Skip to main content

Short diary, I have to be up and mentally active in six hours. After reading the words of our "Democratic" president tonight, I can say with 100% certainty I will NEVER vote for this man, nor any other person that claims allegiance to him. He does NOT represent me or my interests, nor what I believe in, nor what I voted for in 2008.

A "Democratic" president touting his signing of huge tax giveaways for the wealthy; mentioning "painful cuts" like they are some kind of necessary tonic that will eventually benefit "the people;" mentioning "shared sacrifice" without ONE FUCKING WORD about raising taxes on the rich; and worst of all, mentioning SEVERAL TIMES "the largest spending cuts in our history," like this is something a Democratic president should be proud of. Just a shameful performance.

This president has been one disappointment after another. Gitmo is still open. We are still fighting THREE wars (with escalation of the newest one a real possibility). He squandered one of the greatest opportunities of our lifetimes by urging the passage of, then signing, a giveaway to the insurance industry, instead of real, beneficial health care changes that will benefit ALL Americans, not just Humana CEOs and shareholders. Worst of all, we are at the point where it is acceptable for politicians to talk about ENDING FUCKING MEDICARE without instantly being screamed off the stage. Remember, we got to that sorry, sorry stage in two very short fucking years.

Listen, this man is either a loser of epic proportions, or a closet Republican. At this point, what other plausible options are there?

No, I will not clap louder.

No, I will not even clap.

I'm done.

Flame away.

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

    •  This tragedy was written when he (22+ / 0-)

      laid down on extending Bush tax cut.  That is when it was over for me.  If he is primaried I will vote against him in the primary.  If he survives primary, I vote against him in the general.  The new democrats prove the tent is far too big.  I do not agree with his political philosophy at all.

      •  Gosh (3+ / 0-)

        It didn't take very long for the Obama Thought Police Team to arrive.

        So, folks, get ready for the personal insults and the rank Obama propaganda.

      •  Chris Hedges may have put it best: (7+ / 0-)

        "Obama is part of the political stagecraft that trades in illusions of power rather than real power."

        You can't stop the global capitalist agenda with electoral politics.  

        Whatever Obama's intentions, it's clear now, after all excitement of Hope and Change in 2008, that the system cannot be reformed.  Too much money and too much power in too few hands has resulted in the total liquidation of even the highly limited mechanisms of reform previously available within the system.  There simply is no longer a place at the table for 90% of the people in this country.  The idea of the "more and better Democrats," may have once seemed a pragmatic path.  What these last few years have made clear though is that this slogan, rather than being pragmatic, represents the height of Utopianism.  American "democracy" is now, solely, the province of what Marx called "the executive committee of the bourgeoisie."

        Only a revolution can save us now.

        Don't tell me what you do. Tell me whose interests you serve and I'll tell you what you do.

        by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:31:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama thinks the change people wanted (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock, Major Tom, anarchyintheusa

          is for every vote to pass the Senate 100 to 0 with everybody getting along, unfortunately what people want is to be able to live their life in dignity, and to  not be stuck in a job where quitting, or saying you won't do something dangerous, means you will be homeless in a week. In the huge mass of people cheering for this idiot when he was elected, very few make even a penny of their income from investments or capital gains, they actually participate in society and pay more than their fair share, but Obama has never shown for a second that their interest is anywhere near as important as the very rich who supposedly create our jobs and keep society going.

    •  HR'ed without even an explanation nor defense. (10+ / 0-)

      How typical of the few remaining cultists.

      There is no ideal nor principal this sham President is not willing to trade for the slight chance at re-election.

      And now we learn that the architect of the worst Democratic campaign ever run is slated to be the next Chair of the DNC.

      Why don't they just rename it the Wall Street Party and be done with it?

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

      by Greyhound on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:04:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wall Street Party (3+ / 0-)

        Hmm...now that might end up being a branding improvement after the American people get the full "austerity" treatment  from Obama and working class heroes like Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus.

        Don't tell me what you do. Tell me whose interests you serve and I'll tell you what you do.

        by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:44:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rimstalker

        Because she's going to be the new head.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

        by zenbassoon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:57:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read just yesterday that it is Donna Brazile. (0+ / 0-)

          She was Gore's campaign manager and the reason for that clusterfuck of a campaign.

          I know we all like to blame Ralph Nader, but it was her ideas of running away from Clinton, who achieved and was riding the highest approval ratings of his entire administration at the very end of his term, and to campaign on embodying the definition of the mushy-middle blandness.

          If we're to believe that the judicial coup was made possible by the closeness of the race, then that closeness was created by her refusal to stand on or for anything.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

          by Greyhound on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:02:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Trix (7+ / 0-)

      Seriously, did you ever think Obama would turn out this way?

      Also, did you see him tonight and note how proudly he took credit for destroying so many life lines to the poor and struggling middle class?

      •  I always knew he would end up this way (6+ / 0-)

        I have at least 1000 pre-election comments to that effect.  Having said that, I'd still vote for him in 2012 because he's less likely to destroy the planet because he read it in some fairy tale.

        •  Rich (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock

          It's time to hit the reset button. That means that a serious Democratic candidate must come forward and primary Obama. In that way we can have a new discussion about Democratic priorities in America.

          I know it's unlikely to happen, but you never know.  

          •  We can have the discussion w/o the candidate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SherwoodB

            I don't believe in protest candidacies except in extreme situations and we don't have one here, believe it or not.  

            •  You don't think we're in an extreme situation? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cas2

              Yeah, tell that to the old people in America who couldn't heat their homes this past winter, and who will be losing "Meals on Wheels."  Also, tell that to kids who won't be able to take advantage of "Head Start" in an attempt to catch up by the time they enter grade school.  Additionally, tell that to the young students who can't attend college this year because of the Pell Grant cuts.

              Furthermore, what do you think is coming next?  Fewer cuts? Republican give backs? Obama growing a pair. Harry Reid acting like a real fighter in the ring?

              Gosh, concerning your comment, I guess I'll have to touch base with you after the next fiscal budget is enacted.

          •  Way Too Early, the Situation's Much Worse Thn That (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Major Tom, bluebottles

            The party is a conservative party. We're not going to get a viable progressive presidential candidate by primarying either this or probably the next decade.

            We need to solidify the progressive movement independent of the party, creating our own messaging and candidates, and begin using the party as a host for them. Primary absolutely, but never in the absence of a better and very competitive candidate we've supplied as the challenger. That's how the right took over the Republicans.

            Of course this means acknowledging the vast amount of destruction the 2 parties are going to inflict on the country in the coming years before the left can gain strength. Most of what we value is going down before that time.

            Unless somebody can point to an existing progressive power block that can take over party leadership right now.

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

            by Gooserock on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:28:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Wish he would have handed out umbrellas when (14+ / 0-)

    giving his shit storm. I agree. I cannot, nor will not, vote for him again. I came to that conclusion when he surrounded himself with Geithner and Bernanke. That told me all I needed to know. I think you are right. He is a Republican.

    He like to use the word, "Bamboozled." Well, he certainly bambooled us.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - W. A. Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:52:01 PM PDT

  •  Guess I (3+ / 0-)

    will just have to work that much harder to elect him without you guys,as I see the enemy,and they want to you to give up. They seem to be succeeding. Boehner and Palin have done their work well with some,I see.

  •  All I can say is I told you guys that this guy was (6+ / 0-)

    just a Black Elmer Gantry back during the primary season.

    Great Speeches - no action.

    You are right in everything you say but now all is lost.

    I fear this can only end in a French Style Revolution.

  •  In a NY Minute..... (20+ / 0-)

    Of course, I'll vote for the President again.  Interesting that you're not mentioning the 60 Republican riders that were dumped to get this deal.

    The riders Republicans wanted to attach to this budget included defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding NPR, stopping the implementation of healthcare, defunding the Consumer Protection Bureau, defunding regulatory agencies enforcing  the EPA including the regulation of green house gases, clean air, clean water & inspected fruit, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

    It was an ideological free for all that quacks like Mike Pence, Louie Gohmert & Jim DeMint wanted.  It was vile & it would have dismantled 7 decades of work done by other Democrats.

    I will vote for the President again in a NY minute rather than put up with the outside chance that someone like Newt Gingrich or Haley Barbour ever gets anywhere near the WH.  Not now, not ever.

  •  This is what the House's 'power of the purse' (17+ / 0-)

    means.  The House writes spending and tax law.  That's Article I.  Thugs control the House thanks, in part, to D's 'sending a message' - in reality falling for Thug propagand that 'things ain't been fixed overnight so he's a sell out'.  Given Thug control, both defacto after Nov. and now dejure, a tax increase of any kind is - insanely, yes, but undeniably - not going to happen.

    A sane response would be to win back the House and keep the Senate and try to get Ds who will repeal the Bush millionare tax cuts and slap a surcharge on the rich to boot.

    But, hey, go ahead, sit 2012 out.  Enough of you swallow the Thugs agitprop and its ;Hail President Barbour'.  'Cause an undeniable racist, misogynist Thug machine pol will be sooooo much better.

    •  Yeah, I'm a little boggled by the reactions (16+ / 0-)

      at the site - or, rather, not really boggled because it's become pretty standard around here, but whatever the reasons we may have lost in 2010, we should have expected this moment (or worse) and been more prepared to deal with it than throwing up our hands in mutual disgust.   If people are angry (and they should be), they need to be channeling that anger primarily into re-taking the House and protecting the Senate.  Flailing about over the President is going to have about zero impact.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:59:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chrismorgan (3+ / 2-)

      Seriously, did you ever think Obama would turn out this way?

      Also, did you see him tonight and note how proudly he took credit for destroying so many life lines to the poor and struggling middle class?

      •  Your comment does not gain (0+ / 0-)

        credibility by mere repetition. In fact, quite the opposite.

        •  Elmo (0+ / 0-)

          Then kindly answer the question yourself.

          •  Here, I'll answer... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            princss6, noise of rain, Kathy S, nickrud

            yeah, I did. I've watched the right wing devolve into something out of a caveman movie, and watched the vast majority of American voters watch Snooki and ignore the reality of the world.

            300,000 protesters (by some accounts - 150k by others) show up in Wisconsin and it's barely a blip on the news radar, and even then, the news talks to REPUBLICAN pundits for an explanation.

            Tens of...well, tens, tea partiers show up on the mall and it's BIG NEWS!!!!!!

            There were more women on the mall yesterday protesting the Planned Parenthood threats than there were teapartiers in that clip (appropriately cropped so that it looked like Pence and Bachmann might have been actually, you know, addressing a crowd).

            You think the President, or ANYONE, is going to counter that megaphone?  Good luck.  We win only when the middle class says enough, not when the President says it. The Progressive caucus put forth a pretty strong budget the other day - hear anything about it?

            Republicans aren't interested in governing; they're only interested in  making sure the government can't slow down their buddies. That gives them a huge advantage over the Democrats, most of whom actually care that a shut-down would hurt many, many people.

            This was a blip, an over-dramatized kidnapped white girl story. The fight comes over the next budget - September/October.

            President Obama said in the SotU that we needed to get rid of the tax cuts for the top 1%, and that fight comes right as the next Presidential election is upon us.

            •  Not to completely absolve the WH or D Party (0+ / 0-)

              for an at times muddled message and seeming inability to understand that the Thugs are not playing the same game as thay or indeed any previouos political regime since the pre-civil war southerners (Calhounists), i.e., they (or enough of them to wag the dog, which is the same thing pretty much - tho also maddeningly not quite) do not want to make government work, even within the confines of reducing its size or influence, but want an apocalypse in the old fashion sense with a good bit of StJohntheInsane blood and fire and their opponents being smited sense.  This is why traditional negotiating moves like pre-emptively agreeing to what you think are some of the more acceptable core concerns of your opponents in an attempt to show reasonableness and good faith hasn't worked that well for WH.  If the other side's only real interest is to destroy you then every concession is taken to show weakness and only enboldens them to demand more and push harder.  

              Its kind of like the dynamic at play in the Arab countries: regime's that treid various kinds of compromises fell, those that cracked down are still here.  The difference is that those regimes attained and maintained power by non- or anti-democratic means.  BO was elected by a large majority for an at times muddled message and seeming inability to understand that the Thugs are not playing the same game as thay or indeed any previous political regime since the pre-civil war southerners (Calhounists), i.e., they (or enough of them to wag the dog, which is the same thing pretty much - tho also maddeningly not quite) do not want to make government work, even within the confines of reducing its size or influence, but want an apocalypse in the old fashion sense with a good bit of StJohntheInsane blood and fire and their opponents being smote sense. This is why traditional negotiating moves like pre-emptively agreeing to what you think are some of the more acceptable core concerns of your opponents in an attempt to show reasonableness and good faith hasn't worked that well for WH. If the other side's only real interest is to destroy you then every concession is taken to show weakness and only emboldens them to demand more and push harder.

              Its kind of like the dynamic at play in the Arab countries: regime's that tried various kinds of compromises fell, those that cracked down are still here. The difference is that those regimes attained and maintained power by non- or anti-democratic means. BO was elected by a large majority in an essentially free and fair election. But, the tea-jihadists don't care about democracy. They bow to a 'higher power' than the people or the law, religious delusions or $. You need only look to birtherism to understand the nature and depth of their delusion.

              And delusion it is, not simply because they are factually incorrect. But also because they are not anywhere near a majority of voters, nor even of voters who might vote Thug.

              But, the problem is not simply that the media and economic elates are either co-opted or willingly in bed with the other side. It is also that there seems no quick answer in traditional negotiating psychology for this: the best seems to be what I call the 'Russian retreat': give ground slowly, preserving the essential areas, until they show themselves undeniably and enough of the voters decide to give them a good taste of Russian Winter.

              A couple of problems I see are: 1) must we burn Moscow and what exactly is Moscow in this analogy?, and 2) what if the Founder's choice of fixed terms is not sufficient to let the insanity burn it self out or the majority to wake up and we wake up like Weimar in 1933?

              Or, at least, that's the best diagnosis and explication I can come up with at present.

          •  You don't want an answer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nickrud

            I'd be wasting my time.

      •  I think that unwarranted HR has been offset (0+ / 0-)

        but tipping to make sure, since I recently heard that the number of tips to offset HR's limit has been changed, although I can't recall exactly how.  (Anyone got the scoop on that ratio now?)

        I can see how 'CherryTheTart' might not like the comment, but I don't see anything HR'able, unless HR's now merely mean 'I disagree with you'.

    •  remember we HAD the House and Senate (6+ / 0-)

      and didn't eliminate the Bush tax cuts.  So color me pretty fucking unimpressed with that logic.

      Of course I'll work to keep Republicans out of the White House in 2012. But this notion that this president is going to give us anything remotely progressive no matter how many Democrats we elect is bullshit.  We're not going to get crap.

      •  Don't be too angry. (3+ / 0-)

        You've already declared that you'll work for Obama in 2012.  So you shouldn't expect him to do anything other than take your concerns for granted.  Think about it.  Aren't you kind of acting like an easy lay?

        Don't tell me what you do. Tell me whose interests you serve and I'll tell you what you do.

        by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:25:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems not only Thugs don't understand nuance. (0+ / 0-)

          One mark of intelligence is understanding that the rational response to a complex situation is reconciling 2 seemingly contradictory ideas.  I understand why Thugs and tea-jihadist can't or don't want to do that.  I don't understand why supposedly (or at least claimed) progressives like you can't or won't.

        •  no, i'm not (0+ / 0-)

          there's not much choice.  To get a better president, we have to look at 2016.  Letting the crazies take office in 2012 isn't an option, and you're delusional if you think staying home in 2012 is going to teach anybody anything. It won't.

      •  Not just 'more', 'better Ds' too. (0+ / 0-)

        I find it transparently clear that BO got what he thought was the most progressive leg he could given the Congress he had.  We can debate if he could have gotten more.  But, you must deal with a Senate that never had 60 Ds (Lie-berman filabustered his own medicare at 55 policy for christ's sake), only had a nominal pro-D 60 for all of about 6 months (no Franken for the 1st, critical, 6 months of 2009, then Brown of MA after 1/2010), Kennedy was largely sidelined by the last days of fatal illness for that 6 months, and at least 7 of the 'D's were really various kinds of what used to be liberal Republicans (see, Nelson-Neb., Lincoln-Ark., Lie-berman-Conn.).

        IOW, the fault, in large part, lies not in BO's heart Horatio but in the stars of the fail-ibuster.

        (BTW, minority veto makes sense to me for life-time appointments like judges, but zero for mere legislation which can be repealed or completely changed in the next Congress, 2 years later.)

  •  I voted, I Contributed & I Worked (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snapples, Australian2, CherryTheTart, inHI

    In 2008:
    I voted for him.
    I contributed to his campaign.
    I worked for his election.

    ======
    In 2012:
    I will vote for him.

    =

  •  2012 vote... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snapples, Major Tom, inHI

    Ive called Obama "Blue Dog", "Rockefeller Republican" and "Bill Clinton 2" multiple times. I've been no fan of Obama ever since his "handling" of Health Care Reform. That said, I will vote for him over whatever Scott Walker style fascist the Republicans nominate.

    Yes Obama is a can of shapeless jello with a stamped corporate logo, but he is, on most issues (but not all), far better than any of the Republican extremists. This is an indication of how far to the right our country's politicians have moved.

    There is a philosophy that says things have to crumble before they get better, but I cant, in good conscience, follow that myself due to the true-life, horrifying consequences that would have to be endured to get there. And in this age where a few votes often decide elections, this is no light matter.

    If there were a real, actual 3rd alternative possibility I'd jump away in a second. But its hard to see that happening.

    I just have to look to Bush Jr., or any of the current Republican asshole governors (Walker, LePage, Scott, Christie, Brewer, Kasich, Snyder) to know why I'll vote for the Blue Dog Obama over his Fascist Republican opponent 2012.

    But my money and efforts will go to politicians who deserve it, (e.g. the type of Democrat that currently roams about Wisconsin)

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

    by assyrian64 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:56:29 AM PDT

    •  Hmph (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JonBarleycorn, inHI, apimomfan2, Showman

      I'd like to point out that Hillarycare - pushed by Bill Clinton in 1993, who used all of his political capital in doing so - was far, far saner than the corporate giveaway Obama got.

      Obama isn't fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots - Clinton put far, far more effort into securing REAL change than Obama has ever shown he's willing to.

    •  Assyrian (4+ / 0-)

      Obama is no blue dog Democrat.  He's a quasi-Republican and he's damn proud of it. Did you see him tonight and note how proudly he took credit for destroying so many life lines to the poor and struggling middle class?

    •  And here is the other thing (6+ / 0-)

      I can't speak about the original poster, but people who can afford to throw their votes away are likely those who won't have to deal with the consequences of "voting their concscience". The celebrites, activists, and academics who pushed for Nader in 2000 were all well off. While they could afford the luxury of supporting Nader, the rest of America couldn't.

      •  How did nader hurt anything (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        since Gore/Lieberman likely would have supported the war too.

        •  Gore/Lieberman (7+ / 0-)

          wouldn't have invaded Iraq, for one obvious thing. We've have had 4 and possibly 8 years of an administration that actually believed in climate change and tried to do something about it. That's just for starters.

          I have about as much patience with people who claim there's no difference between a Democratic or a Republican president as I do with the birthers. They're both delusional.

          •  He was not enthusiastic about (0+ / 0-)

            climate change when he was vp and actually opposed the kyoto protocol.  There are many politicians that seem to find ideals after they leave office. He seems to follow this pattern. The selection of Lieberman as vp, and the performance of the dems since winning congress in 2006 does not inspire confidence he would have been against the iraq war if given and opportunity to oppose it.  Many of your assumptions about his real performance do not have much supporting evidence.

        •  Perhaps you should read a little recent history. (0+ / 0-)

          What war? We weren't having one at that time and Gore opposed the Iraq war.

          What Democrat would you support? Or are you just into electing more and better anarchist?

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:49:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would support Bernie Sanders (0+ / 0-)

            or Howard Dean, possibly Feingold and Grayson, though I am not thrilled with their  position on aid to Israel.

            •  I would definately support (0+ / 0-)

              Elizabeth Warren.

              •  And I wish I lived in a country where any of those (0+ / 0-)

                was a viable candidate who could be elected - or even come close.  However I live in the US.

                Many people point out that the majority of  Americans agree with progressive positions on many issues. What they fail to mention is that the many motivated voters disagree with us (or think they do) on a few positions which are the single issues they vote on. And many others who are progressive on certain issues, but conservative on others and if either side goes too far to the right or to the left, those voters tend to go to the middle.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:35:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do not believe I am a minority (0+ / 0-)

                  or Obummer would not have won as a progressive.

                  •  Different election than I remember. (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama was the least liberal  of the three major candidates. He certainly has never presented himself as anywhere in the vicinity of Sanders, Grayson, Feingold, or even Dean. I don't know enough about Elizabeth Warren's politics about anything other than consumer protection to comment on her.

                    If you think someone like any of these people could actually win an election, tell me the last time someone like them did win. I've been through progressives such as Humphrey (tho I was first for McCarthy), McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. None of them won. The only Democrats elected in my lifetime have been centrists, from Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. The most liberal was McGovern and he carried carried 2 states as I recall.

                    For me, it is a hell of a lot worse to lose with a progressive than to win with a centrist. When you have lived under Republicans as an adult for 28 out of the last 42 years, do you think you will still feel the same as you do now? It takes so long to begin to repair the damage that Republicans beginning with Reagan have done that it is hard to make any progress whatsoever with a term here and a term there.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:54:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Nader lied, ran a dishonest campaign, (0+ / 0-)

          and took Republican money.

      •  I voted for Nader (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ezekial 23 20

        I'm not well off, not highly educated, but he is, and that's what I wanted.  I wanted the smartest man to win.   I still think we would have been better off if he had won.  See my comment below about better candidates.  Sick of apologizing for my vote, my point being, not all Nader supporters were rich, bored celebrities, some of us thought he was the only one that hadn't been bought outright.    

        •  smart (0+ / 0-)

          isn't necessarily a good thing.
          Obama is smart, too. Clinton was smart. Carter was smart.
          What we need is someone intelligent enough to know that 90 percent of the country isn't being heard or seen in political activity, and able to block out the activities of the corporations and the wealthy.

          (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

          by PJEvans on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lie some more. (0+ / 0-)

        I know several folks who voted for Nader in 2000, and none of them were 'well off'.

  •  Absolutely. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, JonBarleycorn, apimomfan2

    There was a time when Australia looked to America as that light on the hill, of which Ben Chifley spoke.

    For me, after watching this shameful capitulation - both rhetorical and policy-based - is the last straw, also. Obama is just another corporatist - hence, he is very little better than McCain would have been.

  •  Dems need the house if you want (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico

    to fix the problem.

    Elections have consequences.  This much was clear today.  It will continue to be clear in the future upcoming budget battles.  Could the president have done better today?  I guess.

  •  Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, (5+ / 0-)

    Chris Christie, and whomever the GOP nominates in 2012 thanks you for your support.

  •  Time for cake. (0+ / 0-)

    Cooking is so fun,
    cooking is so fun,
    now it's time to take a break
    and see what we have done.

    Yay, it's ready!

  •  no flames here (5+ / 0-)

    but when will any of you blame Congress (including your favorite Senators) for Gitmo still being open?  The vote was 90-6!

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:03:01 AM PDT

    •  There are those who frequent this site (3+ / 0-)

      who care no more for facts than Teabaggers. It's the same mindset- no compromise, no nuance, no conception of history, just a certitude that they know the Truth.

      I don't mean to apply this to everyone who criticizes the President, only to those who do so in a knee jerk fashion no matter what and on every issue with no reasoning,  just a slogan which they post over and over with little variation. And there seem to be more and more of those here.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:56:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to say I wouldn't vote for him (0+ / 0-)

    But as a Nader voter in Florida in 2K, and I voted for Alex Sink for governor, I haven't had a winning candidate SINCE Obama.  We need better dems for sure, but we need to WIN.   Who will be the next liberal lion, because if there isn't one, well, this is what we get, more crap.  This is our fault, the dems that have gotten elected are wishy washy at best, and it's not like that on the other side.  Maybe the tent IS too big, but its not so much that they are beating the pants of us, its that we're just phoning it in.  I look at this mess, and just shake my head because it's our own damn fault.  Dems need to change that donkey to Eeyore because that's how I see us.

  •  what a crybaby (0+ / 0-)

    It's called compromise. Who you going to vote for,Trump, Bachmann or waste a vote on the green party. Every vote Obama doesn't get is making it easier for republicans to impose a fascist state on us.
    Bet you Obama goes over 50% approval with this move.

  •  Fine. And your alternative is? Vote Repbulican? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kathy S

    Not vote?  Yeah.  That will show him!   That will make a statement.  But I have to ask . . .  How's that little 2010 election strategy working out?   It isn't about Obama.  And until we begin to see it is about the bigger picture as the Republicans do, we will forever be screwed.  So while this diary might have made you feel better, it does little to help make change.  And frankly until Dems grow up and stop acting like petulant children every time we loose a small battle then we deserve what we get.   Don't like Obama fine.   Work to get a strong House and Senate that with force him to stay left of center.  But simply quitting plays into the hands of the Rs and I for one won't go there again.  

  •  Diaries like this WILL get Obama Re-elected. (0+ / 0-)

    More spin drivel.  We're supposed to think that the President of the United States has infinite power and can do whatever he wants.

    Pushing the failures of the republican and tea party agendas back on President Obama won't work.  Instead of causing discord in the Democratic Party; they focus it.

    Perhaps a follow up topic should be how the elderly and non-white populations shouldn't bother voting.

    Thanks again for fueling Democratic Party unity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site