Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama supporters deeply disappointed?

Everybody is talking about Charlie Cook's new column saying that for Democrats, the House is "teetering on the edge." Cook makes the now-familiar argument that Dems are suffering from an "enthusiasm" gap that could help Republicans make huge gains.

But the most interesting nugget in here may be the explanation for why there's such a big enthusiasm gap: It's all driven by the fact that the largest decline in voter interest has been among core Obama constituencies.

Cook digs into a recent poll done by pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff, which probed voter enthusiasm in some detail, and found this:

Hart and McInturff then looked at the change among the most-interested voters from the same survey in 2008. Although 2010 is a "down-shifting" election, from a high-turnout presidential year to a lower-turnout midterm year, one group was more interested in November than it was in 2008: those who had voted for Republican John McCain for president.

And the groups that showed the largest decline in interest? Those who voted for Barack Obama -- liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates, those living in either the Northeast or West, and younger voters 18 to 34 years of age. These are the "Holy Mackerel" numbers.

Digby theorizes that a lot of this is driven by Obama's tendency to constantly seek a middle ground between what he tends to characterize as equivalent extremes on either side. She thinks he'd do better speaking directly to the base.

I tend to fall into the camp that holds that the Dem base's lack of enthusiasm is out of sync with the size and scope of the accomplishments racked up thus far by Obama and Dems. The excitement around Obama's victory was so intense, and the sense of a "big change moment" was so palpable, that people were bound to feel let down despite Obama's clearly historic achievements.

But reasonable or not, something is apparently turning off these voters in a big way.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 2, 2010; 4:12 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Michael Steele clarifies again: Yes, we must win
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

I am not enthusiastic about Obama, except when I look at the conservative wingnut candidates that the repubs put forth. Some decent campaigning against particularly senate candidates will make a big difference. If the repubs do take either chamber, it will demonstrate the effectiveness of being the party of no and the dems inability to call them on it and the triumph of the low information (but high propaganda consuming via Fox, etc.) voter.

Posted by: srw3 | July 2, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Greg: I think Digby is basically right. As I've said before, the GOP has played a miserable hand very well. They used Obama's vow for bipartisanship against him by going to the extreme (lunatic) right and then demanding that Obama come to them prove his bipartisan outreach. To placate the GOp and prove his bipartisan bona fides, Obama moved far away from sensible positions (see offshore drilling) and demoralized and antagonized his base. The White House has been politically inept from Day One. I have no idea in the world why Rahm Emanuel is still in the White House. If Obama replaced Emanuel with, say, Howard Dean, that enthusiasm gap would reverse in a heartbeat.

Thanks. Greg, for all your excellent work. Happy Fourth of July to you and the Plumline community! Independence Day is one of my favorite holidays and it looks like the weather will be perfect here in Boston (though a trifle warm at Fenway Sunday afternoon). Best wishes for a happy holiday to all.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 2, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"What's the Matter With Democrats?"

Posted by: sbj3 | July 2, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure it makes sense to call those findings "holy makarel", unless, perhaps, you live inside the DC bubble.

If a large % of Obama voters in 2008 were 1st time voters or did not typically vote, why would they turn out for a mid-year election?

Didn't their favorite politican (Obama) already win? Is he up for re-election in 2010?

Why is this finding a surprise when "respected prognosticators" like Cook are always quick to point-out that the party in power in the WH does poorly on mid-term elections?

Posted by: kromerm | July 2, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm so old I can remember when Clinton had some legislative victories and he was still the Incredible Shrinking President. The problem for people who haven't been throught this a time or two or five or ten, is that they haven't had their reality check yet.

The biggest wins at the Federal level simply don't look like much from close up. The historic success of ARRA is that the world didn't sink into depression; the fact that substantial jobs haven't been created or that the real estate bubble hasn't re-inflated -- these are big letdowns relative to people's hopes and fantasies. Obama has chalked up more than a dozen substantial victories in fulfillment of campaign promises but, for example, the wars didn't end on January 21, 2009. So it's unsatisfying. Healthcare reform was a MASSIVE victory, and will make a huge difference for young adults, just not until today's young adults are tomorrow's adult adults.

2012 is a long ways away. Obama sure looks like a two-termer to me -- so far. The disaffected youth vote may not turn out two years from now, but a successful centrist president can win without them.

Might they yet be re-energized by the alternatives to Obama II ... ? You betcha!

Posted by: chagadelic | July 2, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook is a partisan who called HCR an even BIGGER mistake than invading Iraq.

He was also way wrong in his 2006 predictions.

I don't think it's a wave. I think Dems and Indies are tuned out because the home stretch of the campaign season hasn't really started yet and we've all been bombarded by news, particularly the oil spill.

Once the campaign starts and people realize the accomplishments of this President and the Dem Congress, more Dems will get involved. Passing FinReg will be another huge accomplishment.

Of course, Charlie Cook picked "THE BEST TIME" to announce that it's going to be a wave. That being, when Obama's at his popularity low-point due to the Gulf spill and due to the fact that he's in between accomplishments. Let's see the polling again in two months. Then we'll see.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 2, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Hope. People hoped things would change. They hoped he could make it happen. They hoped Washington would be different and hoped it would be for the poeple. This administration has made amazing legislative leaps and strides. But it feels like the same Washington from out here in the real world. There is less HOPE; and therefore, less interest!!!

Posted by: HopefulOkie | July 2, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The Corporate Media continues to confuse the lunatic fringe Teabaggers with new voters. They're not new voters, they're the hardcore Republican base nuts.

They're the same far right wing whackjobs who thought Bush Jr was still doing a heckuva job when he left office in 2008. The only thing that has changed is they realized that they had already trashed the Republican brand name during the Bush years so they rebranded themselves as "Teabaggers" and falsely claimed to be Independents.

They're not, and they're votes this fall (Republican) are already accounted for.

Posted by: DrainYou | July 2, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

thanks wbgonne, really appreciate it.

would you mind sending me an email?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 2, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Last graph of a good piece from Kilgore on the Tea Party as conservative base...


"The bottom line is that no one should be fooled into thinking that by putting on revolutionary war garb or brandishing well-thumbed copies of the Constitution, conservative activists have changed their basic attitudes or found a large number of new adherents. They've always been willing, periodically, to pressure the GOP with threats to stay at home on election day or even occasionally vote for a Democrat; it's no accident that one of the spiritual fathers of the conservative movement and the Tea Party Movement, direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, celebrated the prospect of a Republican defeat in 2006 in hopes that the party would turn decisively to the right in the wake of voter repudiation. And that's precisely what it's done."
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/07/one_more_time_the_tea_party_is.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | July 2, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou, bernielatham,

Yes yes yes.

It's all here too:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/Tea-Party-Supporters-Overlap-Republican-Base.aspx

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 2, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's tendency to constantly seek a middle ground between what he tends to characterize as equivalent extremes on either side. She thinks he'd do better speaking directly to the base."

I think Obama decided a long time ago that whether it works or not, and by this point he has to realize it doesn't work, he'll always seek bipartisanship. He wants to be remembered as a president who seeks compromise. Politically it would probably help him to just give up on that, but I don't see him changing anytime soon.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It is not looking pretty for the Democrats this go round.

The lack of enthusiasm for their candidates was predicted by Mr Barone right after the election. Those folks who were energized to vote for the first black president did so. Now what?

Further, Obama has alienated the independants who can swing elections.

meanwhile the Republicans are facing challenges of their own. An angry and energized conservative movement spells trouble for the smooth, polished DC RINOs who have get reelected by saying one thing at home and doing something else in DC. We're watching.

And yes, conservatives are different from the Democrat party's traditional constituents. Without fail the Democrats stay on the plantation. America's blacks for example have gotten virtually nothing from the Democrats and they continue to vote for them anyway. Visited Detroit or Cleveland lately? Democrat controlled paradise, right?

Conservatives will withdraw support for those republicans that don't adhere to their views. Ask Mike DeWine.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 2, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

skip sez: "Without fail the Democrats stay on the plantation. America's blacks for example have gotten virtually nothing from the Democrats and they continue to vote for them anyway."

this is typical of the out of touch way rightwingers and republicans talk and think about anyone who isn't white. i'd bet $100 dollars skip doesn't even understand how racist and inept this quote is.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 2, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats stay on the plantation"

??? That is so freakin racist. Not saying you're a racist, but the comment is. I know conservatives like to say that. You think you're really clever, conjuring the image of poor blacks on plantations, but it's racist and that's all there is to it.

Unemployment in places like Cleveland and Detroit has hit blacks in higher proportions, and democrats have tried to extend unemployment benefits while republicans block it. Republicans block and/or water down every piece of job-creating legislation before congress. Democrats will make sure every voter knows who's on their side and who's been keeping them down.

What's the republican plan? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Yeah, that'll help the poor.

Genius.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I just think it is just an off year election.

I think that if Obama himself was on the ballot that the Obama voters would come out.

Posted by: maritza1 | July 2, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

blahblog, skip is using typical right wing buzzwords. They like to use plantation and democrat party because they think they're pretty clever.

Herbert Hoover was one of the first to use "democrat party", and just like Hoover, they let Wall Street melt down. And of course the plantation talk....just shows which decade they're stuck in.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Maritza, I'm sure Obama realizes that, and will make several pitches to his supporters that hey, if you want me to succeed, you better keep the republicans out of office.

Don't know if it'll work though...Obama's dug his own hole. I think he's done a good job overall but I know plenty of voters who'll have to be dragged to the polls

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been a stunning disappointment. He never met a position he wasn't willing to compromise. He refuses to draw a line in the sand and fight for anything the Democrats who elected him care about.

The only people who should be happy with his presidency so far are Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Wall Street. He has totally lost me. There is no question that he was better than McCain/Palin in 2008. But if the Republicans put up someone remotely credible in 2012, I may hold my nose and vote Republican because Obama has been so pathetic.

Posted by: ram_lopez | July 2, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"if the Republicans put up someone remotely credible in 2012"

Ha! Fat chance of that!

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

First, Digby is always correct. (agree with
wbgonne, and thank you, Greg Sargent, for linking America's best pundit.)

Now that my credibility's out of the way, the reason for the morale drop is balatantly obvious: one out of five people who would like to be working are not (or are underemployed.) And many of us are unhappy about that, whether fully employed are not.

And if Obama isn't going to do MORE about it (yes, he's done a lot), he needs to make us understand why he's not or why he can't. I haven't seen him do either.

I think we will be much worse off if we vote Republican this fall, but if someone doesn't get to explaining why soon, that's what we'll get.

And bipartisan? He needs to take the incredulous approach he did re Boehner the
other day. Just assert he KNOWS the other side wants us all back to work, etc., and let THEM muck up that case. It got health care passed, and it could get jobs bills passed too.

Posted by: tggault | July 2, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Both of the explanations given, by Digby and yourself, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure it's a combination of the two.

I'd like to add a third factor to it as well...

We have never seen a level of scrutiny like that seen for President Obama. Not even close.

Those new voters were tossed into the heart of political cynicism and sausage-making. Part of it is the absurdly higher standards Obama is forced to meet (see: Steve Brenen), add to that the detail and amount of coverage about the legislative process that comes with the rise of new media - there's a whole lot of "yuck" to take. Especially for a group that's never been involved in politics before and doesn't really understand how true "politics ain't beanbag" is.

So they have absurdly high hopes (You), progress stunted by Obama playing the middle (Digby), and they see the ugliness of it all happening like never before (me).

Yeah...I can see why they are turned off. Heck, I get turned off of it sometimes. If you really care, there are going to be times when you really just can't stomach this stuff.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 2, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I still think the biggest problem for Dems is the economy and jobs. It's clear it's not going to turn around before November despite some of the rosey scenario advocates today. The problem with mid-terms and comparing them to national referendums on Dems is that they're local elections more than anything else. I think it's going to be a district by district, state by state election. People will vote for who they think will help them the most out of the recession/depression we're in.

Are we going to take a chance re-electing Republicans who got us into this mess or keep our faith in Dems? And no one could energize voters from the left more than the Sharron Angle's, Rand Paul's, and Meg Whitman's. Talk about fear getting the vote out.

I'm not happy all the time with Obama's centrist positions or his negotiating strategy, but he is achieving success on numerous fronts. It's really the economy that is dragging us down though and his shift to deficits before his work was done may be the biggest mistake of his Presidency. Stacking the deficit commission with deficit hawks wanting to both cut SS benefits and raise the retirement age has not helped.

Two things more important to the base than the November elections will come in December; the recommendations from the deficit commission and the resulting vote and re-evaluation of our Afghanistan strategy. Depending how those are resolved will determine whether the base rallies behind him again.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 2, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

@wb
The only people that care about changing from Emmanuel to Dean are the far-left "progressives", who won't stay home and will vote for democrats.

@ram
Seriously? You think the people who have consistently refused to support Obama are happy with his presidency? Go back to redstate.

Posted by: converse | July 2, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot of nuance here. A few thoughts.

On the Not Happy Side

- Propping up Beltway "bipartisanship" as an answer. It moved from risky to flat out counterproductive a while ago. I remember seeing Michael Crowley on MSNBC in late 07' talking about how Obama was boxing himself in... the danger couldn't have been a secret. As soon as the economy crashed, Obama really should have distanced himself from this to whatever extent he could.
I'm partly sympathetic to his defense in Alter's book, but the error is just too costly to let slide.

Note: He still could have differentiated GOP - leaning voters from the national party. In the era of Palin and Beck, he had a way out.

- Rahm's theory of change "smaller wins = momentum" is nice and all (so are Unicorns), but I've got to wonder why Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rival's was embraced by Team Obama, but her view (as told to Robert Kuttner) that this theory is seriously off base, was not. This ties into my main problem with Rahm: How in the world is he considered a pragmatist? Pre - compromising on the Recovery Act, and reportedly not even aiming for something stronger, was political malpractice. Where was the "focus like a laser on jobs" sentiment then? Was 1.3 trillion doable? No. But I think something larger than what we got with more, you know... stimulus (less tax cuts) was.

- Reconciliation and HCR. Seriously, WTF? Why not use this stick? The GOP was going to attack with the same ferocity anyway -- that was painfully obvious from the get go. And it had to be used anyway.

Side note: GFY Kent Conrad.

- The False Equivalence stuff really is annoying. It's laziness posing as thoughtfulness.

- The circular defenses to Dem base. It can't be "blame conservaDems" (a message that lots of truth to it), and then "Obama has to back Blanche Lincoln" and then "why did you waste money on challenging Blanche Lincoln?"

In the Obama Admin's defense, some decisions were made in real - time under a ton of pressure, Pres. Obama and Dem trifecta has done a lot of good, and on domestic policy, the conservaDems in Congress share as much responsibility for the shortcomings as POTUS does, in some instances more. Afghanistan though, is on him.

This reflects on the party as a whole, but we've failed to mobilize the winning coalition that is arguably waiting in the wings.

If these were ordinary times, I'd be a huge Obama fan. The problem is that they're not. His messaging lately has been excellent though.

Caveat: If coming up short where it really matters is a result of the whole "visionary minimalism" Nudge school Fantasy Land stuff, then I would have scathing things to say about the president's comprehension of the magnitude of the problems our country faces. But though people close to who had POTUS' ear in the past (Sunstein) might buy into this useless garbage, I don't think Obama himself does. If he does... then my grade goes from the B range to the D rang

Posted by: michael_conrad | July 2, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

What "tggault" said.

If there's no major progress on good jobs at good wage with good benefits, I fear the rest may be just noise.

Posted by: michael_conrad | July 2, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

ram,

so, you claim to be an obama supporter who is angry with him for compromising with republicans. as a result, you'll vote for...republicans.

i think you're another version of georges2 and the so called pumas from the campaign.

no one would be genuinely upset with obama for compromising with republicans and then vote for republicans to protest his attempts at compromise.

i bet you're a plant.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 2, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I also look at it this way: Republicans left me with four flat tires. Obama's already managed to patch three, but I still ain't goin' anywhere.

Will he patch the fourth before those other guys shoot my tires out again? Beats me!

Posted by: tggault | July 2, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

@tg
Maybe he's counting on you to patch the fourth.

Posted by: converse | July 2, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

tg, great analogy!

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Make that what imsinca said as well.

Lots of good comments here. BBQ makes a good point about scrutiny. Methinks it's the interwebs. Honest scrutiny is a good thing, but POTUS drew a difficult hand. Severe problems and ability for people to monitor every step. Plus, he ran in a close, loooooooong campaign (about a year and half) so the words he used to win it still ring in the ears of progressives.

Posted by: michael_conrad | July 2, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/happy_hour_roundup_42.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 2, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

with all the Democratic "interest groups" Obama has thrown under the bus of late in his quest for "bipartisan" healing, it will be a surprise to see if Obama has any coattails at all.

watching the Republicans stop Obama at every step, i am amazed at Obama's desire to stay with the "bipartisan" meme. He's not getting any Republican help and he's sold so many left of center groups down the river, under the bus, i'd bet the Republicans win just on turnout itself.

Obama has nobody but his "desire to be compared with Reagan" as reasons for any "problems" with the Democratic voters.

here's one who won't vote for O and hopes the Republicans "subpoena" the hell out of him.

so much for "bipartisan" results. Obama will get what he deserves. If Obama doesn't pull those "core" groups back in to the Democratic fold, Obama will reap what he has sown.

Here's looking forward to Obama becoming a Democrat after he sees what bipartisanship really means to the voters.

Posted by: Beleck31 | July 2, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

exactly which "interest groups" did he sell "down the river"? He's done more to help the average American than any president in at least a generation, why do you give no credit for that and hope for subpoenas? You sound like you're completely full of $h¡t.

I want bipartisanship, we should all be working together. You prefer, what, bickering and partisan gridlock?

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if the "I'm a Dem who will vote for the GOP" sentiments expressed in this thread are genuine, but if they are, I would strongly urge you to reconsider.

If you have progressive values, regardless of your view of the White House, the smart move is to strengthen the Dem caucuses.

Take the Senate.

In 2006, we elected Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse.

In 2008, we added Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, and Al Franken.

In 2010, there are plenty of solid candidates to support. Conlin, Giannoulias, Sestak, Fisher, Hodes, Conway, and Marshall come to mind... and Boxer and Feingold are up for re - election.

If you want stronger Senate Dems (and the Senate has been the roadblock), keep pushing.

Posted by: michael_conrad | July 2, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Digby is exactly right, IMO.

Obama kowtows and caters to the repugs and INSULTS liberals.

So we have health care "reform" that helps only the very health insurance industry that it was supposed to protect us from - because Obama caved to the right.

We have financial "reform" that won't prevent another bank meltdown - because Obama caved in to the right.

Obama has weakened abortion rights in his quest to cave in to the right, he has put up more obstacles for the repeal of DADT, he is in the process of destroying our education system and Social Security. Oh, and let's not forget his endless, endless wars that HE owns now.

THIS liberal will never vote for this phony, cowardly, craven, disaster of a president again. And I'm sorry I ever did vote for him.

Posted by: solsticebelle | July 2, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

yeah right Belle, we all REALLY believe you

Posted by: SDJeff | July 2, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has been a stunning disappointment. He never met a position he wasn't willing to compromise. He refuses to draw a line in the sand and fight for anything the Democrats who elected him care about."

I agree with this and with solsticebelle above. I will not vote for Obama again, I will not vote Republican, and I will not vote for any Dem candidate beyond the local level. They are ALL, to a person, phony, cowardly, crave, and dishonest. It is a waste of time believing in, or voting for, any of then.

Posted by: msmollyg | July 2, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

molly,

please tell us more about how you're such a committed progressive...

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 3, 2010 3:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a center-right president (because I am a center-left voter). Issue by issue we are a center-left nation (based upon actual issues, not self-identification).

Obama's greatest successes have been utter failures. Healthcare that is in reality only Insurance reform. Forcing every American into the pocket of the Insurance Companies - is anything but, success. From 40 to 60% is bled off into the profits of for-profit corporations. It is programmed so far out into the future, does anyone really believe it will ever be enacted? It was designed to fail - otherwise, it would have been immediate.

I won't vote for Obama and I can't find anyone who will. Honest. I won't vote Republican, so I will vote 3rd party. Much like most of my friends, I'll vote for what I want (and not get it) rather than vote for what I don't want, and get it. All hope is spent (as is Obama).

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | July 3, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Which big achievements are you talking about, Greg?

Continuing the government's right to spy on us?

Continuing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?

Continuing death squads for American citizens?

Continuing to detain innocent people at Guantanamo?

Giving billions to bankers while barely being able to find a dime once in a while for ordinary Americans?

Passing a health care bill that's going to create a huge ruckus when people start to realize they'll have to give huge portions of their meager incomes to bolster the profits of insurance companies?

I can't imagine what you think is so great about what the man has done.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Posted by: CaroKay | July 3, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow did a good job summing up Obama's accomplishments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ALSi9B71xg&feature=player_embedded

Many of us are disappointed in some of his war policies, but domestically he's taken us in the right direction. Remember, he's not a dictator, and has unanimous republican opposition as well as among his supposed liberal supporters and Lieberman, Nelson, etc. Your coalition with conservatives hasn't really helped matters.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 3, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

again, we have more fake progressive trolls. they've never voted for anyone but a republican in their entire lives but are now claiming to be disenchanted obama supporters.

i call bs on them.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 3, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The people who are hurting in this economy are Obama voters. GWBush and Dickie Cheney left their true constituents in good shape after they robbed the treasury. However, in November hopefully people will pull it together long enough to flip the correct lever. Republicants need to be shown that they cannot just say "no" and expect to take over congress. Bush neglected the poor and middle class and roads and highways, so now we need money to sustain this country and to pay for the republicants' two wars. This is insanity.

Posted by: Msohio1 | July 3, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama. I took a lot of grief from people in my family for it to the extent that there are people I will probably never see alive again (Limbaugh worshippers).
I am disappointed with Obama's pursuit of Bush-Cheney policies in regards to civil liberties, torture, assassination and conduct of warfare overseas without a declaration of war. His signature issue turns out, as noted, to have been precompromised into a comfy chair for the insurance industry, which has morphed into a protection racket in concert with Pharma and Health Care, a mafia of stupendous proportions. That cost me a 30 percent increase in health insurance costs, thanks. The defense industry and its contractors continue to loot the treasury with impunity. BP is destroying the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic, Africa, North Sea, where else? There is no accountability for past crimes brazenly committed by the previous administration and there is zero possibility it will be pursued in the future because the new administration has simply taken on the policies of the original perps. America has been an occupied territory since Bush v Gore 2000.
The Democratic Party doesn't have the guts to fight for its former values even when they are clearly needed. I hope that a Teddy Roosevelt may rise up from the herd of corporate-owned politicos and mediocre placeholders. Until then I don't imagine voting for any Republican, any small parties, or a lot of Democrats unless I've met them. Obama seems to be alligator in the mouth and hummingbird in the ass. A hundred fractional Pyrrhic "successes" don't add up to diddly.

Posted by: sparkplug1 | July 5, 2010 3:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company