Skip to main content

Last October I wrote a blog post expressing my frustration with “left wing critiques of Obama that refuse to credit his achievements or acknowledge the constraints he has been under.” Now that we are heading into what could be a very close election, it’s all the more important to counter that notion that President Obama is the lesser of two evils—a view recently expressed on a progressive email list I’m subscribed to.

 

Encouraging people to for Obama vote because Romney would be a disaster (although certainly true) can result in voters just staying home. People want a reason to vote for someone. Obama’s achievements--criticism from both far left and far right to the contrary-- have been impressive.  There is a record to be proud of.

 

Yes, he has not always governed as a liberal/progressive. Yes, the stimulus bill should have been much larger, but was arguably the best that could be done, given this dysfunctional Congress. Remember what a difficult time the President had getting three Republican votes in the Senate to pass the bill.

 

This is not a liberal/progressive country and we can’t expect him to have governed as if we were a nation of blue states. Polls consistently put the number of people who identify as liberal/progressive at no more than 20%.  Many of us are working hard to change those numbers, but that is the current political reality.

Last October I wrote a blog post expressing my frustration with “left wing critiques of Obama that refuse to credit his achievements or acknowledge the constraints he has been under.” Now that we are heading into what could be a very close election, it’s all the more important to counter that notion that President Obama is the lesser of two evils—a view recently expressed on a progressive email list I’m subscribed to.

 

Encouraging people to for Obama vote because Romney would be a disaster (although certainly true) can result in voters just staying home. People want a reason to vote for someone. Obama’s achievements--criticism from both far left and far right to the contrary-- have been impressive.  There is a record to be proud of.

 

Yes, he has not always governed as a liberal/progressive. Yes, the stimulus bill should have been much larger, but was arguably the best that could be done, given this dysfunctional Congress. Remember what a difficult time the President had getting three Republican votes in the Senate to pass the bill.

 

This is not a liberal/progressive country and we can’t expect him to have governed as if we were a nation of blue states. Polls consistently put the number of people who identify as liberal/progressive at no more than 20%.  Many of us are working hard to change those numbers, but that is the current political reality.

The responses both to the October blog post and its reprint in a local paper were quite positive. The comments I got were all in the form of reminders of achievements I had neglected to include.  So for all those who are going to be out there going door to door talking to voters or to your friends and relatives, here are some talking points:

Jobs/ The Economy

True,  President Obama has not ended the jobs crisis brought on by the Great Recession  but financial crises, as virtually all reputable economists acknowledge,  take a while to recover from. Although now reviled by both the left and the right, the stimulus program, according to most economists, brought the economy back from the brink of real disaster.
The rescue of the auto industry is certainly one of the President’s major achievements.  See WAPO article on auto bailout.  
Despite fierce Republican opposition, the President managed to get significant extension of unemployment benefits in the 2010 lame duck Congressional session
The passage of meaningful—again not as much as we needed—regulatory reform is an accomplishment the Republicans are itching to undo.  The dismantling of regulatory agencies at the root of the current economic crisis dates back to the Clinton years. This crisis was many years in the making and we in all probability have a long ways to go before real recovery. Reasonable people understand this.
Healthcare
Despite implacable Republican opposition, President Obama, with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi, still managed to pass a healthcare bill establishing access to heath care as a right of all citizens. Sure, it’s an imperfect bill, but assuming it survives the legal challenges, we will have the opportunity to improve it, just as we have had with other deeply flawed programs, such as Social Security. Medicare at first met with fierce opposition, but gradually became an essential part of the social safety net.
The expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) extended coverage to another 4 million low-income children, increasing the total number of children covered by the program to more than 11 million.
Education
President Obama’s overhaul of the college loan program resulted in significant savings for students, their families and the taxpayers. It is projected to save taxpayers roughly $68 billion over the next 10 years.
The implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill increased educational opportunities for veterans by making college more affordable for returning service members.
Women’s Rights
President Obama’s first official act was signing “The Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act,” another piece of legislation the Republicans are pledged to overturn.
In his first few days of office the President rescinded the "global gag rule" which denies US taxpayer dollars to clinics around the globe  that even mention abortion to women with unplanned pregnancies.
President Obama has nominated and gotten confirmation of more women and minorities to the federal bench than any president in the history of the United States.  And while many of his nominees remain stalled in the Senate confirmation process, it is a stellar record nonetheless.   For more info see NYT article on Obama nominees.  
And let’s not forget that Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are on the Supreme Court: their nomination is a testament to Obama’s good judgment; their senate confirmation a testament to his political skill.
LBGT Rights
President Obama’s major achievement of the 2010 lame duck Congressional session was the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Admittedly it took him too long, but President Obama has affirmed his support for same sex marriage.
Foreign Policy
Finally, consider Obama’s achievements: He rid the world of Osama Bin Laden and finally brought the country some degree of closure after 9/11. Somewhat too slowly from my point of view, he is winding down the two wars he inherited.
The President reached the most important arms control agreement with Russia in two decades. New START will reduce our nuclear arsenals, put inspectors on the ground in Russia, and renew America’s leadership in pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons.
There is also a list of accomplishments  prepared before the 2010 mid terms which contains additional info: :
 WHAT THE FUCK HAS OBAMA DONE SO FAR? at
http://www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/  

Also something often overlooked: Obama's appointments to regulatory agencies. John Judis wrote an excellent article about this. A summary and links to Judis article “The Quiet Revolution: Obama has reinvented the state in more ways than you can imagine” at

 “The Quiet Revolution: Obama has reinvented the state in more ways than you can imagine.”
 

I’m sure I’ve overlooked something, but I think it’s clear: This President has a record which is worth defending.  He should not be described as the lesser of two evils!

Originally posted to kbojar on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM PDT.

Also republished by I Vote for Democrats.

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 (124+ / 0-)

    Karen Bojar http://www.the-next-stage.com/

    by kbojar on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 12:57:30 PM PDT

  •  Because one can never have too much meta. (8+ / 0-)

    "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.." - John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. We are the 99%.

    by IndieGuy on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:03:37 PM PDT

  •  This is Not a Helpful Approach. There's Also No (26+ / 0-)

    pending liberal strike against the President's re-election, nor was it liberals who pouted and stayed home in 2010 giving us a horrible thrashing by the Republicans.

    Your problem is with everyday people not liberals. Even those of us who are fierce critics of him do not intend for Republicans to replace him.

    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 Jun 16, 2012 at 01:09:47 PM PDT

    •  But those who stayed home in 2010 (33+ / 0-)

      will stay home again unless we highlight all that he has done. They know less about the policy positions and accomplishments of this president than they know about the love life of Kim Kardashian. Watching cable news will not help because "journalists" are bored by the length and wonkiness of his speeches and only analyze the style not the substance. We, liberals, have to start making some noise in support of his re-election. As the song goes, "Accentuate the positive..."

      I agree with the poster, that just saying he is the lesser of two evils, is not enough.

      "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

      by on board 47 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:00:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The president gave a presser on his (18+ / 0-)

        stimulus plan that has stalled in Congress and all anyone read or heard about was "leaks in the White House"  and "I think the private sector is doing fine".  So, I agree:

        We, liberals, have to start making some noise in support of his re-election. As the song goes, "Accentuate the positive..."

        Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

        by ChiTownDenny on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:12:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The Democratic (11+ / 0-)

        and Independent voters who stayed home in 2010 are going to do it again unless something changes. The talking points you have presented sound good, but what is really going to motivate the disenfranchised is their personal experiences with this president, specifically, how they have experienced his policies on a personal level. For example, Obama's program to help people keep their homes was an abysmal failure. It hurt many more people than it hurt.

        The simplest way to get Obama reelected is to sit down with progressives and listen to their complaints, then hammer out new policies...policies that Obama actually will actually stick to...policies that will actually help people who need it the most, not just the wealthy.

        The longer Democrats continue to pretend nothing is wrong, the greater the chances are that we will lose in November.

        This is a very tight race and it will ultimately decided by the people his supporters keep alienating. This type of diary does not help.

        •  And those policies will die along with the (7+ / 0-)

          Jobs Act, the Public Option, stronger stimulus etc.

          Progressives had the best budget proposal and it got zero air time.

          What we are dealing with in congress is a bunch of republican bullies and the dems have gotten their lunch money stolen. We are also dealing with a media that will not report the news. It's all about the controversy and opinion

          Until people know what the hell they are fighting for they will not fight

          Yes, I do agree that we need better policy, but how do we get it passed. Not so simple.

          "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

          by on board 47 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:19:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Lesson of 2010 is Still Ignored (8+ / 0-)

          The Democrats got their collective asses kicked in 2010.  One would have thought that such a thrashing would have caused a change in course, or at least a fearless self examination.

          Nope,  

          So now some think the problem was caused because we didn't clap louder when half measure after half measure became law.  Here's a clue for those who believe this:  the defeat was caused by passing all those half measures.

          I wouldn't be bragging about them now either.  ''Romney Sux'' is the best thing going for Obama right now.  You don't want people to look at Obama and the Dems failure to fix the economy, or health care or end our wars, or, well, just about everything.  Romney Sux is the best card the Dems have.  They need to keep playing it.

          •  I would modify your claim slightly... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TimmyB, blueoasis, praenomen, Citizenpower

            It wasn't the passage of the half-measures, themselves, that caused the ass-whooping.

            Rather, it was the passage of the half-measures combined with tone-deaf messaging (RECOVERY SUMMER 2010!) and 9.8% Unemployment that sealed the Democrat's fate.

            If those half measures had been enough to cause a big recovery, then 2010 would have been gravy.

            No one likes to be told that things are getting "so much better" when they are out of work and losing their home because HAMP was a fucking joke.

            It is important to note that the number one concern cited by those who voted in 2010 was the failing Economy.

            •  Blowing Smoke Up Peoples' Asses (6+ / 0-)

              Didn't work with the ''Recovery Summer'' and it won't work with Obama's record.  

              However ''Romney Sux'' is the gift that keeps on giving.  When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

              •  I just don't get you, and those who think like you (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Diesel Kitty, on board 47, JohnB47

                I really don't. No matter how often, or in how many ways, people try to list Obama's accomplishments, there will always be folks like you who regard it all as "blowing smoke up peoples' asses."

                Honestly, I find this more disheartening then fighting with the right.  So whatever, Timmy.  I'm done trying to change your mind, or the minds of those who think as you do.

                You go for it, darlin'.  Keep trying to draw strength to the democratic party by refusing to acknowledge any wins.  Keep blowing off all those of us who see the cup half full, and are willing to fight on for that.

                We're just going to have to do this thing without you.

                •  Don't Call Losses ''Wins'' (5+ / 0-)

                  If you pass legislation that doesn't fix the problem its supposed to, then that legislation isn't a ''win.''  For example, bailing out the auto industry is a ''win.''  The rest, such as so-called healthcare or finance reform,  I'd ignore, because they show either incompetence or that the industry paid the Dems off.   And yeah, those of us who are awake know it which it was.  So while incompetence is better that the truth, frankly ''Romney Sux'' is better than that.

                  I'm pretty glad Obama won't be running on his record.  He's not so blind that he thinks that's the way to go.  What's really funny is that some people do.  And that those people claim they want him to win reelection.  Obama winning by running on his record.  Now that's funny.

            •  Let is not forget: BIPARTISANSHIP for its own sake (5+ / 0-)

              NOW SHOWING
              Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
              Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

              by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:10:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Dems will stay home? I guarantee you the Repubs (12+ / 0-)

          will come out and vote for a man they don't even like.

          They are unhappy with the state of the economy so they'll stay home to allow Romney to win and continue the policies that wrecked the economy in the first place?

          They are staying home because President Obama averted a Second Great Depression? Because he helped to end the military policy DADT? Because of  the passage of the affordable Care Act, which will give more than 30 mil. folks access to health care? The saving of the auto industry? I don't want to repeat the amazing list of accomplishments, this diarist did such an excellent job in itemizing, but also because he was in office and not a Republican, so we were able to get two Democrats onto the Supreme Court?

          The Dems will stay home you say?  If Dems stay home even after the accomplishments of this President in just 3 years while Republicans blocked and attempt to sabotage him at every step of the way, I don't know if I can truly refer to these individuals as sane....

        •  Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          praenomen, Wolf10, TimmyB, JohnB47, mightymouse

          Wall Street certainly is.

          and

          for that matter

          so is W.

          NOW SHOWING
          Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
          Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

          by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:09:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Honestly, I am better off than I was 4 yrs ago (6+ / 0-)

            I have a better job.  I have my fiance who will be safe because of the recent immigration option the POTUS just took.  I have a POTUS who is out and for the LGBT community for the first time ever.  I have a better life than I did then.

            Even if you don't have the same beliefs here, then ask this question, "Would you be better off with Rmoney?"  I guarantee the answer will be no unless you are a corporation or an owner of one.

            •  Millions of us aren't. I am glad you are doing (5+ / 0-)

              well, but since you are unconcerned about the suffering of those who are struggling to keep their heads afloat, then I don't see much difference between you and the Republicans.

              I got mine; screw you. That's a winning strategy for the Democrats.

              •  I am concerned, but that's not my point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ivote2004

                My point is that we shouldn't be so fucking daft that we miss that one guy will at least show interest in helping the less fortunate.  The other guys aren't even doing that.  Mitt doesn't give a shit about you.  I care, that's why I want Obama to win and keep everything from moving backwards.  I'm just not willing to take the step that Mitt will be your savior.  You can make that case if you'd like... I will listen...

                •  I'm not trying to start a meta fight, but (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chipmo, The Dead Man

                  would you answer this: if Obama places Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the bargaining table after the election (like most insiders say he will), will you support his policy?

                  You see, when someone asks "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago, that should alert you that they are saying that many of us aren't. For you to say, well I'm better off, misses the point. It made you sound selfish. I don't know anything about you, and you might be a very loving and compassionate person, but perhaps it would be easier to see who you are if you started listening to those who say they have suffered terribly because of this presidents policies.

                  I read your new diary, which might have been in response to this diary, and let me say this: I have always voted for the Democratic Party because it was a large umbrella that represented people who didn't belong to the 1%. Now, under Obama, that is no longer the case. His supporters say if you don't support him, then you are no longer a Democrat. Bullshit. You are a Democrat if you support Democratic principles.

                  •  Would I support his policy? (0+ / 0-)

                    Not on that.  Would I still support the man?  Yes.  Romney would throw that stuff away on day one.  Do you have to love Obama?  No.  I just want you to realize that it is the system that the problem, not Obama.  I want him to stop working with the right, but to get things done, he may feel a pull to bargain that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the right moving so far to the right.  Let's live in the real world.  The one where we have Obama and Romney.  Let's remember that the question isn't just, "am I better off than I was 4 years ago?"  It is also, "would I be better off under the other guy?"  That is a firm no (I would think, since all right wing policies would be put into action with no fight whatsoever).  A lot of the problems with this Presidency happened prior to Obama coming in.

                    I hope for the best for you (and everyone), but if you read my entire comment, you would realize that I may not love every policy of Obama, but I love that he is a lot closer to the left than anyone in the GOP.  That is why it is best to give him 4 more years.

              •  Straw man (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GabrielinNC, StellaRay, ivote2004, JohnB47
                I got mine; screw you.
                Thats not what Gabrielin NC said at all. Youre assumption that he is unconcerned is entirely gratuitous, made up from nothing to give you thaat little rush of selfrighteousness.

                Millions of people ARE doing better since Obama came into office---aren't we Democrats allowed to say that? And we want their votes too!
                Sure millions are still struggling but consider what life would be like with McCain/Palin in power.
                I'd say "I guess you would have preferred them" but I'm not like you

                Happy just to be alive

                by exlrrp on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:38:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  This sort of response (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ivote2004

                just sucks to high heaven.  A Democrat answers that he/she is doing better than 4 years ago, and you bludgeon he/she for the very nerve to speak that?  

                Then you go on to equivocate this commentor's contribution as "I got mine; screw you" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

                Ugh. Yuck.  And a few other words I'll avoid.

            •  A deeper question might be would most of us (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              praenomen

              be better off if both the centrist dems and the rightwing rethugs so thoroughly discredited themselves through their exercise of power that some better alternative to tweedledee and tweedledum might arise?

              We would most certainly be worse off in the short run if Romney wins but for most Americans the economy is running off the rails in any event because of what the two major parties have essentially agreed upon at least since the Clinton presidency: deregulation of the financial markets and a form of globalization that sees fit to pit workers with rights against workers without them and call it a "free market".

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:41:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  tweedledee and tweedledum? (0+ / 0-)

                SIGH.  I give up.  If you can't see more of a difference between Obama and Romney then that, then nothing I can say gonna change your mind.

                And I am taking some pleasure here tonight in saying to you folks, fine.  Let it be.  You're entitled to your opinion.

                The rest of us are just going to have to do this thing without you.  We're going to have to stand up and be counted as those who think there is a difference, and a big one.  And hope that's enough.

                One thing's for sure, I guaranfreakingtee you you'll come to understand the differences between Obama and Romney, if you're ever stuck with Romney as your president.

                •  You just demonstrated the problem StellaRay. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wolf10
                  The rest of us are just going to have to do this thing without you.  
                  Don't tell Obama that. He's finally realizing that he needs ALL of us. Not just you. That's why he came out for SameSex marriage, and that is why he gave into Latino demands that he quit breaking up families.
                  One of the toxic aspects of our politics is that the gap between the American Dream and the reality is something people feel viscerally. People feel that betrayal. I think that’s a very profound, and shared sensation – something that people on the right, the left, and the middle all feel. They blame different people for it. There are different political manifestations of who is to blame. Who is taking cash out of your pocket? Who is rigging the rules of the game in their favor? But the fact that it feels that the game is rigged is broadly shared. It’s in some ways the defining experience of being an American at the end of the fail decade. I think it’s what structures some of the brutality of our politics. People get angry and upset, even enraged and passionate when they feel they’ve been betrayed, and there’s a broad sense of that in the electorate.

                  Chris Hayes

                  •  And when Obama does these things, (0+ / 0-)

                    you're the first to take credit for it, and the last to give credit for it.  Do you think the suxers are the only ones who have been fighting for gay rights, and the Dream Act?  Do you think it's impossible to both push the president, and work for him, and donate to him and canvass for him so that disappointments don't turn into a tragedy with a President Romney?

                    You know what's going to make me feel more betrayed then anything else?  It's if those in my party, from center to left, don't rise up and say no to this treasonous GOP.  If we can do that, then we'll have something to discuss with this president for the next four years.  If not, lots of perennially disappointed Democrats are going to find out what REALLY SUX.

                    •  Tweedlee & Tweedledum? Iinsofar as financial (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      praenomen

                      regulation, mortgage relief, and global trade agreements are concerned, oh yes indeed;  both parties have been essentially on the same page. There will be no economic recovery worthy of the name without addressing these issues.

                      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                      by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:31:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  You think that's what its gonna take? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB, kbman, mightymouse, itsbenj, blueoasis

        I dunno. Methinks they're going to be a lot more persuaded by whats in their wallet.

      •  I voted for the lesser of 2 evils since 1976 (4+ / 0-)

        and I'm god damned proud of the fact.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:24:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There you have it (4+ / 0-)

        Jonathan Alter is an A$$, and so are the pundits who always what to tell us what to think.

        Watching cable news will not help because "journalists" are bored by the length and wonkiness of his speeches and only analyze the style not the substance. We, liberals, have to start making some noise in support of his re-election. As the song goes, "Accentuate the positive..."
        I agree 110% with the diarist; we need to spread the word and educate our families, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc because we now have idiots as journalists in America.

        Did you hear Melissa Perry this morning mocking President Obama as Professor Obama? We are doomed if we don't aggressively push back hard against those (supposedly very educated liberals) looking for sound bytes.

      •  The people who stayed home (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JohnB47, The Dead Man, mightymouse

        will stay home again, unless Obama does something worthwhile to drag them out to vote.

        It isn't about the messaging, it's about the message.

        I notice neither the environment nor civil liberties made your list.   The TWO dominant debates of our time, and what....

        crickets.

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:13:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did you read the actual diary? It is NOT (30+ / 0-)

      some critique of people running down the President.  It is a catalogue of his accomplishments and a call to emphasize the positive.   This diary is NOT what you apparently came in here thinking it would be.

      Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:27:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe this site made a real difference (15+ / 0-)

      in the 2006 and 2008 elections. This site was used to organize phone operations. It was used for money-bombing candidates who needed it both in the House and Senate as well as Gubernatorial candidates. Then in 2010....not much. Obama "betrayed" people. His bills didn't come fast enough or do enough. The idea that Liberals had nothing to do with the trouncing Dems got  that year is a stretch. Sometimes complacency and inaction have consequences. And they will have even more severe consequences if we allow this election cycle to go the way 2010 did.

      Romney - 2012 - He's A Trooper!

      by kitebro on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:51:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, we should have clapped louder... (11+ / 0-)

        ...for the drone strikes, escalation of the war in Afghanistan, amnesty for torturers and banksters, rubber-stamping offshore drilling permits, the Catfood Commission, et cetera.

        Notice that none of those things have anything to do with bills that didn't come fast enough or do enough.

        Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

        by expatjourno on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:39:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hope that you realize... (16+ / 0-)

        There is no evidence to suggest that Liberal turnout was actually depressed during the 2010 Election.  Exit-polls showed that self-identified Liberals turned out at a slightly higher rate than anticipated for a mid-term election.

        So no matter how much you people believe it to be true in your hearts, the numbers says that you're wrong.

        Even Nate Silver agrees with me on this.

        Fun Fact: Democrats lost the Independent vote by 15 points in 2010.

        •  "Democrats lost the Independent vote by (0+ / 0-)

          15 points in 2010."? And you figure that this site has never influenced how Independents vote? The ads we help pay for, the calls we've made are to energize only Liberals? We are merely preaching to the choir here? Are you  pretending that you don't understand what this site accomplished in 2006 and 2008 just to prove a point? If so, try again.

          Romney - 2012 - He's A Trooper!

          by kitebro on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:56:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I must have misunderstood you argument... (5+ / 0-)

            You're claiming that negativity at DKos helped swing Independent voters to the Republican side?

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

              It made independent voters stay at home. Independents want to vote FOR something, not just against something. We can talk about why Romney is bad, but it's best to do so in comparison to President Obama, and highlight how the President has made this country better and his plans for future improvement. We should also make a push for taking back the House and getting a stronger majority in the Senate. Most of Obama's shortcomings were due to Republican filibusters in the Senate.

              •  independents don't vote based on this site (8+ / 0-)

                An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                by mightymouse on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:08:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  DK made indies stay home........... (7+ / 0-)

                Okey dokey........

                FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:29:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bullshit. No evidence for this stupid ass (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                expatjourno, mightymouse

                calumny. Independent voters stayed at home because the right was unable to sell them on the idea that the change they hoped for had occurred.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:27:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  This very diary just listed out a shit-ton of things that Obama managed to accomplish.

                  I find it interesting that you quote FDR, the man who compromised on Social Security despite having a 70% majority in the Senate and campaigned as a "fiscal conservative", while accusing the current president of not doing enough.

              •  NO. "Most of Obama's shortcomings" were NOT... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mightymouse, BradyB, MixedContent

                ...due to Republican filibusters in the Senate.

                Instead of prosecuting (mostly) Republican torturers, he gave them a pass and converted torture from a war crime into a mere policy preference. Instead of prosecuting (mostly) Republican banksters, he gave them a pass. Instead of investigating and prosecuting Republican fraud and war profiteering, he gave Republican defense contractors a pass. Instead of investigating and prosecuting abuses of civil liberties, he defended and expanded every last one of them in court, while building the biggest eavesdropping machine the world has ever seen to invade our privacy. Kiss your Fourth Amendment rights good-bye. Forever.

                And instead of prosecuting the wrongdoing that whistleblowers revealed, Obama has prosecuted the whistleblowers to the maximum extent of the law in an unprecedented attack on truth-telling.

                Obama had every opportunity to wrap the catastrophes and abuses of the Bush Administration around the Republicans' necks but gave Republicans a pass.

                And Republicans came back strong in 2010 instead of being thoroughly discredited by two years of investigations, prosecutions and jail sentences. Can anyone be surprised?

                Instead of aiding homeowners he gave them crumbs, while bailing out the banks to the tune of trillions. Yes, he probably would have needed some acts of Congress to do much better, but he didn't even advocate for more help for Main Street and less for Wall Street. This administration has been EVERY BIT as Wall Street-friendly as the previous one.

                Instead of winding up the unpopular wars as fast as possible, he escalated one and continued the other -- the latter being the greatest foreign policy catastrophe since the War of 1812 -- on the exact same timetable George Bush laid out in the Status of Forces Agreement. And he would have dragged it out longer if the Iraqis hadn't balked on amnesty for U.S. troops and contractors.

                So no change on Wall Street, crumbs for homeowners, and very little change on war policy. Plus assaults on the Constitution. And you want to blame dKos for making independent voters stay home? Really?

                Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

                by expatjourno on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:38:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  False (0+ / 0-)

                  Let's deal with each of these claims, one by one.
                  Not prosecuting the Bush administration was a good move. Prosecuting a former president would have divided the country and made things more difficult in the legislature. Instead, Obama handled the issue the right way, correcting the wrongs by ending the torture practices and trying to close Guantanamo (only failed because 90% of the Senate opposed him).

                  Now, the reason why the banks were unable to be prosecuted is because most of their actions were legal, since Glass-Steagal had been repealed a decade before. Even despite this, crimes involving this large sums of money are extremely difficult to prosecute, and would have taken years. Once again, Obama decided to actually get things done by passing Wall Street Reform.

                  What about those defense contractors? http://www.cnn.com/... That claim is just outright baloney.

                  You are even wrong about the Patriot Act. Even after attempts to put oversight failed in congress, the administration still implemented them through executive actions. See http://www.politifact.com/... I agree that Obama could have done a bit better here, but keep in mind that more Americans supported the Patriot Act after Obama was elected than before.

                  And those whistleblowers? The main one that is claimed is Bradley Manning, but it's clear his intents were not to simply reveal waste and abuse. Some other cases seem a bit fishy, but to claim that this is unprecedented is ridiculous.

                  •  You are not well-informed. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BradyB
                    Not prosecuting the Bush administration was a good move.
                    It transformed torture from a war crime to a mere policy preference. Failing to prosecute ensures it will happen again. It also undermines the rule of law. Not to mention the fact that the statistics on innocent people rounded up mean that innocent people were tortured, some of them to death, for information they did not even have. They, or their survivors, are entitled to justice more than you are entitled to an undivided country.

                    Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, the country IS divided. So all that Kumbaya was futile, as well as immoral.

                    Now, the reason why the banks were unable to be prosecuted is because most of their actions were legal, since Glass-Steagal had been repealed a decade before.
                    False. Fraud is still illegal. And this administration hasn't bothered to even investigate with anything like the resources used to investigate prosecute people in the S&L meltdown. In fact, the administration pressured the state attorneys-general to accept a settlement that lets banks get away with paying a fraction of a penny on the dollar.
                    What about those defense contractors? http://www.cnn.com/.... That claim is just outright baloney.
                    Your link has nothing to say about fraud or investigations or prosecutions of companies like Halliburton or any others for fraud or profiteering.
                    You are even wrong about the Patriot Act.
                    I never referred to the PATRIOT act. And you obviously know nothing about veto power or FISA or read the article at the link I supplied.
                    And those whistleblowers? The main one that is claimed is Bradley Manning, but it's clear his intents were not to simply reveal waste and abuse.
                    False. You have obviously never read a diary by Jesselyn Radack. Here is one: http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other administration. And it is a fact, not an opinion, that The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other administrations combined.

                    In short, you know nothing. Yet you have the temerity to comment. Amazing.

                    Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

                    by expatjourno on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:07:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is some elistism (0+ / 0-)

                      If you're trying to get more progressives on your side, it isn't working.

                      Let's correct some obvious falsehoods here.

                      First off,

                      It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other administration. And it is a fact, not an opinion, that The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other administrations combined.
                      is just false. The link I showed you lists many more cases than you claim existed. Or just look at this, which lists countless cases prior to the Obama administration.

                      Regarding torture, you seem to be trying to imply that the Obama administration is defending the use of torture as an interrogation method. That's obviously false, otherwise he wouldn't have ended the practice. It's clear he failed to prosecute Bush for political reasons. Compare to Ford's pardoning of Nixon. You can disagree with this, and that's fine, but it's false to claim that the administration is trying to somehow say that torture is an acceptable practice.

                      False. Fraud is still illegal. And this administration hasn't bothered to even investigate with anything like the resources used to investigate prosecute people in the S&L meltdown. In fact, the administration pressured the state attorneys-general to accept a settlement that lets banks get away with paying a fraction of a penny on the dollar.
                      You're even wrong here. The FBI is investigating actual cases of fraud, but as I said, the problem is that cases this long take a while to make it through the courts (see here). Look at the Raj Rajaratnam case, for example.

                      I'm still looking into the FISA thing, and I concede that I mistook it for another related law.

                      •  That is some ignorance. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BradyB

                        There is nothing wrong with my statistics on whistleblower prosecutions and, contrary to your assertion, you have provided no evidence to refute them.

                        http://www.counterpunch.org/...

                        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/...

                        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        But don't let the facts disturb your perfect ignorance.

                        Regarding torture, you seem to be trying to imply that the Obama administration is defending the use of torture as an interrogation method. That's obviously false, otherwise he wouldn't have ended the practice.
                        No, I didn't say that or imply that. Read what I wrote.

                        As for this comical assertion about investigations of banksters:

                        You're even wrong here. The FBI is investigating actual cases of fraud, but as I said, the problem is that cases this long take a while to make it through the courts (see here). Look at the Raj Rajaratnam case, for example.
                        It takes resources to mount investigations. Do you happen to know how many FBI agents worked on the S&L investigations compared to the number working on the current cases?
                        Four years after the disintegration of the financial system, Americans have, rightfully, a gnawing feeling that justice has not been served. Claims of financial fraud against companies like Citigroup and Bank of America have been settled for pennies on the dollar, with no admission of wrongdoing. Executives who ran companies that made, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in toxic mortgages and mortgage-backed securities remain largely unscathed.

                        -snip-

                        In numerous court cases, plaintiffs, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, have cited this evidence to support their claims of fraud and misrepresentation. But, inexplicably, there is no indication that the Justice Department promptly convened a high-level investigation to thoroughly examine who knew what when at these banks. In contrast, after the savings-and-loan debacle of the late 1980s, more than 1,000 bank and thrift executives were convicted of felonies. But today the rate of federal prosecutions for financial fraud is less than half of what it was then.

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

                        And:
                        WILLIAM BLACK: Yes. The contrast is obscene. There were over a thousand felony convictions in cases designated as major in the savings and loans crisis. There are 10 convictions in this crisis and this crisis is roughly 40 times as bad as the savings and loan crisis.

                        SIEGEL: In a nutshell, why? Why so few cases this time?

                        BLACK: The most direct reason is the regulatory agencies became controlled by anti-regulators and they ceased making criminal referrals. In the savings and loan debacle, our agency made well over 10,000 criminal referrals. In this crisis, the office of thrift supervision that was supposed to regulate Washington Mutual, IndyMac, Countrywide, made zero criminal referrals.

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

                        It is so easy to get the facts that it is obvious that your ignorance is willful, your purpose is to deceive and your propaganda is worthy only of my contempt.

                        Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

                        by expatjourno on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:40:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  The non-liberal 80% dripped the ball, (2+ / 0-)

          their candidates lost disproportionately and they couoldn't sell the independents either.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:24:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The 80% dropped the ball, the righties (3+ / 0-)

        failed to support their candidates. It is that simple and it is time to stop beating up on the left for the right's complete failure in 2010. We suffered hugely disproportionate losses among the blue dogs because all of those so-much-wiser-than-thou pragmatic 80% couldn't support their candidates.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:14:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  liberals voted wildly in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, JohnB47

        2008, but not so much in 2010. Because in 2010 barack Obama was NOT on the ballot. Tens of millions of rabid Obama supporters don't give a shit about their slimy congressman.

        When thesevtens of millions have another chance to vote for Barack Obama, they will come out once again to the polls. It's pretty simple, really.

    •  People don't go out to vote (4+ / 0-)

      against someone. They go out to vote for someone.

      --

      Republicans chap my ass

      Me

      by Marc in KS on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:51:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There was actually an interesting (5+ / 0-)

      discussion regarding that on Sam Seder's program on Thursday. He interviewed markos and they discussed 2010 and whether or not progressives stayed home, and ITHO they did. I am not saying either one of them have the final say, I am just saying the arguments were persuasive. I am also interchanging progressive and liberal, which I know can be frowned upon.

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:15:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What argument was put forward during... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kirbybruno

        the interview that makes you think progressive/liberal turnout was depressed during the 2010 midterm elections?

        I don't have access to Seder's Better Half stuff.

        •  A lot of it had to do with (7+ / 0-)

          districts that we lost support in and how they voted in 2008. I wish I had more specifics but that was a whole 3 days ago and my children stole my brain. ;)

          I really like the better half stuff because that is when he takes all of the im's and calls and it gets very interesting!

          Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

          by kirbybruno on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:22:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That kind of evidence isn't even (0+ / 0-)

            evidence. Here we have exit polls showing left turnout up and here we have evidence showing that we lost some districts that contain significant numbers of lefties (20% or so) and therefore tons of others who equally well could've stayed home.

            The truth, beyond self identified independents, is that we lost all those kiddies who were new to politics and all starry eyed in 08 and who got disillusioned after the inauguration.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:34:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  On this - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enhydra lutris
              we lost all those kiddies who were new to politics and all starry eyed in 08 and who got disillusioned after the inauguration.
              Did we really lose them to disillusionment? Or did we fail to impress upon them that midterms are just as important as presidentials?

              Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

              by JTinDC on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:53:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Some of each and also some who turned (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JTinDC

                oout to vote for Obama (or against McPalin) because of the clear clash and contrast but who failed to turn out for their specific mid-term contest because of a lack of such a clear clash and contrast. I think this partly explains the disproportionate loss among blue dogs. (I'd love to know exactly who supported and failed to support the Democratic Candidate in Michigan's first district.)

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:33:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  A study from the University of I Don't Remember. (0+ / 0-)

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

            by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:38:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Unlike conservatives who turned out in force (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JohnB47

      in 2010, liberals turned out in similar or somewhat lower numbers compared to usual midterm election. And the diary makes no claim that 'liberals lost 2010 election' as you imply.

      •  Liberals turned out more than expected... (4+ / 0-)

        for a midterm election.

        I have no idea where you are getting your data that suggests it was lower than expected.

        Liberals turned out at their typical 20% of the voting block despite the fact that overall turnout was higher than expected for a midterm.  By maintaining the same percentage of a bigger pie, the data suggests that Liberals actually turned out in slightly higher number than history predicts.

        •  Good point. But conservative turnout was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BradyB, mahakali overdrive

          still much higher. This is not really to blame liberals for sitting out the election. It's just that liberals treated it as more or less normal midterm election and conservatives went all out.

          •  Due to very efficient, well-funded... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BradyB, enhydra lutris, mightymouse

            Wurlitzer.

            And the Rs' cynical cultivation of a segment of the electorate that is willing to adopt others' opinions as their own without a microgram of critical thought.

            Until liberals are able to put a huge amount of money behind a similarly cynical and professionally managed propaganda effort, the only way to go is to generate actual results once in power, or, failing that, to dramatize the fight in such a way that the portion of the "independent" segment that doesn't simply download their opinions from the Fox-Limbaugh Axis of Mendacity can see how their interests are advanced better by those liberals than by the Rmoney faction and its army of Orcs.

          •  Sorry, but this is bullshit. Among (0+ / 0-)

            Democratic losses, the conservatives lost disproportionately, it ws the 80% non-left Democrats who dropped the ball, not the left.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:37:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If the conservatives turned out in record (0+ / 0-)

        numbers, how come their candidates lost? Or do you mean only the GOP conservatives?

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:35:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  'fierce critics' vote, but depress other voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernBelleNC49

      into staying home, because those voters don't vote for the lesser of two evils and they only think that Obama is the lesser of two evils because the loudest mouths on the left keep screaming that he is

      now, maybe that is the exact result that you want, but if it isn't, you might want to learn to temper your criticism with the long term welfare of this nation (and the world) in mind

      i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

      by Anton Bursch on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:13:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not the left or the people that stay home (0+ / 0-)

      it will be the people that have no home to stay in or that are staying in homes that are underwater that will cause a foreclosure at the Whitehouse.

      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

      by Wolf10 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this is very wrong (16+ / 0-)
    "This is not a liberal/progressive country and we can’t expect him to have governed as if we were a nation of blue states. Polls consistently put the number of people who identify as liberal/progressive at no more than 20%.  Many of us are working hard to change those numbers, but that is the current political reality."
    THat's people who self-identify as "liberal". It's NOT people who ARE "liberal".

    Some identify as progressive rather than liberal. some identify as "moderate" or "independent" even if they are liberal, etc.
    However, in issue after issue after issue, the majority of Americans agree with the "liberal" position. They just don't want to call themselves liberals.

  •  Well said. While the President's record (33+ / 0-)

    in NOT perfect (no one's ever is), it is a record to be proud of.  We need to support his re-election.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:17:07 PM PDT

  •  Agreed, thanks (11+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:18:19 PM PDT

  •  Apart from the issues, but just (20+ / 0-)

    as important, is that he makes me proud again of being an American. Any country that can produce such a First Family can't be all bad.

  •  Again I feel the need to post this: (0+ / 0-)

    Our Fair City...a campy post-apocalyptic science fiction radio epic!

    by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

  •  Other critiques from the left: (5+ / 0-)

    * Expanding the War on Some Drugs
    * Continuing the use of state secrets privilege to prevent lawsuits against illegal wiretapping

    Indeed, there are many issues where Obama in particular, and Democrats in general, fail to uphold liberal ideals.

    And against all those, I would only point out that they are issues on which Romney would be as bad, if not worse.  There are many issues on which Obama is just as bad as any other candidate in the race.  There is no issue on which he is worse, and many (as documented in this diary) on which he is better.

  •  Oh please. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not a dumb-ass who thinks Obama is no better than the Republicans, but, for example, how come he's never had the courage or common sense to put the Republicans on the spot during the State of the Union Address and say, "If anyone can give me a good reason why pot is illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol aren't, stand now and explain it to me. And, moreover, explain how we can justify the cost of enforcing it; let alone that decriminalizing it would drastically cut into the Mexican drug cartels' profits. You people are the ones who rail against big government because you believe government shouldn't restrict our freedoms. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?"

  •  Wake me when he takes Medicare (8+ / 0-)

    Eligibility age and other cuts to Social Security off  the table.  I am extremely unhappy with the Simpson-B****S commission and the lack of any indication of strong support for seniors.  Perhaps they have written us off.

    Social Security is a wonen's issue.

    •  SS will be cut, as will Medicare. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JohnB47

      Under any president. People are living longer, the birthrate is down, and the original math no longer works.  Almost half of 85-yr olds suffer from alzheimers and require 24/7 care. Saying that these programs cannot be on the table, cannot be cut at all, is the same as republicans saying that no taxes can ever be raised (and that no compromise with the other side is acceptable). Obama understands that there will be a compromise, there has to be, and he is boldly trying to be the president to get it done.

      •  Actually, you're wrong. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        At least with consideration of Social Security. The original math (well, the 80's math at least) predicted and planned for the demographics changes that did happen. Social Security doesn't need fundamental changes.

        One - we need to stop any discussion that says Social Security can't redeem it's treasury bonds over the next 30 years - that's a right wing fallacy. It's not like the government will have to pay Social Security back out of general revenue, what will happen is each year the treasury will issue slightly more treasury bonds to the public, as the Social Security Trust redeems theirs. If you understand this, as the Social Trust Fund trustees do and point out in every annual report, then Social Security is fully funded through 2037.

        Two- we need to stop playing with the payroll tax. The temporary reduction was a horrible idea. If Social Security is going to be untouchable (as it should, in theory), then the funding mechanism needs to be stable.

        Three- The tax cap needs to be re-pegged to the appropriate income level. It was set to cover 90% of income, but hasn't be properly adjusted since then, and now covers significantly less (because of the growing income gap in America). If it were readjusted without raising benefits cap (a bad idea), then social security would be fully funded for 75 years. If both the tax and benefit cap were readjusted, then it would cover nearly the entire projected shortfall for the 75 year period.

        Four - Projected Shortfall. 75 year period. We're in the middle of (or just exited from) a recession, our economy is in horrible condition, unemployment is crazy high, and tax revenue is way down. And you want to make long-term changes to a program as vital as social security? Based on 75 year projections?

        Medicare - different story. It is unworkable, and won't be solved until we switch to single payer healthcare (also known as never). But stop lumping Social Security in. The only reason it's even on the table is because Democrats keep putting it there. It doesn't need major changes. It is a vital program, and it's incredibly popular. Democrats need to stop feeding this fallacy that it's unstable.

        •  yes, I'd make changes based on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JohnB47

          Long term projections. Just as I would make changes in our energy choices given long term global warming projections. Because you can't wait until the problem is too big to solve, and because there is real value to people feeling confidence in the long term financial health of the system. Everyone thinking the money will run out is very psychically debilitating, whether or not it is true.

  •  this is why I won't be canvassing (10+ / 0-)

    I think he is the lesser of two evils. I can't say he's great with a straight face and I think people would pick up on that if I were to go door to door.

    Those who are happy with the President should be the ones who are the public face of the campaign.

  •  Okay, I cut Obama a lot of slack now (5+ / 0-)

    because the second half of his first term has been so much better than the first. He has been taking the fight to the Republicans more often, making them look like jackasses on the debt ceiling pathos, and this week, end-running the Do-Nothings with the DREAM act. Mittens will have to do even more handsprings to flip-flop his way into Hispanic voters' hearts.

    His first two years sucked but that was hardly all (or even mostly) his fault. And even then he was a quantum better than Bill Clinton (remember him? NAFTA, GATT, DOMA, welfare "reform," Telecom deregulation, and Graham-Leach-Bliley? All unforced errors, with the possible exception of the welfare bill.)

    Obama vs. Bush on foreign policy? I mean, all he had to do was not be Bush to win a Nobel prize, lol. I can complain (and do) that he should get us the hell out of Afghanistan now, but Mittens would have us in Iran and God knows where else before you can say "Halliburton."

    Obama failed on the housing and bank crisis--but here the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is so narrow a cockroach couldn't slide through. But on social issues, seriously? We are debating freaking birth control again? How 1950s. Elect Mittens and we'll debate the morality of anesthesia, like in the 1850s. "Gawd, wants mayun, to SUFFAH!"

    Hell, if this pie fight erupts again, I'll vote for Obama like I've always intended and then go eat a slice of pie.

    Sometimes . . . I feel . . . like a redneck with chopsticks . . . Dreaming of squirrel while I'm sucking down squid . . .

    by Pale Jenova on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:53:34 PM PDT

  •  Stopped reading at "this isn't a liberal country" (14+ / 0-)

    While it is true that people self identify as "liberal" or "progressive" at about the rates you quote, that is a total bullshit stat.  People support liberal policies when the wording is correct.  They hate "socialized medicine" but love "medicare".  They support "marriage equality" (narrowly but by a slowly increasing margin) but don't like "special rights for homosexuals".  

    The idea that this country isn't liberal is a propaganda piece concocted by the right wing and predicated on semantic tricks in polling questions.  People hate "socialized medicine" but love "medicare" etc. When a liberal policy is actually explained outside of Frank Luntz's talking point the country is liberal.

    I reject the premise that the country is moderate and will continue to critique this administration on areas like civil rights (worse than W - Coordinated Occupy response from the feds, whistle blower prosecutions, etc), banking regulation (same as W - Dodd Frank is a complete joke), and war (worse than W - Iraq withdraw happened according to W's status of forces agreement, Libya would have had us all calling for war crimes investigations, drone strike killing US citizens without due process, ad naseum).

    Obama is the best option available to lead this nation at the moment.  His achievements are many and good.  His failures a few but catastrophic.

    I'll vote for him.  But I'm not going to attempt to claim to my friends and neighbors that he's the best thing since FDR.  Because he's not.  And I wonder if you realize how much Americans who don't post at Daily Kos perceive people who try to claim that he's some sort of smash success of a President....

    "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

    by The Rational Hatter on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:19:22 PM PDT

  •  A list of accomplishments does not mean much (6+ / 0-)

    by itself.  A similar list can even be made for George Bush:

    1.    Increased the budget for the Dept. of Education
    2.    Designated three huge new marine preserve
    3.    Cut taxes on the poor
    4.    Cut taxes on the middle class
    5.    Increased money for Medicare
    6.    Signed McCain-Feingold into law
    7.    Increased aid to Africa
    8.    Steered us through the aftermath of 9/11
    9.    Rebounded from the post-9/11 recession
    10.    Kept interest rates low, helping lower-income borrowers
    11.    Did more than any president before him to measure, track, and   invest in the achievement of black and Latino children.
    12.    Advocated the importance of human dignity and freedom from repression
    13.     Increased spending on Federal Government programs by 68%
    14.    Increased help for rural farmers
    15.    Increased government spending on healthcare 44%
    16.    Increased spending on education by 47%
    17.    Helped seniors pay for prescription drugs
    18.    Never claimed the president has the power to assassinate American Citizens without any judicial review
    19.    Teamed up with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind
    20.    More than doubled funding for poor schools
    21.    Raised scores on standardized tests overall
    22.    Lessened the achievement gap among whites and minorities on standardized tests
    23.    Didn't go to war with hundreds of countries, including Iran or North Korea
    24.    Improved information-sharing across agencies
    25.    Set the timetable for exiting Iraq, which was then followed by the next president
    26.    Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon under Bush, despite not invading Iran
    27.    Spent new aid money specifically to fight Aids/HIV, Malaria, and TB across the world
    28.    Led a bipartisan coalition, with the support of Democratic Senator John Kerry, to create a program called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
    29.    Took a diplomatic lead in Sudan and secured a north-south peace agreement
    30.    Did not privatize Social Security
    31.    Deported fewer illegal immigrants than his successor
    32.    Immigration proposal supported by Democrats
    33.    Increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which purchases development rights or land in environmentally sensitive areas
    34.    Did not rescind Clinton's directive requiring manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks and buses to reduce diesel emissions by more than 90 percent and refiners to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel by 97 percent, to 15 ppm.
    35.    Embraced a Clinton initiative to subsidize cleanup of "abandoned" urban toxic sites
    36.    Sought $4.9 Billion for national parks
    37.    "Clear Skies" initiative, which requires reductions of 70 percent in emissions of three of the worst air pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury) by 2018.
    38.    Allocated about $1.8 billion for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Cleanup in Washington State
    39.    signed a treaty under which the United States will share civil nuclear fuel and technology with India.
    40.    Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
    41.    The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
    42.    Signed The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, co-authored by Democrat Ron Wyden
    43.    Signed the do-not-call Implementation Act
    44.    Signed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act)
    45.    Signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the first United States federal law passed dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners, co-authored by Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin, and supported by Human Rights Watch.
    46.    Signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; SAFETEA-LU) is a funding and authorization bill that governs United States federal surface transportation spending
    47.    Signed the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which includes more disclosures to workers about the performance of their pensions and extends contribution limits to 401(k)'s
    48.    Appropriated money for Katrina disaster relief
    49.    Raised Federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour
    50.    Signed The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 which contained a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and extended existing tax credits for renewable energy initiatives, including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel development, and wind, solar, geothermal and hydro-electric power

    You have to analyze Obama's accomplishments in terms of what he did and what he could have done.  It is when you do both that the President's first term loses some of its luster.  

  •  Romney is EVIL. PERIOD. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc
  •  nice reminder (5+ / 0-)

    Good diary; as far as those who think he "could have done more":  where were the Senate votes going to come from?

    "Obama won. Get over it."

    by onanyes on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:38:19 PM PDT

  •  tipped and recced for a great post, I'd add (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnB47

    it might be even better with more positive structure to the thing. Instead of "he would have done better but" it's more effective to just say what he did great. No excuses kind of thing. But you'll always get a tip and a rec from me for saying good things about Dems.

    The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited

    by ban nock on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:32:36 PM PDT

  •  For my issues, he's lesser of two evils (5+ / 0-)

    I vote primarily on environmental issues (you know, the basic foundation of our existence) and he's been worse than Bush, IMHO.

    Hiring a corporate rancher Republican to head the Department of the Interior was a disastrous move. That agency is still filled with Bush people and they're calling the shots.

    There's been a two-pronged attack on endangered species, public lands, and lead regulations by The DOI and the administration.

    The ONLY reason I'll be voting for Obama is the Supreme Court issues. That's it. And that's sad.

  •  Oh, gawd, not this bollocks again. (10+ / 0-)
    This is not a liberal/progressive country and we can’t expect him to have governed as if we were a nation of blue states. Polls consistently put the number of people who identify as liberal/progressive at no more than 20%.
    Americans may not identify as liberals, but they support liberal policies.

    What they can't get is Democratic politicians capable of delivering them.

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

    by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:49:16 PM PDT

  •  If the more evil evil is evil enough and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bnasley

    if the less evil evil is good enough, then the lesser of two evils argument can be fairly convincing. All we have to do is to make the case the if Obama is re-elected, a number of things may possibly happen that are not as good as they would be in a perfect world, whereas if Romney is elected, a number of things will almost certainly happen that will be worse than we can even imagine.

    (Writing this made me remember the old “10 hads” joke about a review comparing two translations from the Sanscrit: “Smith, where Jones had had ‘had had’ had had ‘had’. ‘Had had’ had been approved of by the critics.” For the joke, say the preceding to someone out loud and ask how it can be punctuated.)

  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

    that Obama's record , as you describe it, is worth defending. Even though he is not a very good politician and has not made any kind of case for his domestic record, it is imperative to vote for him and to inform as many people as we can of that record. Where I differ most with him is in his foreign policy and national security policies, but that does not mean that the election of Romney will not be an unmitigated disaster for working people in the United States. Whatever Romney's moderate inclinations, he clearly lacks the kind of spine that will enable him to resist the most extreme rightwing agenda.

    If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

    by Valatius on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:22:08 PM PDT

  •  I've always said that Obama has been great on (0+ / 0-)

    "social" type issues, but has been as bad as any others on economic issues.

    Economically speaking, he's tapping on the brakes and slowing things down, but has no plans of turning the car around. The Repuglicans, by contrast, want to slam their foot down on the gas.

    But he's done a great job on issues like LGBT rights, abortion rights, education and other such issues, though.

    Although he's been terrible on the environment and passed a republican healthcare plan, which is bad. I don't actually give him credit for the ACA. It does some good but like his economic policies, ultimately serves to keep the rotted old system proped up and in place for a whole longer.

    Ultimately I'm going to vote for him and even go door to door for him this summer. But I'm damn sure not going to follow the script they give us this time. lol.
    I'm unhappy with the guy but still like him personally.

    If I could ever meet him In person, I think I would say to him something like, "people wanted a revolutionary president when they voted for you in 2008, but you've been very status quo in most respects. I'm voting for you again but I hope that this time you'll finally be the revolutionary candidate that we need."

    My style is impetuous.
    My defense is impregnable.
    YOU'RE NOT ALEXANDER!

    by samfish on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 10:10:21 PM PDT

    •  In what world has Obama been "terrible on the (0+ / 0-)

      environment"?

      Did you miss the doubling of CAFE standards, the strongest growth ever in renewables in the U.S., the first credible mercury emissions ever, cross-state emissions regulations, shipping emissions regulations, and the stimulus funds that were pooled into renewables and r&d?

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:06:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bravo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay

    Great post.  The left wing purists of the Democratic Party have dragged several fine nominees and/or sitting Presidents down to defeat:

    - Humphrey 1968
    - Carter 1980
    - Gore 2000

    In each case, the "lesser of two evils" argument depressed turnout or even had people throwing away their votes on marginal third party candidates like Dick Gregory or Ralph Nader.

    2000 is an excellent example.  Al Gore was repeatedly called "the same as Bush."  To the left ideologues, if you agree with them 7 of 10 times, they will still call you a fascist for the other three honest disagreements.

    This will be a nail biter of an election.  Obama needs every one rowing an oar.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 10:15:17 PM PDT

  •  Made it about a third down this thread (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, gramofsam1

    when I realized I was doing just what I told myself I would no longer do.  Wow, so easy to get sucked in.

    What I told myself I would no longer do, is waste my time and energy trying to convince people on the left that Obama is worth their vote, their money, and their time and energy.  Or to put it another way, to try to convince the suxers that they are in their own bubble.

    I'm sick to puke of it, and I'm out of here.  But not before I thank this diarist for a valiant effort.  Still, sad but true, that on this supposed Democratic site, such a diary will never be more than bait for pie.  Never be less than an invitation to make it all about Obama, and how he's failed us.

    I love this community in many ways, I don't love this about it. I don't love that for all the intellect and passion here, seems we can NEVER get beyond this.  Seems we can NEVER prioritize here.  Seem we must ALWAYS have this same old argument over and over again, even when the stakes are so damn high.

    Yuck.  Good night.

    •  Same here. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, StellaRay

      If you want to make a difference, your impact will likely be much greater elsewhere, ie. doing phonebanking, canvassing, etc.

      Virtually every diary here on DKos that highlights positive attributes of the Obama Admin. will attract those who agitate against Obama, even when it is off-topic.

      It's ridiculous.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:47:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you StellaRay- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, StellaRay

      I swore I'd avoid these pie fights and still got sucked in to reading this far.  It it pointless to keep having this argument.  Some people here are just not gonna vote for Obama, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.

      My only hope is that there are not many of those people.  I was pretty shocked to see the poll results in a recent diary here- 41 people out of 168 respondents voted "I hope he loses".   I'm telling myself that the "do you still want Obama to win?" diary was just a magnet for people who feel that way and that those results do not reflect the site as a whole- or that this site does not reflect the electorate as a whole. I'll do whatever I can off-site to prevent a Romney presidency. But honestly, I have a very bad feeling about this election, and reading these comments just makes me more terrified, so Ill join you in exiting this diary.  

      •  Don't pay too much attention to the comments. (0+ / 0-)

        People who complain a lot online often are people who don't do it much offline because people just won't take them seriously in r.l.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:49:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Surely, Sir... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rizzo

    ...you jest!

    "The Future of Man" [... ???] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    by dharmasyd on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:01:26 PM PDT

  •  No he doesn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Dead Man
    Despite implacable Republican opposition, President Obama, with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi, still managed to pass a healthcare bill establishing access to heath care as a right of all citizens.
    He established private for-profit health insurance as an obligation to purchase from publicy traded corporations, while never making a case for anything important through the entire unseemly process of deal-cutting in Congress and with the likes of AHIP and Billy Tauzin of PhRma, who Obama railed against on the 2008 campaign trail for cutting unseemly deals with Bush  There's a rather large difference.  

    That "implacable opposition" cast no votes for the health insurance bill (and anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could see two weeks in that they were never going to), so they had only as much power as he chose to give them.

    Trying to sell Obama as the lesser of two evils isn't at all credible.  Nominating the likes of Geithner, Rubin and Summers to deal with a financial crisis caused by Wall Street is a rather clear illustration of who Obama was most concerned with helping.

    Proud supporter of the drug-addled, f***ing retarded professional left.

    by Kall on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 02:08:31 AM PDT

    •  * should read (0+ / 0-)

      "Trying to sell Obama as something other than the lesser of two evils is not at all credible."

      And even the White House knows it.  The country is not at all appreciative of Wall Street smoking cigars again while the rest of the USA sucks eggs in a crummy economy (and soon will be sucking on Simpson-Bowles - but not until after the election is safely past).

      That's why the White House is rather clearly going with "We Suck Less" as a strategy.  It worked so well in 2010.

      Obama has articulated no strategy on how to reach a different outcome for the people after 2012, other than that he "hopes the Republican fever breaks" after 2012 and they will work with him.  Well, hope is not a strategy, and it hasn't worked when the Republicans were basing their actions upon the next election the last 2 times.  But apparently after 2012, Republicans are going to be friendlier.

      Proud supporter of the drug-addled, f***ing retarded professional left.

      by Kall on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 02:28:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Respectfully... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    ...I recommended your diary

    ...While an expat my wife and I vote in California where our votes will therefore not be consequential...

    ...And in any even we would vote for the Democratic candidate, be he/she Dianne Feinstein or Obama, even if we have to pinch our noses while doing so...

    With that out of the way, I have to say that I consider Obama fairly terrible and indeed the "lesser of two evils".

    I won't quibble with most of the achievements you've listed, and they are indeed many and significant, but then, I could easily come up with with a similarly impressive list for Richard Nixon...

    To me, Obama's two major failures, which pretty much dwarf your list (IMHO of course) are:

    1) he got bamboozled by Wall Street (the kindest explanation)

    and

    2) -- this is a major issue for me -- his terror/drone/foreign policy is criminal; I mean this literally. If the world was a fairer place, Obama, like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, should be tried as a war criminal in The Hague. He is a terrorist by any other definition.

    I could refuse to vote out of principles (and I'm often sorely tempted to do so) but since the alternative would be no less criminal, my choice is still to vote for the guy who hopefully will negotiate a soft landing for this mess of a country.

    But mark my words, history will judge him very severely and not at all positively.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 02:44:34 AM PDT

  •  Yes and No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, Roger Fox

    Lesser of 2 evils: absolutely
    Record worth defending? maybe some of it

    No pie fighting from me, just respectfully disagreeing with half of your conclusions.

  •  Yes, he is the lesser of 2 evils (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    He is slightly better than Romney.  Marginally so, but still slightly better.

    •  Obama's got cute kids (0+ / 0-)

      Romney... not so much.

      NOW SHOWING
      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is a very interesting article (0+ / 0-)

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        Obama was never progressive.   We all wanted to believe that he was and convinced ourselves in 2008 that he was.  In reality he is probably the most right-wing democratic president ever elected.   In foreign policy and wars he is as bad as any republican.

        •  By jove, you are such a dogmatist that you (0+ / 0-)

          have become virtually blind:

          In foreign policy and wars he is as bad as any republican.
          Let's do a little compare and contrast between Obama and Bush, shall we?

          Iraq:

          Bush oversees an illegal invasion based on fabrication.

          Obama oversees the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in an orderly manner.

          Afghanistan:

          Bush initiates the war there and the Bush Admin. bungles it badly because Iraq always was their primary goal.  This leads to a completely unnecessary resurgence of the Taliban and related extremist groups.

          The Obama Administration attempts to correct the vast and manifold mistakes of Bush and Rumsfeld in Afghanistan by conceiving a strategy that gives the Afghans a fair shot at a stable future.  As the strategy progresses, it allows international troops to initiate an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan while Afghanistan's own security forces take over.  And it looks like the strategy is working.  The number of international troops being killed there has dropped sharply since the beginning of 2011, Afghan civilian casualties dropped for the first time in 7 years, the Taliban have lost control of the majority of their strongholds in Afghanistan, and the Afghan National Security Forces are increasingly showing that they will be able to handle securing their own country as we withdraw.

          So.... how exactly is Obama as bad as any Republican in regards to wars?

          Imo, you are either a dishonest person or you're displaying a high level of ignorance.

          And that statement is extremely close to being HR worthy on this blog.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:04:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stop threatening with HRs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            Dont be ridiculous.   This is my opinion and in free countries people are entitled to their opinions.

            Here is why Obama is as bad as any republican on foreign policy these days.

            1.  Iraq.  He was better than Bush before getting elected.   The withdrawal was the originally planned time line.   Obama did not accelerate it.  He just followed it.   Nevertheless, he was clearly against the war before the election and that was good.   But times change, as per next points.

            2.  Afghanistan.   He escalated that war.   A war with no purpose at this time.   He did exactly what any republican would do.

            3.  Libya.  He intervened in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons.   He got into the business of regime change, as McCain, Lieberman and any republican would do (in fact, they were asking Obama to intervene at that time).   Libya is now in chaos.   A bad dictator fell, but chaos followed (as in the Iraq case) and that country is essential destroyed.

            4.  Syria.  The Obama administration has been pushing for a new intervention in Syria (under the applause of McCain, Lieberman, etc.).   It is likely that we will see a new war there after November.

            5.  Massive drone use in many countries.   More than ever before.  Read Glenn Greenwald about it.   Although targeting terrorists in some cases is understandable, there has been massive use of drone attacks with many civilian casualties or "collateral damage".

            In other words, only on Iraq Obama was better than any republican, and that was BEFORE he got elected.  His positions now new wars (i.e. Libya, Syria, etc.)  are essentially identical to McCain, Lieberman and rest.

            •  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your (0+ / 0-)

              own facts.  Especially not on DailyKos.

              Try posting a diary or comment about 9/11 being a big CIA conspiracy if you'd like to test that.

              1. It doesn't matter if there was a SOF in Iraq.  Obama promised to end the war and he did.  Period.

              2. Obama reacted to an escalating insurgency in Afghanistan.  His method for ending the Afghanistan War is working while yours definitely would have failed.

              3.  You don't know Jack about Libya and you don't know Libyans.  It's not like Iraq at all, yet you continue to spout that false meme.

              4.  Put up or shut up on Syria.  Baseless speculation is a no-no on DKos.  And, just in case you hadn't noticed.... there already is a war in Syria.

              5.  Drone use is a controversial issue, yet it is far from clear how many civilian casualties there are.  In this case he probably is not that different from Republicans.

              I see you've completely neglected mentioning the fact that the U.S.' reputation around the world has massively improved under Obama and that the START treaty was saved.

              And that's something that, obviously, wouldn't be happening with a Republican.

               

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again stop being ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                I despise conspiracy theories and everything I posted is my interpretation based on real facts.    Libya is a total mess with different factions fighting each other and war crimes being committed by the different groups.      Rogue militias even occupied the airport a week or so ago.     If not true, deny and will see who is making up facts here.

  •  Interesting article by Obama's former professor (0+ / 0-)

      Here it is.

    Definitely worth reading.

  •  No Vision, no turnout (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Obama and the dems have become so mired down in the present circumstances of partisanship and obstruction that their communications now consist of talking about the few (and watered-down) things they've been able to accomplish under the current circumstances, and a general complaint about obstruction.

    The Dems need to paint a picture of what the country would be like if they could actually craft and implement their own policies without having to bow and scrape to the Norquist toadies every step of the way.

    That's where the hope and change lies, and where the voters can be made excited to get out and vote.  This is also where the downticket races can be influenced, because after all, even if the Dems can get everyone excited to vote for a president, if they don't deliver downticket, we get the same old crap we're getting now.

    This is, of course, all assuming that the Dems really do stand for things the voters want.

    What do the voters want?  Well, contrary to this diarist's repeated opinion that voters don't identify as liberals and progressives, opinion polls show overwhelmingly that voters want an end to the 1% tax cuts, they want single payer or medicare for all, they want an end to the wars in the middle east, they want gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana.

    Who the hell cares what they identify as?  Give them what they want, give them a vision to fight for, and they'll turn out.  Especially the young voters.

    •  good thing you put the qualifier in there: (0+ / 0-)
      This is, of course, all assuming that the Dems really do stand for things the voters want.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well there's no way of knowing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        is there?  If they ever actually got a free hand to write legislation, then we could see for sure.  They make it pretty damn hard to tell, because they never draw any lines in the sand and stick up for the principles they claim to support.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site