Skip to main content

I've been following the going on in the lame duck session and getting depressed over the recent compromise reached with the Republican/blue dog coalition.

So, while sitting on the sofa with my wife I stated "Obama isn't a fighter".  She asked "Do we need a fighter?"

That remark got me to thinking....

(more below the fold)

Yes, I was there for the first announcement and have donated time and money every since.

So what did I want out of him? Here is a link to the text:

We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union. [...]


It was here we learned to disagree without being disagreeable - that it's possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we're willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst.

Nothing here about fighting the Republicans.

All of us know what those challenges are today - a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

Again, nothing about fighting the Republicans.

Read the text.  His campaign was about "transforming America" and bringing us together.  

Here and there, there IS a flicker of hope:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), increasingly a voice of reason and moderation within his own GOP, gave President Obama credit on Sunday for reaching out to Republicans, breaking with the party-line criticisms that the administration is not listening at all to the opposition. He also warned his colleagues against becoming the "party of no," saying that voters will start to hold Republicans accountable if they don't offer actual solutions.

"Now, I think since the election, my understanding is that the meetings that President Obama has had have certainly had an element of reaching out," Lugar told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And I think that has been appreciated. And as I indicated earlier, I think that perhaps Sen. McConnell, our Republican leader, and the president may see more eye to eye on how we ought to wind up this lame duck session than maybe do others in this situation."

He is never been about winning a war between competing ideologies.

Note:  not everyone sees it the way that we do:

Latest Gallup poll: 47-45, with 78 percent among Democrats and 83 percent among liberal Democrats.   And as of right now, he is just outside the margin of error in better poll position than either President Reagan or President Clinton was at this time in his administration:

So, yes, I know; "compromiser in chief" doesn't sound very exciting.

But I am going to wait to see how it turns out.

Besides: it isn't as if he has gotten nothing done in the first two years.
One can argue to the contrary:

Originally posted to onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:18 AM PST.

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

  •  can't sleep (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, Cory Bantic, Julian Domain

    but now I am sleepy, so writing this diary has served at least one purpose. :-)

    "Obama won. Get over it."

    by onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:22:12 AM PST

  •  How about someone.. (11+ / 0-)

    that doesn't have the spine of a jellyfish? At the very least. Obama makes Harry Reid look like Mike Tyson.

    •  Obama and Jellyfish... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dov12348, demoKatz, Tentwenty

      How about someone..that doesn't have the spine of a jellyfish? At the very least. Obama makes Harry Reid look like Mike Tyson.

      Lol...I tell you I wish the problem was that Barack was a jellyfish since it would imply he at least had the intention of doing what he said he would do, but was simply a coward.

      Instead I think is a strong-willed person who is getting what he really wanted - conservative Blue-dog Democratic policies. 90% of his actions confirm this. I gotta admit I was a real maroon and bought his BS hook line and sinker.

    •  Implying he hasn't done exactly what he wanted. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, demoKatz, Tentwenty

      The sellout of the country to the Republicans wasn't a failure of his policy.

      It was his policy.

      neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

      by khereva on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:15:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Flies like a butter fly and (4+ / 0-)

    stings like a bee, we need a president that will fight for us like Muhammad Ali.

    •  Ok...what was Ali's greatest moment? (4+ / 0-)

      One might argue it was this one where, at times, it appeared that Ali WAS BEING PASSIVE:

      "Obama won. Get over it."

      by onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:57:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ha ha... (4+ / 0-)

        Ok...what was Ali's greatest moment? (0+ / 0-)
        One might argue it was this one where, at times, it appeared that Ali WAS BEING PASSIVE:

        You mean Obama is skillfully doing more rope a dope? Did Ali play 3 dimensional chess too?

        I think the world of pro wrestling with its pre-ordained outcomes and heavily stylized lack of substance is better metaphor for the sport Pres. Obama excels at.

        I probably sound angry. I am I bitter? Do I feel betrayed? I am I PISSED? Yes, Yes, and Yes.

        •  It's all a game of three-dimensional chess! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          assyrian64, Julian Domain

          You know, I really tried to believe that, but I've reached the conclusion that that argument is (as I always feared it was) utter BS.

          I'm not bitter. I don't "hate" Obama. Contrary to popular belief, most liberals have the ability to disagree with someone without actively hating them. I'm just feeling increasingly disheartened (to put it mildly). Still, even now, I can't bring myself to "give up". I'm clinging to a small shred of hope that with him (or in spite of him, whatever the case may be), we can get something truly worthwhile done during the next two years. Naive? Quite likely, but I can't give up all hope. To say that I am disillusioned with the Democrats, however, would be an understatement.

          And yeah, I'm pissed - pissed at the Republicans and pissed at the Democrats (not just Obama). The Republicans caused this mess and they continue to screw us, but you see, the thing is, I expect to the Republicans to behave that way. I'm a woman, I am lower middle-class, and I am a liberal. I know they hate me. They have never promised me anything, and I expect nothing from them. I do expect something of the Democrats. I expect them to - at the very least - attempt to live up to the Democratic Party platform. I expect them to fight for those things they claimed to want and believe in. If they had fought and lost, and were forced to compromise, I could accept that. What I can't accept is their unwillingness to stand up for their (supposed) principles.

          You know the old adage, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." At some point the Democrats have to genuinely starting standing for something.

          The only real exception to this rule is the Progressive Caucus. I applaud them for having a spine.

          So, yes, I know; "compromiser in chief" doesn't sound very exciting.

          I couldn't care less if it "sounds exciting". I'm not looking for excitement or cheap thrills. I'm looking for leadership. Preferably, effective leadership. The question I ask myself is, "What and who are the Democrats choosing to compromise? What will the long term ramifications of these "compromises" be?" In other words, do the ends justify the means? Given the price paid for each of these one-way compromises, I'm not convinced that the "ends" are worth it.

          All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be ~ Michelle Obama

          by AuroraDawn on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:14:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ali continued to hit Foreman steadily (3+ / 0-)

        80 % of SUCCESS is JUST showing up. Obama's the perfect GOP president. He fooled us!

        by Churchill on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:52:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but he clearly did so in a passive way. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Churchill, Julian Domain

          And yes, that's snark.

          All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be ~ Michelle Obama

          by AuroraDawn on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:15:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The R's howl enough (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Churchill, Julian Domain

          Remember this?

          That sounds like someone who got hit.

          "Obama won. Get over it."

          by onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:15:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are rejoicing over this compromise. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            khereva, Julian Domain

            They know it's essentially a victory for them. Andrew Card certainly isn't weeping. He was already gloating a few days ago about the tax cuts.

            As debate rages in Washington over the Bush tax cuts, set to expire at the end of this year, the Bush administration officials who initiated the steep tax cuts are celebrating what they see as an apparent victory, since signs point to a temporary extension of all the cuts. The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz interviewed Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director, and Andy Card, Bush’s former chief of staff, among others, and they were pleased at how the expiration debate has played out:

            “We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it,” says Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director. “That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.” [...]

            “[Democrats] are definitely on the defensive,” Card says. “The fact that the 10-year clock ran out now had a big impact on the election.”

            If they are feeling the least bit miffed about this "compromise", they certainly hide it well.

            I think Walter Shapiro summed it up quite well.

            With all the grace of a baggy-pants comedian doing pratfalls, the Obama administration agreed to an awkward compromise with Republicans in Congress on Monday night extending the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans (families earning more than $250,000) for an additional two years. The White House trumpeted the temporary payroll tax reduction that it won in exchange as well as the extension of unemployment benefits.

            But Barack Obama's advisers apparently also believe that the president will ultimately prevail by dumping the tax-cut issue into the middle of the 2012 re-election campaign. Having failed to arouse the voters during the congressional elections with the tax-cuts-for-the-rich refrain, Obama somehow believes that the issue will rebound in his favor in 2012.

            He then describes various scenarios involving Obama either continuing to extend the tax cuts or letting them expire. He ends with this.

            Morning in America: Under this scenario – brought to you by those wonderful folks who concocted Recovery Summer – a resurgent economy rewards Obama with the biggest presidential landslide since Ronald Reagan carried 49 states in 1984. Persuaded by the power of the president's oratory and daunted by the size of the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republicans do not even try to save the tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year.

            Odds of this happening: About as likely as tax cuts for the rich paying for themselves without adding to the deficit.

            If he didn't let those tax cuts die a natural death this time around, I can't see him doing it during an election year.

            All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be ~ Michelle Obama

            by AuroraDawn on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:59:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Standing on principle is a far cry from (9+ / 0-)

    "fighting".  Obama ran on a specific set of ideals and he has retreated from those non-stop!  So yes, there has to come a point where you draw the proverbial line in the sand and fight for what you believe in.  Otherwise, his policy positions during the campaign were nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to get him elected so he could do whatever the hell he pleases, ideology and principles be damned.

    "Bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts!" Three Dog

    by pineapple head joe on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:34:59 AM PST

  •  While a fighter would be nice (13+ / 0-)

    I'd settle for a Democrat.

    He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances. Jack London

    by blueoasis on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:37:06 AM PST

  •  From that speech: (8+ / 0-)

    And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back.

    Thank God we took back our government from the cynics, the lobbyists, and the special interests who think they own this government. We've got them on the run now, and with our single-payer healthcare system, clean coal technology, and government transparency we can "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth."

    Wanna buy an apple?

    Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

    by adios on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:49:39 AM PST

    •  no one says that we are there yet (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill, science nerd, JL

      point: are we on our way there or at least making progress?

      "Obama won. Get over it."

      by onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 01:53:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama won (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Churchill, mightymouse, khereva

        We lost
        Get over it.

        Just editing your sig line...

        Show me the POLICY!

        by Fabian on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:02:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh...that was aimed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          science nerd

          at those who have never accepted the fact that he won...(i.e., the right wing).

          "Obama won. Get over it."

          by onanyes on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:06:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "Obama won" implies that "We, the Democrats, won"

            you know

            I will affirm that "Obama won"
            but I really have to wonder if "We, the Democrats, won"

            This doesn't feel much like winning to me.  This doesn't look much like winning to me.  I remember how I felt when Pelosi took impeachment off the table.  I don't feel like that about Pelosi now.  I think she's a bright spot in the Democratic leadership.

            Obama, on the other hand...I'm beginning to get those "Whaddya mean, it's off the table!" moments over and over again.  

            I can forgive once.  I can try to be tolerant and understanding.  After I watch opportunity after opportunity slip past, I give up on tolerance and understanding and start making tally marks.

            Show me the POLICY!

            by Fabian on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:32:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose that really all depends on... (0+ / 0-)

        your definition of progress. My answer: Yes and No. Has some progress been made? Yes, but unfortunately, for every step we take forward, we seem to jump a mile backward.

        Those who claim he has accomplished nothing are, in my opinion, being unfair. He has admittedly accomplished some things that are genuinely worthwhile. The problem I have, is that those things he has chosen to compromise are of such importance that the compromise is actually a loss, not a draw.

        It begs the question, where would he draw the line? How much is he willing to compromise for the sake of appearing bi-partisan? There is a difference between compromise and capitulation. I'm not convinced that Obama - or 90% of the Dems in Congress - truly understand that difference. Compromise is a two-way street, and so far, the Republicans aren't playing along.

        All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be ~ Michelle Obama

        by AuroraDawn on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:31:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No and no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And Obama is responsible for that.

        neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

        by khereva on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:17:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for reasonable analysis Onanyes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, science nerd, JL, JimmyP

    I've always supported Obama, but I've never been smitten with him. Some people apparently saw what they wanted to see, and heard what they wanted to hear.

    Also, you could tell from the look on his face at the victory speech in Chicago that he knew full well he had an uphill climb ahead of him. There's a reason why he said "I may not be able to do it all in one year, or one term".

    And the perspective in regard to Reagan and Clinton is useful. Guys, he still has two years, and we have two years of work ahead of us.

  •  so losing 62 seats wasn't enough? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, AuroraDawn

    I mean his 11-D chess over the past 2 years really paid off didn't it--we really are more united and filled with hope and all manner of warm and fuzzy feelings!

    So how many more seats will have to be lost in 2012, how much damage must the Democratic Party endure under this president before somebody wakes the fuck up?

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

    by michael1104 on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:26:31 AM PST

  •  It's like there's no one there. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, Rich in PA, demoKatz

    We're being run by Petraeus and Congress.

    I'm not kidding.

    Happy Fucking Monday. -- irony from Colorado is the Shiznit, after a long rant.

    by dov12348 on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:26:40 AM PST

  •  unfortunately (6+ / 0-)

    for a man who eschewed any hint of ideology, he was ultimately trapped by a very inflexible one...

  •  fight, compromise... (5+ / 0-)

    what the fuck ever. The President and the Democrats better create some jobs and it wouldn't hurt if they went after the oil speculators and brought down gas prices or none of them are going to have jobs come 2012. The political theater is a joke, and it is a joke most people ignore. Jobs and gas prices decide elections.

    Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch agree to produce iPad digital newspaper that won't stop lying unless you hold it in a certain way.

    by jbou on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:32:23 AM PST

  •  FDR comparision are trite (4+ / 0-)

    but this resonates, still

    To the Congress of the United States I make recommendations -- that is all -- in most cases recommendations relating to objectives of legislation -- leaving it to the Congress to translate the recommendations into law. The majority of the Senate and House have agreed with those objectives and have worked with me and I have worked with them to translate those objectives into action. Some have given "lip service" to some of the objectives but have not raised their little fingers actively to attain the (action itself) objectives themselves. (Applause) Too often these few have listened to the dictatorship of (the) a small minority of individuals and corporations who oppose the objectives themselves. That, my friends, is a real dictatorship (Audience: that is right.) And one (which) that I am glad to say we have been getting away from slowly but surely during the past five years. (Applause) And just as long as I live, as long as I live you will find me fighting against any kind of dictatorship (applause) -- especially (that) the kind of dictatorship (which) that has enslaved (millions of our people) many of our fellow citizens for more than half a century.

    That's a fighter. Rhetoric: given the force of action.

    "Space Available!" is the biggest retail chain in the nation.

    by Free Jazz at High Noon on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:53:32 AM PST

  •  how about someone who will at least do the math? (4+ / 0-)

    We threw away 300 billion dollars in revenues for a 60 billion dollar unemployment extension.  

    Freakin stupid.

  •  A fighter may not be what we need (0+ / 0-)

    What we needed, and still need, is a governing politican. Social justice can't be enforced solely by the power of the bully pulpit. Behind it must be political muscle.
    Saying we need a fighter says two things. It says we want the President to stand firm, "just say no." It also says we want the President to speak out, to use the power inherent in communicating from his office.
    Campaign politics and governing politics are different animals. The political campaign strength to win is a different kind of strength from the political muscle needed to govern.
    President Obama has said "make me do it". No, he must gather a team that has the governing muscle to make "them" do it.
    Naturally, the administration has to assume it will win the 2012 election, but then, most administrations with high favorable and low disapproval ratings have a right to assume this.  
    During the next two years, this administration must put together one team to run the election, and at the same time, another team to run politics after the election, bringing politicians into the White House who know how governing politics works, and know how to assemble and use political muscle after the election.  

  •  Yes Good Diary! Cave Kooks Need To Put Down... (0+ / 0-)

    ...their pitchforks for a moment and see the bigger picture.


    The smarter and harder I work, the luckier I get!

    by JimmyP on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:43:13 AM PST

  •  Sony Coreleone Was a Fighter & Look What Happened (0+ / 0-)

    ... to him.

    He was an overly emotional idiot and look what happened to him.


    The smarter and harder I work, the luckier I get!

    by JimmyP on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:44:51 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site