Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

President Obama criticizes the petulant left

President Obama isn't backing off his criticism of his progressive detractors. First, there was White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocking the "professional left" for holding the White House to unmeetable standards. Then there was Vice President Joe Biden this week on Rachel Maddow informing progressives that they "better get energized." Maybe these surrogates weren't accurately reflecting the president's feelings about this vocal sliver of his base? Think again. Here's the president at a Thursday-night fundraiser:

Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty (Laughter.) If we get an historic health-care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.) We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation.

Funny. And true. And, because she apparently can't help being a caricature, about to make Jane Hamsher's head explode on MSNBC as I write this. Don't worry -- she'll be fine. She's gotten really good at reinflating it.

I'm a little proud of the president for continuing to stand up for himself. Here's a Democratic president shaking the left by its shoulders, begging it to recognize how good they have it. But, of course, since when did it work to tell your supporters that they're irrational? Look at what he's dealing with: In response to his latest remarks, we've already heard more fuming about the public option and how Obama is like Spiro Agnew. Incredible.

By Stephen Stromberg  | September 17, 2010; 6:43 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The childish political thought of the Tea Party
Next: Why isn't Christine O'Donnell's witchcraft story a forgivable sin? [Updated]

Comments

I'll tell you what I see as a gay man: A knife with Obama's fingerprints buried in the center of my back. And he well knows his team deliberately chose to toss the gay community under the bus and actively sabotage our issues.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 17, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Good lord, yes! Celebrate what's been accomplished and strive to do more. Just don't leave it all to the President and those in D.C.

Posted by: tansymoth | September 17, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

He has passed a healthcare bill that has raised the price of health insurance to record levels in record time. A financial reform bill that reforms nothing and has succeeded in flatting out the growth that was starting to occur.

Yep, a success are real success. With a president like Obama who needs an incompetent Congress to destroy the economy?

Posted by: staterighter | September 17, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg, it is clear that Corporatists like you have to suck up to a Corporatist Whitehouse. You are one of the imbibers and perhaps a dealer of Rahmade.

To see what that means and the pathetic lack of understanding so called moderate conservative DINOs and their enablers in the media please read:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=470621982999&id=1637714672&ref=mf

doubleaseven@gmail.com

Posted by: doubleaseven | September 17, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's a Democratic president shaking the left by its shoulders, begging it to recognize how good they have it.

You're a smug and untalented moron, Stromberg.

I'm sure the Graham family is happy that you're shilling for neoliberal corporatists, so you will keep getting paid for being trite and dishonest.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/17/obama
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 17, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Uh-Huh,

Grow up. I support gay marriage and repeal of don't ask, don't tell but there are greater priorities. People dying because they don't have healthcare coverage is a greater priority...your turn will come...

Posted by: martin_849 | September 17, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

yea its not like obama is constantly defecating on the constitution, planning to cut social security for our parents, constantly bombing families in the middle east, supporting an illegal war on the palestinians, failing to help out the middle class or affect unemployment in any meaningful way, covering up the worst ecological disaster in history, or bailing out the people who caused economic catastrophe without imposing meaningful regulation on the industry. I could go on...

we leftists aren't mad because we're fools, crazy, etc... we are mad because we experience these problems ourselves every day, problems which you and your ilk are too insulated by $$ and groupthink to understand

some people expected a real leader to step in (a myth perpetuated by the constant media comparison of candidate obama and FDR), and instead we've got this perverted corporatist brand slapped onto the same old clinton machinery.

where's proper regulation, where's the fairness, where sensible and peaceful foreign policy? Our government has been captured, and we are mad. you should be too.

Posted by: psbjr | September 17, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg, can you read?

Obama didn't say "left." He said DEMOCRATS.

I still think he's a two-faced, lying, cowardly empty suit - who did claim that we needed the public option to keep health insurance companies honest. Funny how no Obama apologist can explain just when health insurance companies became honest. They just keep bashing those of us who point out that Obama was for the public option before he was against it.

But hey, you celebrate all those weak "reforms" all you want.

THIS liberal will continue to criticize Obama all I want. If you and he don't like it, tough.

I don't like having another liar for a president.

Posted by: solsticebelle | September 17, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Except, Mr. Obama, that health care thing you brag about truly stinks to high heaven, you seem pretty proud of yourself, but it sucks, I sorry, it does. We going to be paying through the nose for care more than ever.

As does the tarp and the bank bailouts you continued from under Bush, perverse and rotten..

I am a progressive and you simply don't represent me. Are you better than say, Mitch McConnell? That is probably true.

Posted by: yarbrougharts | September 18, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

30 million people covered with health insurance that weren't before. Is that really something to sneeze at?

Granted, Obama hasn't been able to do everything yet. But in case you haven't noticed, we have a nation of morons out there (tea partiers, etc.) who are trained monkeys for the corporate interests and the idle wealthy. It's a little hard to get everything done in 1.5 years while the nation is burdened with these idiots. Why don't others on the left get this?

Posted by: B2O2 | September 18, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Petulant left? No one is more petulant then Obama is. Remember when Obama wanted health care passed by October 2009. By the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 Obama wanted this country totally socialist. Obama has no patience. He wants everything yesterday. Obama is the one who hates procedures and debates because bill can't go from his mouth to law. Petulant? Obama is the one who says our future is waiting. He's moving forward. Let's not forget how many times the media ask Obama if he was putting too much on his plate. Petulant? No one is more petulant then Obama.

Posted by: houstonian | September 18, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

It's almost insulting for him to take this attitude. We are not petulant that he isn't superman. If we are petulant at all it is because we see him not doing what he could. The public option in health care? He could have refused to give that up (since it was clear the Repulicans were not going to give anything in return) and end up doing what he did anyway, use reconciliation. There are a dozen major issues he and the Dems in congress could have used reconcilliation for. They just through away the chance to. That, is worth being dissapointed about.

Posted by: TomCantlon | September 18, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Hey all. The first provisions of the health care reform package kick in in about a week. Here's a nice rundown. And it's good news for practically everyone. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I wanted a Public Option, but considering the environment, I think you did pretty well by the average American.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39160527/ns/health-health_care/

Posted by: B2O2 | September 18, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

No more Wimpy Professor routine. It's time for Obama to stand up on his back legs and lead the fight against the 100% all-obstruction-all-the-time, bought-and-paid-for-corporate shills of the GOP -- or get out of the way. His personal goal of being a "uniter" has gotten in the way of his being a leader and it has utterly prevented him from being a fighter. So, he's been roughed up and abused by the united, feistier GOP. Enough already! Don't bite your base; join it or watch it walk away in disgust!

Posted by: dolph924 | September 18, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

"By the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 Obama wanted this country totally socialist."

Hey Houstonian, the "Obamacare" health plan was virtually identical to a proposal floated by Republicans in the early 90s, in response to Hillary Clinton's plan. I know it's fun to yell and scream "socialist", but you *might* want to take your nose out of FoxNews once in while and visit historical reality. We'll wait here for you.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 18, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama's greatest flaw continues to be his arrogance. He assumed he could bend power purely by the force of his personal charm, image and personality. Of course, that was entirely unrealistic. And, as for policy victories, most obviously, the devil is in the details.
Through the "audacity of hope" I continue to believe Obama may one day recognize and acknowledge that his words and his image are not as important, or as meaningful, as his actions.

Posted by: pdxleft | September 18, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

to a "gay man" - remember what went on when Clinton tried to do away with DADT? Remeber the hysteria around gay marriages 6 years ago? Look how calm things are now. Today, even most Repubicans accept that DADT must go away and it will, and the tilt of the public opinion (including most of the Tea Party, BTW) is that the state should not muck around in the intimate relations between people. We will get both done, but it's gonna happen a little closer to the November 2012 then Nov. 2010. Politics.

Posted by: arik67 | September 18, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama's greatest flaw is that he thinks other people are reasonable, especially the opposition. But he does understand the unreasonableness of the left. The quote above perfectly captures the problem: he was elected, considered more liberal than he is, and expected to walk on the water and do it by himself. Thanks mainly to Harry Reid wheeling and dealing in the Senate, he got legislation passed--that Reid has held that caucus together so well is a miracle. Meanwhile, the left attacks Obama and Reid and praises Pelosi, who couldn't raise weeds. So the left will stay home in November and we'll have Speaker Boehner, and then NOTHING will get done, and the left will whine. Well, the left will deserve to rot, but those of us who consider ourselves the pragmatic left will have to live with the results of their petulance and stupidity. So get off your whiny butts and get out there and work.

Posted by: greenm1 | September 18, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

if this is the best you can do in the way of political commentary, Stromberg, don't bother.

Posted by: jns-alex99 | September 18, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama has shaken the left by its shoulders!?! Poor babies, next thing you know they'll have 'shaken leftist syndrome'. :(

Posted by: pd2710 | September 18, 2010 2:30 AM | Report abuse

76 percent of Americans supported a public option. Obama didn't fight for it. I'm convinced he never wanted it and, yeah, it made me mad. But I'll still support his side over the crazies on the right, maybe not with $$, but with my vote.

Posted by: ikea1 | September 18, 2010 2:32 AM | Report abuse

I too have been amamazed by how quickly some of Pres. Obama's supporters have given him the middle finger. Didn't he say on election night that the reversal of our fortunes wouldn't be accomplished overnight? It's as if no one was really listening. Thirty years of "trickle-down" is supposed to be washed away in two? Did FDR accomplish everything his supporters wanted in two years? Did Mr. Clinton? I think not. Neither can Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama can never tell a lie, a la little Georgie Washington, he must immediately repeal Don't ask, Don't tell. He must keep all his wandering members of Congress in line, spank BP and throttle the big banks. He must close Abu Ghraib, save the whales and force American businesses to hire the unemployed.

So now we are poised to return to power the very people who led us into this mess. Why? Well, because our President didn't turn water into wine. Give me a break.
Is this fight only the President's? What have you who criticize done for your country lately?

Posted by: mlx10dp | September 18, 2010 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Continued arrogance. A re do of his California campaigning during the primary when speaking to high rollers, $30,000 a plate, enjoy Obama's comedy hour about the Democrats.

You know, I've about really, really had with this petulant jokier behavior. I am a Democrat moderate and I resent the hell out of being laughed at by the leader of a party I am supposed to support.

Talk about the enthusiasm gap, what Democrat with any self respect can can be enthused by his behavior. I'm done.

Posted by: Realitycheck6 | September 18, 2010 2:38 AM | Report abuse

Lots of assumptions by the cheerleaders that critics must not "do anything" for their country. Try reading some of the laws that have been passed and figure out what you're talking about before speaking. That would be "doing something" as well. We need more thinking people to really understand what's going on, communicate to others within their sphere of influence and grow a groundswell of support that will support real change and progress. Every person you can influence counts. End ignorance. It's the first step.

Posted by: pdxleft | September 18, 2010 3:09 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what I see as a gay man: A knife with Obama's fingerprints buried in the center of my back. And he well knows his team deliberately chose to toss the gay community under the bus and actively sabotage our issues.

Posted by: uh_huhh
------------------------------------------

I'll tell you what I see as a straight man who has several gay friends:

I think you're ridiculous and downright ungrateful.

You think because ALL gay rights battles have not been fully won within virtually minutes of the President taking office, you've been "stabbed in the back"?!!!

Get a clue!

Obama's vocal support to the gay community is stronger than any other president's has been.

Not to mention that he signed a new hate crimes law.

And "Don't ask, don't tell" is finally on the table.

What more do you want? For him to perform your marriage ceremony?

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 18, 2010 3:27 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what I see as a gay man: A knife with Obama's fingerprints buried in the center of my back. And he well knows his team deliberately chose to toss the gay community under the bus and actively sabotage our issues.

Posted by: uh_huhh
------------------------------------------

I'll tell you what I see as a straight man who has several gay friends:

I think you're ridiculous and downright ungrateful.

You think because ALL gay rights battles have not been fully won within virtually minutes of the President taking office, you've been "stabbed in the back"?!!!

Get a clue!

Obama's vocal support to the gay community is stronger than any other president's has been.

Not to mention that he signed a new hate crimes law.

And "Don't ask, don't tell" is finally on the table.

What more do you want? For him to sing at wedding?

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 18, 2010 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama deserves criticism from the left for his failures to live up to his campaign promises, and in particular for continuing right-wing policies that undermine civil liberties and promote corporate plunder (e.g., insurance, pharma).

At the same time, the left-wing critics must be extremely careful not to equate Obama with the republicans, because the republicans are much, much worse. Treating democrats and republicans as basically equivalent is not only irrational, but it is dangerous because it undermines whatever motivation is left in the democratic base. If this leads democrats not to vote, which seems to be happening, then it will lead to disaster as the republicans will become even stronger and our country will fall further behind the rest of the civilized world.

Posted by: dougd1 | September 18, 2010 3:44 AM | Report abuse

I think a lot of these posters' comments are proving the author's point.

Posted by: Britt1 | September 18, 2010 4:08 AM | Report abuse

martin_849, I am a 42-year-old who has been supporting the Democratic Party for a quarter of a century--and never once in that entire time has our "turn" come. So don't you smugly lecture me about priorities. There is ALWAYS some excuse for straight Democrats to toss the gay community under the bus. And this Administration has not merely de-prioritized every gay issue, its lawyers and lobbyists have aggressively pushed to sabotage progress. Grow up yourself, you egocentric condescending pig.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 5:52 AM | Report abuse

I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: quincyhow18 | September 18, 2010 5:56 AM | Report abuse

ceefer66, you are a perfect example of the petulant mocking hostility of straight Democrats when told that--after a quarter of century of raping the gay community for cash and support while doing nothing in return--your tab has finally come do. Yes, it was much easier for you when you could mock, belittle, and fearmonger the gay community into support you in exchange for nothing, wasn't it? Too bad for you but those days are OVER. Don't you dare preed and priss and lecture and mock and lamely tell me about all the supposed gay friends you have. You obviously have no clue how aggressively hostile toward the gay community this administration of political homophobes has been. What I want--demand--is full and equal inclusion in this party of exploiting, gay-bashing, self-centered straight Democrats.

And until I get that, you can get off your computer and go make up the $50K that I raised in '08 and won't be raising this cycle or next. Let me know come November how your messiah's strategy of mocking, betraying, belittling, and bashing the gay community into rallying behind him works for you.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 6:02 AM | Report abuse

solsticebelle, bashing the progressive groups whom they betrayed is all the Obama team has left as a motivational tool. And we'll all see how well that works for them come November.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 6:06 AM | Report abuse

arik67: to a "gay man" - remember what went on when Clinton tried to do away with DADT? Remeber the hysteria around gay marriages 6 years ago? Look how calm things are now. Today, even most Repubicans accept that DADT must go away and it will, and the tilt of the public opinion (including most of the Tea Party, BTW) is that the state should not muck around in the intimate relations between people. We will get both done, but it's gonna happen a little closer to the November 2012 then Nov. 2010. Politics.
_______________________________________

When it's done, I'll reconsider ever supporting the national Democratic party again. But all I've seen from this administration has been deliberate sabotage of any effort at progress. As for Clinton in 1993, that was two decades ago, but you are correct to imply that Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Roberts Gibbs, and the rest of the "brain trust" running this administration into the ground still resent the gay community for--well, for Bill Clinton's utterly incompetent handling of that fiasco and apparently haven't looked at a single poll on any gay issue more recent than 1993.

Your pretty words are nice. I'm no longer listening to pretty words from straight Democrats. Show me results or shut up and find somebody else to raise your money for you.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 6:12 AM | Report abuse

greenm1: So get off your whiny butts and get out there and work.
_________________________

No. Never again will I be bullied and belittled by a backstabbing straight Democrat into doing a d@mn thing for this party. You've produced zero return on my quarter-century of investment of work and money. You're not getting one bit more, and your caustic preening just locks my wallet tighter. Go have a primal scream session with your loathsome master Rahm Emanuel. And enjoy having your straights-only agenda sabotaged. Welcome to how it feels.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 6:51 AM | Report abuse

The left has given up on the President. Why? Because they give up on everything. The wars. Even the health care bill. Only the President saved us on that. Now they want to give up on more.

What is with them? Do they survive by giving up and never letting us know what they really want to do?

Posted by: GaryEMasters | September 18, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

I still think he's a two-faced, lying, cowardly empty suit - who did claim that we needed the public option to keep health insurance companies honest.

THIS liberal will continue to criticize Obama all I want. If you and he don't like it, tough.

I don't like having another liar for a president.

-------

Well solsticebelle, if you don't likeliars, then maybe you should be more careful about how you characterize President Obama's campaign promises. Every candidate overpromises what he can deliver, but I remember hearing candidate Obama repeatedly throughout the campaign take a middle-of-the-road position on health care. I don't ever remember him promising that the public option had to be in the final bill, swearing he wouldn't sign a bill without it (as Clinton did--and this was true, he never signed a bill, because it failed in Congress). In President Obama's speech to Congress last September he again repeated that he thought the public option was "a good idea" and the best way to keep insurance companies honest, or something of the sort, but he was very careful not to pin passage of the bill on the public option.

You apparently are living in a dream world in which whatever you say should be suddenly is. The public option was not going to pass a straight-on vote in the Senate; the Democrats didn't have the votes. And if they had passed it by reconciliation with 51 votes (no sure thing), it would take only 51 votes (i.e., a Republican majority) to undo the bill. I believe he was planning ahead for a future time in which the Democrats are no longer in charge of Congress and the Presidency. If the Democrats hold only one of the three branches, it is extremely difficult to undo the Health Care Bill.

Did I want the single-payer plan? Yes. But I can live without it better than I can live watching another 50,000-some Americans dying every year from lack of insurance. I can live with thousands of community health centers opening up throughout the country. I can live with seeing insurance companies no longer allowed to kick people of their coverage once they get sick, or for pre-existant conditions.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what I see as a gay man: A knife with Obama's fingerprints buried in the center of my back. And he well knows his team deliberately chose to toss the gay community under the bus and actively sabotage our issues.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 17, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse
----------
Dear uh-huhh,

Did President Obama sneak into your room and personally stab you in the back? I suppose your going to add that he twisted the knife in the wound, then laughed at you as you lay dying. And you magically recovered from you wounds in order to write this one last post.

Why don't you can the cliché-ridden extremist rhetoric? The "knife in the back" was actually the favorite phrase the Nazis would use against the left back in the 20s and 30s. It is one of those phrases that shuts rational discussion down, which is its intent.

A president cannot simply do everything he or she wants, and cannot do everything at once. Look how well this approach worked with Clinton: he tried to declare a change, faced a revolt in the Congress and the mllitary, and had to backtrack. On each hot-button issue, President Obama tries to build a consensus for change so that the change cannot be easily undone. He's already gotten further in convincing the military to change it's don't-ask-don't-tell policy than Clinton ever did. Give him time.

I'm on the left, but I'm disturbed by what I read on these posts. I see a lineup of spoiled babies in adult bodies, each shouting at the top of his or her lungs, "I didn't get everything I wanted."

Guess what...you never will. That's life. In normal life, if you blow up every time you don't get what you want, you'll get fired from a series of jobs and end up on the street. (Unless, that is, your family is rich, in which case you get to run for president on the Republican ticket.) So of course you don't act this way with your co-workers and family. But something about politics leads people to think they have the God-given right to turn off their self-controll and "express" themselves, the form of this expression all-too-often now resembling a sort of primal scream therapy.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

1) martin_849, I am a 42-year-old who has been supporting the Democratic Party for a quarter of a century--and never once in that entire time has our "turn" come. So don't you smugly lecture me about priorities. There is ALWAYS some excuse for straight Democrats to toss the gay community under the bus.

------------
Dear uh-huhh, I am a 49-year-old you has been supporting the Democratic Party for 31 years. My personal "turn" has never come either, even though I've given easily over $10,000 to the left and have worked for the Democrats practically every election. I want a single-payer plan, I want much higher standards of regulation on our food, on Wall Street, on insurance companies, and so forth.

But you know what? I'm still going to work for the Democrats, because the progress that has been made over the last 18 months will probably get undone if the Republicans win, and our country could even settle in several notches lower in the humaneness scale, as happened with Reagan and company. You were too young to vote then; I remember that everyone on the left assumed that Reagan couldn't win, then that there was no difference between Carter and Reagan, then that Reagan was too extremist to be successful. And at the end of the day we all lost, as a consensus that our society should be moving toward greater social progress was shattered for the next generation. Don't let this happen again.

--------

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Reading some of these comments...causes deep concern. You people are whacko. I never really paid much heed to Fox or right-wingers, but I have to say that, if anything, they UNDER-represent the maniac left. Some of you belong in another time and definitely another country. You guys rely on the government to solve EVERY problem in the world...some that just aren't ready to be solved - that mere laws cannot fix.

Posted by: travisturner4 | September 18, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Reading some of these comments...causes deep concern. You people are whacko. I never really paid much heed to Fox or right-wingers, but I have to say that, if anything, they UNDER-represent the maniac left. Some of you belong in another time and definitely another country. You guys rely on the government to solve EVERY problem in the world...some that just aren't ready to be solved - that mere laws cannot fix.

Posted by: travisturner4 | September 18, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Nice condescension, GeorgeSaunders. Do you find that to be an effective tactic in motivating people to give and work for the party?

Please spare me the pathetic talking points about how Obama just needs time and is doing all he can. Whatever! His team made the deliberate decision not only to shelve every major gay-rights promise he made but to actively sabotage anyone else's efforts to proceed on any of them.

Let's see, there's the simple employment discrimination bill that polls in the upper 80s and has been languishing in Congress for nearly 40 years. What happened with that one? Ordered killed by Obama, and the hearings and markups were canceled.

How about health care reform. That's an overlooked one. Simple language to preclude discrimination and to treat domestic partner health insurance the same as spousal coverage for tax purposes. Passed the House. Could have gone into reconciliation and easily passed. Obama ordered both provisions killed. And do know what that will ultimately mean? The slow strangulation of private-sector domestic partner coverage as a result of the interaction of health care reform and the Defense of Marriage Act. The administration realizes that, and doesn't care.

Then there's Obama Justice Department. It is aggressively pushing every court in the country to rule that gays and lesbians have no constitutional right to the equal protection of the law--that we are constitutional outcasts against whom government can choose to discriminate based on any passing whim. The behavior of the Justice Department poses an existential threat to our constitutional rights.

And how about that Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Nothing at all for the first year, except revising the White House website to change the promise from "end" DADT to "responsibly change." You might've thought they'd get their gay-bashing Pentagon "study" underway early, no? No, that has to be started in mid-2010 and deliberately set to conclude after the November election so it can be used as an excuse for sabotaging repeal legislation throughout this session of Congress. We got some pretty words in January from the president, promising repeal "this year," but then there was that White House meeting two weeks later, telling the sycophantic gay appendages of the Democratic Party that repeal was never happening this year. Obama pressed to have hearings canceled, repeal measures killed. And now we're left with a pathetic half-measure and no time to pass even that.

We helped create historically unusual supermajorities for this party and president--supermajorities neither party has seen in decades. It was unsustainable. The opening two years of the administration was inevitably going to be the high-water mark--the time when anything controversial had to get done. It was the window of opportunity. But despite decades of contributions, hard work, and loyal support, this party and this president deliberately sabotaged every major issue.

Don't you dare lecture me.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

2) ceefer66, you are a perfect example of the petulant mocking hostility of straight Democrats when told that--after a quarter of century of raping the gay community for cash and support while doing nothing in return--your tab has finally come do.

Yes, it was much easier for you when you could mock, belittle, and fearmonger the gay community into support you in exchange for nothing, wasn't it? Too bad for you but those days are OVER. Don't you dare preed and priss and lecture and mock and lamely tell me about all the supposed gay friends you have. You obviously have no clue how aggressively hostile toward the gay community this administration of political homophobes has been. What I want--demand--is full and equal inclusion in this party of exploiting, gay-bashing, self-centered straight Democrats.

And until I get that, you can get off your computer and go make up the $50K that I raised in '08 and won't be raising this cycle or next. Let me know come November how your messiah's strategy of mocking, betraying, belittling, and bashing the gay community into rallying behind him works for you.
----

Dear ceefer66,

Your post is disgusting. The Democratic party didn't "rape" you out of your money--at least keep your metaphors straight. You gave money to them. Thing were much worse for gay people when you started supporting Democrat, and they are much better now. The Republicans, despite their having a strong contingent of "log-cabin" gay Republicans, decided to make homosexuality a wedge issue in election after election. They are the ones who have used gay people more harshly than Democrats have. The party is still full of gay-haters, so I hope you don't help them win this next election.

I don't remember Democrats "mocking" and "belittling" gay people in order to get their support...why on earth would they do this, then ask for their support. Again, you're mixing metaphors. Yes, I have no idea how "aggressively hostile toward the gay community this administration of political homophobes has been," because it hasn't been. It sounds as though you've been living on another planet the last two years. And does the group of "gay-bashing, self-centered Democrats" also include Barney Frank? Why on earth would you want or demand entry into this club you hate so much?

The closing line is really over the top. Since when has President Obama ever "bashed" the gay community.

Get a handle on yourself and on your rhetoric. If you want to sit and fume and watch the Republicans take over, fine. From your posting you sound toxic to work with. But maybe you only act like this in anonymous posts.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the president would be happier in the top-down GOP where everybody marches in lockstep and says yes, sir and no, sir, and where accountability is unheard of. It's quite possible he'd be more comfortable.

That's not to say that the Democrats are particularly big on accountability either, sad to say.

Posted by: nicekid | September 18, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama himself has stated that he needs people to hold him to a higher standard. He acknowledges that he almost has to be "motivated" to make correct decisions. It required this type of pressure to get Warrens appointed. With his handling of the wars and the economy Obama has given progressives plenty to complain about. But I don't think progressives have any illusion about the incompetence, greed and corruption of the GOP. The right wing and the media along with the political pro's set a absurdly low bar for BUSH, and he managed to achieve it.

Posted by: dfdougherty | September 18, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Yup. Nothing like the Dumberals to crash and burn!!!

November WILL be SWEET!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | September 18, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

GeorgeSaunders: If you want to sit and fume and watch the Republicans take over, fine.
___________________

I fully intend to. Our legislation will be as dead then as it is now. But it will be sell-out Democrats' first taste of what it feels like under the bus, where they eagerly threw us 20 months ago.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Don't you dare lecture me.
uh_huhh

_______________

Don't you dare threaten me.

I'm not trying to be a cheerleader; I am trying to provide rational reasons for acting rationally in support of progressive goals.

I find your rhetoric of being "stabbed in the back" completely useless in motivating fellow Democrats. Once you've used that figure of speech, how can you work for the Democrats again. Do you suddenly tell everyone, "Oh, I was only joking." This extremist rhetoric has got to stop.

You ignored what I earlier wrote about the dangers of using reconciliation--what takes only 51 votes to do takes only 51 votes to undo. Apparently you are now doing your best to give the Republicans a majority now.

You talk about "the simple employment discrimination bill that polls in the upper 80s and has been languishing in Congress for nearly 40 years" as though such a bill can be magically passed with the snap of a finger. If it has been languishing in Congress for 40 years, there is a good reason. President Obama already passed a moderate health care plan, an issue that waited sixty years to solve, and he's being battered in the polls for it.

You're right that the supermajority status of the Democratic party was unusual. But you also have to remember that it lasted only eight months, because the Republican loser in Minnesota used the courts to hold up Franken's swearing-in. During this period, the world economic system was melting down. President Obama didn't put this on the front plate of his campaign promises because neither he nor any of the other candidates knew how bad the disaster was going to be. So he takes over the presidency with the American economy literally falling to pieces. It takes months to put the pieces together, and instead of another great depression, we are lucky enough to be in a bad recession.

Then the health care bill--the single payer plan never had the support of 60 Democratic Senators, which was needed for it to pass. Read what I said about reconciliation; it's not even certain that reconciliation could be used to pass the bill, no matter what you say, and the entire bill might quickly have been overturned via a court challenge. The health care bill took 10 months to pass and severely damaged President Obama's popularity, owing to a campaign of open lies and deception by the Republicans. He would be much more popular today if he hadn't tried to pass the bill, but I'm glad he did. Millions of Americans will now have access to medical care that didn't before.

Can you get this through your head--President Obama has passed in 18 months more major progressive legislation than any president in 50 years? But people will still gripe, "he didn't give us everything we wanted."

And guess what-the "we" that created the supermajorities include people other than yourself.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Really?
Stop apologizing for him and joining the chorus of idiots who try to make real progressives feel bad when we actually ask this guy to do something progressive?
"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste"- ANY DEMOCRAT could have pulled off the legislation that was pulled off during this administration so far. The president did little to guide healthcare- he gave it to the party- if he had pushed or negotiated- starting not with a public option but with single payer (medicare for all)- we would have some legislation now that actually regulated the health insurance companies so that they couldn't charge crazy rates to people- we just gave them more forced customers and told them they better play nice.
The banking regulation needed to do more not to please the liberals- it needed to do more to prevent the problems that occurred- but he did little to push for the parts needed. The stimulus package needed to put money into the economy, yet 40% was tax breaks- because this man either doesn't care about progressive legislation (and his history in the Senate/state senate is not particularly ambitiously progressive) or he doesn't understand that when you walk into the used car dealer willing to spend $5000, you don't make your first negotiating offer at $5000- he doesn't know how to negotiate. He is politically scared to take on immigration, gun control or human rights for homosexuals.

Regardless, W had a little of his own agenda, but almost didn't address the needs of his conservative base. And they pushed him and he went further and further rightward because they did- which sucked for the country because their answers were wrong- but their politics worked.

In other words- you and others need to stop telling me and REAL PROGRESSIVES- i have been at this since I was 13 years old in the Mondale campaign- that your newfound diety is flawless and we can't comment when he doesn't perform well. He needs to step up. We have to push him to step up.

Posted by: NYClefty | September 18, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

I see a lot of passionate liberals here basing the president on healthcare, gay rights, etc. At the end f the day, outside of being FDR, governing is about compromise. Leadershio is about compromise and still getting what is inportant. Boo hoo - a public option ws not i the health care bill. Making sure insureers cover pre-existing condidtions, getting 13M people insured - those are wins.

Gay rights - you have the most supportive presidnet who sees these rights are paramount to equality for all.

TARP - When large, very large banks are failing, a "bail out" IS required. You think unemployment is bad now, what would have happened if we did not use TARP to continue to support banks that support small business, own student loans, own mortages? They go under the the trickle down of the economic impact gets worse. These bansk (mostly) are paying the US back right now as they are audited and stremlined

The man has other priorities and a two term Pres gets far more accomplished thatn a one term pres. HE still has to govern from the center and is tryig to govern from the center left in a very hostile environemnet. Help him succeed.

Posted by: cadam72 | September 18, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

GeorgeSaunders: If you want to sit and fume and watch the Republicans take over, fine.
___________________

I fully intend to. Our legislation will be as dead then as it is now. But it will be sell-out Democrats' first taste of what it feels like under the bus, where they eagerly threw us 20 months ago.

Posted by: uh_huhh |
---------------
Then we'll all be so happy, won't we, all licking our own wounds and blaming each other for our failure.

One problem with elements of the American left is that they are habituated to losing. They would rather lose an election and remain pure, allowing the society to become inhumane, than do what it takes to win and hold on to power, making the society a bit more inhumane--it's all or nothing.

If you are the party in power, you get behind the leader of your party. You hold discussion and disagree and spar, but when push comes to shove, you work with the leader of your party. If you don't know how to do this or don't want to do this, then you are incapable of being the ruling party; it's as simple as that.

You can come up with all sorts of theories about how everything should be done differently in your imaginary world, but you won't get anything done. Democracy is a messy, imperfect system that requires majorities, coalitions, and horse-trading, and you'll never get everything you want.

Stop dreaming about doing what you want done and work effectively toward getting as much of it done as possible.

But if you want to sit out the next election and let the Republicans win, then I say, good riddance.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

GeorgeSaunders: And guess what-the "we" that created the supermajorities include people other than yourself.
_____________________

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Those are the people who, once again, gave in to the temptation to use the old bait-and-switch on the gay community, exploited our support, and then, when in office, governed exclusively for themselves and by their own priorities.

They are welcome to try to maintain control by themselves.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

TARP - When large, very large banks are failing, a "bail out" IS required. You think unemployment is bad now, what would have happened if we did not use TARP to continue to support banks that support small business, own student loans, own mortages? They go under the the trickle down of the economic impact gets worse. These bansk (mostly) are paying the US back right now as they are audited and stremlined

Posted by: cadam72 | September 18, 2010 8:23 AM |
---------

cadam72,

bravo on your post. I wanted to remind everyone, though, that TARP (the bank bailout bill) was not President Obama's legislation. It was created, passed, and signed by George W. Bush, and most of the money was distributed--without proper paperwork--by the Bush administration. What the Obama administration changed was 1) raising the requirements for paying the TARP funds back, so that taxpayers lost billions less than they would have under McCain, 2) used TARP funds to help ordinary Americans, which I doubt the Republicans would have ever agreed to.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

GeorgeSaunders: And guess what-the "we" that created the supermajorities include people other than yourself.
_____________________

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Those are the people who, once again, gave in to the temptation to use the old bait-and-switch on the gay community, exploited our support, and then, when in office, governed exclusively for themselves and by their own priorities.

They are welcome to try to maintain control by themselves.

Posted by: uh_huhh |
--------------
No, they include millions of Americans like myself who had no intention to play a bait-and-switch on the gay community, but who support equal rights for all Americans. We're not going to get there overnight, though, and you're doing your best to take us backwards. Just think how supportive President Palin will be of gay marriage.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

GeorgeSaunders: They would rather lose an election and remain pure
____________________

Nope. It has nothing to do with purity. I've been compromising gay interests for the sake of precious party unity for 24 years in the vain hope of the party ever feeling some pang of obligation to keep any promise to the gay community. It has not happened. The appalling record of sabotage by this administration has finally convinced me that it never will happen. Working, contributing, cooperating, and begging has failed. And it will continue to fail because as long as we're willing to be doormats for straight Democrats, they'll keep taking our money and support and wiping their feet on our faces.

No, it isn't purity. It is ending a decades-long cycle of domestic violence by finally choosing to walk out the door and leave the batterer to scream mocking, belittling obscenities over his loss of control. You've completely taken our support for granted--even going so far as to smugly tell us we'll take whatever abuse you dish our and like it because we have nowhere else to go. Well, guess what? The GOP is not welcoming, but it has become sufficiently reluctant to gay-bash that Democratic fearmongering has lost its power. And those of us who got battered for decades and couldn't do much about it have not forgotten the indignity of being coerced into submitting to the abuse. You had your chance to make up for that history in this Congress, but you chose to engage in yet another cycle of battery. This orgy of domestic abuse even included court filing after court filing denying our equal constitutional rights. Well, as far as I'm concerned, this was the last orgy of anti-gay domestic violence that I will ever take from this party.

You want support, stop the abuse and exploitation. And if you won't, the next step is disruption of your events. Begging failed. It's time to see if fear is a stronger motivator.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

GeorgeSaunders: We're not going to get there overnight, though, and you're doing your best to take us backwards. Just think how supportive President Palin will be of gay marriage.
________________

Do you really not yet get that these stock tactics no longer work?

Obama just needs more time? More time to file more anti-gay briefs. More time to order more bills killed and hearings canceled. More time to pass every non-gay item on the party agenda first. Whatever.

President Palin? Yep. Standard pathetic Democratic fear-mongering. That's how you've shaken down the gay community for support for decades. Sorry. It doesn't work anymore. But having deliberately tossed the gay community under the bus after every election, I do understand that fear-mongering is the only motivational tactic the party has. Telling a court that our relationships are equivalent to incest and pedophilia last year kind of drove a stake through the heart of that whole, to borrow a phrase, hopey changey thing.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 18, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I've never seen politicians go into an election insulting there base? This is like political malpractice on the part of the White House political team. I mean you know Mitch McConnell thinks the teabaggers are crazy and asking for unrealistic policies, but you don't see him insulting them! I guess Obama was right when he said he rather feel he's right and be a one-termer, because look around you, its mostly just us the "petulant left" supporting your administration! smh!

Posted by: bravestar360 | September 18, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

More proof that Obama is a selfish, out of touch elitist that believes himself superior to all the little people that elected him.

Posted by: surgres | September 18, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

The extreme ideologues, left and right, are insatiable. They both are competing to follow their fellow lemming over the edge the quickest.

What's a moderate to do? I have been gathering field data groundwater issues for in a NE location for a decade now. The tree huggers want me to declare a water emergency. The conservatives want to ignore the problem. I want to say we have an adequate water supply if we use it responsibly.

The extremists want a whole loaf and are insulted when they get a half a loaf. To mix metaphors, "They look a gift loaf in the mouth."

I sympathize with Pres Obama. How do you convince the independents, moderates that this is where you stand without publicly saying so? "They" speak of the far left as the base of the Democratic Party; I would hope that the base is the Middle of the Road.

Posted by: stanassc | September 18, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

In a way I do not blame the Prez for his statements, but on the other hand, we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq and Guantanimo is still in business holding people in perpetual incarceration with no trail or chance of freedom wether guilty or not. And, we are still spending hundreds of billions of our tax dollars on military crap to keep the defense industry alive in a form of welfare.

Posted by: jrnberrycharternet | September 18, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Quotes from Obama's alter ego - Spiro his hero.

This is the criminal left that belongs not in a dormitory, but in a penitentiary.

A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.

In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb.
Spiro T. Agnew

Posted by: alance | September 18, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Whoa, hot head Stromberg .. Jane Hamsher was on MSNBC last night and and her head didn't explode! She made rational and brilliant sense. What's so pathetic about you sorry Obama hacks is that what she is fighting for is nothing more than the same health care system that has been in place for years in less warmongering nations such as the EU, Canada, even an eternally at war Israel ..

I wonder what the greatest presidential cuckhold in history will have left to tout when he goes around the nation campaigning for a second term -- his promises broken?
Along with losing our faith, making appallingly impolitic comments, weekly almost, what will he have to show for himself..

The Democrats, or former Demorats sneered at and disrespected "The Base" is bigger than you think, mister!

Maybe Obama can change just parties - become a Republican and in the process become an honest man for a change. He's more like Bush, actually worse than Bush and for sure, Obama is NOT a statesman, a quality our nation so desperately needs in our Head of State.

Posted by: mimosa1 | September 18, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

staterighter
"He has passed a healthcare bill that has raised the price of health insurance to record levels in record time. A financial reform bill that reforms nothing and has succeeded in flatting out the growth that was starting to occur."

DC Sage wrote: The President ushered in healthcare reform because it was the right thing to do. If the price of health insurance has risen, it was health insurance company pimps that raised prices.

Financial insurance company reform helps to insulate the taxpayers from rip-offs by Wall street pimps. The stock market is doing fine, working people who have 401k plans are seeing very reasonable perfomance with their investments. Most of your criticisms of President Obama are just nonsense talking points made up by the do-nothing party of no.

The do-nothings have no solutions, no ideas and they just don't want to do anything about anything.

Posted by: DCSage | September 18, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Do a Google Search on 1774 Tea Party and see what you get! In 1774 a rabble of farmers, and others, started a movement that created the Greatest Society known to man - THE USA. And, 15 years later the Constitution of the United States was written, and still in use!!

Not bad for a few unorganized leaderless mostly illiterate colonists! Yes, with sticks and prayers they started the greatest revolution known to man, and beat out the greatest government in the world at that time - The British Royalty!

Bring on the Naysayers!!

Posted by: jjcrocket14 | September 18, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I am a mathematician as well as a member of the left. I tell my daughters that I stand slightly to the right of Leon Trotsky. But what I really am is a realist. I like data. The trouble with all of the comments here today as with many of the columns in the Post and NY Times is that they are data free. The reason those of us on the left are unhappy with Obama is not only that he does not talk about the facts, but he acts in contradiction to them. Here are two of many such:

1. All other industrialized countries have some form of universal government run health care. They get better care as measured by all the bottom line public health statistics, and they do it at half the cost per person. If our system were as efficient, we would save about $1.3 TRILLION each year. Problem solved.

2. In 1946 the debt was 120% of the GDP, It went straight down to about 32% in 1973. During this period 1946 - 1973 taxes were much higher. Marginal rates were at least 70%; they were 93% under Eisenhower. The economy was better than what we now have. For example, median wages went up 3 times as fast as since 1973. CEO's earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today. Staring in 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 10%, 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an ever increasing rate. We need, we must have much higher taxes on the Rich.

Are we suppose to surpress the facts? I certainly prefer Obama to any Republican. They have zero contact with reality, but I will continue to state the facts and try to get the Democrats to face them.

Posted by: lensch | September 18, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Don't insult progressives with your drivel here. Go hack for Obama somewhere else. Stop name-calling.

Progressive know a fraud when they see one.
Yes Obama doesn't reek like most of the Republicans do but he still stinks.

Posted by: cougartonyusa | September 18, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I usually distrust people who changes his or her name every five or six years.

Posted by: ypcchiu | September 18, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Petulant left?

More like tantrum-throwing spoiled brats and Obama himself is the biggest crybaby of all time.

Posted by: Jerzy | September 18, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Jerzy: ... Oh the irony of your statement! ! There is absolutely no conduct on the "left" that even remotely compares to the fits and rages and threats and fear mongering spewed out by the GOP's fascists and politicians on Fox and hate radio and websites, all on an hourly basis. Listened to Newt lately, or Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin just to name a few little drops in the right-wing nut cast of thousands.

Posted by: mimosa1 | September 18, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I understand there is much more to do,
but will be the first to say when I was starving in the road with special diet needs and a rollator,( I now have osteo and other conditions cant be fixed) I couldn't find a damn soul including begging for advocacy at a huge and popular progressive church to help repair the disability discriminations in shelter and housing and social services..

Advocates who are funded to represent the most vulnerable are out there protesting on these other issues on the clock and then don't have time for good training or representation on the funded work.

People who can are often narrowly focused on marriage and art and sports and beaches and oh yeah pot highs for all -
Even now many basic needs not met knowing I lost everything and my life is good as over without good help, there is no real help or repair,but they ask all the time to help support causes that do not address basic unmet needs in us, that aren't surviving well.

Many in Both ends of the political spectrum TEA and FAR LEFT show this- my needs are the most important and if you don't give me what i want, NOW,FIRST I'll undermine you, cut off my nose to spite my face- attitude.

While understanding the feeling of needs not being met,I also wonder is a large part of USA's adults mentality not much different than that of spoiled, self absorbed teeny boppers?

Do we first need a "Grow Up, America!" campaign before any other?

Posted by: macdoodled | September 18, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:


Saunders: They would rather lose an election and remain pure
____________________
Nope. It has nothing to do with purity. I've been compromising gay interests for the sake of precious party unity for 24 years in the vain hope of the party ever feeling some pang of obligation to keep any promise to the gay community. It has not happened. The appalling record of sabotage by this administration…

No, it isn't purity. It is ending a decades-long cycle of domestic violence by finally choosing to walk out the door and leave the batterer to scream mocking, belittling obscenities over his loss of control. You've completely taken our support for granted--even going so far as to smugly tell us we'll take whatever abuse you dish our….

This orgy of domestic abuse even included court filing after court filing denying our equal constitutional rights. Well, as far as I'm concerned, this was the last orgy of anti-gay domestic violence that I will ever take from this party.
You want support, stop the abuse and exploitation. And if you won't, the next step is disruption of your events. Begging failed. It's time to see if fear is a stronger motivator.

----------

An endless list of over-the-top complaints. You've obviously personalized your disappointments with the political process to the point that anyone in the Democratic party who doesn't do what you want is abusing you. Sorry, we don't all get what we want in life. But you know what, not all of us throw a temper tantrum when this happens.

What is most offensive about this is that you are trying to use peoples' sympathy for real physical and psychological abuse of domestic partners to dramatize your experiences with the political process. You don't have the right to this; this is nearly as bad as screaming that the Democrats are abusing you the way Hitler did the Jews. Have you no shame?

And now you're threatening revenge on the Democrats--what, violence?

I don't think the Democratic party needs unstable people like you working for it. As I said earlier, good riddance.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The problem the progressive's have with the President is that they THINK they are his base.

The Gay Rights folks think they are his base.

The Anti-War crowed think they are his base.

The Right to Choose people think they are his base.

The pro immigration/ pro (racial) civil rights groups think they are his base.

The anti-poverty people think they are his base.

The are not.

The President has ONE base:
Union members
(preferably government employee union members)

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 18, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

It was a corrupt Republican administration and now remains the same, no change stupid.We have the right and obligation to pressure these people we elected to delivery on their promises or else, these f...ing retarded people work for us..

Posted by: rappahanock | September 18, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

ANY DEMOCRAT could have pulled off the legislation that was pulled off during this administration so far. The president did little to guide healthcare- he gave it to the party- if he had pushed or negotiated- starting not with a public option but with single payer (medicare for all)- we would have some legislation now ...
Posted by: NYClefty | September 18, 2010
-------

NYClefty,

If any Democratic president could have passed the legislation President Obama has passed, then why hasn't any Democratic president passed it? Why did we have to wait, for example, sixty years for a comprehensive health care plan?

We've had two chances to pass this sort of legislation since 1970: during Carter's presidency and during the first two years of Clinton's presidency. During Carter's presidency the Democratic legislators descended into squabbling and ego battles. Clinton spent much of his political capitol passing NAFTA and couldn't even get his health care bill out of the committee.

This time, the Democrats stayed focused actually got much, though not all, of their program passed. Do you think President Obama had nothing to do with any of this? Have you bothered to read about how many meetings he had with the Congress and conversations with individual Congressmen and -women? He was deeply involved with the health care legislation throughout; he chose the tactic he did because he and his team studied the failures of the Clinton attempt and tried to learn from them. And he succeeded, whereas Clinton did not. This "any president could have..." nonsense is childish and tiresome.

I appreciate your passion, but there's an air of unreality to everything you write. You are precisely exemplifying the behavior President Obama was joking about. Every legislative accomplishment in your opinion could have been done better. You have a plan that would have passed the single payer plan. So why aren't you in Congress now realizing your brilliant plans?

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Stromberg should save his snarky adolescent scribblings for Facebook or Twitter. This sounds like something a preppie teen would write. Derision of smart and principled people with preteen lingo like "exploding heads" should be beneath the standards of a national paper.

The writer really doesn't get it. Obama seems to be descending to almost Nixonian levels of suspicion, unfounded resentments and blaming perceived "adversaries" for his own failures. Obama is sinking like a rock and dragging the party down with him because he failed to acknowledge or even attempt to understand the principles that are core and important to not only the Democratic base but all concerned voters. Not only did Obama dismiss the concerns of the base, he actively and deceptively destroyed real progress with backroom deals. Obama should quit blaming the left for his demise and redirect his ire at the Big Money interests he conspired with in backrooms and who are now turning against him.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

It was a corrupt Republican administration and now remains the same, no change stupid.We have the right and obligation to pressure these people we elected to delivery on their promises or else, these f...ing retarded people work for us..

Posted by: rappahanock | September 18, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse
-----------

Gee, you must be a wonderful person to work for. In your business, do you hang around with the other managers joking about the "f...ing retarded people" who work for you?

I've got news for you, bud. Politicians don't work for you personally. They should be working for the local and state and national offices they were elected for. This always involves balancing out competing interests. You are one interest among many. You are not the boss. Sorry.

As for your "It was a corrupt Republican administration and now remains the same," obviously you think the Republicans would have been glad to pass a health care law, Wall Street reform, credit card reform, and dozens of other progressive bills. And it's just as obvious that you are either ignorant or deranged.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm a centrist, not a liberal, so according to those on the outer portions of BOTH sides of the political divide, I'm a soulless, spineless, compromising wimp who stands for nothing and consequently deserves as much contempt as can be heaped upon him . . . Not surprisingly, I disagree with that assessment, but whatever . . .

But I'm also a pragmatist not rendered sightless by ideological blinders, and here's what I see: the field WILL be won by the GOP and the Tea Partiers, a prospect which fills me with nausea. Despite whatever extent to which I tend toward fiscal conservatism, I still cannot endorse the GOP and the Tea Partiers because the former got us into this mess and have no rational plan for governing--only obstructionism--and the latter favor what Michael Gerson (a conservative himself) calls radical libertarianism.

SO: those progressives (the vast majority of which are NOT radical Marxists, you wingnut morons!) who will refuse to vote in November because they would have to hold their noses and vote for candidates who have disappointed them had better be prepared to eat endless steaming plates of the even more foul-smelling substance which will be served up in the wake of GOP victories in November 2010 and (particularly) 2012.

More ideologically pure meadow muffins are not what we need now. An intelligent person will choose the lesser of evils when the greater evil is truly appalling. You think the Repubs will give you what you want, EVER?

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | September 18, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The piece is right, of course, in what it says, but what it leaves out is what most analysts omit. The deeper truth relates not to a flaw with Obama and his achievements but to the fact that the political system is structurally deformed by the excessive influence of corporate and group-interest lobbies and by big money that helps get support and votes. Obama has perhaps done the best he could under the circumstances, but he is limited by corruption in the political system itself.

Posted by: kenc1 | September 18, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Quotes from Obama's alter ego - Spiro his hero.

This is the criminal left that belongs not in a dormitory, but in a penitentiary.

A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.

In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb.
Spiro T. Agnew

Posted by: alance | September 18, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

---------

Alance,

Where in any of these quotations is there the slightest resemblance to what President Obama has been saying beyond that fact that all the sentences contain at least one noun and one verb. Are you completely unable to read critically? In President Obama's jokes about the demands of the left, where do you see his demand that leftists be put in a penitentiary? Where? It's not there. Maybe you see some similarity, but then again, maybe you're just seeing things.

Where does this sort of extremist rhetoric get anyone? I'm assuming that you vote Democratic; otherwise, you would probably be full of praise for Obama for resembling one of your political heroes. So why are you wasting your energies coming up with catty lines about our Democratic president instead of working to make sure the Republicans don't win this next election?

I wonder if half of these comments are not coming from right-wingers pretending to be left wingers.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, post_reader_in_wv, for your comments. Finally there's some sanity around here.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Hi little winky wonky republican. Guess the Washington Post lost all it's bipartisian ways when the republican corporation bought out an honorable newspaper. I have to go throw up now.

Posted by: msealock | September 18, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse


What! obama is the petulant one. He's a big, finger-pointing, whining, Bush-blaming baby. He's unaccountable ("Come on guys. We're buying shrimp"), and as a narcissist, aghast that the rest of the country doesn't buy into his socialism/hate America/racist vision.

Posted by: wmpowellfan | September 18, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse


What! obama is the petulant one. He's a big, finger-pointing, whining, Bush-blaming baby. He's unaccountable ("Come on guys. We're buying shrimp"), and as a narcissist, aghast that the rest of the country doesn't buy into his socialism/hate America/racist vision.

Posted by: wmpowellfan | September 18, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

He's a one-term sell-out & back-stabber. Good riddance. Hey Hillary - My Bad!!!

Posted by: question-guy | September 18, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

RESPONDING TO:

GeorgeSaunders: We're not going to get there overnight, though, and you're doing your best to take us backwards. Just think how supportive President Palin will be of gay marriage.
________________

Do you really not yet get that these stock tactics no longer work?

Obama just needs more time? More time to file more anti-gay briefs. More time to order more bills killed and hearings canceled. More time to pass every non-gay item on the party agenda first. Whatever.

President Palin? Yep. Standard pathetic Democratic fear-mongering.

------------

Which anti-gay briefs? You mean briefs that specifically pick out gay people for discriminatory treatment? Or briefs that you don't support, that you've chosen to characterize as "anti-gay" briefs?

We've got two electable parties. One. the Republican party, is for "traditional family values" and has tried to made a wedge issue out of homosexuality for the last two decades. The other, the Democratic party, is for equal treatment for all. Palin and Romney and the rest of the Republicans have fallen all over themselves conjuring up the decay of America if gay marriage should ever be allowed. What person in his or her right mind would not expect them to fight gay marriage once elected?

You may characterize a sane political prediction as fear-mongering, but that's because your entire line of reasoning, if I may so dignify it, is based on your emotional reactions. You feel raped, you feel abused, you feel bashed. And we're all supposed to weep in sympathy. Well, try filing a domestic violence complaint against the Democratic Party and see how seriously the police take you.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The Post publishes Bush Jr/Cheney Administration lackeys and bootlickers like Marc Thiessen, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, publishes Obama Administration lackey and bootlicker Stephen Stromberg, who apparently believes in the strategy of "just shut up and clap harder for all the good work Obama's done for the corporations and unprosecuted lawbreakers in the previous Administration".

For all the whiners in these comments pushing the "Oh, Obama's only the President, what power does he really have with a recalcitrant Congress when it comes to health care legislation and other regulatory matters?", well, that strategy of letting not-so-holy Joe Lieberman keep his DHS Senate Committee Chairmanship as a reward for actively campaigning against Obama and the Democrats sure paid off spectacularly, didn't it?

All that talk of "Lieberman now owes Obama big time" proved to be nothing more than easily-debunked blather and hot air, as he stabbed the President and Democrats in the back repeatedly.

Of course, as Lieberman later said, Obama put NO pressure on him at all when it came to health care legislation, which meant the watered down giveaway to the health insurers, who will now be receiving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually, was the bill Obama, corporatist that he is, wanted all along.

And since Obama doesn't believe in accountability when it comes to prosecuting powerful entities, that means we're dependent upon nothing but corporate good will to do the right thing for health insurance policy holders.

Of course, we saw what power Obama CAN yield in the case of Ben Bernanke.

When it looked like Bernanke's term at the fed was over, Obama twisted arms and cracked heads, and as a result, Bernanke is now heading up the Federal Reserve for another term.

Rahm Emanuel apologized to Sarah Palin for his "f*ing retarded" remark, but NOT to the liberals that insult was aimed at, yet another sure sign of this Administration's complete contempt for the Democrats liberal and labor union base.

Not bringing EFCA up was a slap at the face of the labor unions the Democratic party takes for granted these days.

What makes these insults to the liberals and labor unions even more egregious is that it's us liberals who are pushing back the hardest at the extreme right wing teabaggers and wingnuts who demonized the Democratic party and President in a never ending orgy of overheated rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories. We got more upset with the gun-toting thugs attempting to intimidate those they disagreed with at the health care town hall rallies last year than the Dem. leadership or Obama Administration.

But lets see how well the Democrats do with it's blue dog base, instead of the liberals and labor unions, doing the GOTV efforts, no doubt the party will increase its majorities in the Congress, at least according to liberal-hating, "clap harder" lackeys like Stromberg that will be the inevitable outcome.

Posted by: kingcranky | September 18, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Great commentary. As a progressive I am very glad to have Obama in the White House. Does anyone really think, given where we are in this country politically, we are going to have a more progressive president than Obama any time soon? We had better wake up and get energized for the fall election.

Posted by: sheltow | September 18, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Responding to mimosa1:

What's so pathetic about you sorry Obama hacks is that what she is fighting for is nothing more than the same health care system that has been in place for years in less warmongering nations such as the EU, Canada, even an eternally at war Israel ..
_____
RESPONSE: It's very nice that you want us to have the same health care system as the as the EU and Canada and Israel. (Ours under the new health care plan will basically be like that of Switzerland...did you ever think of that?) But how concretely do you propose passing a bill to give us an insurance system "just like the Europeans" and survive the next election? You can't just snap your fingers and make this happen. This sort of attitude is juvenile.

------
I wonder what the greatest presidential cuckhold in history will have left to tout when he goes around the nation campaigning for a second term -- his promises broken?
Along with losing our faith, making appallingly impolitic comments, weekly almost, what will he have to show for himself..
------
RESPONSE: Now let's see, Candidate Obama spoke about health care reform (without the single payer plan as a necessary component), about increasing our troop strength in Afghanistan and withdrawing from Iraq, about building green jobs, about re-building out infrastructure. Every one of those things he has delivered on in the first 18 months. Candidate Bill Clinton campaigned on a health care plan and even promised the nation in his first State of the Union address that any bill without a comprehensive insurance would never be signed by him. This was true--the bill never got out of committee, and the entire effort was a failure. One of the main reasons for this failure was that President Clinton put passing Republican NAFTA legislation ahead of the health care plan he had promised his Democratic supporters. He later became the leader of the Republican initiative to end Welfare. In eight years he passed almost no major Democratic legislation.

So how again is President Obama the "greatest cuckold" in history? In fact, your sentence is nonsense because you don't actually know what a "cuckold" is. I'm not going to tell you
what it means...look it up.

-------
The Democrats, or former Demorats sneered at and disrespected "The Base" is bigger than you think, mister!

Maybe Obama can change just parties - become a Republican and in the process become an honest man for a change. He's more like Bush, actually worse than Bush and for sure, Obama is NOT a statesman, a quality our nation so desperately needs in our Head of State.
Posted by: mimosa1 | September 18, 2010 9
------
RESPONSE: Your first sentence is incoherent babbling.

Your closing sentence is logically incoherent and is a run-on.

If President Obama is just like President Bush, then that means the President Bush would have passed a health care law, Wall Street reform, pushed green jobs, passed credit card reform, and withdrawn from Iraq. Dream on.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats - the Lesser Evil."

I'm sure that will fire the passion of the electorate.

I thought fear was supposed to be the tool of the right. But if it's going to become the tool of the left at least have the decency not to use it against the people who put you in office.

Posted by: pdxleft | September 18, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

George Sanders @12:45 PM: "If President Obama is just like President Bush, then that means the President Bush would have passed a health care law, Wall Street reform, pushed green jobs, passed credit card reform, and withdrawn from Iraq. Dream on."

If President Bush had gotten himself involved in health care law, he would have produced the exact same far right bill that Obama came up with. One that essentially cedes individual rights to a huge corporate monopoly that is abusive and a failure.

If President Bush had gotten himself involved in Wall Street "reform" he would have produced the same bankster favorable legislation and giveaways as Obama.

Iraq combat draw down was in place under Bush.

Green jobs? How many of those have been produced?

George Sanders is the one who is dreaming. And FYI, Obama is not centrist - he is far right. The centrist position on health care and supported by the vast majority is Public Option. The left position was Single Payer. The centrist position is accountability for bankers, and an end to the nexus of corruption between corporations and government and government secrecy.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:
The Post publishes Bush Jr/Cheney Administration lackeys and bootlickers like Marc Thiessen, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, publishes Obama Administration lackey and bootlicker Stephen Stromberg, who apparently believes in the strategy of "just shut up and clap harder for all the good work Obama's done for the corporations and unprosecuted lawbreakers..
For all the whiners in these comments pushing the "Oh, Obama's only the President, what power does he really have with a recalcitrant Congress when it comes to health care legislation and other regulatory matters?", well, that strategy of letting not-so-holy Joe Lieberman keep his DHS Senate Committee Chairmanship as a reward for actively campaigning against Obama and the Democrats sure paid off spectacularly...
Rahm Emanuel apologized to Sarah Palin for his "f*ing retarded" remark, but NOT to the liberals that insult was aimed at, yet another sure sign of this Administration's complete contempt for the Democrats liberal and labor union base.

Not bringing EFCA up was a slap at the face of the labor unions the Democratic party takes for granted these days.

What makes these insults to the liberals and labor unions even more egregious is that it's us liberals who are pushing back the hardest at the extreme right wing teabaggers and wingnuts who demonized the Democratic party and President in a never ending orgy of overheated rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories.
kingcranky
----
Kingcranky,
I'm sure you have done valiant work on behalf of progressive causes, but you are not the only one. In three consecutive paragraphs you draw attention to insults directed at you by the administration, which clearly indicates how personally you are offended by various comments by the President and his staff. I don't know about the comment by Emmanuel, who commonly uses profanities, but tell me honestly if you can find a single insult of leftists in President Obama's comments as reported in this article? I don't mean what you perceive as insults, but real insults. There aren't any. In your post you talk about the overheated rhetoric of the right, but here you are indulging in some yourself.

Mind you, this gentle ribbing has come after thousands of vitriolic attacks from some left wingers for being a sell-out, traitor, etc. Each one of these leftists seems to believe that he or she is solely responsible for the President's election.

I am not insulted by President Obama's comments, and I think his points need to be driven home to the progressive wing of the party. We've got to stop attacking the leader of our party for everything he could have or should have done. Every blogger now seems to have the perfect strategy that would have succeeded in passing the perfect version of last year's legislation.

This is adolescent behavior. If we don't learn to act in a disciplined, mature manner, we won't be in power for long. The party of screaming, aggressive babies is waiting in the wings.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is: What did the Republican Party do to help people with no health insurance or who were abused by health insurance companies? What did they do to eliminate Don't Ask/Don't Tell? What did they do to enforce financial regulations and reign in the credit card company abuses?

Health care bills, etc., can be improved but they won't be by the Republicans. They'll be even worse than the obstructionists they've been on every reasonable bill presented so far, including the one for small businesses that should have been passed months ago and finally has been. They don't want anything but to destroy this administration no matter how detrimental their policies are to the people.

We should all be grateful the Democrats were able to get passed what they did and vote MORE in if we want to continue making progress instead of going backwards.

President Obama is a great president who needs more support from the people who have already been helped but have forgotten the Republicans are responsible for the unemployment, etc. We were told it would take some time before we came out of this recession. Above all, we don't want to go back to losing 750,000 jobs each month. Economists support the Stimulus Bill and other economic health efforts because it would have been much worse without them.

Posted by: BettyW1 | September 18, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:
George Sanders @12:45 PM: "If President Obama is just like President Bush, then that means the President Bush would have passed a health care law, Wall Street reform, pushed green jobs, passed credit card reform, and withdrawn from Iraq. Dream on."

If President Bush had gotten himself involved in health care law, he would have produced the exact same far right bill that Obama came up with. One that essentially cedes individual rights to a huge corporate monopoly that is abusive and a failure.

If President Bush had gotten himself involved in Wall Street "reform" he would have produced the same bankster favorable legislation and giveaways as Obama.

Iraq combat draw down was in place under Bush.

Green jobs? How many of those have been produced?

George Sanders is the one who is dreaming. And FYI, Obama is not centrist - he is far right. The centrist position on health care and supported by the vast majority is Public Option. The left position was Single Payer. The centrist position is accountability for bankers, and an end to the nexus of corruption between corporations and government and government secrecy.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse
--------
ophelia3,

I'm sorry, but your post is pure insanity. So why didn't President Bush pass the present health care bill? He had eight years in office, six with a Republican majority. Don't tell me "he coulda done it", but why he didn't if this was "far right" legislation. And if it is a "far right" bill, then why is the entire Republican party screaming that it is socialist? If this is completely a far right bill, then why does it require companies to insure their clients instead of dropping them for serious illnesses or preexistent conditions? After all, companies would make a lot more money if they could continue dropping their clients at will. And where have you ever heard of a Republican plan calling for thousands of community health care centers to serve poor people?

You can define "centrist" position however you want, but that doesn't change the political calculus of passing a bill. Clinton promised us the sky and we got nothing. President Obama promised us improvement, and we got improvement.

President Obama is pushing environmental industries more than any previous president, even more than Carter. This is a fact...don't scoff at facts. For example, all the automakers have dramatically improved their fuel efficiency, something they fought for thirty or more years. Solar and wind power industries are taking off. But he's had only 20 months in office--do you want him to part the Red Sea. Click his fingers and create a million jobs?

Perhaps you've forgotten, but the last presidential campaign echoed with cries that Senator Obama was going to "lose Iraq." Leaving Iraq wasn't in Senator McCain's playbook.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Some thoughts:

It is better to have even a less-than perfect Democratic majority than ANY Republican majority. Don't forget how we got where we are today. Did you enjoy the 6 years of Bush and the Republican Congressional majority? While I am less than thrilled by Obama (I wish that he would be a stronger leader; Hillary would have kicked a$$ and taken names!), he didn't put us in the position that we are in now and I believe that he has honestly tried to fulfill his promises given the hand that he was dealt.

It seems to me that posters like Uh_huhh are somewhat like their counterparts on the religious right who only care about their specific issues. For the religious right it is abortion, school prayer, and the public place of religion. For militant Gays it is Marriage, domestic partner benefits, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Neither group seems to care about the general welfare of the nation as long as their issues are serviced. And, NO! I am not a gay-basher. I support all of their goals, but not to the exclusion of other progressive causes and issues. I just think that Uh-huhh and other like him should seriously consider the alternative and quit being so single-issue oriented.

I, for one, am going to vote the straight Democratic ticket!

Posted by: hakngolfer1 | September 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Bravo, hakngolfer1!

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

George Sanders, unfortunately you are naive and somewhat uninformed.

Bush didn't pass the present health care bill because his advisers were probably a hell of a lot smarter than Rahm. They knew forcing Americans to buy trash insurance from the most hated industry next to bankers was stupid. As far as "requiring" companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you truly are naive. They can charge as much as they want making those policies prohibitive and beyond the means of people with pre-existing conditions. Clinics for poor people? What a joke. A free clinic with some broken down chairs and a waiting list of 12 hours sounds positively third world.

Political calculus? Obama had majorities and he he blew it. He deliberately destroyed public option and Medicare at 55. He had the votes before he lost Mass. and he could have gotten it through reconciliation after.

Environment? Further failure. If automakers are making more fuel efficient cares it is because no one wants to buy gas guzzlers any longer. Copenhagen was a case study in Obama's ineptitude and lack of leadership skills. One could go on.

So Obama has only had 20 months in office and so deserves some slack. Get real. 20 months is almost 2 years and in it he has managed to begin cutting Social Security, eliminating all hope of restoring Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, escalated the war in Afghanistan, bolstered the bankers while ignoring their victims, bolster the insurance and pharmaceutical shysters and crooks....... one could go on and on and on.

Obama is a total unmitigated disaster. The party better wake up and plan their own backroom deals to dump him.

But don't worry Sanders, Obama can probably get a gig bustin' a move on "Dancing with the Stars" along with his buddy Rahm after the Republicans have finished investigating him 24/7 and he loses the presidency for Dems in 2012.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

As a firmly placed member of the "Left Wing," I have been disappointed and dismayed by some of the Obama administration's actions and inactions, but when I get overwrought, I meditate on this simple thought: what would our world, country, and society look like if McCain/Palin were running things??? That's enough to make me thankful that President Obama is in the White House!!

Posted by: Tony83703 | September 18, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Basically this article and all of the apologist quotes are telling me and others who hold a point of view to the left of the president to shut up. It is inconvenient for anyone to be pushing him to do the correct thing. Sorry about that- but I won't be shut up.

Many of you who got behind him during the primary did so with a vitriolic hatred for Clinton for her presumed moderateness- even though her policy proposals were always more ambitious and progressive than his (including the mortgage crisis-

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/5/172224/055/712/418302

yeah- while TARP was negotiated with both administrations 1/2 of the money spent by each administration- to bail out the banks, Hillary had proposed to start with the people who were losing, and continue to lose their homes...bottom up rather than top down. She was also correct that everyone needed to be in the pool for healthcare, and on a whole host of other issues-

but clearly it is better to just reflexively defend your guy even as he runs an administration to the right of not only Clinton, but Nixon- nixon proposed a more progressive hc plan, energy policy, etc. than Barack has been willing to stick his neck out for.

The leader attracted the parade- what we needed to be was a parade that found it's leader. We needed to run on policy- this is what we are going to do- adages, proverbs and slogans. Since we didn't- and he really didn't promise anything- I guess we get what we get- maybe us real progressives should shut up...

Posted by: NYClefty | September 18, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we don't want be in the One War Party and be signed on with the national strategic security plans for multi-national corporate domination...

Posted by: Wildthing1 | September 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

uh_huhh,

Your rant is typical of the neo-urbanist yuppie gay male who expresses his persecution complex-based hostility by lashing out at anyone who dares call him out on his self-importance bull feces. The only thing you left out of your soppy diatribe was to call me a "basher".

As someone already said, you're not Obama's only constituancy and you're not his only concern. He doesn't owe you anymore than he owes the rest of us so grow up and man up, already!.

As a supporter of gay rights - including marriage and the privilege to serve in the military - remind yourself that there are other priorities that are far more important - like people without healthcare - or a means of earning a living, for example. I'm sure you can think of others.

As for my "bill coming do", you would be better served learning to write properly. You can start with spelling and using words in their proper context.

Now, have a happy landing!

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 18, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Fine --but if he were doin' the job, he'd take pride in what's been accomplished and remind us that we should, too -- AND lay out what is left to do, saying this is where we all should be putting energy going forward and reason for electing Dems (who agree).

Rather, all this chastizing begins to sound like a version of "why don't you appreciate ME?"

Posted by: esthermiriam | September 18, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

@uh_huhh

"And until I get that, you can get off your computer and go make up the $50K that I raised in '08 "

No problem, baby boy.

I did better than that the first time around.

Regarding your hostility and paranoia, consider, no, GET therapy. I hear they have drugs that can work wonders.

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 18, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

uh_huhh,

Instead of lashing out at me for calling you out for your ingratitude, you should thank me for your support.

My black gay friends tell me the urban white gay community is incredibly racist. I wonder how much of your expressed disgust with Obama is racially-motivated.

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 18, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The left is supposed to enjoy how good we have it? Heh, heh, what a card.

The left is fine as long as we are not being forced into poverty, then lined up and shot.

WE are not looking for someone else's money or dictatorial power, we are looking for justice, peace, a sustainable relationship between the world and its human load.

Are you aware Mr. Stromberg, that a culture is entirely dependent on the productivity of its workers? Whether now China, the ancient war cultures, America, Great Britain. You take care of your work force, you win. The Soviets did not take care of their workers, they used them like slaves.

America is not taking care of its working people. Will America develop a better productive capacity than its competitors?

The left understands, there will be no return to American prosperity unless the income disparity trend reverses sharply, unless America's looters stop thinking the middle class can't disappear.

Oh forget it, you wouldn't understand.

Posted by: shrink2 | September 18, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Basically this article and all of the apologist quotes are telling me and others who hold a point of view to the left of the president to shut up. It is inconvenient for anyone to be pushing him to do the correct thing. Sorry about that- but I won't be shut up.

Many of you who got behind him during the primary did so with a vitriolic hatred for Clinton for her presumed moderateness- even though her policy proposals were always more ambitious and progressive than his (including the mortgage crisis-

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/5/172224/055/712/418302

yeah- while TARP was negotiated with both administrations 1/2 of the money spent by each administration- to bail out the banks, Hillary had proposed to start with the people who were losing, and continue to lose their homes...bottom up rather than top down. She was also correct that everyone needed to be in the pool for healthcare, and on a whole host of other issues-

but clearly it is better to just reflexively defend your guy even as he runs an administration to the right of not only Clinton, but Nixon- nixon proposed a more progressive hc plan, energy policy, etc. than Barack has been willing to stick his neck out for.

The leader attracted the parade- what we needed to be was a parade that found it's leader. ...

Posted by: NYClefty
_________
NYClefty,

You obviously can shoot off at the mouth as much as you like, but the Republicans will be eating up all the self-destructive criticism. I'm watching the Democratic party implode on itself for the umpteenth time. As always, there is this chaos of people shooting off their mouths without regard for the consequences. I sometimes wonder if the Democratic party doesn't have more Experts on Every Question than it has members.

It is time, though, to put aside your disappointment that Hillary Clinton was not elected. But you know what? She lost the primaries. That's how elections go--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. People like you will spend a lifetime crying, "but she could have won."

Doesn't the fact that Hillary was sitting on the board of Walmart for six years trouble you? Hasn't it occurred to you that whatever her positions were in the primary, she might be just as much a right-wing Democrat as her husband was? She made good suggestions during the financial meltdown, but did she see any of them through?

And what planet were you on when Clinton was candidate and president? I remember clearly his flying back to sign an execution order on a mentally handicapped person during the primaries in order to show that he was a different kind of Democrat. How much environmental progress was made during his eight years? Precious little. He did manage to pass Republican legislation like NAFTA and the bill to end Welfare.

Ok, you should have started a movement and found a leader. Too late! Grow up.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

George Sanders, unfortunately you are naive and somewhat uninformed.

Bush didn't pass the present health care bill because his advisers were probably a hell of a lot smarter than Rahm. They knew forcing Americans to buy trash insurance from the most hated industry next to bankers was stupid. As far as "requiring" companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you truly are naive. They can charge as much as they want making those policies prohibitive and beyond the means of people with pre-existing conditions. Clinics for poor people? What a joke. A free clinic with some broken down chairs and a waiting list of 12 hours sounds positively third world.
ophelia3
-----------
RESPONSE: Well, you are incoherent and delusional. How about returning to reality: the Republicans didn't pass a health insurance because they didn't want to pass a health insurance plan. They never campaigned for it. They never promised it.

For a well-off person like yourself, health clinics for the poor might be a joke, but they aren't for people who need medical care. I actually think you're a right-winger pretending to be a Democrat--this turning up the nose at the poor and their "third world" lives gives you away. Sorry honey, many Americans already live in third-world conditions. Recently free clinics were set up in places like LA that were swamped by thousands of people--including working "middle class" families desperate for basic treatment for themselves and their children. Thousands of permanent clinics will now go up around the country that will help millions of people. If you turn your nose up at this, then you really are a sorry excuse for a human being.


Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Ceefer66 (you forgot the extra 6) Your petulant diatribe (or shall I say swill) tells me you are not a person worth listening to. Your willful ignorance of LGBT persecution, executions, and now codifying in Texas, Oklahoma, and Montana GOP platforms clearly shows that your head gives you full-on access to your colon.

The President has actively protected and defend laws that have been declared unconstitutional and to which 70 percent of Americans (you of the other group, all christianny nice) say are wrong. Now is always a good time to end discrimination. There never is a bad time ceffer66, so take off the hood and join society.

PS - Liberals are his most important constituency for a Democrat President as the klan is for republicans. Independents are only swing voters and if you cannot hold your base, you cannot hold onto power. It's rather simple my boy. in 2012 republicans must hold the christian right, kkk, and uneducated in order to get the nomination while Democrats must hold those who can read, think, and speak clearly in order to get their nomination. Please try to keep up.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | September 18, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"It's simple, Republicans must hold the uneducated while Democrats must hold those who can read."

Shortened it up a bit, I hope you don't mind.

Posted by: shrink2 | September 18, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I am soooooo sick of "he got us healthcare" refrain. Obama started with a strong mandate but we ended up with a lousy, unpopular law that won't really go into effect for years and that the new Republican Congress will do its best to repeal and cripple, assuming it survives legal challenges. It may be better than nothing, but only barely.

Posted by: guez | September 18, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Responding to ophelia3 :


Political calculus? Obama had majorities and he he blew it. He deliberately destroyed public option and Medicare at 55. He had the votes before he lost Mass. and he could have gotten it through reconciliation after.

RESPONSE: President Obama lost Massachusetts? He was running for the Senate in Massachusetts? Did he also cause last week's storm? And spill your cup of milk this morning? You are completely irrational. The Democrats ran an incompetent campaign in Massachusetts that President Obama tried to save at the last minute. As for reconciliation, you apparently can't or won't read--I've responded to this pipe dream two or three times today.
------------
Environment? Further failure. If automakers are making more fuel efficient cares it is because no one wants to buy gas guzzlers any longer. Copenhagen was a case study in Obama's ineptitude and lack of leadership skills.
--------
RESPONSE: No, some failures, some successes. That's the track record for any president. You seem to want to imbue President Obama with magical powers, then blame him for not fixing every problem in the world. Your thinking is completely adolescent.

"Everyone" doesn't want fuel-efficient cars. But for those of us that do, there are more options now. And the fleet MPG average is rising dramatically. So please try to get out of the "if it's not perfect, it's a failure" mindset. Actually this trick is a standard Republican tactic, which make me think you are one.
-----
One could go on.
------
RESPONSE: Yes, it is possible to discover an infinite number of gripes concerning every topic. You seem just the sort to take this task on.
--------
So Obama has only had 20 months in office and so deserves some slack. Get real. 20 months is almost 2 years...
---------
RESPONSE: In which he passed more legislation than any president in fifty years. Nothing goes in, does it? It seems that you are completely unable to process information. But you are able to produce an endless stream of blather.
----------
and in it he has managed to begin cutting Social Security, eliminating all hope of restoring Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, escalated the war in Afghanistan, bolstered the bankers while ignoring their victims,
-----------
RESPONSE: Show me which bill cut Social Security. This is a lie.
Yes, he escalated the war in Afghanistan--he promised he would do this during the campaign; maybe you weren't listening.
He's passed new credit card and Wall Street reform legislation that the bankers and businessmen love so much that they're pouring money into the Republicans' coffers.

---------------

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Standard posturing to appeal to independents and those in the middle undecided, where elections are won. Far too much is being made of Obama vs. his upset "left" this year.

I like it how Media Inc. also continues to present TBag candidates as viable in the fall, no problem…

This election is about expected recovery time from the Bush 2007-08 crash which eliminated 500,000 jobs per month, versus the ethnic wedge & fearmongering politics of the far right.

You might vote GOP if you think Obama should have fixed it all by now. You might vote against GOP, because of the Big Hate vibe and 0 new ideas.

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | September 18, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Democrats gave FDR 12 years to lift up the middle class in this country. They didn't give President Obama 6 months before they were dissing him. It took over 30 years to tear down this country with conservative ideology and policies. What is wrong with people? They seem to expect the click of a mouse to change everything. President Obama told us it would take time to turn this ship of conservatism around and he is right. President Obama moved to the left and the media and rw were all over him like white on rice and it went no where in the Senate. (Pelosi got the House to pass progressive legislation and it still sits on a shelf in the Senate) Then President Obama moderated to get things passed in the Senate and the media, rw and the Left were all over him. He has moved the needle to the left in this electorate ever more manipulated by the conservatives in this country. I am grateful. I am working to get more Dems elected. We need more of them, not fewer. Get out there people and vote on Nov 2 or you will have Tan Boy determining the agenda and gay rights will not be mentioned except to maybe attempt to make it illegal. Forget bringing up the environment, clean energy, improving the start we have on HCR.

Posted by: lynettema | September 18, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Responding to mjcc1987 :

Your willful ignorance of LGBT persecution, executions, and now codifying in Texas, Oklahoma, and Montana GOP platforms clearly shows that your head gives you full-on access to your colon.
--------
RESPONSE: What executions? I check the news carefully and I haven't seen anything about this. Do you mean gay people are being lined up against the wall and shot. Or is this more of your over-the-top rhetoric?

And by the way, you've probably already forgotten that President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law.
-------
The President has actively protected and defend laws that have been declared unconstitutional and to which 70 percent of Americans (you of the other group, all christianny nice) say are wrong. Now is always a good time to end discrimination. There never is a bad time ceffer66, so take off the hood and join society.
---------
RESPONSE: So, everyone who disagrees with you is in the KKK? Sorry, buddy, that is trivializing a very dangerous group. I feel that many Republicans hold dangerous beliefs and some foster violence, but I do not believe for a minute that most would actively go out and hang people.

Now which laws are you talking about that have been declared constitutional that President Obama is opposing. The 70% of Americans is useless, because the constitutionality of laws is not decided by polling. Two years ago about 65% of Americans thought global warming was one of the most serious issues facing america, now only about 53% do. Does that mean it isn't a serious issue any more?

If you are talking about gay marriage laws, then surely you've overstated your case. Some judges have ruled one way on some of them, some another (and we're talking about different laws in different states, and few states have passed gay marriage laws). But for you, as soon as one judge rules for you, then they gay marriage laws become constitutional, and President Obama becomes an evil traitor because he doesn't back you up 150%.

Well, look at the history of President Obama's approach to this issue: he has consistently said that he favors civil unions, not marriages, for gay couples. This was his stance as a candidate, but maybe you just blocked out whatever you didn't want to hear.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

George Sanders, it doesn't help your/Obama's case much to answer the failures of Obama with hysterical hype and personal attacks. You cannot defend the extremist right positions of Obama so you lash out.

Of course Obama was not running in Massachusetts, but continuing to ignore the enthusiasm gap and the demoralization of the left and center because of Obama's bad policies will only leave you/Obama losing more and more support.

Regards social security, of course he isn't cutting it by legislation but by means of the Commission. Otherwise known as the Catfood Commission. Its intent is to lower benefits and raise requirements.
Trying to deceive people is what got Obama into such hot water on public option. It's not just the bad policies it's the stupid assumption that by claiming they are really good policies Obama can fool people. No one is being fooled. Except the stupid right wingers who are too stupid to realize Obama is no socialist. In fact he's not even a real Democrat.

Continue to tell yourself that cheap understaffed clinics for the poor and the middle class who are losing their access to real health care are fair, democratic and serve some purpose. You know damn well you wouldn't want a member of your family left to that option. And neither would Obama.

You still cannot answer questions regarding Obama's abominable civil liberties record.

You remain unable to "respond" to Obama/Emanuel backroom deals. Unfortunately the Republicans are probably already setting up investigations to include those.

Bankers and Insurance and Pharma returning to Republicans is not evidence that Obama's policies did not favor and gift them. It is evidence they were always going to return to their true home in the GOP. Believing they were ever going to be loyal to Democrats was further evidence of Obama/Emanuel stupidity.

Hysterically lashing out at crtics on the left and trying to demean them as unrealistic, delusional, r*tards will not do you or Obama any good.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

After reading this, I feel somewhat insulted. Whether from the comments from President Obama or members of his administration, or the tone of the column, I can't say.

But I can say this: the left is the only group, to my knowledge, that receives any opprobrium from this administration. No other group is so insulted and so marginalized. This administration doesn't even criticize the Republican Party which has refused to enter into governance with it, has insulted it openly and fanned lies and half truths from its most extreme wing. And not a negative word from this administration. It's almost as if he were afraid of them.

Maybe President Obama and his faithful want to crow about the healthcare bill but I sure don't. Written in Max Baucus's office by a representative of the health insurance industry, it is a massive trillion dollar give away to the insurance folks worthy of the thoroughly corrupt Republican Party. The totally corrupt Bush could not have done a better job in shoveling trillions into the coffers of these monopolies.

Why are all our presidents controlled by big business?

And the finance bill? Surely he jests. Surely he is pulling our legs to think we would accept the tiny slap on the wrist the multi-national banks and Wall Street may get as a result of this bill.

Why can't Glass-Steagall be reinstated? It worked fine for sixty years until another corrupt Democrat gave his obeisance to the corporations who own America and rescinded it.

We need a real, true FDR, a leader whose primary and only interest is the people, and this joker could never walk in that great man's shoes. This dude is bought and paid for just like every president we've had for decades and decades.

And our poorly written US History books tell us this nation is a beacon of democracy to the world. What nonsense.

Posted by: flamingliberal | September 18, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Unemployment and foreclosures are still growing.People's fear for their own futures and that of their children is growing as well. I think most Americans voted for Obama because of his "change" platform. Unfortunately the Democrats protected the status quo by leaving the costs of health care untouched,leaving 36% interest rates on credit cards,allowing synthetic derivatives to make a saino out of the financial system,not allowing Medicare to get bulk drug prices(would have been a taxpayer savings of $30 billion a year). By attacking their supporters who have legitimate criticisms the Obama camp appears even more dedicated to preserving the status quo.

Posted by: clary916 | September 18, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Simply outrageus. All Obama has done is cater to big business. That's all he has done. First the banks then the health care concerns, then the defense establishment and most recently the oil companies. So when someone complains that a man who ran on a platform of "Change You Can Believe In" is essentially following all the significant policies of his predecessor we are branded as "petulant?" If that's the best this system of government can do then the system has serious problems. Maybe it needs to fail before all you appologists get a clue. Stop pandering to the corporations. You're killing us. Do you understand any of that? I didn't think so.

Posted by: jhadv | September 18, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Responding to ophelia3:

George Sanders, it doesn't help your/Obama's case much to answer the failures of Obama with hysterical hype and personal attacks. You cannot defend the extremist right positions of Obama so you lash out.
...
Hysterically lashing out at crtics on the left and trying to demean them as unrealistic, delusional, r*tards will not do you or Obama any good.
______
RESPONSE: There is nothing hysterical about a point-by-point rebuttal of your unreliable, false, and nearly delusional assertions. But why should you care whether my criticisms of you will do President Obama any good? You've already written him off as a lost cause.

By the way, I did not call you or anyone else a "r*tard". Please don't put such terms in my mouth.
-----------

Of course Obama was not running in Massachusetts, but continuing to ignore the enthusiasm gap and the demoralization of the left and center because of Obama's bad policies will only leave you/Obama losing more and more support.

________
RESPONSE: Yes, the mysterious "enthusiasm gap" that is fed by carping criticism like yours. If a bill doesn't have 100% of what you want, you go about screaming, "This bill is a failure. It's a sellout to big Pharma." That is certain to build enthusiasm for the Democrats, isn't it?
-----------
Continue to tell yourself that cheap understaffed clinics for the poor and the middle class who are losing their access to real health care are fair, democratic and serve some purpose. You know damn well you wouldn't want a member of your family left to that option. And neither would Obama.

----------
RESPONSE: As for the clinics for the poor, you really don't get it. Sure, you want every poor person in this country to have world-class care. Lovely. How will you pay for it? Will you take away the insurance policies of most of the middle class and force them into a national pool? Well, then suddenly everyone will start going to clinics that look like most Canadian clinics, with very little advanced medical machinery, with waiting periods before surgery, and so forth. Have you every visited British clinics? Some of them don't look any better than the clinics being set up for the poor in our country.

The problem here is that too many people on the left have this idealized picture of complete medical care in other countries. Germany's insurance is expensive and doesn't cover dental work, for instance. But most advanced countries cover far more of their citizens than ours does. This doesn't mean that the coverage looks nearly as snazzy as theirs.

I repeat, don't turn up your nose at the poor. I've been to cheap clinics when I was poor, and these may have saved my life. There are millions of Americans who are desperate to get into one of these clinics you disdain. Your attitude is horrifying.

President Obama probably experienced these types of clinics growing up in Indonesia.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Simply outrageus. All Obama has done is cater to big business. That's all he has done. First the banks then the health care concerns, then the defense establishment and most recently the oil companies. So when someone complains that a man who ran on a platform of "Change You Can Believe In" is essentially following all the significant policies of his predecessor we are branded as "petulant?" If that's the best this system of government can do then the system has serious problems. Maybe it needs to fail before all you appologists get a clue. Stop pandering to the corporations. You're killing us. Do you understand any of that? I didn't think so.

Posted by: jhad
_________
Dear jhad,

perhaps you haven't been reading these posts, but every one of your critical points has already been refuted.

If you can't see any difference between the policies of Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush, then I can't help but believe you suffer some sort of cognitive deficiency. When President Obama supports and passes legislation that the Bush administration and Republicans fervently opposed, then there is a difference. It may not be as great as you'd like it to be, but the proof that there is a difference is right before your eyes.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot of hyperbole in the posts from the gay gentleman, but he expresses a deeply held resentment common among every single gay (former) supporter of the President I know.

The problem is that the President, while parroting Ms. Clinton on the gay marriage issue, tacked WELL to the left of her in the primaries on all the other issues, promising fierce advocacy (his words) of a kind never seen by the gay folks in our country. Of course they jumped at that! Wouldn't you, after a lifetime of being told you're unworthy of full citizenship?

So the gay folks went out and campaigned really, really hard to get him elected. They organized, they fundraised, they donated, and they - in a very real sense - did a lot of the grassroots legwork of the campaign. Their thanks so far has been a gay family at the easter egg roll and two sentences in the State of the Union. Meanwhile, members of congress are fighting tooth and nail to get simple things - like repeal of DADT, which polls at an astonishing 80% - past the obstructionist republicans, and the "fierce advocate" has done precisely nothing. In fact, his staff has actively maneuvered behind the scenes to ensure that these issues don't come up before the election - and we all know they have no chance after it.

On top of that, his justice department has openly insulted the gay community that worked so hard for him by comparing them to child rapists and animal fetishists, hiding behind the dubious shield of this supposed requirement that they defend such nonsense (for rebuttal of that, see recent actions of the republican governor of California).

Wouldn't you feel betrayed? Wouldn't you feel used? Would that piss you off? Be honest here. He's not just failing to pass improvements for the lives of gay people. He and his staff are not even fighting for the no-brainers like DADT. They're even actively fighting against equality for gay people using language too vile even for the Bush administration. You expect the gays to be excited and happy about that?

Here's the reality, and it's what I'm hearing from, well, from pretty much every politically active gay person I know. They would rather have a Republican in office who is honestly and predictably bigoted than a Democrat who takes their cash, smiles and takes them for granted while acting the same way in office as the bigot would have. Do you realize that Hillary Clinton has done more for gay rights - as head of just one department - than the President himself has? I can see where that frustration comes from - and I agree with it. It's not childish. Blindly following after an illusory hope and change after being - yes, I'll say it, though I suppose that makes me a Nazi now - stabbed in the back would be childish. Realizing that the ma is not who he said he was is very, very adult. So is making the hard decision to withhold future support.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 18, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone, Republican or Democrat think that it's good that the government is requiring us to buy insurance with no cost controls on that insurance or anything to check the behavior of those companies. WE ARE NOT STUPID. And we know that if the President had kept Medicare for All on the table and left the Public Option as a fallback point, then THAT's where we would be right now not where we are. He can play politics all he wants, we know we were F'ed.

Posted by: digtalcomp | September 18, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Responding to ophelia3:

You still cannot answer questions regarding Obama's abominable civil liberties record.
________
RESPONSE: I don't agree with many of his positions. I do like his position on hate crimes, though. But mature political behavior involves not demanding that your leaders conform to every one of your positions.
________

You remain unable to "respond" to Obama/Emanuel backroom deals. Unfortunately the Republicans are probably already setting up investigations to include those.
_______
RESPONSE: How can one respond to this except to accuse you of stunning naïvete? Every president without exception has worked backroom deals...it comes with the turf.
_____________________
Bankers and Insurance and Pharma returning to Republicans is not evidence that Obama's policies did not favor and gift them. It is evidence they were always going to return to their true home in the GOP. Believing they were ever going to be loyal to Democrats was further evidence of Obama/Emanuel stupidity.
________________
RESPONSE: I see, so if big Pharma were to contribute to the Democrats, it would be evidence that President Obama gave something away to them, but if it contributes to the Republicans, it's evidence that President gave something away to them, but they were going to vote Republican anyway. Nice trick.

The evidence is clear from the Wall Street reform bill--Wall Street companies favored Democrats before the reform bill passed, but turned sharply toward the Republicans after it passed. But for you, this happened because they were going to contribute heavily to Republicans no matter what bill was passed--even though they were contributing to Democrats up until the bill passed. Do you comprehend how illogical this is?

Posted by: | September 18, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Watch teabaggers turn on their latest lunatic darling, Christine O'Donnell, after she admits being into witchcraft:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903086/-CAUGHT-ON-TAPE:-

Grab some popcorn and watch the American Taliban lose it!

And...wow! It now looks like Sarah Palin, who backed this whackjob O'Donnell, endorsed a witch! LOL!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | September 18, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Here's the reality, and it's what I'm hearing from, well, from pretty much every politically active gay person I know. They would rather have a Republican in office who is honestly and predictably bigoted than a Democrat who takes their cash, smiles and takes them for granted while acting the same way in office as the bigot would have. Do you realize that Hillary Clinton has done more for gay rights - as head of just one department - than the President himself has? I can see where that frustration comes from - and I agree with it. It's not childish. Blindly following after an illusory hope and change after being - yes, I'll say it, though I suppose that makes me a Nazi now - stabbed in the back would be childish. Realizing that the ma is not who he said he was is very, very adult. So is making the hard decision to withhold future support.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 18, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse
_____________
Then you'd rather go with the elements of the GOP that want to make homosexuality illegal? Get real.

A bigot would not have signed a hate crimes bill.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sanders.

My points have been refuted? I only read the news twice a day so it is possible I missed something. Please direct me to the news where we ended the wars in other than name only. What are the trrop levels and the budgets forget the spin. Who ever got prosecuted for the torture scandal? When did we restrict the information gathering capability of the DOHS and reisntitute the FISA rules? Did the banks repay the $2.3 Trillion in excess liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve yet? Have there been any investigations or prosecutions for the financial crisis yet? I hear the commission looking into it has a budget that's less than 25% of what the Lewenski investigation cost. Also by this time in the S&L scandal there were over 1,000 convictions and 5 sitting senators under investigation. Remember that for contrast? Is gulf seafood really safe to eat like the EPA say? Do you feed it to your kids? Did the amount spent per capita (not insured but per capita) on health insurance decrease? I would be especially interested in seeing that news bit. Is the defense budget including all supplementals plus the VA and DOE contribution below $1 Trillion a year yet? And I could go on and on and on. President Obama's appointments in the area of finance have been particularly egregious butthe subject is too arcane for people not in the business. Sufices to say he promoted all the people who were part of the Bush wrecking crew and anyone that warned or tried to prevent the disaster had their careers ended. the guy is a bought and paid for corporate disgrace. Just look at the lack of presectuions for the financial problems and the torture or war crimes. All the rest is so much spin.

Posted by: jhadv | September 18, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse


Christine O'Donnell is up to $1,795,260.12 in contributions since winning the Republican primary in Delaware, and she may yet be the subject of investigations over her finances, but the money is pouring in! She is just one race, and may not even wind up being on the ticket if her campaing falls apart. Republicans know this. The money is still coming in!

Does the Obama Adm. really think this is a good time to chastise elements of the Democratic party?

It's so glaringly obvious that the Republicans have made a decision to double down, triple down.

“My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”- Pres. Obama, address at banker's meeting

I just wish he (Obama) had a little more fight in him for the middle class. Most voters didn't expect him to win all the time, but they did think he would expend his political capital to at least combat the alternative reality that has been so finely crafted by the trickle down, supply -siders..

I am not in the least critical of his accomplishments, the problem is that what has been accomplished isn't even well known.
I don't want my President to be seen as a Charlie Brown figure, always surprised (Good Grief!) that once again the Republicans have pulled a trick. Why are Democrats letting the Republicans define them? Why is the Obama Adm. doing such a lousy job of reining in the special interest Democrats?

Pres. Clinton had to construct a 'middle way triangulation' to remain viable, not after his win, but after the Democratic defeat.

Now, it seems like in the middle of a depression second only to '29 the Obama Adm. is triangulating when maybe they should be more assertive, less nice, why not throw some hard punches, support their assertions with some hard facts?

The Tea Baggers- whatever else can be said about them- have successfully REDIRECTED the righteous anger felt by the middle class toward irresponsible Praying Mantis Wall Street types and have managed to hang all of it on the government.
It's working.

The Obama Adm. needs to read 'the street' a little better.
5th generation Democratic voter.

Posted by: Gracefulboomer | September 18, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

George- you are good at hurling insults- but still have no answer for how to drive a progressive policy. You are all about apologizing for your new deity, which is fine- but while you call Clinton a right winger- what has Obama done differently? In 8 or 12 years, will you be looking back at some other Dem who has to fix the problems again and say...well Obama could have done this or that. HE WAS NEVER A LIBERAL. There is no evidence in any of his records that he was. He didn't make liberal promises on the campaign trail, yet a bunch of people fell in love with him, he owes educated middle class white college students in caucus states the most- since HRC and him got essentially the same amount of votes (not including megastates Michigan and Florida denied the right to vote).

This is not about splitting the party- believe me- she dropped out and I went to "camp obama" and field marshalled for him commuting back and forth from NYC to Pennsylvania daily for weeks to take care of my 3 year old daughter after days of working for him. I am invested in him. If you look at his first years policy proposals, however, they are to the right of Bill Clintons- who had a more left leaning hc policy, an assault weapons ban, supported gays in the military (shot down from within his party so that he wound up with DADT policy), a stimulus package (shot down w/i party) that was not about tax breaks, etc.

Michelle was on the board of directors of for profit healthcare companies- >50% of the Obama money came bundled from energy companies, finance companies, etc. There is no electable Dem out their without blood on their hands. Stop trying to justify why you hate Hil so much- I'm not going to throw around the mysogyny word- and use your efforts to guide whomever is in office towards policies that you support- that is what I would be doing even if we had elected her. We must push for what we believe in. I will work for him again, etc. It is not libs that are stopping him from doing things- it is him that is not doing the things. He is the boss, he gets the responsibility

Posted by: NYClefty | September 18, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Mocking and bashing your base, after you have disappointed them with your endless, weak compromises, is not the way to rally support. It might make you feel smug and right, but it is terrible politics. The growing millions of unemployed and the dwindling middle class are counting on you, Mr. President. If you start working for them and stop trying to satisfy the corporate elite you would find you have much more popular support - possibly enough to turn the country around.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | September 18, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

As well educated as Obama is, he has governed poorly and embarrassed progressives. We don't need labels like "left" to state as an objective fact that Obama abandoned those who got him there like a parent abandons an orphan. Obama has had no voice as a President. I am bitterly disappointed.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | September 18, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Democrats tend to like parties more than the hard work of governing and getting re-elected.
We had a party in 2008. Did you think we could change the world in one election? Get off your social media sites, and get back to the ramparts. Grow up or the right-wing "death-eaters" will, indeed, get "their" country back.

Posted by: BBear1 | September 18, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I am a proud progressive and I entirely agree with the President on this. As usual, he said it best in the next paragraph following the one that you quoted:

"We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation. And so I want everybody here to -- when you are talking to your friends and your neighbors and your coworkers, I want you to feel good about the support that you've provided, because you didn't send me there to do what was easy; you sent me there to do what was hard. We have tackled some of the hardest problems facing this country and we did so in the midst of crisis -- and we are succeeding."

As a progressive, I intend to support our President and the Democrats in Congress in November so that we can continue moving our country forward, rather than handing the car keys back to the Republicans who drove our economy into the ditch.

www.winningprogressive.org

Posted by: WinningProgressive | September 18, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I am glad I voted for Obama and I'd do it again, but I am a former democrat who supported with cash the DNC, worked for local candidates, and now I'm tired of being called crazy, told what I need to like, told legislation that is next to nothing (healthcare & financial reform) is historic. I'll no longer give money to the DNC, I'll no longer work for state and local candidates, and will from now on gladly vote green. All I'm left with is my conscience and I can live with that.

Posted by: jw1941 | September 18, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I am working to get the Democrats in my area elected, or reelected.

Meanwhile, I suffered through the Nixon era, the Regan era and the G.W. Bush era without directly supporting or joining the ACLU.

It took only five months of the Obama era to get me to directly support and join the ACLU.

Posted by: Provincial | September 18, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"The White House released the transcript of President Barack Obama's remarks at the home of Richard and Ellen Richman, who live in the exclusive Conyers Farm development in Greenwich's famed "back country'' neighborhood.

Conyers Farm is the 1,500-acre gated community where Republican Linda McMahon also lives. Her opponent, Democrat Richard Blumenthal, attended the dinner with the President at a 20-acre estate that was not far from McMahon's home."

Obama yukking it up with the uber elites he has enriched with his neo-liberal policies as he says to his less fortunate supporters and democrat party voters "What are you going to do, vote republican" and then laughs in their faces. George Bush with a tan

Posted by: fatboysez | September 18, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Mr. Sanders.

My points have been refuted? I only read the news twice a day so it is possible I missed something. Please direct me to the news where we ended the wars in other than name only. What are the trrop levels and the budgets forget the spin. Who ever got prosecuted for the torture scandal? When did we restrict the information gathering capability of the DOHS and reisntitute the FISA rules? Did the banks repay the $2.3 Trillion in excess liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve yet? Have there been any investigations or prosecutions for the financial crisis yet? ..
____
Where did you read that Obama ever intended to pull out of Afghanistan? Maybe you dreamed it, but I was awake throughout the campaign and heard him pledge a focus on Afghanistan. He did pull all the combat troops out of Iraq, but it would be inhumane to pull all troops out at once. Their security forces still need backup. I was as horrified about Bush's invasion as anyone, but we broke that country, and we have a duty to act responsibly in leaving it.

I don't remember Candidate Obama ever promising to prosecute those involved in the torture scandal, but maybe I missed something. He didn't promise to prosecute those involved in the financial scandal. I believe the banks have paid back more than their share of the TARP money loaned them, thanks to the Obama administration, which, unlike President Bush, insisted on stiff terms for the loans.

The one area that troubles me the most about the Obama administration is the obsession on security at the expense of rights. But you know what jackals will be at the door if the supervision is relaxed and an incident happens.

I haven't bothered answering all your points; this is enough. Candidate Obama always presented himself as a mainstream pragmatist, and that is how he has ruled. He never promised everyone he would shut down the capitalist system and install a worker's paradise.

It is absolutely bizarre how the outer edges of the political spectrum react to President Obama. Those on the left are angry because he's not a socialist, whereas those on the right (i.e., the majority of the Republican party) are angry because they think he's too much of a socialist. I'm sorry, jhad, that America didn't elect the candidate you wanted elected. I'm sorry, but it didn't happen. Live with it.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

Mocking and bashing your base, after you have disappointed them with your endless, weak compromises, is not the way to rally support.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | September 18, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse
________
Nothing I saw in President Obama's comments remotely resembled "bashing". He was gently ribbing a Democratic audience that was laughing along. Get your rhetoric under control.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Go back and listen to the president's speech on Iraq and see if you understand why progressive Democrats are unsatisfied. It was not a case of "failing to attain world peace" but rather a president deep in the pocket of the military-industrial complex. Deep in the myth of military heroism. Deep in the long war. No, I am not a happy progressive. And I campaigned hard to elect him. Maybe not next time.

Posted by: larrythorson | September 18, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

These socialists should be grateful! They already got their Big Government Interstate Highway system and their DARPA-funded internet. We've seen how little those Big Government projects have helped the country. Now they want more? What's next? Libraries and schools?? Surely the Foundling Fathers never wanted the populace to be educated.

Posted by: TriCorneredHead | September 18, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I have tried to read the comments above with an open mind, and agreed with many of them. But, to those of you who agree with the term "petulant left," I believe you are apologists for an administration that has betrayed the promise of its campaign almost from day one, and that calling this betrayal compromise, the politics of the possible, or leadership is just plain old garden variety BUNK.
Yes, we've tried to be understanding and patient. We accepted the enormous power of the deeply entrenched forces arrayed against him from the outset, and were all somewhat dismayed by the inroads made into our party by corruption. Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and the "Blue Dogs" were an eye-opener, as was Joe Lieberman and, lately, Christopher Dodd. But WE HAD HIS BACK! If the President had kept faith with the everyday Americans who were in Grant Park that night, who knocked on doors and stuffed envelopes and chatted up their neighbors about HOPE, we'd have had enough energy and momentum to move heaven and earth. All across this country we were ready to take on the insurance companies, the defense contractors, the bankers and brokers, all of the pillagers of the public trust--all because we believed that at long last we had a leader who would FIGHT for us! We didn't reckon on Rahm Emmanuel being able to dismiss the public option as a bargaining chip to be quickly thrown out to court non-existent GOP support. We never expected that not a single progressive economist's voice would be heard in the White House, while a gang of Rubin retreads who had helped undo all the protections put in place after the Depression would be allowed to shepherd the interests of their Wall Street friends at our expense. Where, oh where, was our CHAMPION? And why wasn't he out there LEADING the charge, as he had promised to do?
Don't get me wrong. I WILL vote in this election, because God only knows what sort of disaster returning Republicans to power would invite. And there HAVE been some promising moments, like the cancellation of the F-22. And when we, the people, DEMAND action on our behalf, like the appointment of Elizabeth Warren, sometimes our President rises to the occasion. But to call the people who elected him "petulant" because we expect him to at least RAISE HIS VOICE now and then on our behalf, and to call out conservative hypocrisy once in a while, that's just plain bogus. C'mon, Mr. President, STAND UP AND FIGHT for the people who believe in you. Get rid of Geithner and Emmanuel and put some progressives in the administration, and don't turn out to be just another hack politician.

Posted by: sailorashore | September 18, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I guess you decided Obama was talking about the left didn't you? He said democrats not the left. I am progressive and I am not amused. I will hold Obama's feet to the fire as he requested as much as I want, thank you very much! So what..your upset because your afraid that Obama will lose without our support? Tough!

I am sick of politicians saying what they think we want to hear yet not meaning it. They do it because they want our votes and our money and once they get what they want they tell us to sit down and shut up. Well I won't! I am tired of playing this game.

Obama better remember the so called left are democrats and a large portion. And no we are NOT far out. I am as traditional and live as traditional life as even a conservative. I will go vote in November because the republicans are so much worse. But they don't even bother to lie anymore about it.

If I have learned anything it is to continue to fight for what I believe in and get rid of people like you who are willing to settle for any watered down bill. Thats what the tea party is doing and dammit thats what we need to do! Time to purge the party!

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 18, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Excuses, excuses, excuses. George Sanders: "I repeat, don't turn up your nose at the poor. I've been to cheap clinics when I was poor, and these may have saved my life. There are millions of Americans who are desperate to get into one of these clinics you disdain. Your attitude is horrifying.

President Obama probably experienced these types of clinics growing up in Indonesia."

So, George Sanders, we should aspire to the level of care in Indonesia? Keep your "cheap clinics". Visit Europe. Medical care there is non-discriminatory. Rich or poor you are not denied good care. In fact state-of-the-art care. You won't suffer in pain for lack of medication or die for lack of care. You will here (if you lose your job, become sick, or have the audacity to file an expensive claim) - and you will continue to under Obama's faux health care plan.

According to "george sanders" the middle class should just be grateful they have no good medical care. Grateful for the crumbs. Grateful for no civil liberties, afterall Obama opposes hate crimes! Grateful to pay the outrageous premiums and prescription drug prices. Grateful to Obama for secret backroom deals guaranteeing huge profits to insurance/pharma when he promised transparency and CSPAN coverage of all deals all the while pretending to support the public option? Afterall, all presidents make backroom deals. BTW your analysis of contributions from Wall Street and Insurance/Pharma is kind of simplistic. They gave to Obama knowing he would gift them in a big way, and also knowing those gifts would destroy his political career and create a loser. They are not about supporting losers - especially Democratic losers. Probably a more likely explanation for their turn to the GOP than their "fear" of the feckless Obama's pissant regulations.

Posted by: ophelia3 | September 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

You know why Obama is blaming Democrats, don't you?

So when the dems are routed in November, and then again in two years, he can blame US instead of his own cowardice.

Sorry, Obama. I refuse to take the blame. Look in the mirror if you want to see what the problem is.

Posted by: solsticebelle | September 18, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Ah.. Stromberg - spoken like a true beltway hack - how predictable.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | September 18, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

You know, the crappy policy decisions would be less annoying if the administration hadn't handled the politics so badly (which means the Republicans will take at least the House in November) and the ham-handed politics wouldn't be so bad if we had better policy outcomes. But now we're supposed to thank Obama and his people for passing crappy laws *and* losing the battle for public relations.

Anyone remember the "audacity of hope"?

Posted by: guez | September 18, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the impeachment Obummer can fight off them Rapeuglicans all by hisself. It will be funny I wonder what lame reason they can come up with this time. O I forgot he's a Muslim Kenyon with the fake Birth Certificate.

Posted by: elgunjduts | September 18, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

many of us on the left are so tired of the whiney bratty way the so called progressives behave.
the only they are progressive about is to progress to the couch and complain that they have not gotten their pony yet.
Maybe they should spend some time learning a little civics. A little about how government works.
the president is not a dictator nor is he a wizard that waves a wand and everything is all fixed in a couple months or more like an hour, just like on teevee.
What these brats have to learn is that real life is not like email. it does not happen in a flash.
The problems are deep and entrenched. the democrats have been co-opted since the 90s by business and the DLC way.
Obama is not only having to deal with the obstructionist republicans but, DLC dems as well.
And because the presidency is not a dictatorship, if there is not the votes, there is little that can be done. Period.
The so called progressives do not understand this. They refuse to accept that the congress is co-equal and if one of the houses hold up bills or cannot pass legislation, the president's hands are tied.
They would rather sit on their behinds rather then do something. they love to point at the president and blame him while ignoring the 2 houses that are responsible.
And they refuse to look in the mirror and really see that they are also just as responsible for legislation not getting passed and their beloved progressive agenda being stalled.
Sitting and feeling sorry yourself will not do jack.
the repubs are beating you because they are organizing and making their wants known loudly and constantly.
You are sitting around whining and doing Nothing!

Posted by: vwcat | September 18, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

The democrats have not been kind to labor, especially those of us in the field of public education...two words: Arne Duncan.

Posted by: lacy41 | September 18, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse


Responding to:

George- you are good at hurling insults- but still have no answer for how to drive a progressive policy.

________

RESPONSE: NYClefty, I am not flinging insults around. I am answering unreliable, incorrect and occasionally delusional statements point by point. I thought progressives liked rationality. Or do you only like rationality at certain times and not at others?
________
but while you call Clinton a right winger- what has Obama done differently?
______________
RESPONSE: He's passed Democratic legislation--far more than Clinton did. And he passed a health care bill. Instead of de-regulating everything, he's taken the first steps toward installing reasonable regulation where it is needed. Instead of protecting large chicken producers like Tyson's, he is pushing toward protecting our food supply through a food safety bill and putting controls on the use of antibiotics in farm animals.
__________
HE WAS NEVER A LIBERAL. ...
_________
RESPONSE: Yes, he was and is...but only if you know what the word "liberal" means. Unfortunately most Americans don't. "Liberal" does not mean "leftist." Now, if I may rephrase your statement: "He was never a leftist." You're right, he wasn't—in the Democratic party, he’s pretty middle of the road on most positions. He articulated his positions very clearly. He won the primaries. He won the election. He is the head of our party. Now isn't the time to start screaming, "Oh no, he's not a leftist," which is what a lot of people on the left are doing.
___________
first years policy proposals, however, they are to the right of Bill Clintons- who had a more left leaning hc policy, an assault weapons ban, supported gays in the military (shot down from within his party so that he wound up with DADT policy), a stimulus package (shot down w/i party) that was not about tax breaks, etc.
______
RESPONSE President Clinton was all about de-regulation, and President Obama is re-regulating where appropriate. That's a dramatic difference. And your list is full of things Clinton meant to do but didn't do. President Obama got most of what he intended to do in the first two years done.
_______

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Responding to ophelia3:

So, George Sanders, we should aspire to the level of care in Indonesia? Keep your "cheap clinics". Visit Europe. Medical care there is non-discriminatory. Rich or poor you are not denied good care. In fact state-of-the-art care. You won't suffer in pain for lack of medication or die for lack of care. You will here (if you lose your job, become sick, or have the audacity to file an expensive claim) - and you will continue to under Obama's faux health care plan.
_________

I'm sorry, Ophelia, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't just visit Europe many times, I lived in Europe for many years. One of my in-laws a Canadian doctor. Get out of your dream and face reality. Much of the time I was in Europe I could only afford emergency insurance; if you don't have a full-time job in Germany, it's very hard to afford insurance, which eats up a huge chunk of your income. I worked in England as well and got medical treatment there. Someone like you would apparently turn up your nose at these places. Yes, they have chipped furniture sometimes. But the doctors do good primary care.

You don't have to have a multimillion-dollar facility to practice good medicine. There are many things you can't do without fancy equipment, but that's not where the European countries are ahead of us. They all invest in primary care, which is what we're desperately short on.

Somewhere near fifty million Americans need primarily primary care right now. I'm not going to look down on the care facilities that will provide them this care.


Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Responding to NYClefty (continued):

Stop trying to justify why you hate Hil so much- I'm not going to throw around the mysogyny word- and use your efforts to guide whomever is in office towards policies that you support- that is what I would be doing even if we had elected her. We must push for what we believe in. I will work for him again, etc. It is not libs that are stopping him from doing things- it is him that is not doing the things. He is the boss, he gets the responsibility

__________
NYClefty, you are sounding crazy now. This is what I wrote about Hillary Clinton:
-------
It is time, though, to put aside your disappointment that Hillary Clinton was not elected. But you know what? She lost the primaries. That's how elections go--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. People like you will spend a lifetime crying, "but she could have won."
Doesn't the fact that Hillary was sitting on the board of Walmart for six years trouble you? Hasn't it occurred to you that whatever her positions were in the primary, she might be just as much a right-wing Democrat as her husband was? She made good suggestions during the financial meltdown, but did she see any of them through?
---------

Where do you see the slightest hint of hatred for Hillary Clinton? Or mysogyny? If she had won the primary, I would have enthusiastically supported her for the general election. I liked Obama more, for a lot of reasons, although I didn't like all of his individual positions.

I was trying to wake you out of your dream, though, in which Hillary won the presidency. It didn't happen. She's a tremendous Secretary of State in many ways.
__________

...but still have no answer for how to drive a progressive policy.
_________

I think BBeart has the right idea:

Democrats tend to like parties more than the hard work of governing and getting re-elected.
We had a party in 2008. Did you think we could change the world in one election? Get off your social media sites, and get back to the ramparts. Grow up or the right-wing "death-eaters" will, indeed, get "their" country back.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:
I will hold Obama's feet to the fire as he requested as much as I want, thank you very much! So what..your upset because your afraid that Obama will lose without our support? Tough!

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 18, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse
________
No, I'm afraid we will all lose if we don't support the President.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I have to totally agree with Stromberg. I am so sick and tired of all the D---- whining by the left or the progessives or the democrats or whatever Obama's so-called supporters call themselves. With friends like these why bother with the Republicans or the tea party? You know don't go vote in November let's see if you like it when the tea party/Republicans jam it up your you know what!

Posted by: jhop1104 | September 18, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see more stories about the childish left! Of course, the liberals writing for the Washington Post can't really stand the thought of giving away too much about what is really going on. They'd rather put down the Tea Party. Oh, well, we're going to win in November and then again in 2012, so who cares?

Posted by: georges2 | September 18, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

vwcat: Progressives certainly do understand he is not a dictator. Furthermore, as a progressive we know that the republicans basically won't help us, period. But we also know there are many self interested democrats who want to appease their corporate masters making it difficult for Obama. Some of those btw are in HIS administration!

But that does not mean he can escape responsibility for his actions and behavior or lack thereof. And we, as he told us, are holding his feet to the fire. That is NOT sitting around doing nothing. In fact, it was us who knocked on doors, etc. to get him elected. It was us who donated what we could. As a matter of fact, I just got home from canvassing for democrats door to door in my state. What have you done??

I believe this entitles us to criticize him when he doesn't do what he has promised. If all democrats got together and stopped voting the fake democrats in all the time maybe we would have progress. But I am not going to act like a lockstep republican and not call a spade a spade when necessary. I will applaud him when he does right, and complain when he doesn't.

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 18, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

No, I'm afraid we will all lose if we don't support the President.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse
======

Look, do you really think criticizing the president means losing? Come on! I have been severely critical of president Obama. However, I do realize that I have to vote in Novemeber to stop the wingnuts. Most progressives understand this, and more so the closer to election day. Its deja vu to many of us. I was a Hillary supporter who was really mad at the way I felt she was treated by Obama's team. I felt like not voting but in the end I knew I had to. Did I like having to do it? No. But I did it.

Give us some credit for having some critical thinking skills. But that doesn't mean we can't let him know when he is not keeping his promises.

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 18, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

George Sanders-
you continue not to answer the question-
how do you push a president who has not acted progressively to do so?
in 1992- Clinton tried (and failed) to push many progressive policies- his own party stopped him and was removed shortly thereafter.
in 2008 when ANY DEMOCRAT COULD HAVE PUSHED THROUGH ANY LEGISLATION with the largest legislative majority and popular support- Obama chose to push through weak, weak legislation- he did not push for progressive policy so he did to not push for single payer or public option, did not strongly regulate banks, to not bail out the homeowners but help the banks, to create a stimulus package, he passed weak,weak legislation and told us to be thankful for the scraps...please sir, may I have some more....
One last thing- you don't even argue accurate facts- you blamed the clintons for not protecting the environment- didn't Gore negotiate the Kyoto treaty- only to have congress reject it?

Whatever- fall in love with your guy, change history as you need to- do what you like...keep rationalizing why he is running an administration only slightly to the left of W.

Great job!!!
Leon

Posted by: NYClefty | September 18, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

If there is a problem of the "left" in the Democratic Party, it's that apparently few of them bothered to examine the list of Obama's advisors early in the 2008 presidential campaign, long before he got the nomination wrapped up. I did. They were the same old centrists and Democratic Leadership Council types that cycle from jobs in Democratic administrations, to moderate think tanks, to corporate directorships and back again. I wasn't a bit surprised at how things turned out, given that you can understand the direction a man will head by looking who is reading the map for him.

I also read, during the '08 campaign, a very telling newspaper story about his experience as a community organizer. I spent years working in that field, and I recognized immediately from the story that he is a person who is conflict averse, doesn't understand the need to mobilize and lead his own base--because that is the source of his power to get things done--and who was unlikely to be able to truly win "change we can believe in". He's just another deal-maker from the Chicago Democratic machine. Just get the deal, to hell with the details.

Even now, on the very eve of a catastrophic defeat of his congressional allies, Obama still has no idea how to mobilize the broad support that got him elected. He's consistently thrown our issues and priorities over the side, and the only reason he and his stooges in the White House can come up with to plead for our support is that the other guys might win. How about actually producing some change we can believe in?

Posted by: cookj | September 18, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

"Give us some credit for having some critical thinking skills."

Therein lies the problem. The person you're responding to is a binary thinker, incapable of conceding a single point. He can't give you credit for critical thinking, so he's setting up straw men - and doing very well at making it appear as something akin to valid debate when it's really just condescending personal attacks.

There are legitimate complaints from progressives, liberals, leftists, or whatever you want to call them this week about President Obama, and those complaints have nothing to do with his failure to wave a mythical magic wand and make everything better overnight. We understand how governance works, that you very much, and trying to make us out to be petulant children who just aren't being realistic when we ask for very basic progress on certain issues is only fanning the flames of irritation and even anger. The complaints I, and several others, have put out in this discussion have to do with his lack of visible leadership on political no brainers. There are issues that are consistently polling at 60/70/80%, and the President is not only absent, he actively works against them - while the senate majority leader all but publicly begs for the administration to say or do ANYTHING to make passage easier. THAT is the issue, and to paint us all with a broad brush as children who just don't understand how the world works is insufferably arrogant, not to mention intellectually lazy.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 18, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:


Look, do you really think criticizing the president means losing? Come on! I have been severely critical of president Obama. However, I do realize that I have to vote in Novemeber to stop the wingnuts. Most progressives understand this, and more so the closer to election day.
_________
Good, at least you're going to vote. A half-dozen or more people in these posts are swearing that they'll never vote for President Obama because "he stabbed me in the back" or "he didn't pass a perfect version of this bill," or "he didn't make a perfect life for me." Productive criticism is helpful, destructive, over-the-top rage poisons the entire discourse. Progressives need to work productively together, and that's impossible if they're all screaming in rage, or griping and moaning about what they didn't get.

Please remember that every harsh criticism of the President is fuel to the right wing...they live off it. I've seen the Democrats implode time after time, and it always begins with this griping and moaning; it depresses Democrats and empowers the right wing.

If the Democrats can hold on for this cycle and the next, we can finish the major undone business and nail it down so that it will be hard as heck for the Republicans to undo it. If the Republicans win this election, we may see the same thing that happened to Clinton--six years (or two years, followed by a Republican presidency) of Republican legislation moderated a bit by a Democratic president. The progress that has been made might all be undone, because the Republicans are hell-bent on overturning pretty much anything that President Obama passed.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

What we are getting in health care is far from the Swiss system. In Switzerland the government writes the basic policy (which covers more than Medicare). Evry insurence co must offer it at a price set by the government and is not allowed to make any profit on it. If a physician starts to order extra tests and treatments, they get a "green" (I think) letter and are told to shape up.

Also the Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world. We pay 50% more per person, but they pay more than any other major industrialized country.

You can check all theis at the site of the OECD and, BTW see that the German system is about half as expensive as ours.

Posted by: lensch | September 18, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Responding to NYClefty,

1.
how do you push a president who has not acted progressively to do so?
________
RESPONSE: Look, I don't know how to push a president to do anything. You can write to him, or to your legislator. You can join advocacy groups or form fund-raising groups. But if you try to burn the entire house down, it will ruin things for everyone.
_______
2.
in 2008 when ANY DEMOCRAT COULD HAVE PUSHED THROUGH ANY LEGISLATION with the largest legislative majority and popular support
_______
RESPONSE: Look, this is getting tiresome. I answered you in detail before, but you keep repeating the same wrong statement. Even with a supermajority for an 6-7-month period, not every Democratic senator was behind every bill. Every bill had to be fought for. There had to be backroom deals with every bill. That's how our democratic system works.
Once again, I don't care who "coulda" passed all that legislation, I care who did. President Obama did, and I'm grateful to him for it.
_________
3.
...(a long list of gripes about "what coulda been" I've already responded to)...

s- you blamed the clintons for not protecting the environment- didn't Gore negotiate the Kyoto treaty- only to have congress reject it?
__________
RESPONSE: Yes, Gore did some good work on the Kyoto treaty; he actually got the other nations to water it down quite a bit in the hopes that the US would sign pass the treaty. It was a noble try. It failed, like so many things President Clinton attempted. If you want to know what I like most about President Obama, look at the last sentence of my previous response in this post.
________

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

What we are getting in health care is far from the Swiss system. In Switzerland the government writes the basic policy (which covers more than Medicare). Evry insurence co must offer it at a price set by the government and is not allowed to make any profit on it. If a physician starts to order extra tests and treatments, they get a "green" (I think) letter and are told to shape up.

Also the Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world. We pay 50% more per person, but they pay more than any other major industrialized country.

You can check all theis at the site of the OECD and, BTW see that the German system is about half as expensive as ours.
--------
Thanks for pointing this out...I should have said "roughly like the Swiss system." Of course the Swiss system isn't like ours in every detail. People fall through the cracks there, too. It's expensive, but everything's expensive in Switzerland.

Remember that President Obama is not intending on passing one bill and dropping the issue. He said all along that it can be improved with time. The European systems went through lots of adjustments.

But if the Republicans are in control, the health care plan we now have will be degraded or possibly overturned.

I spoke about being a self-employed worker in Germany. If you have a full-time job, the company usually pays for half the insurance costs. There are plenty of patch-up measures. For example, if you are an artist and are accepted into the artist program, then the government pays half the charge. But I had to wait nearly five years before I met all the conditions, which are extremely restrictive for foreigners. And you can be kicked out of the program quickly as well.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

It is so insulting to read the comments against the post by uh huhh. Obama promised to be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights and got the gay and lesbian vote as a result. His promise was fraudulent, and gays have every right to be fiercely disappointed in him. Now he says that this Warren lady is going to be the "fiercest advocate" for consumers. Why does that language worry me?

Posted by: hugmekatie | September 18, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see that the Post got the opinion of both sides with its "Topic A" responses, left and far-left.

The Post is a partisan joke.

Posted by: bobmoses | September 18, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

"Give us some credit for having some critical thinking skills."

Therein lies the problem. The person you're responding to is a binary thinker, incapable of conceding a single point. He can't give you credit for critical thinking, so he's setting up straw men - and doing very well at making it appear as something akin to valid debate when it's really just condescending personal attacks.

......
THAT is the issue, and to paint us all with a broad brush as children who just don't understand how the world works is insufferably arrogant, not to mention intellectually lazy.

Posted by: IronyisHot |

_______
Dear IronyisHot,

I assume you are talking about me.

This is delicious--look at the close of your post.Now look at your third sentence. Now think for a few moments.

Maybe I should spell it out for you: you claim that I portrayed you all as children and am arrogant, etc. This is the straw man tactic: I never portrayed either you or "you all" as children, old people, or middle-aged people. I should say, it's either a straw man, an example of intellectual laziness (i.e., the inability to read carefully), or a lie.

Now your second sentence is fascinating--certain people are "binary thinkers" and fundamentally incapable of doing certain things. But you are not a binary thinker and have unlimited capabilities.

What I am applying is the tools of logic. Logic as in what is taught to lawyers. Most of our Congressmen and -women are lawyers. You can talk fuzzythink to them until the cows come home, but then they will apply their "binary thinking" to writing laws.

And one thing you should learn to do is distinguish the argument from the arguer. A very nice person can make a perfectly dreadful and silly argument. A vicious, sadistic person can make a brilliant argument. Not all lawyers are nice and not all evil, but some lawyers win and some lose, mostly on the basis of their arguments. And most representatives are lawyers. They think in terms of arguments. They rip up each others' arguments and sometimes can remain friends.

If Democrats go down the "down with thinking" path, we are certainly all lost.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 18, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"martin_849 wrote....Uh-Huh, Grow up. I support gay marriage and repeal of don't ask, don't tell but there are greater priorities....your turn will come..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better hope the Muslims don't get a judical foot hold here in the States. They'll fit your priority into a white cloth bag with a cinch at the top and then have a stone throwing contest with your priority as the guest of honor. But, maybe, some of those Islamaphobes who argue against the World Trade site Mosque will intervene to stop it all ... but maybe not.

Posted by: MDDem1 | September 19, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

"martin_849 wrote....Uh-Huh, Grow up. I support gay marriage and repeal of don't ask, don't tell but there are greater priorities....your turn will come..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better hope the Muslims don't get a judical foot hold here in the States. They'll fit your priority into a white cloth bag with a cinch at the top and then have a stone throwing contest with your priority as the guest of honor. But, maybe, some of those Islamaphobes who argue against the World Trade site Mosque will intervene to stop it all ... but maybe not.

Posted by: MDDem1 | September 19, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

George, I can understand how you may not have noticed when I switched gears from a brief statement about you into a longer statement about the blog post we're discussing, but I'll re-post below for clarity. Perhaps this time you'll be better able to note where I lifted the "petulant" terminology from.

"There are legitimate complaints from progressives, liberals, leftists, or whatever you want to call them this week about President Obama, and those complaints have nothing to do with his failure to wave a mythical magic wand and make everything better overnight. We understand how governance works, that you very much, and trying to make us out to be petulant children who just aren't being realistic when we ask for very basic progress on certain issues is only fanning the flames of irritation and even anger. The complaints I, and several others, have put out in this discussion have to do with his lack of visible leadership on political no brainers. There are issues that are consistently polling at 60/70/80%, and the President is not only absent, he actively works against them - while the senate majority leader all but publicly begs for the administration to say or do ANYTHING to make passage easier. THAT is the issue, and to paint us all with a broad brush as children who just don't understand how the world works is insufferably arrogant, not to mention intellectually lazy."

That was very pointedly written to the source of this discussion - the post piece and the event that inspired it. Laughing at the people who supported you most visibly during your campaign is not the act of a brilliant politician. It's the act of a frustrated president who is rightfully catching flack about his inability - or unwillingness - to deliver clear and effective leadership in the majority party.

Rhetoric like "squandered mandate" isn't just a temper tantrum. It's very real buyers' remorse from people who worked very hard to get this man and his staff elected, and expect them to work just as hard on the issues we supported him on. As I said before, gays and hispanics in particular have reason to feel betrayal as do environmentalists. The problem isn't that he tried and failed. It's that he very visibly failed to even try, and on very simple issues. Moral clarity and brave leadership were sorely lacking at a time when they could have done the most good. Now that window of opportunity has nearly passed, and his staff is now reaping the benefits of their decision to ignore the base, taking them for granted.

Posted by: IronyisHot | September 19, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Responding to:

George, I can understand how you may not have noticed when I switched gears from a brief statement about you into a longer statement about the blog post we're discussing, but I'll re-post below for clarity. Perhaps this time you'll be better able to note where I lifted the "petulant" terminology from.

Posted by: IronyisHot
________
Irony,

I didn't notice the change. Apologies if you took offense. However, I'm sticking to my guns about using logic.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 19, 2010 1:26 AM | Report abuse


Irony,

I agree that the author's use of the term "petulant" was unnecessary. But you can see yourself from some of the posts on this site how one could come across this word. But I also think you're too quick to take offense. When you write "Laughing at the people who supported you most visibly during your campaign is not the act of a brilliant politician," I think you are mischaracterizing the jokes described in the article. If I were in the audience, I wouldn't take offense at these jokes.

When you write, "It's very real buyers' remorse from people who worked very hard to get this man and his staff elected, and expect them to work just as hard on the issues we supported him on," you again demonstrate this tendency to demand that the president pay attention to your concerns because you worked hard for him. Millions of people did, and they all have different concerns.

My father worked for the Kennedy campaign, but I never heard the words, "I worked hard for him, and I want him to
pay attention to my concerns." People didn't think that way then; they worked for candidates out of conviction, or, when that was lacking, out of duty.

Of course a big part of the problem is that modern campaigns are dramatically longer and more expensive than before. The only way to combat big money is to have a lot of people toiling away out of conviction. But people have to learn that complaining and moaning all the time about your own candidate 1) undermines your own party (above all in the middle of a Congressional campaign!), 2) strengthens the opposition party, and 3) gets tiresome. Every day I read people (sometimes the same people from day to day, "I believed that man, but I'll never trust him again." Which lead me to assume he or she has crossed the final bridge. But if you cross the final bridge every day, than you'll probably bore any who will listen to you and make it pretty embarrassing to have to step back, should a Palin get nominated in two years. And you've also forfeited all possible influence on the candidate--why should anyone in the Democratic party care what you think about President Obama when you've said dozens of times he's an absolute failure? You've written him off, and that's that.

One more point...on a human level, can't you give the man some slack? He's probably received about a billion messages by now that he's a Communist, a Nazi, Hitler, Stalin, Satan, and probably worse (oh yes, now he's irremediably "other"). There are constant death threats against him. He took a year of vicious abuse in order to pass a health care bill, which wasn't a central part of his program until he promised Kennedy he would make it a top priority. If he passes a bill that the Democrats weren't able to pass over the last 60 years, and one that will help tens of millions of people, he gets vicious criticism from the right--and vicious criticism from the left as well! You can justify this however you want, but I find it appalling.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 19, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Oh, indeed, how petulant of us to want the federal government to try, after 8 nightmare years, to restore some fairness in the tax system, to make a serious inroad or two on the affordability of health care, to hold the people who got rich while taking the financial system over a cliff at least moderately accountable, to run to the aid of the millions of people who've lost jobs, homes, and savings in the wake of the looting of our economy, and to make sure, while the private sector sits on nearly $1.8 trillion dollars because they don't want to take risks (isn't that why they were supposedly being so richly rewarded?), or more, likely, because they're waiting for the Rs to march in and cut their taxes again, that people don't suffer unduly.

And how petulant to think that, after being courted so ardently, after giving money, driving all over the country to help with GOTV, and finally voting, that we're kicked to the curb so soon after Inauguration Day.

Wow, look at all the legislation that got passed (courtesy of Nancy Pelosi as much or more than Barack Obama). Villager scorecard. I would measure this president's success-or lack of it - by how many more people are working, how many fewer states are cutting their assistance programs, and how much we've gained in terms of social and economic justice.

But, oh, that might sound petulant.

Posted by: scaypgrayce | September 19, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Oh, indeed, how petulant of us to want the federal government to try, after 8 nightmare years, to restore some fairness in the tax system, to make a serious inroad or two on the affordability of health care, to hold the people who got rich while taking the financial system over a cliff at least moderately accountable, to run to the aid of the millions of people who've lost jobs, homes, and savings in the wake of the looting of our economy, and to make sure, while the private sector sits on nearly $1.8 trillion dollars because they don't want to take risks (isn't that why they were supposedly being so richly rewarded?), or more, likely, because they're waiting for the Rs to march in and cut their taxes again, that people don't suffer unduly.

And how petulant to think that, after being courted so ardently, after giving money, driving all over the country to help with GOTV, and finally voting, that we're kicked to the curb so soon after Inauguration Day.

Wow, look at all the legislation that got passed (courtesy of Nancy Pelosi as much or more than Barack Obama). Villager scorecard. I would measure this president's success-or lack of it - by how many more people are working, how many fewer states are cutting their assistance programs, and how much we've gained in terms of social and economic justice.

But, oh, that might sound petulant.

Posted by: scaypgrayce | September 19, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Obama's complaints are foolish. I don't agree that the Left is being unreasonable, but even if I did it's not a leader's job to change the people he leads. A leader's job is to understand the people he leads and, with that understanding, find a way to win their support for the path he thinks is best.

Obama isn't succeeding at that job. His base is not energized because he has shaped his policies to win broad consensus rather than to energize his base. Bush did the opposite. That's why, despite the unpopularity of many of his policies with a large portion of the electorate, he won in 2004. Energizing the base is how elections are won in a polarized country. If Obama doesn't realize that and start acting on it, he's going to lose in 2012.

Posted by: continental46@aol.com | September 19, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I understand President Obama's frustration at not getting more credit from "the left" (as if the left is monolithic)...but Obama and his minions must understand liberals feel as though the administration view their support as a given when Obama has repeatedly not lived up to campaign pledges and sometimes did the polar opposite such as with torture, executive power, and not violating the Constitution as Bush did.
Obama and his administration may view "pragmatism" and back room deals w/ corporations as a virtue but liberals really don't.

Posted by: Civilius | September 20, 2010 1:54 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing trivial about the distinction between a mandate and a public option. That's a pretty slithery comment coming from the biggest snake in town.

Posted by: sobi1 | September 20, 2010 4:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm not a lefty but I am for good government. The Health Care law passed by Congress is one of the worst pieces of legislation in terms of impact that has been passed in decades. It's impact would take thousands of pages to properly critique, but suffice it to say that it is going to be much worse than the status quo. We'd be better off paying private insurance companies to insure those 31 million people at market rates, it would be a lot cheaper. That's how bad it is.

This country has a lot of problems that need serious, sustained discussion, followed by serious policy remedies. Not back room sausage making by corrupt politicians while the President blithely looks on and crows about "his" accomplishments when something / anything passes.

I didn't expect much from Obama, who is almost certainly the least experienced person to hold the office of President of the United States. I am surprised and saddened that he hasn't even managed to live up to my low expectations.

Posted by: robert17 | September 20, 2010 4:27 AM | Report abuse

Postmodern (self referential) irrational journalism.

Posted by: charlesfrith | September 20, 2010 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Maybe this is just one more of a chorus of lefties responding to this drivel. First, how brilliant of Obama to criticize the very people whose energy he needs to avoid a midterm catastrophe at the polls.

Second, I venture that most of the "petulant left" are more like me. That is, it's not that we are whining about no public option, etc. Rather, we are frustratingly enraged by Obama's unshakeable sang froid, apparently as a result of personality, in the face of dangerous right wing radicalism.

It's been said he's gotten more stirred up lately. Maybe. Too little too late? And it's clear his heart isn't in it.

The national Democratic party has been for too long the preserve of whiney Caspar Milquetoast. FDR once said that he relished his enemies' hatred. Can you imagine Obama coming close to anything like that? For a long time I've thought he couldn't avoid re-election because the Reps haven't anyone who could beat him. But if he keeps this up, and adding insult to injury keeps dumping on his base, I'm not so sure. And if he's defeated, and the Dems suffer both now and in 2012, the Dems have only themselves to blame.

Posted by: pwynn | September 20, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Here's what went wrong, Mr. President. Your trust that market mechanisms would right the larger economic crisis led you to fixate on Wall Street. Saving Wall Street, you assumed, would bring jobs back on line once credit was available to employers. This assumption made the public option unnecessary, even if desirable on some theoretical level for you, since a rectified and regulated employer-based health plan would extend coverage. What you forgot, and any good left of center economist and/or historian could have told you, was that Wall Street would hunker down to protect profit and NOT increase the credit flow; that even with credit, employers would not restart hiring because the new default position for them that ensured acceptable earnings was based on fewer, more productive workers, workers who were afraid they would lose their jobs. Had you or your advisers had the courage of your rhetoric and the sense to stay consistently to the left of market force theory, the American public would still be in love with you, people would be back at work, and millions more Americans would not have LOST health care. Your only option now is an immediate public works job program, run by a federal agency of some sort, that gets people to work at something, anything, until the private sector realizes it will have to get back into the hiring mode if they want any workers at all. From a not-so-petulant leftist of 69 years.

Posted by: jsuggs1 | September 20, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

MAYBE IF WE HAD LEGALIZED POT AND GAY MARRIAGE WE WOULD BE HAPPY.

GLAD FOR THE HEALTH BILL, BUT NOT HAVING THE PUBLIC OPTION STINKS

AND I TOO THINK JOBS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE STIMULUS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT THE BANKS, IT WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT BETTER.

AND JUST MAYBE WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING CALL NAMES AND REALLY DO NOT CARE IF REPUBLICANS WIN MORE SEATS OR THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSES.

Posted by: honeybee1 | September 20, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

MAYBE IF WE HAD LEGALIZED POT AND GAY MARRIAGE WE WOULD BE HAPPY.

GLAD FOR THE HEALTH BILL, BUT NOT HAVING THE PUBLIC OPTION STINKS

AND I TOO THINK JOBS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE STIMULUS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT THE BANKS, IT WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT BETTER.

AND JUST MAYBE WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING CALL NAMES AND REALLY DO NOT CARE IF REPUBLICANS WIN MORE SEATS OR THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSES.

Posted by: honeybee1 | September 20, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments here validate the President's observations. If you take the comments as a composite, the message is pretty consistent.

First, you have to filter out the comments made by the group of people who have a deep dislike for the president and troll each day looking for sites where they can spread vitriol and hatred.

Then you take the remaining comments and the message is: Mr. Stromberg, you are wrong, and here is the reason why: President Obama has failed to do what I wanted him to do the way I wanted him to do it and on my timetable. Therefore, I get to be petulant and you should not be telling me I cannot be petulant.

If this communal tantrum continues to prevail, all these folks will be rewarded with a return to Bush era practices and policies. I am 67 years old and tend to take the long view. Using that lens, he has done a lot and done it well. I keep hoping the petulance dissipates in time...

Posted by: pbkritek | September 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

George- you are just an apologist- you will come up with a rationalization for this guys failure to attempt broad progressive change (remember his slogan what was it again???) and put through a bunch of weak bills- you push politicians by letting them know that they have to act for your interests- that is what the right wing has done to it's politicians.

Barack does not believe in anything but Barack- he will not act on progressive legislation unless it will benefit him- if we don't push, nothing happens.

But keep apologizing. It works well.

Posted by: NYClefty | September 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

George- you are just an apologist- you will come up with a rationalization for this guys failure to attempt broad progressive change (remember his slogan what was it again???) and put through a bunch of weak bills- you push politicians by letting them know that they have to act for your interests- that is what the right wing has done to it's politicians.

Barack does not believe in anything but Barack- he will not act on progressive legislation unless it will benefit him- if we don't push, nothing happens.

But keep apologizing. It works well.

Posted by: NYClefty | September 20, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Bravo, pbkritek! These are outstanding observations.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 20, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:


George- you are just an apologist- you will come up with a rationalization for this guys failure to attempt broad progressive change (remember his slogan what was it again???) and put through a bunch of weak bills- you push politicians by letting them know that they have to act for your interests- that is what the right wing has done to it's politicians.

Barack does not believe in anything but Barack- he will not act on progressive legislation unless it will benefit him- if we don't push, nothing happens.

But keep apologizing. It works well.

Posted by: NYClefty
__________________
NYClefty,

I have answered you point for point several times, and you keep shooting back with wild guesses about my motivations, President Obamas's, your feelings, etc.

Don't worry what my motivations are. Don't worry about what President Obama's motivations are. You don't know enough about either of us.Don't worry what your feelings are, because these change from day to day (although I imagine you might live in a state of permanent rage).

Form coherent arguments, with reliable content. And please try to replace the figures "perfect" and "useless" with "better" and worse." You are exemplifying Niehbuhr's rule, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 20, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Responding to:

AND I TOO THINK JOBS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE STIMULUS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT THE BANKS, IT WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT BETTER.
honeybee1
__________
Honeybee1,
What planet are you on? The stimulus bill did give money to the American people. It's called a tax cut. A huge chunk of the stimulus money went into the tax cut.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 20, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh, indeed, how petulant of us to want the federal government to try, after 8 nightmare years, to restore some fairness in the tax system, to make a serious inroad or two on the affordability of health care....

But, oh, that might sound petulant.

Posted by: scaypgrayce
_______
Yes, it does sound petulant. You make it sound as though you deserve all these things, when each item has to be fought for, and even then the best-laid plans may go wrong. Your personal beliefs about the way things "should be" don't really matter unless you can translate them into action. You have no God-given right to demand that others conform to your vision; probably half the country doesn't believe in the core elements of your vision, and the "left" half of the country has millions of different theories about what we should do.

Please don't believe that I'm making fun of you; I'm not. I grew up in the 70's, and my first election was when Reagan defeated Carter. Practically every belief with which I grew up changed dramatically around me; eight years later, the country was a different place. I've been fighting ever since to help candidates whose beliefs are close to my own. But I am under no illusion that I deserve to have the country return to the vision of my youth.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | September 20, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back liberals - you've had your two years of one party government, and this is as good as it gets for you. Better luck next time.

Posted by: Illini | September 20, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company