Skip to main content

Another day and a couple more intemperate rants make the rec list chastising those of us on the left.

First of all, this is a blog, not the real world. I come here to engage a bit with those who share some of my values and to debate the issues of the day. But in the end, this is a blog. It’s a diversion but certainly not the focal point of life. And it certainly isn’t that influential in the political sphere.

To somehow believe that we here have more impact on election outcomes than the Democratic power brokers or the administration is absolute nonsense. Whatever lessons one draws from the outcome of the 2010 election, the responsibility for the results lies with the actions of the administration and the Democratic leadership. If the results had been better, they would have taken the credit. If the results are better in 2012, they will certainly take the credit.

To my fellow leftists who are expressing major chagrin and disappointment, my question is why? The President has done more or less what I expected him to do.

President Obama is a centrist and always has been. In fact he is probably slightly center-right.  He is basically Bill Clinton, except that he has a bit of class and self-control. I knew what we were getting back in 2008. Now I know that I am not the most astute of political observers, so if I could see it ....

He said he was going to escalate in Afghanistan. He did it. I don’t like it, but I am not surprised.

He voted for FISA. Why are we surprised that he isn’t a staunch defender of civil liberties?

He invited McClurkin and Warren to his events. He obviously doesn’t get it in regards to gay rights.  

The President is a centrist. We need to forcefully and agresively advocate for our issues, but we should not make personal attacks.

Now regarding those who can’t brook any disagreement from the party line. To repeat ... President Obama is a centrist. I am a socialist. That doesn't mean I hate him. It simply means that I am going to continue to push for a truly progressive agenda. If President Obama and Congress enact progressive legislation, I will support them. When they promote garbage like Race to the Top Bottom, I will not only oppose them, I will work actively against such nonsense. No Child Left Behind was bad; RttT is possibly worse.

Health Insurance Refrom, to cite another example, had some positive as well as negative aspects; but I would have been more impressed if the President had truly fought for at least the public option. He didn’t.

I opposed the invasions and occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to oppose the occupations regardless of what the administration does.

I opposed the Patriot Act, MCA, FISA, and the curtailment of civil liberties when Bush was President. Even if President Obama and every Democrat in Congress believes that we should support more curtailments of our individual rights, I will actively oppose such actions.  

I will actively push for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. I am hoping that the President will do the right thing, but if he doesn’t, c’est l’ vie. I will do what I need to do.

I will also work against the continued impoverishment of the working people of this country. And unlike the MSM, when I refer to the working class I am referring to working people of all races and ethnicities. If the President works in what I consider to be support of working people, he will receive my support. If I believe he needs to do more, I will say so. And if his actions indicate he is working more in the interests of the corporate overlords, then I will oppose those actions.

This has nothing to do with the President personally. I don’t know the man. To me he is another politician. I will continue to advocate and work for those policies that I believe will promote individual rights, peace and social justice. Those policies of the President which coincide with my beliefs I will support. Those that don’t will not get my support.

Finally, regarding a primary challenge. This really isn’t just about President Obama. It’s where we are as a country. I’ve worked for decades on the issue of civil rights and social justice. The one bright moment in the past thirty years of US political history was the election of an African-American to the Presidency. He has been targeted by the overt and covert racists in this country and though I don’t agree with him about many issues, I will do what I can in 2012 to prevent the racists from winning.

And it isn’t if there is someone who stands a chance of receiving the Democratic nomination who will be any better. It isn’t like Barbara Lee or Bernie Sanders will get the Democratic Presidential nomination. So stop the talk about a primary challenge. We put up with eight years of the self-centered Clinton. We can deal with President Obama.

Originally posted to Don't Panic on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:07 PM PST.

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

  •  Tip Jar (252+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, fladem, cdreid, maryb2004, USMarine70, chrississippi, fcvaguy, nolalily, itsbenj, hester, grollen, Marie, ORDem, gogol, zonk, miasmo, GreenSooner, tin woodswoman, TrueBlueMajority, phastphil40, sphealey, Emerson, dengre, Shockwave, LynChi, rhubarb, mslat27, eeff, Sandy on Signal, Richard Cranium, bumblebums, HighSticking, BillyZoom, DJ Adequate, rasbobbo, scribe, conchita, TracieLynn, mbayrob, srkp23, stevej, AndyT, Ignacio Magaloni, Miss Blue, ornerydad, TLS66, Cedwyn, high uintas, k9disc, jdmorg, psnyder, Nag, missliberties, pat bunny, brainwave, penguins4peace, Steveningen, AbsurdEyes, Lefty Mama, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, gavodotcom, BigDuck, bablhous, snowbird42, Fabian, bloomer 101, Bluesee, Simian, radarlady, Erik the Red, Irons33, Simplify, basquebob, ChemBob, Brooke In Seattle, chidmf, EJP in Maine, Kevskos, boofdah, teknofyl, LABobsterofAnaheim, Fury, tjb22, lotlizard, sunbro, kaliope, LucyandByron, The Raven, JanL, Indiana Bob, begone, skywriter, kovie, sideboth, buddabelly, gwilson, ActivistGuy, liberalconservative, Scientician, buckstop, alphorn, rhetoricus, Magnifico, Son of a Cat, NBBooks, Crashing Vor, tapestry, NearlyNormal, bleeding heart, Jjc2006, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, Wildthumb, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, frankzappatista, kurt, AmySmith, xylon, Maimonides, Spongebob76, Nulwee, BeerNotWar, DBunn, lams712, tonyfv, marykk, fisheye, out of left field, BeninSC, dotsright, Loudoun County Dem, jhecht, The Reverend and Doctor Omed, certainot, Shadowmage36, Swill to Power, kingyouth, artisan, Kentucky Kid, HCKAD, jayden, Aunt Martha, Uberbah, jnhobbs, pioneer111, LWelsch, A Person, Captain Nimrod, keikekaze, Terra Mystica, TomP, MKinTN, Blue Boy Red State, msblucow, Michael91, Dem in the heart of Texas, rogerdaddy, JayC, Justus, pullbackthecurtain, MikePhoenix, scooter in brooklyn, Mother of Zeus, davekro, Abra Crabcakeya, DixieDishrag, BYw, psilocynic, palantir, LaFeminista, greywolfe359, satanicpanic, wv voice of reason, soarbird, weaponsofmassdeception, Neon Vincent, DeepLooker, ceebee7, ALifeLessFrightening, lostinamerica, Methinks They Lie, m4gill4, kat68, shalca, Perry the Imp, Carlo, moonbatlulu, geebeebee, maxzj05, ArthurPoet, strangedemocracy, edtastic, mahakali overdrive, citisven, ratmach, catilinus, cassandraX, Ajipon, appletree, jbjowe, confitesprit, awcomeon, BFSkinner, Lost and Found, Dexter, Balanz, DavidHeart, melfunction, nickrud, elengul, Floande, science nerd, nosleep4u, bicycle Hussein paladin, Onomastic, al ajnabee, angstall, redlum jak, Front Toward Enemy, cultjake, Lost Left Coaster, CB8421, sabo33, vahana, Player to be named later, Aranfell, Wolf10, dle2GA, tardis10, LSmith, Vtdblue, Skitters, Miggles, Ezekial 23 20, Azazello, BlueDragon, CalliopeIrjaPearl, metiche, John Yossarian, matrix, dance you monster, toilpress, Sinnach, oldcrow, peachcreek, jan4insight, supercereal, doroma, Bend Forward, camelopardalis

    A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

    by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:07:53 PM PST

  •  Wait. if this isn't the real world (12+ / 0-)

    who did I just marry?

    "A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain." Mark Twain (1835-1910)

    by psilocynic on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:18:29 PM PST

  •  Thanks for the diary, Robert Gates. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nhDave

    You rock my world.

  •  I Voted for Him (47+ / 0-)

    ...and I really don't give a shit if he is an African American. Would it have been a "bright spot" if Alan Keyes was elected president?

    Most of the comments in this diary I agree with. But the final point is we have to support Obama because nobody better (from a socialist viewpoint) can win. There I disagree. A primary challenge from the left, even if unsuccessful, is an attempt to force Obama to the left. To quote Eugene Debs, "I would rather vote for something I want, and not get it, than something I don't want, and get it."

    Many of the president's policies have resulted in things I don't want. And I fear in the near future, more will.

    We can't deal with President Obama because he won't deal with us.

    •  Can you point to any time in history where that (19+ / 0-)

      worked? You can't. Because it never has. I'm a socialist and right now the best thing we can do is support Obama and lay the ground work for someone better. It will take time, but we could stack the presidency to the left for the next 30 years if we work slowly and patiently.

      "A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain." Mark Twain (1835-1910)

      by psilocynic on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:22:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can we at least (11+ / 0-)

        remember as far back as 2000?  You know how many people I know who voted for Nader?  Is that what everyone really wants?  

      •  Huey Long Pushed FDR Left. (30+ / 0-)

        I know, there was no primary challenge, but I believe the man was killed before he could.

        But my concern is, that by governing from the center right, capitulating to the Republicans repeatedly, the president will accomplish the precise opposite of what you hope for. His policies, being at best half hearted, will be ineffective, and the conclusion (led by Republican talking heads) will be that "socialism under Obama failed". When, of course, he is nothing near socialist.

      •  LBJ, who unlike Obama, really did pass progressive (10+ / 0-)
        legislation and had one of the most ambitious records of any Democrat (including FDR) in the entire 20th Century, was pushed out from the left.

        I really don't understand your comment.

        The claim that there is no history seems well to deny some parts of that history.

        •  'Cuz he couldn't let a lost war go. (5+ / 0-)

          Sound familar?

          Yes, he passed relatively progressive legislation-remember that was during the Cold War when the (correct) Soviet propaganda about our institutions of racism hit from abroad & Americans marched in the streets demanding civil rights.

          There's no external power "pushing" us to the left now...just an inexorable sliding rightward into the dustbin of "know-nothingness."

          Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

          by catilinus on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:28:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Relatively? (9+ / 0-)

            See, sorry, that's why i can't stay at this site.

            Compare to Obama, there's no relativity. LBJ was on the left, and Obama is a full  on right winger. Because everyone compares the right to reactionaries (which is what the GOP is now) they assume that one can not be a right winger without being ape throwing shit against the wall nuts.

            I was taught by old school conservatives.  I actually moved left as I have gotten older rather than right. They are pretty comfortable with Obama.

            I don't understand your scales at all. They seem to seek the most extreme example to compare LBJ too at the time, and then ignore the fact that the comparison in between Obama and LBJ.

            More over, I don't get your argument as far as pushing to the left is concerned. Who determines whether there is a left or not? Is this some kind of magical fairy land place that no one actually goes to anymore? If you want to push Obama, then push him is what i say.

            But ultimately, the real issue is that he can't be pushed is my guess because his ideological bent is that of a conservative. Old school conservative. But conservative.  One that is impervious to facts. Certainly his policy decisions , whatever he thinks in his heart of hearts is irrelevant, demonstrates that I am right.

          •  If you're arguing that (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, kurt, Nulwee, ohmyheck, Code Monkey

            the only progressive legislation passed between 1964 and 1968 had to do with race and Cold War pressures, you're sadly misinformed about US history in that era.

            The wikipedia article on LBJ has a good but not complete listing of domestic initiatives and legislation passed during that era, and it goes far beyond issues of race - not to minimize the great legislation passed in that area as well.

            And it doesn't "sound familiar" because the current Congress and President have a record of achievement that pales in comparison to LBJ and the Democratic Congresses from 1964 through the mid-1970s. There were more significant Democratic achievements under Nixon than under Obama.

            Some of the pressure in that era - civil rights, anti-war, some (but not nearly all) environmental legislation - came from outside, but a lot of it came from probably the greatest assemblage of progressive Senators and Representatives in history.

            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

            by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:39:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's have a little perspective here (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              virginislandsguy, Driver 8

              From someone who lived through that era, Obama is about tied with LBJ, a little behind, in terms of democratic accomplishments.

              People generally don't realize the magnitude and scope of accomplishments until years later.

              Elizabeth Warren and the CFPA?
              HCR?
              Expansion of the Federal workforce by 200,000 jobs?

              •  You are right, the jury is still out. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slatsg, esquimaux, kurt, ohmyheck

                But I note that if the "achievements" stop at the list you have cited, history won't be kind.

                Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

                by maxschell on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:01:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Every once in a while I have to do this (8+ / 0-)

                Civil Rights Act of 1964
                Voting Rights Act
                Immigration Act of 1965
                Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
                Higher Education Act of 1965
                National Endowments for the Arts/Humanities
                Great Society Legislation
                Economic Opportunity Act
                Medicare
                Gun Control Act of 1968
                Clean Air Act of 1963
                Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963
                Vocational Education Act of 1963
                Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
                Wilderness Act
                Nurse Training Act
                Food Stamp Act of 1964
                Housing Act of 1964
                Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                Age Discrimination in Employment Act
                Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
                Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
                Bilingual Education Act
                Fair housing

                and appointed Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

                And, unfortunately, the Viet Nam War.

                You really want to compare Obama's record to that? It doesn't compare to even the CRA of 1964, Medicare and the Wilderness Act in scope and effect. Obama won't catch up even if he does win a second term, especially after losing the House and effectively the Senate.

                You're living in the world that LBJ and his Democratic Congress created, and that's being destroyed now. If you were alive then, you weren't paying attention (maybe it's the old cliche about "If you remember the sixties, you didn't live through them")

                We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:03:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  That included Republicans (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              badger, kurt

              ...but like today, Democrats obstructed.

              Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

              by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:58:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not cheating (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bruh1, kurt, cybrestrike, ohmyheck, Code Monkey

                if a Democratic President can line up Republican votes. It's just something else Obama has been unable to do.

                And as you note, the obstruction was from Southern Democrats, some of whom jumped to the Republican Party eventually. The split was (and still mostly is) liberal-conservative - it's just that there are no liberal Republicans now, and probably not even many moderate Republicans after 2012. And many fewer conservative Democrats.

                We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:07:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's the correct read of history (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  badger, kurt, cybrestrike, ohmyheck

                  its frustrating to deal with people who seem to have some knowledge of history but no idea what it means.

                •  No, you're right, it's not cheating (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  badger

                  it's just that there are no liberal Republicans now, and probably not even many moderate Republicans after 2012. And many fewer conservative Democrats.

                  Precisely my point.

                  If Maine has two Republicans and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois each have one; we're in pretty sorry shape.

                  Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                  by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:11:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  By and by, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    badger

                    why did you recommend bruh1's comments about me being a bad faith actor and having some secret knowledge that a commentator was an impostor? Doesn't seem like you.

                    Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                    by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:21:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Is that in this diary? (0+ / 0-)

                      Because I didn't find it, so I don't know the context. I sometimes just rec a run of posts by one poster in a thread, just because I think he or she is making a lot of sense in the general argument.

                      If it's any consolation, you're both posters I respect, and posters I've disagreed with a lot of times too. Sometimes I think both of you are a little flaky too, as I'm sure I am as well, or nearly anyone.

                      We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                      by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:42:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oops, my mistake (0+ / 0-)

                        you didn't rec the bad faith comment, but you rec'd this one:
                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        Bruh1 had the vapors over some commentator saying he/she was a fed employee and liked the freeze, or was okay with it. Bruh1 concluded the person was either posting at work--quel horreur!--or a fake.

                        Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                        by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:08:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  because in that context you called me a troll (0+ / 0-)
                          for pointing out that one should be careful not to believe testamonials that conveniently pop up when a debate over public policy is happening. Especially where there are reasons on a logical thinking of the situation to question it.
                          •  Sorry, I think it's a really rightwing thing to (0+ / 0-)

                            do to start assuming people are fakes, without evidence, and try to garner information on their personal lives... It was a comment--inflammed, yes-- but in context of you antagonizing someone without cause.

                            I'm not going to rehash this further. I don't think you are a troll, but you were acting trollishly earlier.

                            Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                            by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:23:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  excuse me? see this is why (0+ / 0-)
                            you come across as orwellian.

                            assuming something is false is no right wing. its at the heart of science and reason to require proof rather than believe something is true.

                            Belief, which is about conserving, is at the heart of being a right winger.

                          •  Again, As I wrote to DollyMadison (0+ / 0-)

                            I didn't assert anything about the commentator being true or fake... you asserted the commentator was a fake, but you have no evidence. It's in the tradition of science and reason to make factual claims with evidence, not to be abusive.

                            Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                            by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  because in that context you called me a troll (0+ / 0-)
                          for pointing out that one should be careful not to believe testamonials that conveniently pop up when a debate over public policy is happening. Especially where there are reasons on a logical thinking of the situation to question it.
                        •  I had to look at the rest of the thread (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Nulwee

                          Starting from the original "I love the wage freeze" comment, which I didn't think much of (it did end up with 49 recs, despite your observation it had none at one point), I think I probably rec'd bruh1 back a couple comments after you called him a troll and before he responded to that comment.

                          Which is generally what I do when names like 'troll' start getting thrown around (and probably one-sidedly), instead of HR-ing the comment (which I hardly ever do) or jumping in to the middle of on-going flame-fests (I'm usually late to the party by several hours anyway).

                          Although I do some name-calling (more than I like to admit, and usually that's when I quit posting for a day or two), and get too strident more often, I dislike the 'troll' label and usually compensate in the way I described. It's just an easy way to register disagreement and show some support.

                          FWIW, I have no idea whether bruh1's argument had any merit or not and don't really care, as I think the original comment in that thread was silly and adequately deflated by other posters. But I don't think it was out of line to pursue bruh1's line of argument, and wasn't trolling.

                          We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                          by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:36:02 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I didn't HR anything (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            badger

                            but its inflammatory or pretty close to treat a poster like dirt for an absolute non-reason... seems to have been because the poster in question didn't like what the other one had to say.

                            Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                            by Nulwee on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:50:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Over time you get to know the styles (0+ / 0-)

                            of different posters and choose whether to engage or not.

                            Way back when I had big arguments with DHinMI or Armando, and they could both get pretty nasty, but I had some nice discussions (some non-political) with DH too. I can get strident or even nasty, but I don't get angry very easily, take things personally, or hold a grudge (too often).

                            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                            by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:09:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what kos' attitude about DH (0+ / 0-)

                            is but it seems likeDH went down in flames in the community.

                            He was both one of the most vicious posters to me and one of the few who would also shut off his emotional dislike of me at times. That ability to disengage is something I admire.

                            Mel Gibson makes movies that look like snuff films shot by Abercrombie & Fitch's photographer. -9.38, -5.18

                            by Nulwee on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:57:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No question he could get vicious at times (0+ / 0-)

                            I challenged him on it a few times, but it never did much good. We also exchanged a couple emails outside of dKos, and he went out of his way to get some information for me.

                            I don't know what finally happened or why he left - I think I was on hiatus from here at the time. Armando is still posting at Talk Left, and I think is better there than he was here, although still pretty prickly at times.

                            Ah, the good old days :)

                            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                            by badger on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:02:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  I never said the "only" pressures.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, kurt

              However, if you don't believe that the dual pressures of protests at home & the appearance abroad of being a Apartheid-like state in the southern portions of this country primarily caused the loooong overdure civil rights legislation in the 60s, what do you attribute it to?

              To the "greatest assemblage of progressive Senators & Representatives in history?" I doubt it very much.  

              Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

              by catilinus on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:36:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which is why I asked (0+ / 0-)

                Of course civil rights legislation passed because of movement pressure.

                The discussion seemed to be progressive legislation generally though, of which there was a lot, and very little had a comparable movement pushing for it.

                We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:49:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  A history lesson for the bruh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nolalily

          LBJ didn't choose not to run again because of the war. He lost the south by passing the civil rights act, and he knew it.

          The primary battle was over the war.

          •  You have no idea what you are talking about (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            badger, Agathena, esquimaux, kurt, ohmyheck

            Multiple links:

            the most charitable read that favors you does not say whaty ou are saying:

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

            the rest simply disagrees

            http://www.npr.org/...

            here's a link to the ny times article of the time:

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            http://www.newsinhistory.com/...

            And more importantly, the main point originally made was that a sitting president of a party had never faced a challenge within his party that pushed him from running. This clearly indicates that the statement is questionable, which was my central point for bringing up LBJ.

            •  If you have this basic part of history wrong,... (0+ / 0-)

              ...what else are you wrong about? It's frightening.

              You claimed LBJ was pushed out from the left.

              LBJ, who unlike Obama, really did pass progressive...legislation ...was pushed out from the left.

              This is patently false, and your collection of Googling "LBJ" fails to prove you are remotely correct.

              LBJ lost the South by passing the Civil Rights Act. When he was informed that he would lose Missouri by 20 points, he felt he had no path to victory.

          •  When he passed the civil rights act (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoFortunateSon

            his famous statement was, "I'm afraid we've lost the south".  He chose not to run because he knew he'd lost the south which, up until that time had always been conservative but voted Democrat.  One by one the states in the south turned Republican and that's where we are today.  

            With that said, he also didn't feel he was up to the challenge of making good decisions concerning the Viet Nam War.

            A man abstemious, rigidly upright, inflexibly honest, ferociously chaste. A man with every virtue, except humility and human kindness. - Ellis Peters

            by nolalily on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:19:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

              The bruh and I have had many arguments over his "facts".

            •  As noted above (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, LucyandByron, kurt, ohmyheck

              He won re-election after the CRA of 1964 passed - it passed before the 1964 election.

              His statement was that the Dems had lost the south for a generation, but even that's dubious. Wallace carried the deep south in 1968, McGovern only carried MA and DC in 1972, and in 1976, Carter carried the entire south except VA.

              We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

              by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:00:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  thank you. its frustrating to fight (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                badger, ohmyheck
                believe here. Unfortunately, a lot of its becomes a basis to support poor policy choices by pols now. A large number of people misread or don't know history and then they will cite it as justification why Obama needs to do x,y or z.
            •  i provided links to prove my position (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurt, ohmyheck
              one of the reasons i dislike this site is that people feel in response to someone providing evidence that they can simply continue to state what they believe. I know the line. It happened well before he decided not to run.
            •  i provided links to prove my position (0+ / 0-)
              one of the reasons i dislike this site is that people feel in response to someone providing evidence that they can simply continue to state what they believe. I know the line. It happened well before he decided not to run.
            •  "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, kurt

              The constant chanting got him down.  You can see it in the photos.  I asked the nearest older person to confirm my memory of 1968, and that was the reply.      Please don't follow up by blaming the hippies.  Many squares like my aunt in Chicago agreed with them but wrote polite letters instead of marching.    It was people like her who voted for McCarthy in the primary, not the undergraduates.  The voting age was 21 until 1971.  

              "A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!" --King Jugurtha

              by LucyandByron on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:03:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, I marched (0+ / 0-)

                at the '68 convention.  That's where I learned that alot of "us" were no different than alot of "them".

                Just because we both say we believe in equal right, equal pay, equal this and equal that doesn't mean we have the same value system nor does it mean we are both moral, reasonable and sensitive, smart people.  

                Common mistake made here on dkos.  No, we are not one big happy family.

                A man abstemious, rigidly upright, inflexibly honest, ferociously chaste. A man with every virtue, except humility and human kindness. - Ellis Peters

                by nolalily on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:37:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Where are you getting this? (0+ / 0-)

            All this happened before you were born, am I right?

        •  And "the left" couldn't wait to turn on him. (0+ / 0-)

          Oh, and the Dems lost big in the midterms too, and lost the South for a generation ever since, which was the main reason the Repubs won the WH so many times since.  I only bring that up to point out that neither the left nor right rewarded LBJ for the good he did.  The right hated him for obvious reasons, while the left turned on him for not agreeing with them 100% of the time.

          •  If youw ant to continue to move the ball (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg, ohmyheck
            as if the argument was about whether its a good idea versus have it ever been done, I can't stop you. My only point as I states is that historically the claim that its never been done is inaccurate.
          •  The left (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg, LucyandByron, esquimaux, kurt

            supported his domestic agenda in Congress (see above). What the left didn't support was the Viet Nam War and the draft. With good reason, IMO.

            As to Dems losing the south forever, Carter carried every southern state except VA in 1976, Clinton carried some southern states, and Obama carried VA, NC and FL.

            I doubt that the failure of Mondale, McGovern or Dukakis to carry southern states had much to do with the Civil Rights Act.

            It would be hard to support even the "lost the south for a generation" claim, because in 1968, Wallace carried much of the south and in 1972 McGovern only carried MA and DC. It might be true, but it would be hard to prove, and the most you could prove is that a generation is less than 12 years.

            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

            by badger on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:08:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please see "Hey, hey" above. Thx. /nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt

            "A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!" --King Jugurtha

            by LucyandByron on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  His little lie about the Gulf of Tonkin (0+ / 0-)

            cost 3-4 million Vietnamese lives and over 60,000 American lives.

            He got what he deserved.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:34:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I thought he'd be part of the groundwork. (0+ / 0-)

        I really don't get your rationale here.  What slow, patient work are you suggesting that doesn't include candidates pushing each other left?

      •  How, exactly (0+ / 0-)

        do you plan to work slowly and patiently and achieve this?

        If you give your votes to people who don't support you, what incentive do they have to start supporting you?

      •  I wish I had kept a link. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg

        There was a frontpage boxquote a couple months back where the guy being quoted pointed out that the claims about primaries hurting incumbents were based on cherrypicking the elections and claiming causality, and that there was no actual evidence that a primary was what caused any given incumbent president to lose.

        You might as well claim that wearing socks caused all Presidents to die, because all Presidents wore socks before their deaths.

        Correlation is not causality.

        'Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.' - The Dread Pirate Roberts

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:00:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  President Obama isn't Alan Keyes (5+ / 0-)

      I know that my position may seem a bit disingenuous, but that's the way I feel. My activism started in High School with the Civil Rights movement. My dislike for the racists exceeds my dislike of many of the President's polices. I still have my Obama sticker on my truck just to annoy the bigots.

      Except for 1972, I didn't vote for a mainstream Presidential candidate until 2000. If the Democrats don't improve their message, 2012 could very well be the last time they get my vote.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:29:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "would it have been a bright spot if Alan Keyes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbayrob, AndyT, liberalconservative

      were elected President?"

      Actually, yes.  It would have been.

      But, Keyes is not electable...not because he's black, but because he's a kook.

    •  What exactly did you expect when (5+ / 0-)

      you voted for him?

      I think we agree that the President is slightly center right. I saw that in 2008.

      I voted for him because the madnes couldn't continue, but I got what I expected, a respectable version of Clinton.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:06:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Expected (9+ / 0-)

        or rather, hoped for, three major things:

        1. An end to the war in Iraq (and 50 troops still there is not an "end"). A conclusion - even if that required a temporary increase in the number of troops - to the war in Afghanistan.
        1. A health care plan with a public option - and he did state that was what he wanted. And no mandates.
        1. EFCA - a push for EFCA.

        Now, political realities are politiocal realities, so maybe he would have lost those fights. But some earnest fighting for those things, especially 2 and 3, would have been appreciated, even if they failed.

      •  Describe to me in policies how (8+ / 0-)

        the president significantly differs from Alan Keyes

        What you describe by the way seems like you are being authentic with your emotions, but honestly, I am tired of people using emotions as a proxy for policies.

        I don't see how what you describe is any better than AAs voting for Sharp James in Newark NJ when he would use race to say vote for me because the whites are trying to harm you. James was really good at harming blacks all his own. Not that Corey Booker is much better- he's not. The point is that identity politics is not the way to deal with racism is. Polices that  help my community are out the way to deal with racism.

        I feel the pride of having the first black president too. I just don't confuse that with whether he's helping out people of color or not.

        Finally, as to your point here, rather than above, where you discuss race- please explain to me exactly why you think this "church of the savvy" argument is accurate? For example, let's assume you correct, why does that make his inflexibility under the changed circumstances that happned by late 2008 better?

        More over, I question whether you are even right. ANy number of posters have listed compare and contrasts of president obama's actions to candidate obama's statements.

        I know from reading the book by candidate obama's campaign manager that they realized early on that they were the same as policies that were being pushed by clinton so he as much as admits that the point became to obscure this fact. So it interesting to read that somehow everyone should have known.

        Perhaps the politically savvy such as yourself knew and I knew. i was writing diaries at the time on his right of center economic team saying that boded poorly for those progressives using race as proxy for policies.  BUt that doesn't mean that the president for the vast number of people did not try to hide behind a sense that he was a progressive to win the eleciton.

        One can't say that he's bad for doing so. One can say however that as a pol he wasn't being completely honest in allowing the perception to gestate amongst those who aren't as politically savvy as you and I.

        •  That's a long and well-written comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bruh1

          I would like to respond in depth and will try to do so later.

          My diaries usually get less tha 20 comments so I'm having trouble keeping up. (My keyboarding skills are very poor.)

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:36:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would suggest that Keyes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, kurt

          would have attempted to move this country toward an authoritarian theocracy. The President has, OMO, halted the surge to the right, but (also IMO) the rightward drift continues, with some exceptions. I doubt Keyes or any other Republican would have pushed for even the weak version of HIR we got fromthe Dems. We may have become involved in still another war. I believe that the assault on individual liberties would have been much worse(and the TSA nonsense is bad enough). I don't know if education policy could be worse than Duncan's but I never like to underestimate the damage the Republicans can do.

          As far as the race issue goes, there has been so very little of a positive nature that the election of Obama was a cause for celebration. To his credit he doesn't use identity politics, but that doesn't mean that his detractors don't. The racism is there and it is palpable. As I said,it'smore than about Obama. In the 1870s our country went decidedly backwords. Whereas African-Americans had held elective office, by 1890 events were so bad that Rayford Logan described the time as the "nadir" in the balck experience. Many of the civil rights legislation passed in the aftermath of the Civil War
          became totally ineffective had to be re-passed again in the 1960s.

          Could we backslide again? It is not likely that we will see a return to lynching, but African-Americans could again become legal second-class citizens. And it isn't just AAs. As events in Arizona have indicated, Latinos are just as much on the firing line. Gays and Muslims could also be victimized by a backlash.

          Finally I think that if were discussing reactions on a non-political blog, then perhaps I could see how somany could have been blinded by the rhetoric. But this is a poitical blog and many here are political junkies. I don't see how they could have missed it.

          My point is that is not terribly useful to personalize the attacks on the President. Most critics don't, but too many IMO do. I find it more productive to promote progressive policies and to actively oppose the policies that run counter to progressive values. I used the examples of the middle east occupations and Duncan's educational policies. I will continue to actively work against those policies and I will encourage others to do likewise.

          It's 2:25. Time for bed. I've got 3 1/2 hours before I have to get up again.

          Thanks again for the comment.

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:26:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think we disservice ourselves with labels like: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg

        "center-right"

        Obama may seem "center-right" to you. But that doesn't mean he is "center-right" on the political spectrum of this country.

        I know many reasonable moderates and slight republicans who consider him "center-left", because to them, that's the way he appears.

        •  The bar keeps moving. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, kurt, mahakali overdrive

          For the last 30 years (since Carter) the bar for center has moved further and further toward the right.  Obama moves it slightly more toward the left of Clinton, who, in my opinion was center-right.

          A man abstemious, rigidly upright, inflexibly honest, ferociously chaste. A man with every virtue, except humility and human kindness. - Ellis Peters

          by nolalily on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:10:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would vote for a leftwing challenger (0+ / 0-)

      in a primary.  I may even vote for the inevitable nutjob who will turn up on the primary ballot somewhere just for kicks, if things continue as they have been.

      My own issue with the idea is that it is simply not going to happen.  Obama is President.  For better or worse, no Democrat with a shred of sanity or credibility with the establishment is going to stick their neck out and risk dividing the party with a victory or weakening it even further with a loss.  It will not happen, it will not happen, it will not happen.  And so whatever talk there is of it, whatever arguments the idea generates, are nothing more than wasted energy.  Almost anything is more useful than talking about this.

  •  also, there seems to be a traveling pack (11+ / 0-)

    of people who like to engage people here anytime they see someone saying anything remotly negative about Obama. They then accuse users of threadjacking if the users defend their position. Is this really normal or just bad behaviour by a few?

    371/400- "this makes you extremely progressive" whatever that means.

    by cedar park on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:20:02 PM PST

  •  Yeah, I'm never sure (16+ / 0-)

    who many people thought Obama was...my whole adult life, I've been voting for Presidential candidates that were to the Right of where I am.  I don't complain...that's how the system works.  Ok.  Maybe I do complain, but I accept that this is how the system works.

    I will say that for those of us who are "the left", well, we'd be best served by really helping to build those kind of organizations and infrastructure that could be considered a "movement".  That's what the Right has done over the past four decades...they don't rely on their politicians to fully carry the weight for them.  And that's why republicans go to their base, while democratic politicians often don't.

  •  It's a class war and anyone on (12+ / 0-)

    either the left or right that frames it as a race war is simply handing the opposition battle victories without even fighting.

    Bring Our JOBS and Troops Home NOW!

    by Marie on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:24:50 PM PST

  •  To repeat (5+ / 0-)

    He's more than likely to win in 2012.

    However, I suspect thevSenate will tip over to the GOP side and the House will become more Red.

    Obama will probably benefit form a center right independent running for the Presidency.   He wins with perhaps 40% of the vote Mitt/palin getting 38% and Bloomberg (insert millionaire name here) perhaps getting the remainder.

    It's a witches brew for further discontent.  

    A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

    by Salo on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:27:18 PM PST

    •  I think I will save (3+ / 0-)

      this comment just to see how broken or not your chrystal ball happens to be.

      Pronouncement like this tend to backfire since they fail to account for any number of unforeseen events. Such as the Republican way overplaying their hand.

      In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

      by jsfox on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:48:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm primarily predicting him winning. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't expect it to all come true. Indeed I consider it to be a nightmare scenario.

        I supose the really nasty variant would be Palin, McConnell and Boehner running everything.

        Sadly Obama is going to be the last line of defense.

        A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

        by Salo on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:23:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unforeseen events...like Palin (0+ / 0-)

        running as an indie at the behest of teabaggers against GOP nominee Romney.

        Crazy idea. Suicidal. Really stupid.

        That's her cup of tea.

        Could end up being a 4-way race.

        Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

        by catilinus on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:41:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If there is an indie far right candidate (0+ / 0-)

          I do not see Obama losing.

          A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

          by Salo on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:03:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I expect him to win in '12, unless the GOP (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo, kurt

      can find someone not actually batshit crazy to run against him.

      If they cement their control of both houses of Congress then, he will be useful to the GOP as a punching bag for the next four years, good for whipping up their base, and good for blaming any time they fail. And, of course, handy because he'll be pre-emptively caving on everything they throw at him until January of 2017.

      neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

      by khereva on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:49:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am a dirty fucking hippie. As far as I'm (27+ / 0-)

    concerned Hawkeye should be President, George Carlin should be Senate Majority Leader and Hunter S. Thompson should be speaker of the House.
    Since that's not gonna happen I'll continue to back the better of two politicians.
    Now, back to living...paycheck to paycheck.
    Peace ;-)>

    "We're right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo! And somebody's giving booze to these goddamn things!"-Hunter S. Thompson ;-)>

    by rogerdaddy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:31:24 PM PST

  •  Engaging productively (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    robizio, jan4insight

    When you come here to engage with the like minded, why not take the opportunity to plan useful ways to push for policies you like? That seems like it would be even more satisfying. Over at MyDD (remember the site which begat dKos?) the objective is explicitly to elect Democrats. A bit narrow than dKos, but once there was a lot in common. Lately, there are hardly any comments on MyDD diaries. It's as if the ones who are willing to work, like you, are in hibernation.

    •  Mydd (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      virginislandsguy, science nerd

      came apart over Clinton and Obama.  It never recovered. Right now it is just completely lost.

      I think there is a shot the same process is underway here.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:19:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "we put up with eight years of.... (8+ / 0-)

    the self-centered Clinton.  We can deal with President Obama."   Agreed.  I will always push hard to the left of most people I know.  I have accepted my political contraints, but I'm not giving up my ideals.  I guess that's why I will continue to  be an under payed social worker, hanging out with suffering Americans, every day.

  •  rec'd (7+ / 0-)

    I don't agree with everything you write but it is very clear that you do think for yourself.

    Just because they give you a seat at the table doesn't mean that they want to feed you.

    by stevej on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:49:28 PM PST

  •  Obama said some things, then did others. (30+ / 0-)

    This is especially clear in my mind, because I have just returned from seeing Inside Job.  I walked out of the film, sat in my car, and sobbed.  Yes, I think it's that big of a deal.

    In the film, candidate Obama is talking tough about the greed of Wall Street and the need for tough regulations.  No reasonable person watching that speech would have predicted the appointments he made to every key economic position in his administration.  To say claim otherwise is simply bullshit.

    There is nothing reasonable being discussed as solutions to any of our problems. - pgm 01

    by geomoo on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:52:16 PM PST

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

    Great diary.  Mr favorites:

    I will actively push for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. I am hoping that the President will do the right thing, but if he doesn’t, c’est l’ vie. I will do what I need to do.

    Isn't that what we're all here for?

    This is  really what what we're all about, no?  Even as an atheist: change what you can and accept what you can't change. (yes, I know that's not an exact quote).

    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

    by Dexter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:55:47 PM PST

  •  Organization? Professional? Leftists? (4+ / 0-)

    Would that it were.

    We come well armed with... tempeh.

    by VeganMilitia on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:57:17 PM PST

  •  if you want him to go left- then fight the right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevolutionRock, your neighbor

    and the collective left cannot claim that it is fighting the right or that it is getting it's reps 'backs' as long as its default response to 1000 radio stations blasting away 24/7 with coordinated repetition of think tank talking points is to stick its fingers in it ears and walk on by.

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:05:29 PM PST

  •  Yup. But meanwhile (5+ / 0-)

    can we organize a little more? Especially ourselves? I badly miss more discussion of what we on the left should focus on now, what we can achieve and how. I agree a primary challenge to Obama isn't it, I agree going third party isn't it, but I want to know what it is, then.

    "Will the highways of the internet become more few?"
    - GWB asketh, Verizon/Google answereth

    by brainwave on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:07:43 PM PST

  •  Why? (15+ / 0-)

    Don't get me wrong.   I can appreciate most of what you are saying.  But you are the latest in a long line of diarists and commentors from the left who have pitched this 'why are you disappointed, I knew he was what was formerly known as Republican-lite a long time ago' shtick.  

    I don't understand the point of even asking the question.  Some of us are surprised, disappointed, chagrined, what ever you want to call it.  Telling us we shouldn't be 'because we should have known all along' isn't going to change it any more than telling us
    we shouldn't be 'because the health insurance bill is great' or
    we shouldn't be 'because it's only 22 months and you have no idea what he's faced' or
    we shouldn't be 'because the catfood commission is not Congress' or
    we shouldn't be 'because the recession is actually over' or
    we shouldn't be 'because he's playing 11th dimensional chess.'

    •  Word. (7+ / 0-)

      This country's not working out like it said in the brochure. -- Gooserock

      by Colorado is the Shiznit on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:10:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think they are mutually exclusive (7+ / 0-)

      Personally, I knew Obama was a centrist when he was running for president, and that's why I at first supported Edwards in the primary, but that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, don't have the right to be upset with Obama. We have every right to demand that our leaders be more progressive no matter what they said on the campaign trail.

      •  For me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, citisven

        It isn't that people are disappointed, I get that, I have my own issues.  I have a great deal of respect for slinkerwink and nyceve when they are fairly focused and working hard.

        What get's me is the absolute denial that Obama has accomplished anything, just because he hasn't accomplished a certain thing.

        I think this site has been played by the Republicans very well.  It was their strategy to stall everything, and then have the Dems blame the Dems for the failure.  That's what's playing out here.  We've been played.

        I agree with the diarist, I'd like to see a more balanced approach, pushing when necessary, and celebrating where appropriate too.  We have cause for both.

        "Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected" ~Mahatma Gandhi

        by Kiku on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:25:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Needed to be said exactly that. Ty. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, missliberties

    When you die you will be closer to god. Neither of you will exist. {Godless Atheist} shop at the Kos Katalogue

    by toilpress on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:13:37 PM PST

  •  On Taxes.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Clues, 3goldens, ohmyheck

    On Taxes, President Obama campaigned as a center-lefter.

    And he explicitly promised the working and middle-class that he would not raise their taxes.

    Not only have members of his Deficit Commission proposed a gasoline tax and a national sales tax, but President Obama has yet to secure the extension of the working and middle-class components of the tax cuts.

    Unless he extends them, the working and middle-class will have to pay US$ 3T more over the next decade.  Many of these families are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

    If President Obama allows the working and middle-class to pay higher taxes, he is not a center-lefter, nor even a centrist.

    Centrists do not impose a higher tax burden of ANY kind (gasoline tax, excise tax, or national sales tax) on the middle-class.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

    by PatriciaVa on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:13:54 PM PST

    •  I don't get it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, GMary

      Americans HATE taxes. But taxes pay for things that we think are necessary. Taxes pay for roads and police and education and social services and medical services and help for the poor. If you like those things, you should be willing to pay enough taxes so a reasonable level of all the services can be provided without the government going into debt. If taxes are cut, some of the necessary things in our lives will be cut, too.
      Of course the top earners should pay a lot more and the people at the bottom receive support.
      But then, I'm Canadian - so I don't get it.
      It is only the very rare person who actually knows the level of income tax that he/she pays. Up taxes by 3 - 5% and few would care - unless it was made public and it became a 'cause'.
      Of course, you can always borrow from China to give tax cuts. If you think that is sensible, I imagine your credit cards are all maxed out.
      If you think tax cuts help the economy - you have been listening to right wing talking points, not reality.

      •  I've heard (0+ / 0-)

        that when all the taxes American pay is added up, the income tax, property tax, sales tax, taxes on electricity, utilities, gas, phone bills, flights, etc., that people actually keep about $0.25 of every dollar they earn.  That's probably high, but you get the drift.  The collect taxes and expenses just for living are quite high.

        "Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected" ~Mahatma Gandhi

        by Kiku on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:19:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's true that our tax rates are comparable to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GMary

          EU countries and Canada IF you include state and local as well as federal taxes.  Meanwhile, we get MUCH less in return.

          •  Interestingly.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            evangeline135

            a while back I was actively researching moving to Canada. I spent some time comparing what my taxes might be in BC vs. where I live in the US.

            It wasn't a precise exercise, but with the help of some online calculators I figured out that the difference to me in all income taxes paid would be the same within a few percentage points. Barely enough to even notice.

            I actually think Canada's taxes were the ones that worked out to be slightly lower -- but that's just my memory, I don't have the research anymore.  And it could have been a false positive for the online tools I was using

            But the really interesting thing -- in Canada significantly more of your income taxes go to your provincial government than to the federal government. And it's the reverse here in the US.

    •  Obama has already passed (4+ / 0-)

      several tax cuts and many programs that benefit the middle class.

      "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a broad range of tax cuts aimed at making the tax code more fair and supporting the middle class:

         * 95% of all working families will receive a tax cut
         * 70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers
         * 2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act
         * More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery
         * About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone"

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

      These tax cuts have cut $240 billion from taxes owed by the American taxpayers.

      Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

      And, he's made 16 different tax cuts for small business, which impact main street America:

      http://dealbook.nytimes.com/...

      "Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected" ~Mahatma Gandhi

      by Kiku on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:16:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  do you consider someone making (0+ / 0-)

      200,000 middle class?

  •  I say this as a well-wisher for the president and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Kiku, nhDave, science nerd

    a critic :

    Imagine a loved one or a dear friend going astray. Would you prefer to tell them so or like that person to be treated harshly by a stranger for their bad behavior? Your criticism is aimed at a course correction of your loved one vs. a stranger who may not have any such interest.

    You can criticise the president when he is not fighting hard enough on behalf of main street. Or let voters deliver the shellacking he got in the elections. Criticism from the left is like that from a well-wisher. Teabaggers/repugs criticise for nothing and they only wish failure for him. And reg the left, there is nothing paternalistic, because democracy means the public are active participants/watchdogs.When people lead , the leaders will follow. FDR didn't become great by himself - he ran as a centrist promising to balance the budget. But the commies, socialists,hippies,pinkos , the unemployed - the professional left of his time - saw to it that he remained fearful of them. And what we got - social security, unemployment insurance, FDIC insurance , SEC watchdogs and on and on.... In the absence of a left populist movement, the right will fill hte vacuum. And that is what the teabaggers are proving now.

  •  Well then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Hannibal

    To my fellow leftists who are expressing major chagrin and disappointment, my question is why? The President has done more or less what I expected him to do.

    Now that you're thinking for all of us, I guess I can get back to the heroin! BLOGZ RULE!

    •  I never claimed I was thinking for all of us (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little, rainmanjr

      I cited the diary where I made my not-too-startling predictions.

      I take an interest in politics but I'm not a political junkie. I simply stated that if I could see that candiadte Obama was a centrist/center-right candidate, others more knowledgable than I must have been able to see that too.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:34:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Okay. that makes sense. Just came off a a little (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg, ohmyheck

        condescending to people who have sensible critiques to make, regardless of whatever hopes anyone might have had.

        •  it IS condescending (0+ / 0-)

          I've seen this pattern before of some pompous prick referencing some dire mood they were in one day after they rolled out of bed hungover and crushed the cat. And then they go on about how we all knew the boat was sinking, and it's still sinking, and how that's not really a pessimistic trend, but more of a neutral one, as the rate of decline remains about the same...

          So if you're telling liberals such as me to eff off then eff yourself yourself.

          True, the primary challenge didn't make any difference during the fucking original primary so we should do nothing.

          I will contribute only to individual progressive candidates, the ACLU, and maybe Wikileaks.

  •  Christ Almighty! (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you. One Socialist to another. I really happen to like our Capitalist President, and even am willing to forgive him for being elected as the head of a Capitalist Superpower because I do hold him in such high regard, as his actual personality strikes me as the proverbial "Somebody I might share a beer with," that supposedly folks vote for.

    But despite my strong years of support, which will continue, and like you, which will result in my vote given the lack of viable alternatives, I'm not afraid of speaking up about those policies which are WRONG. The economic policies currently being floated are an insult to the working class, promoting divisive laissez-faire ideals. I blame no one. I simply state my lack of support for these.

    It's refreshing to hear someone else articulate my views. I'm willing to compromise on some of these points that you've raised -- as a Socialist, I think we always feel like we're working in a bipartisan fashion anyways, even voting for, and working with Democrats -- yet I am NOT okay with muckety mucking around with our labor force. They've already been slammed enough. The double-whammy of Bush tax cut extensions PLUS a public sector freeze is regressive.

    Thus said, I'd like the President to do the proper thing, and am more interested in working toward that than typing furiously online.

    This is not an acceptable line for any Democrat, no matter what kind, to cross, in my very humble view.

    But again, I also deeply respect the President on so many levels, for his intelligence, his trailblazing for African-Americans, his often infectious spirit, and my belief in his sincerity, not to mention his years of dedication to community activism. To overlook those, along with his current administrative accomplishments is an insult to OUR own intelligence.

    But this deepening rift in the class divide is not acceptable. Nope. Sorry. It's not okay. And I really have never wanted a pony; I don't even like horses.

    "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

    by mahakali overdrive on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:24:20 PM PST

  •  obama's not a centrist; he's a republican. (0+ / 0-)

    and we don't need him anymore.

    his new TSA policy, which features strip-searches and groping, is his most offensive "policy" yet.

    he will lose in 2012 the republicans nominate a goat.

    •  He's not a Republican by today's standards (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hannibal, kurt

      But then neither would Rockefeller, Eisenhower or Milliken be in today's Thug party.

      I do believe that philosophically, both Bill Clinton and President Obama would be 1960s liberal Republicans.

      How the President fares in 2012 will depend on the economy and who the Thugs nominate and if there is a third party challenge.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:39:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, Nixon wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg

        He was too far left for today's Republican party. EPA, OSHA, and his health care reform proposal would be considered far left extremism by today's standards.

        Nothing brings people together more than mutual hatred.

        by Hannibal on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:23:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  today, one day after unemployment surges upwards (0+ / 0-)

        again, the obama administration was touting the south korean trade deal -- another republican screw job for american workers.

  •  He is not Bill Clinton (6+ / 0-)

    Bill Clinton was a pro-business Southern Dem, ideologically akin to moderate Republicans such as Bob Dole. He was also a fixer who was able to lead the country down the path of his ideology - NAFTA, welfare "reform," pro-business prosperity and more progressive taxation, as well as peace dividends from the end of the cold war.
    What is Obama? Does he reflect any ideology at this point? Is he a centrist or just a negotiator? Other than holding out the olive branch to his enemiesa and bipartisanship? Did Obama hold himself out as a centrist? He campaigned on hope and change, not on any other platform.

    "How I hate those who are dedicated to producing conformity." William S Burroughs

    by shmuelman on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:28:43 PM PST

  •  it's fine to characterize him as a centrist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Homer Sampson, khereva, nhDave, Ajipon

    but he certainly didn't campaign like one. (what is it with all the revisionism? with all of self satisfied "i knew all along he would govern this way" smugness?)

    obama hasn't always been a centrist.
    in 1996, he supported same sex marriage. because of political expediency, he's devolved from that positioning. no centrist would have come out in support of gay marriage back in a time when the culture was such that it was more hostile against the idea. obama promised to renegotiate nafta. what centrist would have promise to do that?

    •  Did you read his books? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missliberties, NancyK

      He is a very moderate democrat, no more, no less.

      The real debate here is whether we on the far left were snookered by his campaign rhetoric, not what he actually is.

      •  give me policy positioning that tells you he was (0+ / 0-)

        a moderate before he became president.

        The real debate here is whether we on the far left were snookered by his campaign rhetoric, not what he actually is.

        what do you mean it doesn't matter what he actually is?? that's always relevant.

        obama himself confesses he snookered us when he was asked why he's flip flopped on renegotiating nafta:

        "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake,"

        [...]

        Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

        is snookered too strong a word? would apologists would say "he stretched the truth" ?

        in my book, a lie is a lie.

      •  did you buy obama's claim that he didn't campaign (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg, Salo

        on the public option?

    •  Black Swan logic... (0+ / 0-)

      maybe someone should write a diary about that.

      9/11 was an outside job.

      by Han Shot First on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:56:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  A Black Swan is a major, influential event... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, Sam I Am, NancyK

          which people then project their own bias on to rationalize away and soften the chaos which characterize complex events in order to meet their expectations and how they view the world.

          911 is a classic Black Swan. It was a random event which had massive ramifications. It wasn't really caused by any specific thing and no one realistically could have anticipated the magnitude of it. But rather than accept that this event as what it was, a catostrophic anomaly, people imposed all sorts of meaning on it.

          The right saw it as proof that we were at war with Islam and the Arabs. Fundamentalist Christians saw it as evidence that America had become too secular. The left saw it as proof that US foreign policy was corrupt and was to blame for event happening. And conspiracy thoeries of all kinds become popular among people across the political spectrum in both the west and in the muslim world.

          All 911 really was about was some fanatics in Pakistan who managed to get some guys to take over some planes and then do alot of damage with them. That's really it. It set us on a course that will end who knows where. But it wasn't about any specific thing that anyone could have controlled. It just happened.

          The 2010 elections are similar. People are seeing all sorts of evidence for all sorts of things in this one election. But the fate of the 2010 elections were sealed when Obama was declared the winner of the 2008 elctions. We could maybe have saved a seat ot two extra in the Senate if this or that policy matter had been handled differently, but really it wouldn't have made much difference. Once Obama was elected this backlash was inevitable.

          Honestly, I doubt Obama would ever have been elected in the first place if 911 hadn't happened. And I don't think 2010 means that 2012 will go badly for the Democrats. These things usually have a life of their own and most of us are powerless to effect them. There usually isn't that much of a pattern to them either. But our nature is to look for patterns and believe that "if only people had listened to me, this bad thing would not have happened". That's Black Swan logic.

          9/11 was an outside job.

          by Han Shot First on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:53:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i know what a black swan is. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg

            i didn't know which part you were applying it to. my critique of the diarist or the diarist's take.

            was their projection? yes, there was some. but a lot of us did bother to dig for past policy positions and examine votes that were made. we did our homework. it wasn't just a matter of our being snowed by his charisma.

            obama himself put up an image he knew he wasn't going to live up to. are we to be faulted for that?

            •  I apply it to any attempt to rationalize (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg

              the current political reality through some sort of ideological filter.

              obama himself put up an image he knew he wasn't going to live up to.

              Obama won an election. He did it by telling people what they wanted to hear. Since taking office he's done some things I've liked and other things that make me wonder if I like the guy or not.

              But no one could have taken down the wealthy and powerful as you seem to have been hoping for. I suspect that the truth is, if Obama went too hard after the rich, they would utterly destroy him and he knows this. So he treads carefully as it is his nature to do.

              The only lie you've ever been told is one you seem to still believe, that your hopes could be realized in the foreseeable future. They can't. The rich run shit and will continue to do so. The economy is badly damamged and all anyone can do is damage control to try and stop the bleeding for the time being.

              That's reality. Obama can't do what you want. Trying could likely just make things worse. Or maybe not, maybe he's fucking up. But it won't make alot of difference either way because the rich run shit and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. I'm of a mindset to proceed with caution, but that's just me. I can understand why Obama didn't want to go Full Metal Leftist upon taking office, even if he did think it was the right thing to do.

              I just don't think you understand how impossible it would be to do what you want someone to do.

              9/11 was an outside job.

              by Han Shot First on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:56:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  holding obama accountable to the very standards (0+ / 0-)

                he himself put up - is now considered ideological.

                wow.

                how dare we. we have some gall to dare to criticize dear leader.

              •  in other words (0+ / 0-)

                Obama won an election. He did it by telling people what they wanted to hear.

                change we can believe in.

              •  point to me (0+ / 0-)

                But no one could have taken down the wealthy and powerful as you seem to have been hoping for.

                where i demanded a guillotine and called for their heads? advocating for the bush tax cuts to lapse is not a taking down of the wealthy.

                The only lie you've ever been told is one you seem to still believe,

                but earlier you just argued that

                Obama won an election. He did it by telling people what they wanted to hear.  

                you can't simultaneously argue that obama pandered to voters but yet he never lied. obama himself confessed to indulging in overheated rhetoric. (i posted that nafta quote earlier) that's an admission he wasn't being straight with us.

                The rich run shit and will continue to do so.

                that'll make for a fine campaign slogan to reelect obama '12.

              •  i pointed to past concrete (0+ / 0-)

                I apply it to any attempt to rationalize the current political reality through some sort of ideological filter.

                positions obama took in the past  (facts that are verifiable via google.) and you call it "rationalization."

              •  obama campaigned on a public option (0+ / 0-)

                I can understand why Obama didn't want to go Full Metal Leftist upon taking office, even if he did think it was the right thing to do.

                a public option isn't going full metal leftist.

              •  i should know better than to engage (0+ / 0-)

                someone still playing with action figures.

  •  The problem is high expectation (4+ / 0-)

    Anyone following Obama's presidential campaign had high hopes from him. If anyone followed the campaign story or reading any campaign literature about him, it's obvious that people thought Obama is a different kind of politician. He wasn't afraid to back down from his assertion to "meet up" with any foreign leaders, against conventional wisdom. He denounced offshore drilling as making no real impact on energy independence, against conventional wisdom. He dared Clinton by declaring that Reagan is a president with ideas. The whole campaign was constructed as if it were to defy people's expectations.

    Deep down, a lot of people hoped that Obama the president would dare the Republicans. A lot of people hoped that Obama the president would dare to make tough decisions that goes against conventional wisdom and change the rules of the game. Alas, it looks like Obama the president followed the rules precisely. There isn't much apparent basic-assumption-challenging going on in the administration. Sure, the administration is competent by any measure. It delivered on many things, and fall short in other things.

    I miss Obama the campaigner - having him around would be perfect. But Obama the president is good enough I guess. (Then again, if Obama the campaigner were to govern, I wonder if the results would be better or worse)

  •  Agree with most of what you said... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, kurt

    ... except about Bernie Sanders. I know it would be a long-shot, but I can see a way. I'd think that most of us on the Left would gladly take Bernie over Obama, if it was a realistic possibility. But I also think a good chunk of the middle would listen to him, especially if things keep going the way they are with the economy and Obama's insistance on playing footsie with the bankers, etc. Sanders' takedown of Alan Greenspan would, I think, resonate with people of many political stripes. And there's a LOT more where that came from. If nothing else, Bernie comes across as super honest and passionate. Add to that the fact that many of the young voters who were so "fired up, ready to go" in 2008, no longer see Obama as an agent of change... well, I'm not so sure Bernie Sanders wouldn't have a shot. (Whether he'd WANT to go for it is, of course, another matter.)

    "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

    by ratmach on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:50:33 PM PST

    •  Don't blame me. I voted for Kucinich (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, virginislandsguy, rainmanjr

      I would like a socialist too. But there are two important caveats:

      Kucinich lost the primary, badly.
      Ideological rigidity and governing don't mix.

      •  Kucinich here, too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg, kurt

        But I actually think Sanders would have a much better shot than Kucinich. I can see Sanders appealing to a much broader spectrum of Americans than Dennis does. All I can say is this: Bernie is a pretty brilliant and thoughtful guy, so he wouldn't enter the race unless he thought he could make a real difference. So if he DOES announce he's going for it... well, then we should get real excited.

        "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

        by ratmach on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:02:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stop Teasing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ratmach
        •  2016 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, slatsg

          I really think we should be concentrating on this date.

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            A primary challenge in 2012 is wasted effort IMO.

            On the other hand, building toward the nomination of a progressive like Sanders in 2016 could be more productive.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:44:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But if we don't even consider it... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoFortunateSon

            ... then what leverage do we have over Obama? I mean, I used to think we could appeal to his intelligence and desire to "do what's right". But more and more I'm thinking he's already doing exactly what he WANTS to do, and this has nothing to do with Repug "obstruction", etc. So if we don't try to put some heat on him, I mean showing we'd be willing to go as far as a primary challenge, how else can we get his attention?

            Or are you saying it's already a lost cause, and since a primary challenger wouldn't have a chance, we might as well just realize we're out of luck for any real "change" for the next 6 years?

            "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

            by ratmach on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:45:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Two words: Nancy Pelosi (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sam I Am, rainmanjr, alba, ratmach

              I read Obama's books. In them, he was very clear about his beliefs. He comes across as a moderate Democrat subscribing to neoliberal economic policies. In other words, someone slightly to the left of Clinton.

              I voted for Kucinich, but supported and worked for Obama. I will do so again. With how much enthusiasm remains in question.

              Unlike many here, I never interpreted ambiguous rhetoric in his campaign as progressive. I feel many either misled themselves, or were misled.

              There's lots of Obama mind reading going on here. I mist say I don't know why he does what he does. It scares me. But I also know he has done a whole lot of good. So the question remains: how to keep Obama as far to the left as possible and still be electable in 2012?

              Nancy Pelosi seems to have taken that job upon herself, vowing to block Obama deals with Republicans. Take a page from the Tea Party. We can have an impact on our progressive legislators.

              Moreover, look at Elizabeth Warren. The activist left doesn't exactly have zero wins either. In fact, it scored a huge win with Elizabeth Warren. That was our activism that accomplished that.

              So no. All hope is not lost. We just have to find our voice and use the legislators at our disposal.

      •  Ideological rigidity? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg, Cassiodorus, ratmach

        You mean like "free market capitalism is always preferable to any other system"?  Like ""There are only individual solutions to social problems, there are no collective solutions"?  That "America is exceptional in that behaviors that would be negative by any other nation are good and desirable things when done by the US"?  

        Those are the ideological rigidities which govern America, and none, none may ever challenge those.  Any politician that does so gets deemed "unelectable".  Any citizen that challenges them is marginalized, scorned and dismissed. And what do you have to say about "Ideological rigidity and governing don't mix" when it comes to those ideologies of market capitalism, individualism and American Exceptionalism?  After all, they've governed us as long as I can remember.

        American business is about maximizing shareholder value. You basically don't want workers. ~Allen Sinai

        by ActivistGuy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:16:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the present framework (0+ / 0-)

          in which we operate.

          I will give the Democrats until the next election. After 2012, if the Democrats don't change their message, then I think that it is going to be necessary for progressives to look for alternatives and use their energy toward a more productive outcome.

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:49:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Pedantry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam I Am

    FISA is a bill which was passed in 1977 when Barack Obama was in high school.

    The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) is a bill which was passed in 2008 when Barack Obama was in the Senate, gutted some of the powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to disallow wiretapping of suspected terrorists and spies, and clarified the government's powers to wiretap when the target is outside the United States and the wiretapping is inside.

    Yes, "FISA" is code and everybody knows what the diarist means.

    •  And what does the diarist mean? (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps you can clarify the meaning of that "code".

      And of course pointing out that Senator Obama voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act would probably be another part of that "code".

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:53:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  With Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clues

    we at least had a strong economy and no endless, budget draining wars.  I'd go back to those days in a New York minute.

    Sorry, but primary challenges do need consideration if the WH continues along its trajectory.  We need to win in 2012 and no, its not impossible to field and win with an alternate candidate if the current one becomes too unpopular.

  •  Normally I hate these meta (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, CalliopeIrjaPearl

    diaries, but I agree 100% with this one.  It's like you read my mind.  

    I found poverty neither attractive nor edifying. It taught me nothing but a distortion of values, an over-rating of the virtues of the rich- Charlie Chaplin

    by satanicpanic on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:00:54 PM PST

  •  "In fact he is probably slightly center-right." (10+ / 0-)

    The Political Compass agrees with you.  Following is a graph of all the major party primary candidates (and one notorious minor party candidate) from the 2008 elections.  Note that Obama is indeed center-right, but near the left edge of the main group of Democratic candidates.  Only Kucinich among the Democrats was to the left of center.

    Political Compass usprimaries_2008

    "The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead." ~ Paul Krugman.

    by Neon Vincent on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:01:15 PM PST

  •  Now this makes sense. (5+ / 0-)

    Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

    It's not that I mind the criticism.  People just don't seem to get that.  It's not the criticism, it's the extra personal jabs people through in.  It just gets to me.  

    I got the Obama I expected.  I'm not shocked either.  Maybe that's why I'm not railing against him personally.  I have plenty to say about his politics but there is an inordinate amount of pressure here to heap abuse upon him, too.  If one doesn't, one is seen as an Obamabot.  

    I find this right/wrong, left/right, black/white thing just a bit too tedious.

    A man abstemious, rigidly upright, inflexibly honest, ferociously chaste. A man with every virtue, except humility and human kindness. - Ellis Peters

    by nolalily on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:03:51 PM PST

  •  Fellow progressive (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, teknofyl, ohmyheck, nhDave, Code Monkey

    I dislike your diary for several reasons.

    First, the presumption that Clinton's age is the same as Obama's and that Clinton would certainly have handled the issues the same way Obama has.

    Second, that even if that presumption were true, that somehow excuses Obama or lessens what we should do to compel him to act differently.  We could live with Clinton's triangulation in a way we can't live with Obama's.

    Opportunities and crises Clinton was never presented with have been front and center for Obama. And he has always managed to either fail in properly addressing them, or kicking them down the road.  Not acceptable.  Not at all.

    Denial is complicity.

    by Publius2008 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:04:49 PM PST

    •  I don't agree with your assesment of Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl

      His actions - and those of Reagan and Bush - led to many of today's problems. He was a economic neo-liberal and sided with the neo-cons on foreign policy.

      I simply am surprised that so many on the left are shocked by President Obama's actions. I don't see the personal attacks as helpful.

      Of course the rhetoric of those who criticize the President pales when compared to the vitriol that comes from some of his ardent supporters.

      My point is that I'm going to continue to work for progessive causes. When the Democrats do the same, I will support them. When they promote neo-con or neo-lib policies I will oppose them.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:10:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  However we have to face facts. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, kurt, evangeline135

    Under whatever leadership this is and under whoever ran the state and federal congressional campaigns; we suffered what is called a "wave result." We lost almost everywhere and even in some places where we won (e.g. Maine) the democrats converted to repug in record numbers.

    This is a census year folks and the repugs will gerrymander their hearts out. And all we will be able to do is sit and whine like we had to do in Texas. We may not hold the House for another generation.

    The prospects for 2012 seem at least as bad according to Silver, with or without Obama.

    My big question is will we be any worse off in 2012 with or without Obama. I really don't think he can win. You can tell by my tone that I am wavering. I really don't know, but am of the opinion that we would have been better off if Obama had been more progressive and less conciliatory. And my big criticism of the Obama team is the hopeless congressional strategy.

    Beware the man of one book.... ... or "cave ab homine unius libri"... (Cicero)

    by shigeru on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:28:26 PM PST

  •  T&Rd, but the last two sentences diminish (0+ / 0-)

    impact of the rest of a great diary.

    It seems to me that the constructive contention that points to a primary is a supporting mechanism that buoys your/any efforts to foster change.  It does so by publicly and blatantly clarifying and prioritizing the fault lines running through a few of the major issues.

    The country is getting away from the people.  It's a lot worse now than it was when Clinton was in office.  Obama hasn't corrected much, and has exacerbated much of Bush's interpretations of presidential power.  I'm not sure standing pat on that drift for the sake of having a Dem in office is an option anymore.  

    The timing and swirl of events are just not in Obama's favor.  He may just be the wrong person at the wrong time (or however that saying goes).  I don't think party harmony protects him from that ultimate judgment.  And it doesn't do the country any good either.

    Obama needs to define what he thinks is important again.  A primary would force that clarification.

    FWIW.

    Thanks for the unsolicited dose of reasonableness.  ;)

    "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

    by Terra Mystica on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:04:34 PM PST

    •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terra Mystica

      You may be right about events getting away. The time may be coming to look outside the mainstream parties. Other commenters have suggested that progressives should start building now toward 2016.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:18:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm on the "Left", I thought. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    And, those diaries didn't disparage me at all.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:07:39 PM PST

  •  What a joke... (0+ / 0-)

    President Obama is a centrist and always has been. In fact he is probably slightly center-right.  He is basically Bill Clinton, except that he has a bit of class and self-control. I knew what we were getting back in 2008. Now I know that I am not the most astute of political observers, so if I could see it ....

    If Obama had one tenth the political saavy that Clinton had you wouldn't have had to write this disgrace of a diary. Sure Clinton made some mistakes, yes even some major mistakes, but he knew how to take on the GOP.

    You don't think Clinton has class? Why because he got a blowjob? How unAmerican of him.

    None of you, even the loudest voices on this blog do yourselves any favors by making the Clinton-Obama comparison. I'll bet you a dollar, you ask the poll question "Who would you rather have as President A. Barack Obama B. Bill Clinton" and Clinton would win in a landslide. Sure not on dKos but if you asked all Democrats it wouldn't even be close.

    So, keep ragging on Clinton as though that makes Obama's incompetence seem more palatable.

    •  Clinton gave us Bush (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NancyK, kurt, alba

      It's that simple. That alone is enough to question his legacy.

      As for his political savvy, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress on Clinton's watch. That may or not happen with Obama.

      As for my preference, I would like a true progressive. Neither Clinton nor Obama qualify.

      Clinton gave us NAFTA, DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. He basically solidified the Reagan paradigm regarding government and the market place.

      So no ... I'm not a fan of the "Big Dog".

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:30:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course you're not a fan of the Big Dog (0+ / 0-)

        you're a Kossack. I really would like to see Markos place the question before Democrats in one of his future polls though. I'd guess that there are a hell of a lot more Democrats happy with Clintons Presidency than are happy with Obamas.

        Clinton was the ideal Democrat for the period. He wasn't progressive enough for many of us but he didn't have the mandate to be so. He served his purpose by making the GOP look like losers. Obama on the other hand came in with a huge mandate to implement progressive policies and promptly punted.

        So, yeah maybe Obama is more progressive but he is MUCH less effective.

        •  yeah, I disagreed with him on a lot but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt

          he didn't "turn the other cheek" when dealing with Newt and the rest of the repubs.

          You have to use the megaphone that you have as president to CALL OUT the other side, and I mean call them out individually.  Obama's refusal to do so is ruining things for the party and imperiling his own legislation...I give it 50/50 whether the HCR bill is ever even implemented.  

          When Obama called out Boehner for saying the financial crisis was an "ant," I nearly fell out of my chair.  It was so surprising.  That is the kind of thing he needs to do, but he mostly refuses--doesn't go with his 'image.'

          •  Here's the thing evangeline (0+ / 0-)

            Most Kossacks have this ingrained wives tale about what the Clinton Presidency was all about. I can't count the number of respected Kos diarists that say asinine things about Clinton. Let's take a look at some of the comparisons between Clinton in his era and Obama in his.

            Clinton takes the most heat for signing legislation that repealed Glass-Stegall. Well the congressional vote on that legislation was as follows:
            House 362-57
            Senate 90-8

            But yeah I guess he should have vetoed it so that folks around here might blame Democrats instead of just the President. Of course had Obama been faced with a bill with those voted numbers I'm sure we could have counted on a veto.

            NAFTA

            Public Opinion was split on the issue. Clinton campaigned and won the Presidency with his pro-Nafta stance. He kept a campaign promise, wrong as it may have been. He acheived it with mostly republican support in Congress.

            As far as I'm concerned those appear to be the most off putting policies to Kossacks that were promoted by Clinton.

            Now lets look at Obama. We'll just take 2 like we did with Clinton.

            Obama campaigned on escalating the War in Afghanistan. Public opinion was split on the issue. He acheived it with mostly republican Congressional support.

            Obama campaigned on a Public Option to lower costs of healthcare. The public was enthusiastically behind it. Most Democratic Congresscritters supported it. Obama dealt it away in a backroom deal.

            really there's a lot more to consider when comparing the two. Clinton had to preside with less than a majority of voters selecting him for President. Obama had the luxury of coming in with a mandate. Obama is the MUCH bigger failure.

            •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

              The simplistic blame the Clintons (and assume Hillary, a woman, is the same as Bill because no woman can think on her own) here on kossack land has always been problematic for me.

              The least they should do is learn the facts, and deal with them.
              I disagreed with Clinton on two things when he campaigned. Nafta and education.   BUT, I also believe Clinton worked as hard as anyone on trying to make sure the economy improved for most of us.  And it did.  
              He was such a threat to the right, though, they trumped up charges that were out and out lied (Whitewater) to distract the public.  And succeeded.  No surprise when people here with their "he had no class" sound like David Broder who resented Bill for many reasons but mostly because he was not a "blue blood" but rather a poor southern boy who came out of a dysfunctional home where his mother was married to an abusive alcoholic.  The fact that Bill Clinton OVERCAME his circumstances is not admired by the "he has no class" crowd.  It is constantly repeated on the left as well as the right.

              This notion that "presidents" are all classy...is a joke.  The Kennedys were supposedly the epitome of class yet JFK and Ted for sure were no "classier" than Clinton when it came to affairs.
              Reagan divorced and then abandoned his adopted child, was an actor who named names during the McCarthy era, selling out a lot of good people but he had "class."
              Bush I has always had swirls of rumors over his love life outside marriage, and his father collaborated with the Nazi government.  W was a druggie drunken frat boy but so what...he had class because he supposedly never cheated on Laura?  What is this place? Red state?

              FDR, well bred, a blue blood rich guy, and in the estimation of most on the left, a great president, had an ongoing affair that most knew about but never wrote about.  Eisenhower had an affair for years.  

              But somehow "Bill" had no class. If people on the left cannot see through that game, how Newt (having an affair while making Bill's private life an issue") then we seriously have a problem.

              Barack and Michelle seem to have a wonderful marriage.  He comes off as calm, deliberate, and is not opposed to using his religion as his guide (which disappoints me).   Does this make him "classy?"  I don't know.

              All I know is he comes off as naive when it comes to the right wing.   He seems incapable of getting that these assholes on the right want to destroy him and will sacrifice any and everyone (including middle class America) to do so.  At least Bill got it and fought back.  

              So let's stop with the Clinton trashing, the "Bill had no class" crap.  That is such a right wing meme, even reading it here, nauseates me.

          •  Obama does not have a megaphone (0+ / 0-)

            there is no such thing as the bully pulpit anymore.

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
            Shop the Kos Katalogue!

            by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:04:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You are hilarious. (0+ / 0-)

      I thought you were leaving? Ixn;t that what you wrote a couple of days ago?

      You rip Obama up one side and down the other for being too far right yet you defend Clinton. What a fucking joke. Bill Clinton drove the party off a cliff from which it took a decade to recover.

      What I've noticed here is that there are basically two types of people who vociferously oppose Obama:

      1. People who are truly left and who feel betrayed by an administration that is classic DLC-corporatist-Clintonesque in just about every aspect of policy.
      1. Disgruntled Clintonites who are still pissed off that Obama thumped Hillary. That's people like you who will defend Bill Clinton's massively destructive corporatist policies (repeal of Glass-Steagall, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, etc.) while attacking Obama for being just like Clinton.

      I can accept the first, but the second group -- including you -- are just massive hypocrite crybabies who will never get over their preferred candidate having her ass handed to her in the primaries.

      Puddles of their own bodily fluids will lie beneath their desk chairs.

      by Bob Johnson on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:59:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why am I a disgruntled Leftist? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, teknofyl, kurt, nhDave

    well, certainly there were those of us, who despite all warnings to the contrary, still chose to hope for good things for this nation...it was time, we had suffered through Bush and we needed something better. We were proud that we'd seemingly overcome a portion of our racial barriers and that we'd shared a historical moment in electing Obama.

    I don't think anyone deserves to be berated for having hoped that there would be significant change. It seemed to many of us that we could finally move forward.

    But it was not to be. I think that some people knew all along and that's fine, but it didn't change anything to know...the outcome was the same.

  •  I must say that I can handle your arguments... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Front Toward Enemy

    much better than those that simply slash and burn our president.  You freely state your intended support for him while going into those policies that bothered you.  I can get behind that, even though I disagree with several of your policy complaints.  HC being chief among them.  However, you are as aware of the facts as you're going to be and have made that decision.  Okay, I'm willing to move on.
    Nice diary.

    "Only Democrats could lose in a popularity contest to someone MORE unpopular than themselves." - Bill Maher

    by rainmanjr on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:58:36 PM PST

  •  He ran as a Democrat (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, RaulVB, Dave925, kurt, demoKatz, LaFeminista

    He's governing as a moderate Republican. I am not a moderate Republican. I will complain.

    •  Except there are no moderate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, kurt, Front Toward Enemy

      republicans in the Republican Party. Pre Nixon Republican possibly

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:15:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is still no excuse for a Dem (0+ / 0-)

        to help in futher moving the goalposts rightward, as Obama has done. That's just cowardice. Not "pragmatism". I'm sick and tired of that tired old lie.

        Neville Chamberlain wasn't a pragmatist, either. He was a coward and a fool

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:35:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  In one respect I don't mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg

      I don't mind sane, well-educated conservatives and moderates having easy passage away from the local variant of the Taliban.

      Also, many of them happen to have skills that might be useful if the Tea Wees get feisty.

      And many just happen to be good people.. people who, if all conservatives were like them, would make there being conservatives a much more pleasant thing to think upon.

      I think of one colleague. He is EXTREMELY conservative. We argue often. He's opinionated, one-sided, uncompromising. In other words, a mirror-image twin. I totally like the guy - I wouldn't want him to be king but I can share work life with him... and if he was the standard model Republican I would not think of them as an existential threat to much that is good in this country and this world.

      Alas...he's not. So I do worry.

  •  Good diary, BUT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Dave925, kurt
    In general I agree with you.  Being on the left like you, I have realized that Obama is a (central) rightist.  He is like Sarkozy in France or Merkel in Germany.  I disagree though that he had made his positions clear at election time.  He was deceitful in 2008, trying to get the support of the left, as he did.  

    Where I disagree most with you is whether Obama should be challenged from the left in the 2012 primaries.  Someone MUST challenge him.  Otherwise, we allow the complete take-over of the dem party by the rightist/corrupt interests people like Obama or Joe Lieberman represent.  And one more thing.  It is no longer relevant that he is African-American.  He was already elected president.  After all, Clarence Thomas was the 1st AA supreme court justice and I am sure you would never support him.  The election in 2012 will not be racists versus non-racists.  

    •  You have a weird definition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ribletsonthepan

      of right vs left.  Very strange, and it's your own and not one recognized by most political observers.

    •  Ell Oh Ell!! did you really just write this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ribletsonthepan

      And one more thing.  It is no longer relevant that he is African-American.  He was already elected president.  After all, Clarence Thomas was the 1st AA supreme court justice and I am sure you would never support him.  The election in 2012 will not be racists versus non-racists.

      uhhh I dunno what country you live in but in the USA, at least for the 36 years I've been alive, that NEVER becomes "no longer relevant".

      I get that you don't know how farcical that comment is, ON ITS FACE, but manoman (wiping eyes) that was a good one.

      being critical of something or someone doesn't insulate you from criticism. ~me

      by mallyroyal on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:34:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently colossal ignorance is "more relevant" (0+ / 0-)

        than any basic comprehension of the history of this country. Moreover, to make a statement like that, I am confident that "he knows no history". I got a good laugh though. Can't say what Justice Thurgood Marshall might express were he alive.

        "This is my official proposal put down in writing. Yours till hell freezes over." Louise Erdrich

        by ribletsonthepan on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:11:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well said, and I agree completely (3+ / 0-)

    Same thing with all the silliness over wikileaks, can anyone be surprised?

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:44:33 PM PST

  •  Very reasonable sounding diary. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Burned, Magnifico, Ezekial 23 20

    You'll work for this if he won't. You'll oppose him on that if need be.

    But, at the end of the day, you've already stated loud and clear you'll vote for him. Why the hell should he care about your principled opposition. Your opposition to policies/actions you disagree with means squat. Your vote's already in the bag.

    Why the hell do you and so many others so willingly give up your franchise?

    Short of revolution or general strike, the ONLY tool we have in the bag to influence our elected officials is to threaten a primary challenge. What part of democracy is so unsettling to you?

    I was a Liberal, until the enablers took that label. Then, a Progressive, until the appeasers coopted that as well. Now I'm a Radical. Steal THAT, motherfucker.

    by WisePiper on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:59:50 PM PST

  •  It's not about purity (0+ / 0-)

    It's not about pragmatism. It's about pushing for the policies one believes in, persued witht the sort of politics one believes can make it happen. Anyone has a problem with that doesn't understand how democracy actually works and is the actual purist.

    Democracy is messy. Deal with it or STFU. People who attack people who disagree with what THEY approve of and slander them as petulant are the actual petulant ones. 100% projection--when it's not deliberate lying for a purpose (that purpose being promoting policy that THEY don't have a problem with because they're probably overpaid corporate hacks who feel threatened by the real left).

    DLC hacks, go fuck yourselves. What you call "pragmatism" is YOU making a deal with the devil so he gives YOU a parachute while the rest of us get thrown off a cliff.

    The surest sign of a DLC hack looking out for THEIR interests is when they go all meta and attack peoples' motivations, sanity and civility because they can't win the actual policy debate. They are out for themselves and have destroyed the party.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:33:07 AM PST

  •  Some ask why, I ask why not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    House of Gin

    To my fellow leftists who are expressing major chagrin and disappointment, my question is why?

    The right left question is why not.

    President Obama is a centrist and always has been.

    The President is a wingerooni.  I have no idea when he went wrong and neither do you.

    He is basically Bill Clinton, except that he has a bit of class and self-control.

    Once again you prove Obama is a wingerooni.

    The President is a centrist.

    You can train a parrot to repeat that endlessly for you and save your fingers.  Obama will still not be a yellow-striped, dead armadillo.

    stop the talk about a primary challenge.

    Certainly it would be best if Obama did the right left thing and announced he would not run.

    Any sane liberal would not support nor vote for Obama again if the Republicans were to nominate Sharron Angle and Chicken Sue as a balanced ticket.  Idiocy would balance the unbalanced lunatic.

    Hoovernomics works no better than escalation.

    Best,  Terry

    •  Hi Terry (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for stopping by.

      I explained my position in a long response to bruh. It may be that I am sufffering somewhat from cognitive dissonance.

      I will actively pursue a progressive agenda but will vote Democratic through 2012. After that I may be leaving DK because if the Democrats don't start measuring up, I will likely be working for a third party alternative.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:27:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Herding Cats Is No Doubt A Difficult Task (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg

        You appear to do it far better than most and even with style.

        IMHO this country will not survive Obama and his predecessors in anything like the country it - er, never was really though we like to imagine otherwise.

        Take care, friend.  I will never fail to recognize that you are a comrade whatever our differences.

        Best,  Terry

  •  I'm with you 100% on this: (4+ / 0-)

    If the President works in what I consider to be support of working people, he will receive my support. If I believe he needs to do more, I will say so. And if his actions indicate he is working more in the interests of the corporate overlords, then I will oppose those actions.

    This has nothing to do with the President personally. I don’t know the man. To me he is another politician. I will continue to advocate and work for those policies that I believe will promote individual rights, peace and social justice. Those policies of the President which coincide with my beliefs I will support. Those that don’t will not get my support.

    Finally, regarding a primary challenge. This really isn’t just about President Obama. It’s where we are as a country. I’ve worked for decades on the issue of civil rights and social justice. The one bright moment in the past thirty years of US political history was the election of an African-American to the Presidency. He has been targeted by the overt and covert racists in this country and though I don’t agree with him about many issues, I will do what I can in 2012 to prevent the racists from winning.

    An emphatic yes to all of the above.

    "There is no reason a Democrat has to be a weakling." - Alan Grayson

    by cassandraX on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:34:32 AM PST

  •  Primary challenge.... OK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    We'll just all stay home again in 2012.   You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    Don't tax the rich, starve the poor.

    by dkmich on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:10:16 AM PST

    •  only if you think Republicans will do more... (0+ / 0-)

      ...of what you want.

      That's the mentality that I don't understand: Obama's not perfect and not giving you everything you want, so you're content to pass it all back to the Republicans, who are guaranteed to not give you anything you want.

      I hear that all the time here, but I don't understand the rationale of it.  It sounds like the worst kind of loser mentality and absolute ignorance of how things work.

      "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 Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:12:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who can the Democrats put up (0+ / 0-)

      who will be more progressive?

      I don't see a viable candidate. Perhaps we can find one in 2016 but not in 2012.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:30:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So stick with the devil we know? (0+ / 0-)

    This is unbelievable rationalizing. In other words if we set standards for behavior and he does not measure up we should just say OK the alternative is so bad we better not say anything?

    When I have a child that does less than he should, do I just say OK he could be my neighbors child which is worse. Or do I sit that child down and at least repeat what is considered good behavior in our house. I have to do that in hopes it will sink in if I repeat it enough.

    Where as I agree with some of your statements they are like bricks in building a house a few good bricks doesn't make a good house. It takes a good foundation and a lot of mortar.

    •  I'm not tied to the Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

      They don't represent my foundation.

      I don't see a serious challenger who will promote progressive issues. If there is a successful primary we will simply replace one centrist with another and in the process alienate a significant part of the base.

      We will gain nothing and provide the bigots with more red meat. I doubt they will stop with the demonization of African-Americans.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:30:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're a big tent and fights happen. (2+ / 0-)

    Fights which, by the way, I sometimes start (hehe).

    My tendency is to home is to establish some basement level of mutual respect in such exchanges and then build up from there.

    I find that what happens can often resemble online analogues of kids on a playground sizing each other up, tussling a bit to take each other's measure, then suddenly deciding to go play baseball or something fun.

    It's the primate in us all, on display before God and the world.

    But it's what we are and what we do, until Humanity 2.0 shows up. :)

  •  Please stop referring to yourself as "the left" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, justmy2

    It pisses me off.

    The Netroots bears little resemblance to most left-leaning organizations I have belonged to over the years.  It's way more male, way more aggressive, way more "pure" on issues than any group I know that considers itself leftist.

    The majority of us progressives out here in the real world still support Obama, strongly (something like 70 to 80% based on most reputable polls).

    Us real progressives accept diversity.  Amongst those fighting for environmental issues might be homophobes and anti-abortion zealots, and we accept that.  Amongst those fighting for women's rights might be economic conservatives, and we accept that.  Amongst those fighting for improved working conditions might be those who want to drill in the Arctic, and we also accept that.

    YOU are NOT "The left."  Defining yourself as such, acting as if you speak for "the left" when you do NOT, is a huge part of the problem here.  

    In the real world, we don't define progress by how pure our party line is.  We define it by water supplies protected from damaging development, by better conditions for workers, by more people who can see doctors.  

    We recognize that some fights might take years or decades or even generations to win.  We count as our allies those who agree with us most of the way but not all the way, with the idea that the next person will move the ball even further up the field.

    And we don't, most certainly don't, call ourselves "The Left" as if we dare speak for the entire group.

    So put that high horse back in the barn.  She's getting tired.  

  •  That's pretty much what I argued (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snowbird42, Front Toward Enemy

    I am doubtful of a primary challenge.  I don't think anyone has a desire to run against Obama within the party.

    And yes Obama is a centrist.  

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:24:58 AM PST

  •  I should not be disappointed because YOU'RE not (4+ / 0-)

    disappointed?????

    To my fellow leftists who are expressing major chagrin and disappointment, my question is why? The President has done more or less what I expected him to do.

    Fancy reasoning there.

    This place has gone bonkers and I am becoming the voice of reason.

    Not good.

    America legalized torture before they legalized marijuana.
    Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:27:17 AM PST

    •  At least this diary isnt vindictive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      Most folks are being reasonable. Have you ever thought that no one elected in the US will live up to expectations here?

      I am far happier fighting small local battles and trusting that Obama will do the best he can in a country that has become of the corporations.
      I havent been here much as the hate is upsetting and not productive.

    •  I 'm "disapointed" that you don't approve (0+ / 0-)

      of my reasoning.

      I'm not saying you can't be disappointed. I'm just asking why?

      President Obama is a centrist. Any successful challenger will be a centrist. They are not progressives.

      That won't stop me for advocating and working for progressive reforms, including the one you passionately espouse.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:10:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Heh. "Organization". (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Front Toward Enemy

    An actual organization would be respectable, like, say, a political party.

    Instead, what rushes to the top of this blog, at least lately, are people who have no agenda or program except rushing to the top of the blog with the latest poutrage and hysteria. It's all hot air, no action, and given that action isn't expected, it's all a competition about who can have the most hot air.  Which you call "opposing", as if "opposing" is the highest form of political behavior.

    Don't like how your congressman votes? You could write him, or you could write an open letter to Michelle Obama.

    by Inland on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:41:29 AM PST

    •  If they were more like this diarist, (3+ / 0-)

      who I believe has never rushed to the rec list blowing a lot of hot air, we might actually have a healthy opposition from the left.

      "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

      by Mother of Zeus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  FaceBook Elite Corps! (0+ / 0-)

      (disclaimer: I am not a fan of FB)

      I think that some people are playing a game called "What diary can we rec to the top of the list?".

      Certainly some of the diaries have precious little substance and any that imply or explicitly state the diarist is not interested in discussion or engagement with people who don't whole heartedly agree with them are little more than self centered rants.

      Show me the POLICY!

      by Fabian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:34:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Political parties "respectable"? (0+ / 0-)

      Like the Republicans?

      Right.

      And "poutrage"? Very creative and original.

      Excellent critique.

      You can make it all about personalities if you care to. To each their own.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:16:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now this is more like it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, NancyK, Front Toward Enemy

    This is the kind of professional left I can get behind, one with some wisdom, perspective and with its eyes open.  The incessant focus I see on the individual person of the President - both positive and negative - is unhealthy and just one more indication of the downfall of our participatory democracy and its political institutions.  Our problems are not about Barack Obama, and he does not have the power or ability right all that is wrong.  And as the diarist pointed out, on many issues that matter to the left, he never promised policies as far left as many delude themselves into believing.

    This country is falling apart, IMHO.  The middle class has become decimated, a downfall that started long ago.  And as the middle class falls apart, the social institutions that keep a participatory democracy strong have gone with it.  We have a nation of television and entertainment addicts to an extent that I believe is simply incompatible with a functioning democracy. People have to care and understand and actually be able to critically analyze and question claims that lack empirical support. They have to understand that political corruption is not something that you can just blind yourself to if a politician flatters you or pretends to speak to your beliefs; you have to hold these people accountable or they will NEVER represent the interests of the country as a whole.   I see precious little evidence that the vast majority of people in this country are still able to do that.  It doesn't make them bad or evil; it makes them walking prey for the Grover Norquists of the world.  

    "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

    by Mother of Zeus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:26:30 AM PST

  •  No primary challenge because he is black? (0+ / 0-)

    Is that pretty much what you're saying.  If it is, it's insulting to all Democrats.  

    "We have to deal with the world as we find it." The rallying cry of Vichy Dems.

    by Paleo on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:34:37 AM PST

    •  where did he say this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl

      I agree with the diarist.  President Obama is the best we have right now, whether his is black, brown, green or purple.

      I like what the diarist said.  We haven't succeeded yet, but I still hope we can convince him that we have his back if he does what is right for the people (including those who don't live here).

      I have no problem with centrist.  I have a big problem with corporatist.  Now I don't think we can accuse the President of being a corporatist yet, but that is why I dislike the blue dogs.  They are not centrists, they are corporatist.

      Jim Webb is a centrist.  But he also tries to help out the middle class.  This is what happened on one major initiative he tried:

         Webb is a Reagan Democrat who returned home. He was Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary. Almost two decades later, he was the Democrat who scrapped out a win in Virginia.

         Webb seems less at home today. He identifies himself as a Democrat. But he has few Democratic leaders to identify with. . . .

         Webb's one of the last FDR Democrats. An economic populist. Liberals also admire the populist Webb. The same cannot be said for the Democratic establishment. Webb has pushed for a onetime windfall profits tax on Wall Street's record bonuses. He talks about the "unusual circumstances of the bailout," that the bonuses wouldn't be there without the bailout.

         "I couldn't even get a vote," Webb says. "And it wasn't because of the Republicans. I mean they obviously weren't going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.

         "People look up say, what's the difference between these two parties? Neither of them is really going to take on Wall Street. If they don't have the guts to take them on, and they've got all these other programs that exclude me, well to hell with them. I'm going to vote for the other people who can at least satisfy me on other issues, like abortion. Screw you guys. I understand that mindset."

      Now I think that there was a chance, if this hadn't been scuttled by the Democrats, that the President would have signed this bill.  We'll never know because it was stopped by corporate Democrats, not centrists.

      Harry Ried is a good, decent, and smart guy, but perhaps we need a different Majority Leader...

      by Indiana Bob on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:18:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Second to last paragraph. (0+ / 0-)

        Diarist equates a primary challenge as giving 'racists' a chance to 'win'.

        'Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.' - The Dread Pirate Roberts

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:31:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we need to know the context, obviously (0+ / 0-)

          I think he is saying that a primary challenge is not letting Democrat racist win, I think he is saying that the weakening of Obama to where a primary challenge makes sense is the actual racists teabaggers and republicans would have "won".

          You may be right, I am going to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

          Harry Ried is a good, decent, and smart guy, but perhaps we need a different Majority Leader...

          by Indiana Bob on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:01:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not simply because he is black ... (0+ / 0-)

      but that is a factor for me.

      If we had a real progressive who had a real chance of getting the nomination then there might be a point. But I don't see a serious challenger who will promote progressive issues.

      If there is a successful primary we will simply replace one centrist with another and in the process alienate a significant part of the base.

      We will gain nothing and provide the bigots with more red meat. I doubt they will stop with the demonization of African-Americans. Once they have successfully eliminated the "black threat" I can see the bigots going after Latinos, Muslims and gays.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:36:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton v. Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    We put up with eight years of the self-centered Clinton. We can deal with President Obama.

    And your point being?  Because we lived through Clinton, and enabled on a policy level, we should do the same with Obama?  No wonder no one takes the left seriously, and feel free to take them for granted and throw them under the bus when push comes to shove.

    "We have to deal with the world as we find it." The rallying cry of Vichy Dems.

    by Paleo on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:36:51 AM PST

    •  We've been marginalized at least since the 70s (0+ / 0-)

      Am I compromising? Yes. Every time I step into the voting booth and vote for a someone with a D after the name I am compromising. Ther isn't a viable Democratic candidate for the 2012 Presidential nomination who will come anywhere close to promoting a truly progressive agenda.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:41:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  good reasonable, realistic diary (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a centrist (I was further left but years of interactions here have pushed me more toward the middle), but if I saw more stuff like this from the left, they'd be much less of a turn-off.   I agree with much of what you said, and find the parts I disagree with to at least be well thought-out and practical.  

    I know people are disappointed with Obama.  I'm disappointed with a few things he's done, too... but I still think he was the best choice available to us at the time, and remains the best choice now.  I'm not interested in idealism unless it's in a form that actually makes it into office;  you only score points when you have the ball, so a perfect liberal candidate who can never get elected is utterly useless.  So, I'm for working with what we have.

    And I'm also for focusing on what should be our main goal: stopping Republicans from holding power.  If we don't do that, nobody is going to get what they want, and in a few decades we'll find ourselves in a full-blown theocracy, because that is their goal and they are aggressively pursuing it.  I'm convinced that a lot of people here don't understand what we're actually up against, or they wouldn't be so flaky about the in-fighting.  Hell, FOX News and CNN were siting Daily Kos bloggers yesterday and laughing their asses off!  They're using this site against Democrats now.

    I hate the right-wing with a passion, and I'm starting to get a big dislike for the left, too, but  I know what we're facing if Republicans ever get enough power to do what they want... and that will keep me fighting to elect Democrats, whatever else happens.

    "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 Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:03:35 AM PST

    •  bad diary (0+ / 0-)

      more rationalizing.

      •  Besides going third party (0+ / 0-)

        what progressive alternative do you propose?

        I'm not suggesting that the third party way is wrong. I'm not one of those who condemns Nader for the 2000 election fiasco. The responsibility for that, as with the 2010 disaster, lies with the Democratic leadership and the administration.

        After 2012, if the Democrats haven't figured out that electoral success lies with the support of progressive ideals, I will return to supporting third party candidates, as I did prior to 2000.

        A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

        by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:48:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You're not very professional. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    A professional would see a centrist in office, and work around him to get more progressive legislation passed, dragging him to the left by any means necessary.  

    Nothing wrong with keeping your amateur status, though.  

    "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 Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:04:21 AM PST

  •  Eloquently, fabulously spoken. Thanks. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg
  •  Agreed. And well said. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:10:21 AM PST

  •  I see it differently, tho' I appreciate the fact (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Corporate Dog

    that you are actually addressing the policy decisions that SHOULD BE the subject of our debate. WHENEVER a politician--let alone the president--makes decisions that are against the interests of the poor and middle class, I feel there is reason to be critical. When a pattern of such actions is manifested that makes clear his alliances are NOT with the broad mass of people but with the ruling class, I have every right to be angry.

    In truth, many here do not share such allegiances, period. Their awareness isn't such that, generally, many of them could even identify such fault lines.
    In other countries, people who aren't well versed in the issues stand down when debate gets heated, aware of their ignorance, eager to hear from people who have more considered opinions, not to mention facts.

    What's objectionable--but absolutely par for the course with the internet--is that these people's reductive arguments are based purely in their veneration for the figure, just as many of George Bush's supporters were. They will brook NO criticism, and in the end CANNOT acknowledge the solid weight of evidence accumulated that this is not only a failed presidency but--indeed--they have been used.

    The president miscalculated in thinking that he would not need us next time out. I was sure the Republicans were so noxious that there was no way he could lose a bid for re-election, sell us out or not. But what his (fairly canny) machinations to aid the ruling class while masquerading as a reformer have got him--in terms of image--are only a projection of bumbling ineptitude and uncertainty. . . on all sides. Increasingly, it looks like he will lose.

    So spinning your wheels here is probably a mistake. Deciding what our moves for 2012 are is critical. I'm not backing Obama, nor will I vote for him again. There will be plenty of down-ballot reasons to head to the polls, as always, but he will not be one of them for me.

    Let's let the pols do the selling out, you and I keep fighting for what's right.

    by Matthew Detroit on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:15:40 AM PST

  •  Here's the silly thing about centrists... (4+ / 0-)

    It's not that I merely have policy or strategy disagreements with them. It's that there's no such thing as an honest centrist.

    They hide behind a patina of respectable, middle of the road politics. They hold up bipartisanship as some sort of Golden Mean. "We're sorry.", they say, "But we're not going to cater to the extremists on either the Right OR the Left."

    But then they freely cater to corporate interests instead, and do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while making concessions to their supporters that don't really change the system in any way that truly matters to the powerful.

    Obama is a centrist. Clinton was a centrist. Reagan was a centrist. Bush Sr. was a centrist. Bush Jr. might've leaned more towards the extremists in his own party, but he was, in the end, still a centrist.

    Do I hate Obama? No. Do I hate the system? Yes. Is he part of the system? Indeed. A little cognitive dissonance on my part? Probably.

    And that cognitive dissonance has long been seen as a thoughtcrime around here, for reasons I'll never fully understand. "Oh, you THOUGHT the President was more liberal? Well then YOU weren't paying attention!"

    No, see, here's how it is: I did pay attention. I heard a man who talked about reaching across the aisle, to a party that had just completely mismanaged the country for the proceeding eight years. It didn't sit right with me. And that's why he wasn't my choice in the primary.

    So he wins the primary. I still have my misgivings. But fine: he represents my party. I'll give him a chance. I'll move on. I'll try to understand and maybe even adopt this positive view that so many of my fellow Democrats take of him.

    But then, after helping him get elected, and discovering that nearly all of my misgivings were made manifest, I'm supposed to listen to these people that *** I *** made an effort to reach out to, telling *** ME *** that I'm some naive sucker who just didn't listen?

    Fuck that. If there's any shock or disappointment on my part, it's that I hoped my fellow Democrats had some insight into the man that I lacked. It's the hope that I was wrong about the guy, and that even if he DID think a certain way, it would still be possible to convince him (with a credible argument) to look at a policy matter in a different way.

    Alas, he's nothing more than a centrist.

    Regards,
    Corporate Dog

    -----
    We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

    by Corporate Dog on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:26:18 AM PST

    •  The Reagan thing too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, Corporate Dog

      No, see, here's how it is: I did pay attention. I heard a man who talked about reaching across the aisle, to a party that had just completely mismanaged the country for the proceeding eight years. It didn't sit right with me. And that's why he wasn't my choice in the primary.

      That praise of Reagan was such a huge turnoff for me.  For me, if you truly think like a liberal (or even close) you don't praise the man who did so much damage to everything in this country that liberals value. Your head just doesn't work that way.  And so many people waved it away as "well, he's only referring to Reagan having ideas, not that they were good ones", or even praised it as good politics -- for me, it was just "Obama does not think like me".  End of story.

      I can't remember who I voted for in the primary, though -- by the time it got to me it was a coinflip between Obama and Clinton, since my idiotic first choice of Edwards was already out.  Wouldn't that have been a disaster.  I think I pulled the lever for Obama, but I'm not positive.

      I think some of those who are taking offense at diaries like this one and comments like mine need to realize that most of us are not intending to be patronizing or "I told you so" (except in the narrowest sense) or whatever about having perceived Obama as something different and more accurate in retrospect than his strongest supporters did.  At least speaking for myself, I'm just in favor of pointing out that the signs were there for those who wanted to look for them, so maybe the sense of betrayal lessens a bit.  Because no one who's been betrayed thinks rationally about it, and damned if we don't need some clear-headed thinking right about now.

    •  Thanks for the input (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Corporate Dog

      I always enjoy your comments.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:19:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And pushing for a progressive agenda is fine (0+ / 0-)

    Its not realizing the point at which pushing for more will wind up defeating your entire purpose and leave you with absolutely nothing that's the problem.

    All the pragmatists want is to help as many people as possible-if that means accepting imperfect policy once we hit that point where pushing for the best policy will doom us to failure and getting nothing, so be it.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:28:37 AM PST

  •  The most important word in your diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    is "Work". You state repeatedly thay you work to bring about the change you wish to see. Work is the only thing that will bring about any type of change, anywhere, anytime. I applaud you.  

    "Mysteries Like This And Many Others~~ In The Trees Blow In The Night~~ In The Southern Skies" Allen Toussaint

    by rubyr on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:39:52 AM PST

  •  Why? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, slatsg, lisastar

    Because we don't have time to dick around any more.  Climate change, the balance of wealth, the way our society views itself and it's people is changing rapidly.  We've limited time.

    Because Obama capitulates before bargaining has even started.  It's compromise when you fight and bargain for something, and both sides give something.  It's capitulation when you give the bullies your lunch before they even try to knock you down.

    Because it's becoming patently obvious that no matter what Obama the man wants, Obama the President is going to give Wall Street and the corporations pretty much everything they want; the Democrats might get a few shiny distractions, and everyone else gets crumbs.

    That's why.

    And in closing, remember, this isn't the past.  This is now.  History doesn't circle, it spirals.  We may have very similar scenarios, but things change; our world is so overcrowded, resources so thinly stretched and things so interdependent that it changes the character of nations and societies.  To tear it down now ala the French Revolution would have far more ramifications than ever before.  So, it's up to us - and now - to change the course we're on before we're locked into a scenario where the rich feed off the masses of the poor, and there is no way out.  

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:03:20 AM PST

  •  In other words -- (0+ / 0-)

    you'll "oppose" the President when your "conscience" tells you to do so, but in the end you'll support him no matter what.

    "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- Gandalf, in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"...

    by Cassiodorus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:21:28 AM PST

    •  Not "no matter what" (0+ / 0-)

      Ther are certain actions that would cause my to go third party.

      * Doing the Mark Pryor/Harold Ford homophbic bit

      * Going to war with Iran.

      * Cutting Social Security benefits could do it too.

      I will agree that ther could be some cognitive dissonance in my position.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:04:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree on most, shrug at primary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    I'm fine with primaries, despite all the howling about how primaries hurt incumbents, there was a blockquote on the FP a month or two back that talked about how it was incorrectly based on cherrypicking at which elections one looked.

    If a better candidate wants to challenge from the left, I'm fine with it, I just don't see any making noise about doing so.  If a worse candidate does, whatever, that worse candidate will lose.  I think most of the wailing about how there can be no primary is coming merely from those who always wail about anything even potentially critical of the admin because they've so heavily invested themselves in the person, rather than the desired results of having Dem control of the WH.

    But, in the end, as you said, this is merely a blog. No matter how much talk of primaries there is or isn't on here, whether or not a challenger appears will have nothing to do with anything written on DK.

    'Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.' - The Dread Pirate Roberts

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:29:15 AM PST

  •  well he may have policies coming out his ears - (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't mean he fights for any of them.

    Those policies of the President which coincide with my beliefs I will support

    "Maybe the bombshell is, there's way too much stuff out there called 'secret.'" Rachel Maddow on Wikileaks

    by lisastar on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:50:28 AM PST

  •  I must say, the rants here are getting better... (0+ / 0-)

    ...lately. Concise, more balanced, forthright.

    Nicely done.

    We need to be Strong because Obama is not.

    by papicek on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:02:00 AM PST

  •  It really is the calls for primary challenges (0+ / 0-)

    that nips at my hide.

  •  I'm in pretty much the same mindset. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    Thanks for stating it so clearly.

  •  I think of it this way, President Obama has (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    fulfilled all of my expectations and none of my hopes for him.

    It's true that President Obama is a slightly better version of President Clinton.  Unfortunately, the current Republicans are even worse versions of the ones in Congress under President Clinton.

    I remember when President Carter was thought of as a conservative Democrat.  That was a big reason why Senator Kennedy challenged him in the primaries.  I had to roll my eyes yesterday when I read a recommended diary that claimed Barack Obama was a liberal.  Republicans have pushed the idea of what a liberal is so far to the right I don't know if we will see another liberal President before another Great Depression occurs.

    It's just a name like the Death Zone or the Zone of No Return.All the zones have names like that in the Galaxy of Terror. H.J.F.

    by msstaley on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:39:24 AM PST

Meteor Blades, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, cdreid, maryb2004, kelly, Dissento, chrississippi, tgs1952, jillian, fcvaguy, nolalily, itsbenj, Stevie, Forbes, grollen, dalemac, teacherken, gogol, GreenSooner, badger, TrueBlueMajority, msl, Emerson, dengre, musicalhair, Shockwave, LynChi, rhubarb, eeff, xynz, Sandy on Signal, NCJim, FyodorFish, object16, bumblebums, Jerome a Paris, BillyZoom, msstaley, conchita, magurakurin, stevej, Minerva, AndyT, Ignacio Magaloni, ornerydad, high uintas, k9disc, jdmorg, psnyder, Nag, danthrax, Dallasdoc, pat bunny, brainwave, politichic, Steven Payne, AbsurdEyes, eodell, alizard, Sophie Amrain, econlibVA, zett, Lefty Mama, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, gavodotcom, poemworld, BigDuck, bablhous, Dave in RI, Fabian, bloomer 101, Bluesee, Simian, radarlady, Erik the Red, run around, basquebob, RequestedUsername, ChemBob, Hugo Estrada, Brooke In Seattle, Kevskos, GUGA, teknofyl, LABobsterofAnaheim, Fury, lotlizard, sunbro, kaliope, LucyandByron, Hannibal, Indiana Bob, Arsenic, Jim P, kovie, gwilson, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, SciFiGuy, faster democrat kill kill, 8ackgr0und N015e, ActivistGuy, liberalconservative, Scientician, rhetoricus, Magnifico, Son of a Cat, Blue Wind, NBBooks, global citizen, Crashing Vor, Bush Bites, thegood thebad thedumb, Derfel, JVolvo, NearlyNormal, bleeding heart, el cid, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, Pilgrim X, NancyK, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, kurt, AmySmith, kurious, The House, Nulwee, BentLiberal, DBunn, janosnation, pale cold, bigchin, pgm 01, out of left field, bluicebank, khereva, Habitat Vic, Loudoun County Dem, The Reverend and Doctor Omed, david mizner, noofsh, certainot, Strabo, Swill to Power, kingyouth, HCKAD, jayden, Aunt Martha, letsgetreal, Uberbah, jnhobbs, pioneer111, LWelsch, A Person, Captain Nimrod, Terra Mystica, TomP, alba, MKinTN, Blue Boy Red State, Michael91, Dem in the heart of Texas, rogerdaddy, JayC, Corporate Dog, pullbackthecurtain, MikePhoenix, scooter in brooklyn, elwior, FG, ajr111240, Mother of Zeus, wvablue, KJG52, davekro, demoKatz, karanja, shigeru, aigeanta, BYw, psilocynic, palantir, papicek, LaFeminista, greywolfe359, satanicpanic, wv voice of reason, soarbird, weaponsofmassdeception, Neon Vincent, DeepLooker, lostinamerica, The Dead Man, Methinks They Lie, Partisan Progressive, kat68, Patch Adam, CamillesDad1, Perry the Imp, TheOpinionGuy, sfarkash, maxzj05, louisev, mahakali overdrive, citisven, catilinus, Words In Action, cassandraX, appletree, confitesprit, awcomeon, roadbear, jstipich, Johnnythebandit, Interceptor7, Lost and Found, Dexter, Balanz, DavidHeart, DailyDrew, melfunction, nickrud, Muggsy, Johnny Q, Betty Pinson, elengul, bicycle Hussein paladin, al ajnabee, angstall, Front Toward Enemy, cultjake, Lost Left Coaster, coquiero, 8th cousin, CB8421, vahana, mgoulet, TexasDan, Player to be named later, robizio, Eclectablog, deeproots, Aranfell, Wolf10, Muskegon Critic, dle2GA, LSmith, MinistryOfTruth, poliwrangler, Miggles, Azazello, The Cheshire Cat, CalliopeIrjaPearl, John Yossarian, toilpress, oldcrow, greencorn, peachcreek, jan4insight, supercereal, radical simplicity, Bend Forward

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site