged in court in a heartbeat is a solution to the problem.

                  In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                  by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:04:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  He should have order a stop-loss (6+ / 0-)

      halting discharges in the first 6 months, if he was aware his process was to drag the process out by slow-walking it for two years.

      I wasn't crazy about the stop-loss idea 18 months ago. But I've also come to think of it at 1000 Choi units ago. Now objecting to it seems making the good the enemy of the perfect.

      Trickle down Equality isn't working

      by Scott Wooledge on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:50:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OH come on (0+ / 0-)

      not just this issue on every issue he has been abusmal.

      And all the folks here have been busy helping the gop point out all of this administrations faults.

  •  I really don't care if he invites and welcomes (9+ / 0-)

    our suggestions and criticisms.  What I care about is what he actually does with them, and the way it looks now, he probably throws them in with the rest of the trash.  I also don't like being told that he plans to do something he has no intention of doing.  Mr. President, we're really not fools out here, so please tell it like it is, because if you don't, you will lose any and all trust we ever had in you.  Trust is a valuable thing to have, but a hard thing to get back once you lose it.  I'm sure you know that, but politics has a way of messing with minds and intentions.

    •  How many times were we urged (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden

      to call or email the White House to tell them what we thought on health care, even though at that point it was already a foregone conclusion?

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:57:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, he looks forward to our letters/emails (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angela Quattrano

      because he doesn't read them or care what they say. I too welcome all slings and arrows that I tend to totally ignore. Keep focusing people's efforts on things that can be kept private and prevent them from doing public demonstrations seems to be the goal here. My guess is that when the unemployed start marching on Washington it MIGHT get his attention

      President Obama is the best moderate Republican president in my lifetime. kasandra.us

      by KS Rose on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correct. His response is what matters. (0+ / 0-)

      And so far that response has been a combination of silence, excuses, and STFU.  What we haven't seen is action to fix the deficiencies.

      So folks on the Left are called whiners because Obama refuses to listen to any of them.

      Note to Democratic leadership: I'm all out of carrots, but I still have my stick.

      by Celtic Pugilist on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:49:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oho! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    (syncophantic laughter and mee-too-ism)

    (sneering condescension at desperate projectionary impulses of others)

  •  Obviously No Longer in effect. (6+ / 0-)

    Gibbs works at the Pleasure of the President.

    Rahm works at the Pleasure of the President.

    When Rahm called us "Retarded", He was at the Pleasure of the President

    When Gibbs said the Professional Left wanting Canadian Health CARE instead of HEalth INSURANCE COMPANY UNLIMITED LIFETIME PROFIT....

    And when He said getting rid of the PEntagon (Which VERY FEW said, unlike the VAST MAJORITY who want us OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW..

    And basically said it was our fault, and not the Administration, and the Person he works at the pleasure of..

    Obviously, speaking for Obama, Gibbs told us to shut the f**k up.  

    Because nothing will change, and the American people will be fu**ed by us, unemployment will continue to rise (if you count the 99rs and those dropped off the rolls and those not looking), and Wall Street, Banks, and the like will be bailed out and guaranteed profits FOREVER.

    And it's Our Fault.

    Heartbreaking.

    •  Rahm (0+ / 0-)

      never called anyone retarded.

      Much like Al Gore claiming he invented the internet, it is nothing more than a zombie lie.

      "I'm not saying Santa isn't from the North Pole. I'm just saying produce the birth certificate, that's all." pourmecoffee

      by sviscusi on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:02:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Zombie lies about lying (0+ / 0-)

           The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.

           "F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

        ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

        by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:54:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Most of... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, sviscusi, lightshine

    what liberals seems to be griping about not having been done yet is more to do with Congress than the White House. Unless you want to give the American president the power to dissolve Congress, the most he can be held accountable for is the executive branch.

    He can't do something like reform immigration by executive order.

    •  Not true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, Looking for Mauve

      The president ordered Guantanamo to be closed within a year, executive order. Didn't happen.

      CLEAR Act would sell carbon shares to fuel producers and would return 75 percent of the resulting revenue in $1,100 checks to every American.

      by mrobinson on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:54:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What on... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine, ANY THING TOO ADD

        earth does that have to do with what I said?

        If you think immigration reform equates to closing Guantanamo, then I now know exactly who Gibbs was addressing.

        •  You said.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, o the umanity

          Most of what liberals seems to be griping about not having been done yet is more to do with Congress than the White House.

          The commenter gave you a counter-example.

          Seems pretty clear to me.

          "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

          by Wayward Son on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Did you miss (0+ / 0-)

        the part where congress passed a law cutting off all funds to do so?

        "I'm not saying Santa isn't from the North Pole. I'm just saying produce the birth certificate, that's all." pourmecoffee

        by sviscusi on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We got that that's another bullshit excuse, yes. (0+ / 0-)

          If Obama wanted to close Gitmo, he would have simply ordered all prisoners transferred and been done with it.

          Instead, he conveniently said he'd wait a year, then conveniently let Republicans take over the issue, then conveniently signed the bill denying use of federal funds for transfer of of prisoners.

          Obama has shown he is perfectly capable of issuing veto threats, first over F-22 funding, then over increased oversight of the CIA.  Yet he conveniently didn't issue one over Gitmo.

          Hmmm.....

          But even if he had issued an order, and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress had passed such a bill with veto-proof margins, Obama still could have sat on it for 9 days before having to veto it - more than enough time to move a few hundred prisoners 90 miles to U.S. land.  And it's not like he didn't have a a plethora of places to put them.

          Enough with the weak excuses for weak leadership.

          ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

          by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:10:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The health care bill and more. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, Uberbah

      The President sat on his hands when the health care public option was being considered.  Instead, he somewhat secretly met with pharmaceutical companies and agreed to allow them to continue their extortion that passes for price.  He also took a huge chunk of money out of Medicare to pay for the health care bill, and although he says it won't matter, we'll just have to wait and see.  And now, he's probably done the most political and dishonest thing of all.  He's given up his responsibility to solve our budget and Social Security problems to a committee made of of many people who were never elected by the people and don't have to worry about ever being reelected.  Most of these people are rightwingers who don't work for us, and I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

      FDR never did this.  He knew that it was his responsibility to solve problems, and giving them over to a panel of supposed experts is just another way to hide under the bed when tough decisions have to be made and you don't want to make corporate America mad.  After all, they have all the power these day.  Now they're even human beings.  What's next, getting the vote?

    •  Not true. As I established quite clearly... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      ...here. Most of the things liberals are griping about are entirely Obama's responsibility.

      Barack Obama: Ignores his legal obligation to prosecute people who tortured prisoners to death. Good at photo ops, though.

      by expatjourno on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:04:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's (0+ / 0-)

        a rather ideological list...it's possible he agrees with some of it. There is at least one thing on there that I support.

        Obama doesn't govern form the ideological left. And I'm glad he doesn't.

        •  It may or may not be ideological. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chumley, Uberbah, o the umanity

          That's not relevant. What IS relevant is that it proves you wrong when you say:

          Most of... (2+ / 0-)
          what liberals seems to be griping about not having been done yet is more to do with Congress than the White House.

          Most of the things liberals gripe about have to do with White House decisions, not Congress. Moreover, issues like health insurance reform, the stimulus bill and banking reform have to do with Congress as much as (not more than) the White House.

          So that dog of your won't hunt.

          Barack Obama: Ignores his legal obligation to prosecute people who tortured prisoners to death. Good at photo ops, though.

          by expatjourno on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No it doesn't... (0+ / 0-)

            because your list is second tier stuff.

            With the bigger problems facing the country, the complaint about the homophobe delivering the invocation is akin to the guy proposing that no more mosques be allowed to be built in the US. It's small stuff.

            If that's the top tier gripes, then Gibbs was a hundred times more right than I already think he was.

            This is why the independents are gone.

        •  "Ideological lists" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chumley, Uberbah, o the umanity

          I've seen an awful lot of them posted by Obama supporters, listing as "victories" a great many things that may change greatly in their implementation, and these are things that for the most part have already been watered down greatly from the original proposals.

          "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

          by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:27:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  weak excuses for weak leadership (0+ / 0-)

      Where did Obama come from again before running for president?  Oh yeah, the U.S. Senate.  Where Republicans were already breaking all records for use of the filibuster, where Reid was already a weak majority leader.

      Yet Obama had no problem promising Hope and Change with 51 Democrats in the Senate.  He's handed a landslide victory and 60 seats in the Senate, and the first thing he does is throw his campaign platform in the garbage?

      So right of the bat, your current defense of Obama means that his entire campaign was a lie.  Secondly, you might have a case if Obama actually went balls to the wall pressuring Congress to pass legislation, and was actually blocked by actual obstruction, as opposed to Villain Rotation.

      Then, try explaining why Bush and Frist never whined about needing 60 votes to pass legislation.

      Finally, try explaining why Bush was extremely effect in getting his agenda through Congress after his poll numbers suffered their permanent post-Katrina collapse and after the Dems took back Congress.

      Enough with the weak excuses for weak leadership.

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Holding him accountable is one thing. (9+ / 0-)

    Calling him "Bush" whenever you disagree with him is not "holding him accountable," it's just being an hysteric with no perspective.

    People love to say "But nobody on Daily Kos does that!" -- well just yesterday, diarist Robert Naiman published a diary with the headline "Obama's Pakistan Katrina? Helicopters for war but not for relief".  A timely example of exactly what Gibbs was talking about -- people who lie to themselves and everyone else about what Obama is or is not doing, and then liken him to Bush based on their own lies.

    Holding Obama accountable is not the same thing as holding Obama responsible for everything that happens in the world that one doesn't like.  Unfortunately not enough people can tell the difference.

    •  well calling him Bush when he retains (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      Bush's policies is (granted a little blunt, but so are a lot of impactful words) but not unfair.  

    •  I never called the President "Bush." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      And I'm not going to be a fool and work for a man who hides his friends in the closet and only lets them out after the election.  I want to know who someone I'm working for and voting for really is.  I don't like telling my friends and family that they should vote for someone because he will do certain things he has no intention of ever doing.  In short, I don't like being taken for a fool, and I'm very sad about what has happened to our country where the people only count on election day.

      •  Nor did anyone else. Seriously (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        it happens so rarely that to speak of it as if it is common is a sign of a persecution complex.

        "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

        by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:28:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I gave an example of it from yesterday. (3+ / 0-)

          It happens all the time; you simply choose not to see it because it would interfere with your ability to enjoy feeling persecuted.

          •  No (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah

            It doesn't happen all the time. It happens rarely, and most often it shows up in comments claiming it happens all the time but that give no links. So you found one occurrance. What does that really prove?

            What I do occasionally see is someone pointing out that a certain policy of Obama's is worse than the corresponding policy of Bush, not that overall Obama = Bush or Obama is worse than Bush.

            In fact it is true that Obama's policy on assassination of American citizens is worse than Bush's. Do you dispute that?

            "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

            by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:15:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  hysterical well-debunked red herrings (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has expanded Bush's military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex, so it is entirely appropriate to compare the two on these matters.

      And that's a fact that no amount of hysterical hand waving is going to brush aside.

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So Gibbs got fired? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, Uberbah, Angela Quattrano

    for contradicting his boss? Ya right..., we are being played for fools.

    I did campaign on the public option, and I'm proud of it! Corporat Democrats will not get my vote, hence I will not vote.

    by Jazzenterprises on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:49:01 AM PDT

  •  Same old: liberals have no where to go (8+ / 0-)

    On progressives staying home:

    Gibbs: "I don't think they will."

    CLEAR Act would sell carbon shares to fuel producers and would return 75 percent of the resulting revenue in $1,100 checks to every American.

    by mrobinson on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:50:13 AM PDT

    •  For President we may not.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, coffejoe

      For Local offices, I am not sure about that.

      Bernie Sanders is Elected as an Independent, or Progressive line.

      There is always hope..

      And there is the worst thought than even third party..

      Not Showing up at all.

    •  That to me is tone deaf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink

      I usually don't stay home, won't for Congress and my state elections but I could for the 2012 President....I could not give money. Crap I gave money during hard times with an unemployed spouse....so to me "they won't stay home" is very tone deaf.

      It only takes one moderate Repubican to change someone's vote.....

      Stand your grounds. Espresso yourself.

      by coffejoe on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:57:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I won't be staying home. (4+ / 0-)

      I'll be voting for Democrats, as usual, whenever there's a chance.  Progress may be slow under a Democratic Congress, but the Republicans would have us back in the Dark Ages.

      Personally, I can't believe that anybody would have the gall to refuse to vote when people die for the right to do so.  I think staying home on election day is shameful.

      •  Right... (0+ / 0-)

        what's funny to me is that some still think this is the time for immigration reform, when the very 14th Amendment is under attack.

        It's like demanding a house be built on a foundation that is cracking before our eyes.

        •  no, what's funny... (0+ / 0-)

          ...is continually thinking that caving in to right wing frames and demands is going to yield dividends for anyone other than the right wing.

          ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

          by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:15:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Simple new rule (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, Uberbah

      I won't vote for anyone who isn't willing to consider me a human being entitled to equal legal rights.

      Not everyone will agree with me on this, but as I define those terms, the President doesn't qualify.

      I am done supporting people who look down on me.  I don't have time for it, it's demeaning and demoralizing to even ask me to consider it.

      I am done.

    •  It is a clear message (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, lenzy1000

      We aren't going to a thing for you because we know you will vote for us no matter what we do.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:31:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fanstasy Island, that's where Gibbs lives. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chumley, Uberbah

      It's the people who don't have jobs who will staying home, not activists.

      Hard to motivate people who are in desperation to support and administration that refuses to lead.

      What do I tell people as I go door to door trying to encourage them to vote for candidates in my State, good people who are being hung out to dry because the WH and Congress refuse to do anything to lessen the suffering?

      Good people will lose this November because this WH reaches across the aisle, and rewards people like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

      Dean was wrong.
      We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

      by shpilk on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:55:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What happened in Mass.? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      Some people have short memories

  •  Certainly if we are allowed to criticize the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, sviscusi, CS in AZ, lightshine

    President he and his staff can criticize the paid pundits. Apparently not.

    "Don't fall or we both go" Derek Hersey

    by ban nock on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:50:28 AM PDT

  •  some of this isn't "holding him accountable" (11+ / 0-)

    Some of it is just rampant self-defeatism from people too immature to understand actual politics.  Because the things Obama does aren't perfect (and few things done in the real world ever will be perfect), a lot of people here dismiss everything good that he has done.  That's what gets wearisome.

    When I look at his track record and then hear some jagoff saying "He's no better than Bush," I don't really blame Gibbs for losing his patience.  It's frustrating trying to do anything for people who are bound and determined to find fault-and-fault-only.  Criticize him, sure, absolutely, but a lot of people here are just flat-out giving up, throwing in the towel, and reacting in a way that's entirely inappropriate to what's been done.  Have disappointment, sure, but have it like a grown-up, not a tantrum-throwing toddler.

    Even though we elected Obama, it doesn't mean he does only things we like.  This is still a pretty evenly split country, and he has to be the president of the people who didn't vote for him, too.  That entails compromises.  That's not a  fun thing, but a necessary one.

    And primary one should be keeping the Republicans out of power.  I know what a threat to American freedom they represent, and so I

    want their fucking political machine gutted, stripped down, and put on blocks for the duration.  After that's done - and it's still a long way from it -  then we can concentrate more on fine-tuning what we've got.  Now's a bad time.

    This president is being assailed by the right wing in very extreme and crazy ways... and I'd like to at least see the people in the foxhole next to me focused on taking them out, rather than firing in the same direction they are.  A lot of people here don't seem to get what's going on, and that gets frustrating.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:50:30 AM PDT

    •  exactly (3+ / 0-)

      people are whining about not moving forward when often it takes every bit of effort from this administration to prevent this GOP from knocking it into a backward freefall.

      •  yep, they think it's too easy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine

        A lot of people aren't showing me that they have a realistic view of how hard actually getting things done in Washington is.  And they don't seem to recognize progress... everything's "finish line" with them.  

        Like the health care reform.  It's not what I want the finished product to be, but it's a major accomplishment to get such a massive thing done at all... and now that it's in place, they can tweak it.  It's a lot easier to ammend an existing bill than it is to ram a perfect one through right from the giddy... especially when Republicans are doing their damnedst to try to keep anything from being accomplished.

        "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

        by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:04:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  'some' - so let's throw out ALL criticism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      because 'some' [a small handful of posters] are over the top and say stupid shit, because Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and Republicans are knuckle dragging morons who think the earth is flat and an image of Jeebus is growing as mold on their toast.  

      .. got the book, read the screenplay, stayed at the Holiday Inn last night, too.

      Yawn.

      Dean was wrong.
      We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

      by shpilk on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:02:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you're not going to read, don't reply (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi, mallyroyal, PaDemTerry

        You're apparently arguing with someone else, because that's not what I said.

        What I said is:

        Criticize him, sure, absolutely, but a lot of people here are just flat-out giving up, throwing in the towel, and reacting in a way that's entirely inappropriate to what's been done.  Have disappointment, sure, but have it like a grown-up, not a tantrum-throwing toddler.

        That's very different from "throw out ALL criticism," isn't it?  

        "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

        by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:10:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'Some say' you posted a straw man. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, Angela Quattrano

          Dean was wrong.
          We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

          by shpilk on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  man, that's ironic. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            You accuse me of doing what you just did. :D  You don't even understand what you're talking about.

            What, are you hell-bent on embarrassing yourself today and figure - from past experience - that I'm the best one to help you do it with some style?  

            "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

            by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:56:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh sure.. giving up isn't adult ROTFLOL@U (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, Angela Quattrano

          Let's see, we're not supposed to personally attack the president but then you go ahead and call those that are giving up names.

          Hypocrite much?

          President Obama is the best moderate Republican president in my lifetime. kasandra.us

          by KS Rose on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:57:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  does the shoe fit or something? (0+ / 0-)

            If you're doing your criticizing like a grown-up instead of a tantrum-throwing toddler, then there's not much for you to be offended about, is there?  I mean, I did provide that alternative.

            But, you know your work better than I do, so... take offense if it's appropriate.

            "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

            by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:07:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh no. You don't get away with that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah

              Go bully someone else. I clearly spoke of the folks that are giving up and your (now repeated) attack on them while decrying folks attacking the president. You are a total hypocrite.

              Plus, you aren't in charge of the universe. I don't have to fit into one box or the other that YOU provide. How arrogant LOL

              President Obama is the best moderate Republican president in my lifetime. kasandra.us

              by KS Rose on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:39:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  who's bullying you? (0+ / 0-)

                Last time I checked, it was you who were following me around.  I didn't reply to you; you replied to me.

                And I haven't tried to fit you into any box.  It appears, though, that you're doing that for yourself.  If what I said doesn't apply to you, cool.  And if it does, eh, it's just my opinion; learn to deal with the fact that not everybody loves ya. :)

                Anyway, if it's upsetting you, it's a huge blog and maybe you could go find someone to talk to who you do like, instead.  It certainly won't bother me any.  I'm just replying because you seemed to want some kind of confrontation.  If getting a response you were looking for somehow makes you feel "bullied," though, I'll just leave it.  

                "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

                by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  it's the Bill O'Reilly method.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chumley

        ...of cherry picking a handful of comments and then basing your argument around them.

        If that fails, whine about ponies and wanting Obama to be a dictator.

        If that fails, just break out the Houle Hoop, and move on like Fox News does when they're getting pwned.

        ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

        by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:18:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you keep hearing this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Uberbah

      When I look at his track record and then hear some jagoff saying "He's no better than Bush," I don't really blame Gibbs for losing his patience.

      even though it's not even part of the discussion, your problem is with reality.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:35:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Using a handful of lunatic posters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, Angela Quattrano

        and strawmen to silence the rest of us.

        Dean was wrong.
        We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

        by shpilk on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:49:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  who's silencing you? (0+ / 0-)

          You're really reacting to things that just aren't happening... and, hilariously, you keep talking about "strawmen" while you do it.

          I'm not silencing you. It's not in my power to silence you, and I wouldn't do it, even if it were.  I am, however, saying that I think you're wrong.  And I'm free to do that, just as you are free to express yourself.  It's a discussion board, after all.

          And I'm clearly saying "some," not all.  "Some" is true; "all" would not be.  If you're not one of the ones I'm talking about, then what flipped your squeal-switch?  You're self-identifying, and that's your problem, not mine.

          "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

          by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:13:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  if you haven't been seeing that around here... (0+ / 0-)

        ...then you're not very observant.  

        Or at least conveniently-selective about what you acknowledge.  Because I've butted heads with plenty of people who've just given up because they don't think there's any difference.

        And those are the problem-with-reality people you'd be lookin' for.

        "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

        by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:15:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Holding someone accountable does not (7+ / 0-)

    include:

    1. Name-calling and insults such as "spineless" "wimp" "gutless" "afraid of FOX NEWS" "afraid of White People" "needing to grow a pair." "Bush-lite"
    1. Engaging in character assasinations and questioning motives and agenda even in the face of contradictory evidence( e.g., Obama deliberately killed the public option, Obama is in bed with Wall Street, Obama is narcissistic and only out for himself and his Chicago Cronies, Obama is a liar...etc).
    1. Distorting news/media reports to spin false narratives about the person's actions or words. That includes quoting words out of context, deliberate omisions of key info, citing unsourced articles based on rumor and innuendo, etc.
    1. Threats and calls to primary in 2012 or sit out the midterm elections if _ is not done.
    1. Deliberately minimizing, burying, dismissing REAL and important accomplishments as too little, too late, not good enough, while magnifying mistakes and dwelling on them out of proportion to their actual significance.
    •  Those people (0+ / 0-)

      make me physically sick. And if any of the hater's feewings are hurt ... well, PUFF MY CIGAR!

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:02:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've got news for you (5+ / 0-)

      Threats and calls to primary in 2012 or sit out the midterm elections if _ is not done.

      This is the ONLY means I, or most of us here, have to hold an elected official accountable.

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:05:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can understand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine

        primarying someone if they are failing on a large scale (which Obama isn't) AND if there is a suitable candidate who is probably going to do a better job (there hasn't been any such candidate).  

        But selecting one or two issues and basing a desire to primary someone without understanding the broader picture of why those two issues have not been accomplished to satisfaction, or the implications of primarying is misguided, I think.

        •  Completely sidestepping my comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, chumley, Uberbah

          How exactly do YOU propose to hold elected officials accountable other than through providing/restricting support?

          "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

          by heart of a quince on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:19:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hopefruit does not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah

            intend for elected officials to be held accountable. They're doing the best they can, and we shouldn't criticize them by doing mean things like listing inconvenient facts.

            "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

            by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You don't (0+ / 0-)

            The entire point of all this is that Obama said some words, and so his inactions are excusable.  Just who do you think you are to question the will of the Very Serious and Totally Perfect Great Men?  Non-rich, white, straight, conservative men need to realize that they are prole scum.  That politics is about the enrichment of the elites, where relief must come yesterday for their problems, even if they are the responsible parties; and if you are not one of the elites, then you need to understand that you need to wait decades or centuries before you get moved up to fifth-class citizen, and it is your own fault when someone else destroys your life, cause the bankers need more money.  Politics is governed by immutable laws of nature, and to even wish for a less exploitive system is to be a Dirty Fucking Hippie.  To look at the DoI or the COTUS as having any bearing on how to create a fair and just nation is treason - to even desire a fair and just nation is heresy against White Christian God and his Grand Old Patriarchy.  This Great American Nation was founded specifically to insure that the idea to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" never ever even attempts to come into fruition.  Because to expect healthcare that doesn't require you to personally support some bastard's job of denying you care, or to deny a Wall Street banker an extra yacht when he already blew through your retirement like a fratboy in Vegas high on PCP, or to stop and maybe not fire a Black woman because some known smear artist shows you his clumsily edited tape (notice the White man not only got to keep his job, but got to get back on the air and twist the knife.  Because he is a real human and not some mongrel muddite, so this is how hte universe must be); to expect these things is to rebel against the forces of nature.  To expect some real good, like single-payer, or a financial industry accountable for their mistakes, or an administration not run by people who happily trash the people who voted for them while busily taint-licking the ones who never will - you have now devolved deep into delusional lalaland. My god, you stupid shit, how dare you expect such things!  Politics doesn't work that way - never has, never will, and anyone who subscribes to the idea that it might is to be shunned as a heretic at worst and rounded up into a concentration camp for execution at best.  Grow up and realize that you should never expect anything more than slavery and denigration.  Hell, the very fact that you are allowed to vote is a gross perversion of the physical universe, since your sorry plebeian ass is not mentally able to comprehend to intricate complexities of Democratic politicians' need to work tirelessly for the enrichment of Republicans.  You know what?  Since you are obviously incapable of being a real citizen with your non-offshore bank account and crazy notions of equality and a more just nation that helps people not in the top .1%, maybe you ought not come to the voting box this Fall - we don't want your traitorous, filthy hippie notions to be involved - know your place: the ballot box is for those who refuse to sully this Great Nation with fantasies of a better world, so stay home and remember that you are privileged to be allowed to walk around without your master's name tattooed on your forehead (though you really do need that so some other master doesn't claim you as unattended goods).  You probably have some ancestor who wasn't a WASP, so you aren't a citizen anyway, which makes your vote illegal (or. worse, you might even have a brown ancestor, which makes the vote a sin too).

            [God I hate those who abrogate responsibility by saying "that is how politics is", as if it were immutable. No, politics is how we make it - and to denigrate the idea of change is to place the tool (politics) in charge of the creator (people).  The panderer of the above quoted hogwash has expressly declared themselves a gormless idiot, too stupid to realize that if his/her ancestors had thought such utter and contemptuous bullshit, we would still be dirt-farmers under some god-king's control.  Hell, such spineless vomit would have gotten the shit beaten out of you by such enemies of your worldview as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine (you know, the arch-traitors to America - or at least the prevaricator's America).  To wish for better politics is not wrong.  To hold accountable those who per-emptively cave to the Republicans without even trying to negotiate at all (or spend any real effort trying to point out said bastards are trying to screw America) is not bad.  One does not have to win every time, or even most of the time, but to be told even desiring to play the game means giving in to the other side at every juncture, because "that is how it is" is insulting to every man, woman, and child who has tried to raise us a little closer to a free and just society from the Neolithic to the GLBT activists working to make the world better and not just watch it become shittier at a slower rate.  If nothing else, the Very Serious People have run this country into the ground; it isn't like the Dirty Fucking Hippies could do worse]

    •  Character assassination is wrong, though the (0+ / 0-)

      examples given in #2 are not universally true ... after all if there is evidence that the public option was buried early - whether it is called "killed" or not, who cares?

      Name-calling and characterizations - not all are created equal are they?  

      I mean this standard is pretty loosey goosey

      •  There is NO evidence that the public (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine

        option was buried early.  The NYT published an article in which (again an "anonymous" Insurance company official) stated that the public option rates would not be tied to medicare rates. This statement was misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) by the media to suggest that there would be no public option. Other than that there is NO evidence that Obama had any hand in destroying the public option. NONE whatsoever. This is a myth that is being deliberately spread for reasons I still don't fully understand.

        Recently Barney Frank on the Rachel Maddow show publicly stated that Obama did not kill/bury the public option. So Frank is lying?

        •  all the sources are anonymous, both government (0+ / 0-)

          and industry.  Why would they lie?  The stock price of all the health care companies went up - this deal was a boon for them.  The paradigm of healthcare in this county was not really challenged ...

          I doubt Frank lied - I also doubt he actually knew anything

        •  There is no evidence that you could take from (0+ / 0-)

          Obama's actions, not his lofty words, that he supported the public option. He assigned the bill to a committee deliberately weighted with opponents and gave them all summer to gut it.

          "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

          by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:40:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nice guy. I'm sure he really feels (6+ / 0-)

    exactly what he says, too. And he appears to be nearly powerless against the forces arrayed against him, as well.

    Of course , it doesn't help when he chooses to surround himself with people like Summers, Super-Genius Gibbs, Geithner ..

    Dean was wrong.
    We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

    by shpilk on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:52:20 AM PDT

  •  So THAT's why he fired Gibbs. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angela Quattrano
  •  What REAL LEADERSHIP looks like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah, Angela Quattrano

    When you can ask people to hold you accountable, you're a leader.

    When you assassinate the character of anyone holding you accountable, you're submissive and live in fear.

    Finally we have a leader. For that, I'm thankful. I could get use to this!

  •  He says it (7+ / 0-)

    but does he mean it?

    Gibbs is his spokesperson.  He speaks for Obama.  If he disagrees with this sentiment being put forth by Gibbs, he should say so.  Or, at the very least, he should tell his spokesman not to double down on the accusations (like he did yesterday).

    We're not talking about some anonymous White House official where we can argue about whether or not that person speaks for the president.  Gibbs speaks for the president, officially.  More than one person has said that Gibbs' attitude is widespread and common throughout the White House.  I haven't heard them disputing that in any way.

  •  This is the cop-out... (4+ / 0-)

    Holding him accountable doesn't mean trashing anything and everything he does.  That's what Gibbs was talking about - these "professional left" critics are no different than the right wing in their never-ending, can't do anything right criticisms.

    Holding accountable isn't endless slamming and smearing, dogging every damn thing that is done as "not good enough".  

    Holding one accountable doesn't mean you can't give credit for the things that have been done.  

    I always here "we're just holding his feet tot he fire like he asked of us" like they believe it is their civic duty to tear down everything.  His feet are charred stumps by now, the nerve endings and pain receptors are destroyed.  The Left is giving up their influence because their constant droning on and on about how he's a corporate sell-out and equal to Bush is becoming white noise.  So because that has happened, the left is getting more and more ridiculous to try and shout over the white noise of negativity they created.  

    They key with holding feet to the fire is to pull the feet away from the fire 95% of the time, so when there is something you really disagree with, you can put foot to flame and get the response you want.  

    Folks want their personal perfect legislation. I can guarantee here that if Markos wrote his personal perfect legislation that Hamsher, Cenk, Shultz and the rest would be up in arms hating it because it wasn't what they personally wanted.  It's the politics of the personal now - nobody can understand "well I would have like more and did some things differently but I see what they're doing and can go along with it".  It's scorched earth ranting to try and out-do the other wanna-be pundits in order to move to the top of the rolodex.

    •  these are the tired straw men (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chumley

      Holding him accountable doesn't mean trashing anything and everything he does.

      Liberal criticism of the president, is entirely based on Obama's policies and choices, and of course you were entirely aware of this already.

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, unless this includes whistleblowing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, bobdevo
  •  Why would he use Maddow? (5+ / 0-)

    It's a pretty simple concept.  Rachel Maddow is the best at making her disagreement clearly about policy and not the person.  

    She is an example of what the right way to hold him accountable would look like.

    I don't want my kids to argue with me, but I will let them know when they have made a good point.  It's the best way to get them to understand the difference between pointlessly shouting at me and actually engaging me in the discussion.

    It's a symptom of my syphilitic mind.

    by otto on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:03:57 AM PDT

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      Maddow is not a "professional left" pundit. She is a pundit who happens to be a progressive. She did not adopt a faux populist teevee/Internet persona because it happens to work for her bank account. She is part of the LGBT community and is being affected by discriminatory laws just like other LGBT. She doesn't need to go on teevee pretending to be someone whom she isn't.

      And she holds Obama and the administration accountable AS SHE SHOULD. She never resorts to spiteful name-calling, threats based on single issues, and calls to sit out the midterms. She has never ever suggested that Obama is Bush-lite, or it makes no difference who is power. Her arguments are always framed in policy, and she never gets personal.

      •  It's essentially a charge of hypocrisy (0+ / 0-)

        Turkana doesn't come out and use the word, but the hypocrisy is supposed to be implicit in the idea that they are using the "professional left" to show their successes while saying bad things about the "professional left."

        Personally, I'm fine with any pundit saying what they want to say.

        If they come here and post something, I would really like it if they could stay and respond to the comments and questions.  

        There have been numerous times where additional factual information is required, but it's not included in the diary, so people have to read through the comments to get the full story.  

        It's a symptom of my syphilitic mind.

        by otto on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:43:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The "professional left" is an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chumley

        undefined boogeyman that they gave you to throw eggs at. If you like somebody but you agree that criticism of the President = character assassination, you won't put them in there. If you agreed that the President should be held accountable, then you would identify with those being slandered and consider it an insult pointed at you as well.

        Need to work on your Houle hoop.

        "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

        by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't have that thin of a skin (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Front Toward Enemy

          I see myself as an equal to the president and all of the congressional representatives.

          I view comments like this as representative of the sort of frustration one feels in a family or group situation where you all have some similar authority in the group.  

          It's the sort of comment that gets made when a team has to work together to make things happen, but when the teamwork also is filled with difficult issues about which there could be much disagreement.  

          Then again, I also don't understand why people feel the need to personally defend any particular pundit, sports team, or business.  

          I just think those folks can fend for themselves, just like I think the administration can fend for itself.  

          It's a symptom of my syphilitic mind.

          by otto on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:55:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's easy to say who should not take an (0+ / 0-)

            insult as an insult when it wasn't pointed at you in the first place. You support the administration fully, therefore you were intended to lump all critics of the administration into that group and dump shit on them. You carried out the task well.

            "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

            by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:06:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Front Toward Enemy

              I think you should perhaps avoid generalizing me into a group.  

              I'll do the same for you as a token of respect.  

              Otherwise, if all you can do is compartmentalize me into a box that is to your liking, then I'd suggest not replying to me anymore, and I will do likewise with you.

              Think about what would be the most confident and secure response to a comment like this from Gibbs.  

              If we on the left act like we are lesser, then we will be treated like we are lesser.  

              My response to Gibbs was to laugh.  It was a goofy comment from a goofy guy.  

              My comments after that were fully in opposition to the stupid comment from Gibbs.  

              It's a symptom of my syphilitic mind.

              by otto on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:13:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Netroots is not "professional left" (4+ / 0-)

    The conflation of the "netroots" with the "professional left" seems rather misguided.

    Progressives such as Van Jones, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Liz Warren, Barney Frank, Rachel Maddow and even Dennis Kucinich are NOT the ones attacking our President 24/7. They may criticize him when necessary (as they should), but they don't make it their business to demonize him at every turn. They also praise and show support for him when necessary, and do not try to trivialize or minimize his accomplishments.

    It's the "professional left" like Cenk, Ratigan, Schultz, Sirota, Hamsher, Huffington and Greenwald who are constantly dumping on the president. And with the exception of perhaps Schultz, they RARELY attack the current GOP with the same vitriol as they do the President. A significant proportion of the "professional left" has Republican roots and some of them may be pining for a Republican comeback. They are not Dem allies, and will engage in the divide n conquer strategy of pitting some Democrats against each other.

  •  Obama seems to have a loyalty problem (5+ / 0-)

    which prevents him from holding anyone to whom he personally gave a job, and who appears to be loyal, accountable. (Sherrod Brown was not personally given a job by Obama.) Thus we will be stuck with Rahm, Gibbs, Summers, Geithner, and so on until Obama realizes that his first loyalty is to the American people. Obama needs to learn that if, for example, Rahm gives bad advice, or Geithner designs a mortgage program that doesn't work, it is not enough that they are loyal to Obama, they need to be replaced.

    •  No (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ej25, Uberbah

      He has no loyalty problem with anyone who works for him. They speak and act for him and he supports them.

      The loyalty problem is with people out in the real world who see the dark side of policies and machinations. We are the ones who will have to live with them long after the current administration is comfortably retired.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:49:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Defining Accountability (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ladyhawk, mallyroyal

    At the risk of being dismissed as an Obamabot, I think we need to distinguish between holding the administration accountable and engaging in what I view as self-defeating politics. Its one thing to organize for an aspect of your agenda that is being inadequately addressed by the Admin, Congress, the blue dogs or whomever. Its quite another to argue pationately that if you don't get what you want then nobody gets your support including the administration.

    I know that is a simplistic way of articulating the choices, but there have been enough of the latter expressed directly to me on this site that I think it needs to be said.

    Want to hold the Administration accountable? maintain and build on the organizations you participated in during the election. Be ready to raise big money, organize a GOTV effort, and new voter recruitment drives for the next election cycle (and the ones after that.) In other words, form meaningful power blocks that demand the attention of people trying to get elected. Be something that can make a difference in your districts. Then, when the timing is right, you can demand things in exchange for that support.

    Pissing into a blog diary about how your dissapointed only does one thing: it demotivates everybody and weakens the whole effort. that's not accountability its just stupid.

    •  I could never build a group that important. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's be realistic.  Most of us could never build a group that would be big enough, powerful enough, or rich enough to get the President's attention.  In the meantime, we would continue to be fools giving away our valuable time to someone we're being forced to tell lies about.  Lots of the things we had to say on those phone calls have never came to pass.  This president is much more interested in power and money than he is in us common folk.  If he weren't, today we would have a real solution to our health care problem, and we don't.  The president's plan does NOTHING to contain costs, and insurance companies are continuing to rake in more and more billions of dollars on health care this very year.  And why are Americans continuing to have to pay such exorbitant prices for pharmaceuticals?

      Face it.  Unless we get a President with a real spine, corporate America and the Pentagon will destroy what's left of this great nation.  Take a look at history and see what military spending has done to all the world's empires.

      •  But that's the point (0+ / 0-)

        You could never build an immensely wealthy and powerful group like that, therefore you have no right to make observations and comment on them.

        It is a mockery of free speech to limit it to the wealthy and the powerful, which is what is being demanded of you.

        "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

        by Angela Quattrano on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:52:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These guys can never shut me up. (0+ / 0-)

          I tell it like it is.  Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I haven't sold my soul to them or anyone else, and I try to do and support what I think is decent and good.  That's why I could never be a politician.

        •  I did not say that (0+ / 0-)

          and I certainly did not mean that. if you took that from my comment I have to say that is an incredibly superficial reading of my post.

          all I was trying to do was draw a distinction between sniping and working toward something better. perfect example of what I mean is how the left got outflanked during the HCR debate. we had lots of highly motivated people on this site, engaging in all sort of passionate discussion. but the right actually got their people to ambush the town hall meetings first. why? why weren't we there turning those meetings into debates about the advantages of the public option. why were we there pressuring GOPers to break their opposition? THEY are the controversy, why didn't we make it so?

          there  is no reason the organizations formed during the 2008 election cycle should not have continued as viable advocacy groups that provided ongoing momentum on all aspects of our agenda. did we really do all we could have?

  •  wasn't about accountability (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Front Toward Enemy

    Comments were about folks who are interested more in making a name and/or quick buck for themselves than progressive change.

  •  If True (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Pithy Cherub

    Not only does President Obama have no problem with being held accountable, he welcomes it. He invites it. We all should remember that. It speaks well of his character. We all should remember that, too.

    Then, Mr. Gibbs needs a public dressing down by the president.

  •  The President is a big boy, and he can take (5+ / 0-)

    us holding him accountable. However, there are others that seem unable to grasp that the President welcomes criticism, and appreciates it.

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:21:54 AM PDT

  •  He would also like to get credit here and there (4+ / 0-)

    And a good word once in a while. That's why Rachel is the only one who's criticism is relevant for me - because she gives him credit for what he's doing right.

    "Barack Obama volunteered to be the captain of the Titanic AFTER it hit the iceberg" (Van Jones)

    by blackwaterdog on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:31:10 AM PDT

  •  Day 3. Proof that Gibbs made a huge blunder. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Uberbah

    Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

    by temptxan on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:36:02 AM PDT

  •  The President will be damned regardless (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Front Toward Enemy

    For example the wars:

    Send in drones and kill civilians........he's evil (I am not aware of a current way of fighting that doesn't require killing unfortunately).

    Send in the troops.....civilians are still killed and so are our troops :(

    Pull everyone out.....we get attacked again by some strange group that has no affiliation and its "OMG he failed to win!!!!"

    On what the President has or has not been able to do everyone has a different perception on what they feel is acceptable/not acceptable.  With the economy everything seems to be approaching critical mass.

    What we must not do is:

    OMG he loves insurance companies!

    What we must understand:

    Damn thats not good enough.  Still helps others but we need our ____________(insert specific here).  We have to admit we got something we didn't have before but still push for more.  We can't take the all or nothing attitude in this atmosphere (my personal opinion).

    Liberals, fighting the conservative way since 1776...

    by Final Frame on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:50:37 AM PDT

  •  Gibbs DID NOT walk back his comment (4+ / 0-)
    he stood by it at the press conference when asked.
  •  thank you mr laurence for.... (2+ / 0-)

    reminding me who the president is, and who i am in support of him. i have always felt this way, but it hasn't been said enough here on daily kos in my opinion.
    thanks, again!

    "there are 2 ways to be rich.... have everything you want or want only what you have." ~the Librarian~ (this is really handy now that i have nothing!)

    by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:02:07 AM PDT

  •  We have lousy candidates in Ct., and (0+ / 0-)

    I may just stay home or be on vacation on election day.  I am really upset about what has happened to our country.  No jobs, no respect for people who work with their hands, very few privately owned shops or restaurants.  Just look at what used to be Main Street and see how it's changed.  And how about banks?  They're all giant banks who couldn't care less if you dropped dead.  Connecticut has really changed, and not for the better.  Young people have to move away because they can't afford to live here.

  •  I'll provide the logical question at the end (0+ / 0-)

    Was he lying to us then or is Gibbs lying to everyone else now about how thye feel towards the netroots?  

    The two statements are in direct conflict.  Only one can be true.  Which do you believe?  I look to policy myself, use whatever metric you like to ferret out the truth.

    •  Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      One was said by Obama, and is therefore true.

      The other was said on behalf of Obama, and is therefore true.

      Disagreement with the Perfect Logic will hurt our chances in the next election, and cannot be permitted.

      "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

      by Wayward Son on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:35:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maddow's response to Gibbs especially via DADT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Uberbah

    was just about perfect ...

    •  The Whitehouse isn't worried about Rachel (0+ / 0-)

      if anything she is probably one of the  rare few they do respect... She is bright and actually does her homework, instead of just yelling into the T.V. Camera or trying to push her own personal agenda.....

      That would be Jane Hamsher and Cenk... and loud mouth Ed...

      •  ummm ... I think someone like her is exactly (0+ / 0-)

        who Gibbs was aiming at (indeed, I am not the only one with that guess)  ... the internet folks I doubt bother them.  

        •  I would hardly compare Rachel to Jane Hamsher (0+ / 0-)
             HILL REPORTER: So Robert, how do you feel about the anger on the left?

              GIBBS: You mean like on the blogs?

              HILL REPORTER: Yeah, you got Jane Hamsher wanting to primary Sanders, you got David Sirota saying you're not better than Bush

              GIBBS: Oh, those guys."I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested, I mean it's crazy

              HILL REPORTER: Is there anything you can do to satisfy them?

              GIBBS: They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality.

          I know The Professional Left Corporation who love it, if Rachel was who Gibbs was talking about... but she wasn't, the White House has great respect for Rachel, that is why she is granted acceess to high official that others wished they could get...

          I don't recall the Obama Administration granting Jane Hamsher access to it's Military People in Afghanistan...

          I don't recall the Obama Administration granting Dylan Ratigan acces to Tim Giethner

          I don't recall the Obama Administration granting Access, or even a sit down interview to likes of Jane Hamsher, Dylan Ratigan, CENK, Greenwald, or Sirota.....Why would the Obama Administration grant access to the Professional Left Corporation of Destructionist.....

          I know you would like to believe otherwise, but the White House has great respect for Rachel Maddow because she is actually very smart and does her home unlike to the others who are nothing but whores to the camera in an effort to push their own personal agenda...

  •  Prof. Left r tv pundits....not the entire left (0+ / 0-)

    The tv pundits are controlling the debate and completely ignoring what gibbs actually said. He was talking about TV pundits that clAim to represent the view of the left.   The only thing they care about are ratings and if they have to attack Obama to get ratings, that's exactly what they will do.

  •  Wonder how many votes this has cost? (0+ / 0-)

    Can't help but wonder how many votes this has cost Democrats so far, and how many it will rack up by Nov. 2012.

    I'm certain it hasn't added votes, so the only question is how much damage Gibbs has done to his party and his president.

    Note to Democratic leadership: I'm all out of carrots, but I still have my stick.

    by Celtic Pugilist on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:01:47 AM PDT

  •  Walked back? Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah

    In fact, a story acme out the day after quoting Gibbs as standing by his remarks, no matter how inartfully said.

    And all that video does, in light of his remarks, is shine a bright spotlight on the gross hypocrisy eminating from the White House.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:31:34 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site