How I feel about President Obama

[cali]

I'm conflicted. I get accused a lot here of "bashing" the President something I don't think I do, but I do criticize policies he's put forth, and yes I question his, moral bearings on some issues. I don't know how else to put that, and I do it with regret. I like President Obama in many ways, and I like some of the things he's done in office.

But there are other things, not minor issues either, that trouble the hell out of me, and I can't not speak out because I like the man in the oval office. When it comes to issues like spying on Americans, actions taken in the name of national security, the environment, the social safety net, the President's words and/or actions have, at times been profoundly wrong. I don't even need to get into why they're wrong.

I don't see how you can construe this as bashing.


I suspect I'm not alone in these sentiments.

[woo me with science]

1. Obama is temporary. It will happen again in 2016 without systemic change.

The issue is not the man's personality. The issue is corporate money corrupting our system.

Let's not get distracted by pointless discussions about the psychology of one man. This isn't about any single corporate-backed politician. It is about a monied elite purchasing into our government and using it to build a system that will protect and grow their wealth/power at our expense, long after Obama leaves office.

[MjolnirTime]

3. Obama will have more of an effect on this planet and its people than you ever will.

He's far from temporary.

I take solace in that.

[bobduca]

15. Enjoy your Solace?

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The OP will have less of an effect on the planet than the President?

Way to prove an argument nobody was making, and sound like a petulant child.

(thanks for the reply to update, my original post made no sense.)

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Speaking of a petulant child . . .

you really, really need to rewrite your post. If anything doesn't make sense, it's your post.

"The OP will have less of an effect on the planet than the OP?"

Classic TeaBagger fail: reading a post with second grade level comprehension and calling other people "a petulant child".

Nowhere in the poster's post does it read the way you've read it. You're the one trying to make an argument NO ONE is making, yet you project that failure on a proven DUer? Hubris.

[In_The_Wind]

44. !

[Le Taz Hot]

82. I remember you!

Leftists = Teabagger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014422802#post143

Sorry, whatever credibility you might have had was lost with that post/thread.

[BlueCaliDem]

88. Glad to know I made such an impression

that you've actually bookmarked a post of mine. I don't even remember who you are. So many FireDogBaggers on DU it's hard to keep track.

And the Lefty-fringe does equal TeaBaggers. There isn't a sliver of sunlight between the two the way they hate President Obama. None. Zilch. Nada.

So . . . if it posts like a TeaBagger, opines like a TeaBagger, and hates like a TeaBagger . . . what is it? That's right! A TeaBagger.

[Le Taz Hot]

99. No bookmarks.

It was located in the "My Posts" folder.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

30. That made no fucking sense.

Take solace in that.

Woo is absolutely right. Too bad you can't see it. You're part of the problem.

[KittyWampus]

31. No, I'd say people who can't see past the immediate present are the problem. And those who refuse to

acknowledge real progress.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Three measly sentences.

And you still didn't get it? A fifth grader would understand it. Sheesh.

No wonder you're a "fantastic Anarchist". By the way, you're not doing your ideology any favors posting shit like that. Seriously.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. What does my "ideology" have to do with what we're talking about?

I seriously doubt you know what my "ideology" is. Anarchism isn't one specific "ideology." It's an overall philosophy that emphasizes no authority, no hierarchy, solidarity, pro-labor rights, egalitarianism, cooperation, etc. There are different currents all under the root socialist umbrella from individualist, to mutualists, anarcho-syndicalists, collectivists, and communists.

So, besides being a non sequitur, what does my "ideology" have to do with the discussion at hand, and how am I "not doing <my> ideology any favors posting shit like that?"

[BlueCaliDem]

61. It doesn't serve your ideology

{and it IS an ideology - an ultra leftwing ideology} at all well when even a simple three sentence post appears to stump you. I believed I was pretty clear about that in my previous post. I'm sorry you didn't get that.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. You're just too cute.

Still don't make sense, but cute, nonetheless.

[BlueCaliDem]

89. Aaaaaand . . .

. . . he digs himself even deeper.

Someone please take that shovel away!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. If you want to have the last word, at least ...

... try to answer my questions, if you can, or at least make it interesting.

[BlueCaliDem]

94. Well, of course you don't think my response was interesting . . .

. . . you'd become the butt of it. And that's never any fun.

But even if you can't see it, it was still pretty clever and it was interesting enough for you to respond to. isn't it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

103. Soooooooo ...

You're not going to answer my question. Okay.

[Blue Palasky]

34. solace?

stfu

[BlueCaliDem]

37. How about you take your own advice?

Tone it down, buddy.

[840high]

38. solace - WTF

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Here. Lemme help you...

sol·ace (sls)
n.
1. Comfort in sorrow, misfortune, or distress; consolation.
2. A source of comfort or consolation.

Glad to help you out of your confusion.

[Octafish]

47. Yeah. Like the time he locked up and threw away the key on all the banksters.

And the time he arrested all the traitors and warmongers who lied America into illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars.

And the time he used the powers of the Federal Government to create jobs and improve standards of living for the middle class.

And the time he started America on a path to clean, renewable, safe energy through a new Apollo Program for the 21st Century.

And the time he stopped using the Pentagon and CIA as Murder Inc. for the post-colonialist "Money trumps peace" warmonger set.

Yeah. Like that.

[pocoloco]

91. Oh hell yeah! How many people get the Nobel Peace prize??

Or the nickname of "The Drone Ranger"??

[MrMickeysMom]

109. I'd say the peace prize was given out prematurely..

Surely it should not have been given to continue torture and murder, extending these atrocities beyond ToStupidToBePresident Bush.

[99Forever]

10. Absolutely Woo.

That's what I have been trying to say from a very long time, but I haven't been able to do so nearly as eloquently and succinctly as you do.

The Culture of Personality is doing the Democratic Party no favor in the long run. The bad policies being implemented or even being "put out as a trial balloon" under Obama's watch, WILL come back to haunt Democrats.

It's like the fools inside the "leadership" of the Democratic Party have never heard this:

"Those the fail to remember history, are condemned to repeat it."

This shit DOESN'T just happen "by accident." Of that, if nothing else, I am absolutely certain. As to why, I simply apply Occam's Razor.

[sabrina 1]

11. Exactly, it's way past time to move on past individual personalities. The damage

has been done over decades of Corporate Control and their money in politics.

THAT is the issue, not individual politicians. It IS a distraction and one used very effectively by those who actually run things, to focus on any politician. We are NOT a monarchy, all politicians are temporary. But the influence of Wall St on our entire process, will be long-lasting.

[jsr]

23. Yep. Obama is a mere symptom of a bigger problem.

[Demeter]

39. It's a question of ethics, honesty and intent

Obama's ethics, honesty, and intent. IMHO, we got a full reading on that when he accepted that stupid Nobel Peace Prize. That was dishonest, unethical, and greedy.

[newthinking]

70. I have come to the conclusion that he aspires to the global elite

He has broken promises right and left. He is way too cosy with the financial elite. He doesn't want to piss them off too much because the big payoff comes after his Presidency is over. That is the big temptation every President faces in this era.
Like in 3rd world countries, in the US now Presidents expect a huge payoff after their service that will last a lifetime. My opinion, but I don't think it is far off

[jsr]

96. A highly lucrative future awaits him and his family

after his little gig at the White House.

[Beer Swiller]

48. Now that is a nice, succinct, and accurate summary.

Thank you.

[treestar]

68. 2014

2014

[DollarBillHines]

74. End of discussion, right there.

As a woman who I know says, "Different dogs, same handlers".

I used to argue with her.

No mas.
DBH

[Le Taz Hot]

83. Perfect!

[deutsey]

84. +1

[Autumn]

90. And that is the truth. Your post details the problem

in it's entirety. Now is when we have to come together to work to change the system. I found a post that I think is very good, you might want to check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2627525

[woo me with science]

108. Thanks for the link.

Much more there now than when I looked before.

[tomp]

95. and thus has it ever been.

the only thing that will move this country forward is an abandonment of the democratic party as a leading force for progress. the democratic party works for the rich just like the republicans. we need millions upon millions upon millions of people in the street refusing to take "No" for an answer when it comes to defending the poor working and middle classes.

our rulers will not help us voluntarily; they must be forced out and replaced with people who actually care about the vast majority of people. incremental change is a canard. we need immediate and radical change now. we need incontestable demonstrations of the power of the majority. if we rely on the democratic party we have already lost.

[MjolnirTime]

2. You've been bashing so long you don't even recognize it.

This thread is evidence that you are not completely secure in your anti-Obama stances.

It is a good sign.

[cali]

4. I do not have a history of bashing the President. I have stayed out

of most threads that do. I have criticized people for bashing the President. It's nutty stuff to accuse me of bashing.

Now why don't you fucking prove it? Provide links to my supposed bashing.

[MjolnirTime]

7. You're the one who is feeling so self-conscious that you needed to post a thread about this.

I think you know what you do.

I think you may even regret it a little bit. That why you have this public display of "I'm just misunderstood"

[cali]

8. oh fer fuckity fuck's sake. I don't regret what I've written here

about President Obama. You can do the odd projection thing or pretend you have mind reading abilities, but sorry, hon, I truly don't regret what I've written or said about the President.

[Broward]

5. How do you define bashing?

If you speak out against Obama because you disapprove of his policies and positions, is that bashing?

[G_j]

12. I think that "bash" is an intellectually dishonest term

completely vague and mostly used in a blanket statement that avoids specifics, and hinders honest dialog.
I have seen the word so badly abused here over the years, I would never use it.

[choie]

14. So is the word "hater"

which is thrown around here a lot by people who have no response to others' sincere concerns about Obama's actions.

[G_j]

16. Yea

that is even more blatant, but used in the same way. If someone uses either of those words towards another DUer I take it they are not interested in communication.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. How about

anti-Obamanites? Better?

Perhaps more succinct because 1) Hate is the antonym of love, and you can't hate what you've never loved, and 2) There's no doubt there are a lot of anti-Obama "Democrats" infesting this site that are loathed to compliment the president, but go ALL OUT in bashing every thing he does - even when they don't even understand what that is and only heard the teeth-gnashing and wailing at DKos and FireDogBaggerLake.

[G_j]

50. Why?

can't you discuss actual policy?

[BlueCaliDem]

52. If these people

don't know the ins and outs of the proposal presented to Congress by this president by now, it's because they don't want to. So what makes you think they'll want to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their negative view of this president and are open to "discussing policy"? Have you even READ their posts? Come on.

[G_j]

53. That is quite a broad brush

and I have no idea who "these people" are.
Certainly that does not apply to Cali.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Well,

let's just agree to disagree. That poster, in my personal experience having read his/her posts, fits perfectly in the "people who don't know the ins and outs of the proposal presented to Congress by this president by now because they don't want to."

[sulphurdunn]

100. You have not

rebutted a single statement proffered in the post. You have merely launched an abusive ad hominem attack. This is an opinion piece. You should restrict yourself to expressing your own counter opinion, supported or not by evidence, and leave the writer alone. Mockery is a useful tool for attacking the hubris of power, not your neighbors.

[BlueCaliDem]

101. Oh. Was I supposed to conform to your idea of how, when, and what to post?

I'm sorry. I didn't get that memo.

[sulphurdunn]

102. I guess you

didn't get that memo. It says, "you can disagree without being disagreeable." It's been in circulation for a very long time. I don't know how you missed it.

[sabrina 1]

13. I have not seen Cali bash the President, I have seen her be honest about some of his

policies. That you would call that 'bashing' says way more about you than about her.

And she and I do not always agree on things, but facts are facts, she nor anyone else here who are unhappy with certain policies, are doing what we are supposed to. Blind loyalty is for Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

26. I've read that statement directed at me so many times I can't

count them. And today, the day after we learned that Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security, today I am proud to be a basher.

Obama has been wrong, utterly, harmfully wrong on many things including his policies toward whistleblowers, his failure to prioritize transparency and honesty in government.

And now his attack on Social Security which will set the Democratic Party and future Democratic candidates back to pre Jimmy Carter times.

The list of Obama failures is very long. Personally, I'm sick of it.

I like Obama as a person very much, but he is a weak president. I would not have thought or said that a few months ago, and I worked very hard during the campaign of 2012 for his election. Really hard, lots of hours.

But his performance this year is weak and underhanded. I'm ashamed of him. I wanted him to be primaried. It would have done him good to face a bit of a challenge from a more liberal candidate, from someone closer to the people.

But that was not to be. Today I am proud to be bashing Obama because Obama is wrong.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. You need to read my post and see just how wrong you are.

It's gonna hurt, but hey, the truth usually does, especially to those with a mind already made up against this president no matter what he does:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2625179

Why are so-called Democrats here so quick to bash President Obama without knowing the facts, and without understanding that things aren't as simple as they appear to accept? And why are those same people so slow to compliment him? What is it about this particular president that so-called Democrats here hate so much? Hm.

Stop reading DKos or FireDogBaggerLake would be a good start. They don't give a good goddamn what people think, just as long as they get the clicks which translates into money through books and shit. I don't doubt they would have been happier had Mittney won the presidency. HUGE profits in that. Then they could see their bottom-lines EXPLODE. But, alas, President Obama won again, and now they need to gin up every non-controversy they possibly can, skew the information to make it appear as if he's "selling us out", and people who already have this huge chip on their shoulder against the president {and who voted for the illustrious Jill Stein or ex-Republican Gary Johnson, or Ron "drugs should be FREE" Paul} will get all riled up and open their purse-strings to vent that frustration.

[JDPriestly]

59. In general elections, and in particular in 2012, I was a huge Obama

supporter. I volunteered many, many hours on his campaign -- early on. I was a mainstay of his campaign in my town.

He was a far better choice than Romney.

But his caving on Social Security is morally wrong.

Social Security is a moral imperative for our society. The alternative -- food stamps, housing assistance, etc. is demeaning.

Obama is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong to compromise on Social Security. And on top of being wrong, he is a fool because it is one issue on which a vast majority of Americans agree.

Compared to Europe our Social Security system is modest. We retire far later than most Europeans and receive far less government help compared to the general state of our economy.

The chained CPI will cut the Social Security benefits of the most vulnerable.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. The SSA Trustee Report for 2012

shows, that by 2033 - that's just than twenty years from now! - social security will be DEPLETED, and benefits will face an automatic CUT of 25%. Read that again. Twenty FIVE percent CUT.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

Now, for those currently receiving S.S. benefits, that might not be such a big whoop and they might not give a shiite, but for me who still has more than twenty-five years to go, that's a HUGE deal. Or should we just wait, hope and pray, that things will change? Wasn't it in, 2005, when Bush was president that SSA was solvent and fine until 2041? Look what happened. It's now shortened to 2033. God only knows if even that will get shortened, judging by the GOP's reluctance to do anything to pass a jobs bill.

We are losing time and we need to fix this now. If not now, when? 2033?

[MFrohike]

73. Pure comedy

Your link, and the click-through to the NYT, doesn't prove your contention that somehow, mystically, chained CPI will raise benefits. In fact, your cited source, the fabled Grey Lady article, does not mention your claim at all. It's usually considered good form to cite to evidence that actually proves your case rather than articles discussing the issue in a general way, but lacking the necessary specifics.

Your claim that chained CPI will raise benefits is simply hilarious. I would be VERY interested in seeing the source of that claim.

[think_critically]

72. what is he supposed to do

I think sometimes we on the left forget that we live in the real world. Not some liberal dream world that we want to live in. Unless democrats somehow take over all branches of government in 2014 entitlements will have to change. There is no getting around it. Obama is not a liberal. He is a pragmatist with progressive views. Sometimes you have to be willing to loose battles in order to win wars and I can tell you one thing for sure, Barack Obama has pushed this country farther to the left than any president since FDR. And keep in mind, FDR also got cozy with big business, operated internment camps, and got a big case of deficititis as well. As for weakness, it takes a pretty big set of balls to put out a budget that you know will do nothing but piss everybody off. He earned a great deal of respect from me when he did that b/c it shows that his fair share mantra wasn't just bull shit. Yes the rich need to pay higher taxes but the rest of us have to sacrifice as well.

[JDPriestly]

77. Actually, LBJ, yes, Lyndon B. Johnson pushed this country

further to the left than any president since Roosevelt.

He suffered a terrible fiasco in Viet Nam, but he guided civil rights legislation, Medicare, the War on Poverty and so many good laws through the process of enactment during his presidency that we owe him a lot, really a lot of what is good in our society today. The Great Society was his dream.

He had taught poor children of Mexican descent in school before going into politics. He had his faults, but he was a man of true compassion.

I like Obama a lot, but he does not have the compassion that LBJ or Roosevelt had -- not by a long shot.

My husband reminds me that Truman oversaw the compassionate programs we offered to Japan and Germany (Marshall Plan) once we had conquered them. Also, Truman brought in the GI bill. The GI bill was the greatest boost the middle class in the US ever got. It included free education for veterans and housing loans. In fact, my husband and I bought our house with a VA loan so to this day, Americans are benefiting from the great work of Truman and Johnson.

The Civil Rights legislation opened the way for Obama among others.

No to Social Security and Medicare cuts. Those programs are what keeps America safe.

The chance that the average American will ever be harmed by a terrorist from the Middle East is very, very small. But the chance that an American will be harmed by cuts to Social Security and Medicare are very, very great.

Social Security and Medicare are more important to Americans than is the war on terror. Any day.

[Logical]

93. I will take a 1000 critical Obama DUers for every one 100% blind supporter! n-t

[LWolf]

6. Interestingly enough,

I'm one of his most vocal critics, and I don't dislike him. I like him fine. I just don't like his policies. I think his policies, way too many of them, have been harmful to the nation; a harm that we feel now, that will carry on into the future long after he's left the WH.

I'll add education to those issues that he is profoundly wrong on.

[etherealtruth]

9. I certainly am not feeling "warm and fuzzy" about him right now (to say the least)

So you are correct; you are not alone in these sentiments

[Nye Bevan]

17. I don't think any DUer would agree with President Obama on every single issue.

I guess that makes us all "bashers" to some extent.

But I for one will always remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard that the President had said that someone was good-looking.

[UBEEDelusional]

18. For many the President is likeable the way Reagan way liked by many too

Pres Obama just like Reagan has crap policies that hurt many.

The President is just the convenient single punching bag to use when people are expressing their anger at the policy.

I don’t think anyone here really hates PBO as a person it is the corporate policies and people he keeps promoting.

At least it is for me.

BTW I did not like Reagan at all both as a person and as pres but lots of Dems did. PBO is ok I guess but I really don't care or follow his private life. I would tho like to burn one with him and talk sometime. It would be interesting.

[newfie11]

19. You are not alone

I feel the same way.

[stupidicus]

20. I've been bashing the bashers you described

from almost my first day here as a participant.

The simple fact of the matter is that all the bashing of the sort you and many others have fallen victim to is done by those who are part of the problems we address with our criticisms, and not part of the solution. They are perfectly entitled to disagree with us, but that disagreement has largely taken the form of insults intended solely to discourage (censorship) debate, and often have been the beginning and end of it.

What I've found to be most insulting and disgusting about all of it going back well before the election, is the way they project their hatefullness and divisiveness onto us with the namecalling which "basher" is, and one of the less "flattering" as well. It is they that are the hatefull and divisive ones, who have made a mockery of the definition of what it means to be "liberal" in the non-political, denotative sense, as well as politically in terms of some of the things upon which we disagree.

My feelings about BHO haven't changed much since I voted for him the first time, because I knew what I was voting for in terms of what he'd likely do, and there have been very few significant surprises. I had very little in the way of doubt before voting for him this last time, that we'd be seeing him put SS, etc, on the table as he has.

The bashers have accomplished nothing but sowing discord in our ranks at a time when we need complete unity, and in imo, that unity needed to be seen and heard before the election whether it would have changed anything or not. I've long thought and argued around here that all the bashing could have been the proverbial straw that broke the backs of many otherwise wouldbe BHO voters last year, compelling them to stay home, simply because they were made to feel unwelcome in the "party" by the bashers. As also noted, only the level of fear for the rightwingnuttery Mutt represented likely limited the damage they did with their BS.

But we are and have been the "divisive and hateful" ones. They simply either lack the intellectual heft and/or integrity, or the mental acuity to resolve constructive, heartfelt criticisms and the hateful "bashing" the enemy does into the two separate and distinct things they are, or in the alternative, simply don't care to for all the wrong reasons. Hindsight is no replacement for foresight, but it's far better than the blindness they promote with their bashing.

Hopefully this situation will finally open their eyes. I've seen a lot of the "bashers" pretending none of that ever happened or that they participated in it, but I haven't even thought about looking for any apologies for it.

tell them to kiss your ass and to call it a love story...lol

[JoePhilly]

35. The interesting part of your post, is the extent to which you project.

You keep calling the people you disagree with "bashers".

And then you question their "intellectual heft" and their "integrity".

You claim those who disagree with you are "hateful and divisive".

The incredible irony displayed in your post should not go unnoticed.

[stupidicus]

57. your imagination doesn't count

I question the intellectual H&I of anyone that thinks "you're a troll, you're trying to undermine BHO"s election chances" or "you're an Obama-hater and/or ODS-sufferer", etc, etc, etc, is an argument as opposed to what it plainly and undeniably is -- mindless bashing in lieu of having an argument and which is intended solely as a "sit down and shut up" replacement more than anything else.

The only thing "incredible" here, is your suggestion that ones issuing and relying on such these many months now, and my calling them out for it with the "bashers" designation somehow puts me in the same boat as they have freely followed that course in, like as the ones victimized by that abuse, we become the bully (or as bad as the bully) simply by trying to bloody their noses in response to their aggression.

Let me guess -- you're one of those that has spent the many months characterizing all posts and posters expressing concerns over/criticizing the expectation that BHO would be putting SS on the table as, as obama-haters/bashers, etc, no?

If not, then the ONLY thing that shouldn't go unnoticed here is that you weren't a bright enough guy to figure out what my post was about, which is that those "bashers" of the so-called "bashers" (as apparently the OPer here has been called) are the ones that need to sit down and shut, and rightly should be choking on their righteous (but now shown to be completely wrong) BS now that the cat is completely outta the bag.

What's next Philly -- the despising and disgust a gay, black/brown or muslim might feel and direct at/towards their victimizers is no more justified than that on the part of their victimizers that motivates them? That's exactly what your effort here in support of your likely bashing brethren represents to me. In my experiences, turning the other cheek to that kind, be they racists, etc, or "bashers" like many so-called "liberals" here have been, is just an invitation to get both cheeks slapped off.

Sorry I'm being so abusive to your bashing "pals".

[dajoki]

21. No, you are not alone n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

22. I try to be positive also...but am tired of chess, compromise, weak hands and being bullied.

Enough, already.

Sadly, it has all just reaffirmed that sure, they are parties...but, mostly, there are politicians, who are tied to big money.


Then there is us. We lose....pretty much every time.

[JDPriestly]

24. You put it so well. +10000

[donnasgirl]

25. Cali

Nicely put I feel the exact same way you do, I have on many occasions been ridiculed for feeling the President is letting the little guy down, it is high time we let the politicians know exactly how we feel.

[cantbeserious]

27. Cali - You Are Not Alone - I Agree With Your Points And Sentiment

eom

[Walk away]

28. The good news is that The President isn't going to run for office ever again so you can...

stop worrying about that. The bad news is that close to half of the voting population of the US disagrees with you on almost every issue and a large portion of the rest thinks you are too far to the left. Therefore, it is unlikely that you will ever see someone elected who will come up to your expectations. I agree with you on most issues but I am terrified of another republican administration. I will unreservedly support the person I feel can win the election and I'll call you out for being unrealistic. But that shouldn't stop you from standing your ground.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

29. You are not alone.

Definitely not alone.

[L0oniX]

32. He started out caving and/or capitulating.

Where did he get the idiotic idea that he could work with the GOP? Instructions from corporate overlords? Part of the good cop bad cop script handed down?

[forestpath]

33. I am as liberal as it gets and I judge all politicians by the same standards. I don't care

what party they are.

As for the word "bashing," I think it is ridiculous and downright childish to accuse people who criticize politicians of "bashing" them - it sounds like posters on entertainment boards who get their panties in a wad when their favorite TV show character is made fun of.

[whathehell]

36. I know how you feel...It's hard not to like him, personally, but his policies are what counts.

and I no longer trust him on economic issue, especially Social Security and the safety net.


I don't think he's a democrat, except in name. He's good on "social issues", but they

don't cost money....Sound familiar?...It's like the Repubs who, having nothing to offer

anyone but the One Percent, would throw out their wedge issues, of God, Guns and Gays

because it cost them NOTHING and got votes from people who would otherwise not vote for them.

I now see the Democrats doing the same, only in reverse, for basically the same reason -

- They don't cost anything.

Look at it this way: The big Democratic issues have, traditionally, been economic:

Organized Labor and the Three economic safety net programs, Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid. Obama's completely turned his back on Labor, and he's now going

after the Party's other economic issues: Social Security and Medicare.

I don't think it could be clearer, unfortunately.

[Kablooie]

49. Honest criticism is not bashing.

Anyone who doesn't have any criticisms is probably just a fawning toady.

He shouldn't be given a pass on things we disagree with simply because we like him.

[TheKentuckian]

51. Since most of us don't in any substantive way know most of these politicians

I haven't a clue what difference liking them personally makes or even on what basis the affinity exists since you don't know anything beyond a character and the actions they take.

An elected official is their policy from a real world user end perspective.

These people aren't our fucking friends, they are what they do and seek to do in this arena.

The personality stuff is silly as hell. A persona is liked, not a person and persona don't impact lives but policies do.

[demosincebirth]

55. There is bashing and there is criticizing. Both different. Which do you think you do?

[cali]

56. why ask? I made that clear both in the op and subsequent posts.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. You're not alone, Cali.

I've had these doubts for a long time now.

[Teamster Jeff]

62. I truly do not have bad feelings for Obama as a person

I just see him as inadequate for the difficult task of standing up to the 1% and corporate powers that more of less run the country. He doesn't have the right stuff to fight the true battle taking place in this country. To use the cliche... we brought a knife to a gun fight.

[Skittles]

65. you have the sane view, cali

you're a true Democrat, not a BO Groupie

[indepat]

66. I'm conflicted because I'm a big fan the man in the Oval Office and feel he has governed a hundred

times better than any Rethuglican would have. I despise all right-wing policies, initiatives, or agendas (those that promote the welfare of large corporations and the plutocrats at the expense of the we the people, the common good, the general welfare). Proposing to reduce social security benefits at a time when der mittens, with a $20,000,000 annual income, and the hedge fund manager Paulson, with a reported annual income of $5B, pay a lower marginal income tax rate than do a large segment of the middle class is bad politics imo: additionally the aforesaid individuals pay the burdensome social security payroll tax (also subject to income tax) only on a minuscule portion of their total earned income. Moreover, numerous large, profitable corporations (a very special group of persons who receives a plethora of tax breaks) pay little or no income taxes, sometimes for years. Holistically, if this scenario is not an example of governance from well to the right of center, someone please set me straight.

[Faryn Balyncd]

67. You are not alone.

[treestar]

69. How I feel about Boner and the Republicans

[MotherPetrie]

71. K&R

[markboxer]

75. I dont think he can do anything wrong

period!

[davidpdx]

76. I appreciate other's points of view if it is on policy

I don't think I've ever heard you say anything personally offensive toward the president, so I will back you on that one.

Someone up thread wisely said there is no way everyone on DU is going to agree with all of Obama's policies. That is very true. Some people have very far left view and some are more moderate and for some it really depends on the issue.

For me it depends really on the specific issue, take the situation with North Korea as an example:

I can say I've been disappointed at the lack of attention given to the situation in North Korea both as a threat to the world and its own people. Only when things have become heated has a significant amount of attention paid to this situation. I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me on that. My point is, I'm not bashing Obama, but stating I'm disappointed on how little has been done about the issue.

On the flip side....

I've run into people on DU that accuse the US of being the aggressor and the reason North Korea is suddenly threatening the world. I honestly can't stand people who on the other hand blatantly blame the United States for something without looking at all the facts.

I am by no means a war monger. I opposed the war in Iraq before it started and always continued to oppose it. At the same time I think we must reinforce the idea with North Korea that their continued antics won't be tolerated and that China needs to start to take a leadership role in this (as they have recently).

Again when you are making comments about specific issues I have no problem with criticism of the president. The people who are using the words like "sellout" "cave" and comparing Obama to Bush are the ones who I would deem the true bashers. Those people are hypocrites and really should be ashamed of themselves.

[awoke_in_2003]

78. you are not alone. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

79. Obama is a symptom,

of a rotten "Democratic" Party. Hillary would be no better. The DLC/Third Way/New DEMS have infested this Party long ago. Time to kick them out.

[4bucksagallon]

80. Discussions like this one are the reason I don't post here often.

I come for information not to see the knives come out against our own leaders. Are they perfect hell no but it is stuff like this, this baiting and infighting that is so unnecessary, and just gives fuel to the other side. I get disgusted with it and IMHO DU will lose more people because of it.

[Pakid]

81. I know the feeling

I personally like Obama but sometimes he seem to be tone deaf. Chained SS is one of those times! A bad idea that will come back and haunt the Democrats in both 2014 and 2016. There are only a handful of politicians as it is who actually work for the 98% of us who are not rich and the chained SS in not an idea that in any way shape or form helps us. It is a sad day when one can not speak there mind in the Democratic party without being criticized for doing so lets hope it never gets to that point.That is something that I except from the Republicans not from my party!

[Left Turn Only]

85. The President Is Middle of the Road

Being MOR is good for getting the majority of votes, but, unfortunately, it is not enough to start fixing the major problems that have to be addressed. Instead of using our position as a world leader to start improving the severe environmental problems facing the world, the President, while doing better than the Republicans, hasn't even begun to do what must be done. In matters of defense, Obama uses some of the same people for advisers as Bush, and we are still spending ourselves into an economic morass while increasing tensions around the world and talking about cutting the peoples' safety net to make up the costs, but moderates on both sides of the isle are happy. The middle class is constantly shrinking due to corporate manipulation of the media, union membership and the global economy, and the President spent the taxpayers dollars to shore up the old system when it collapsed from its own weight, so now corporate America is back in control of the workers around the world, and the U.S. and others are losing its tax base because of low wages and loss of jobs.

Yes, Cali, the majority of people will gather around a president who is operating from the center of the political spectrum, no matter how inadequate the efficacy of his or her policies may be.

[duffyduff]

105. Destroying the New Deal, Great Society, and public education are NOT moderate stances

They are radical, far-right stances.

The ridiculous idea Obama is a "centrist" illustrates how totally distorted political discourse has been in the past thirty years.

[Left Turn Only]

107. Let's Take a Deep Breath

I understand your anger with Obama; I don't like him either. But to think of the President as someone from the far right is letting our emotions run away with us. Yes, Obama has the lame-brained idea of cutting back on cost of living increases, but to say he wants to end social security and medicare is getting carried away. Let's not forget that Obama tried to get the beginnings of universal health care with the Public Option, but because of the ludicrous filibuster rules, the Senate turned the original health care bill into a system that leaves a lot to be desired. With education, Obama, once again, is going about improving it in all the wrong ways, but Obama is always trying to get more funding for public education.

The President has gotten bills passed on Wall Street regulation, the environment, improving health care, and even making some of the wealthiest contribute more to the well-being of our country; however, it is all mostly too little too late or just plain wrong-headed. But would we rather have had Romney in charge? It IS important to vote strategically and to keep true extreme conservatives out. Voting for someone who can win even though he or she can only be thought of as "better than the other guy" is not wimping out; it's using your head.

Also, we tend to forget that most power rests with Congress, and until the people from the individual states start electing Progressives to the House and Senate, it won't matter much who the President will be.

[Coolest Ranger]

86. After reading dozens

of posts like this, I can no longer come to this site for news. I used to enjoy reading the posts here interacting with my fellow liberals but and all though I feel the same way at times I just can't continue to come to this site while everyone is at the President's throat without reading what is in the bill.

I'm sick of everyone reacting to every bad thing they hear about the President. I'm sure I'll be attacked over this as I've been called an Obama apologist or Groopie or what ever crazy name you are going to call me. I won't be here to see the response. This is my last time posting here.

This site has disappointed me beyond measure.

[Cosmocat]

87. Two points - he is not the problem

1) He is almost exactly what I thought he was when I supported him as a candidate. He has an awesome presence, and can wordsmith with the best of them. BUT, even as a candidate he was able to do what a lot of politicians do, talk for long periods of time without saying anything. He was not some flaming liberal lion, he inspired by his tone and his poetry, not his substance. I saw that clear as day, and read it as it was, someone who was going to be moderate when he got into office.

Seriously, if anyone was LISTENING to what he said and paid attention, there have been few surprises. And, he was always cozier with the monied elites than I liked even as a candidate.

2) He is not the problem.

The problem is MOSTLY that republicans have lost their damn minds collectively. IF this was prior to the 1990s, you would be dealing with an opposition party that would have been tough, no doubt. But we have NEVER had a party that is both so far to its extreme pole AND complete, I mean TOTALLY in lock step. That means they drive all discussion to their extreme, will not compromise AT ALL, AND there literally is not a single republican in Washington DC that will break ranks from their party's position.

IN ADDITION, what was once the "middle" in American politics is now exclusively in the Democratic Party. SO, while you have half of congress completely opposed to the extreme, you have a quarter of congress that would drive progressive policies and a quarter of congress flying under the Democratic flag that is genuinely centrist.

People want simplicity, and want to think the President had dictoral power.

I can guarentee he would have signed a single payer health care bill if one got to his desk. It was NEVER going to happen. Half of congress was opposed to it, a quarter of congress would not succumb to the pressure against it and a quarter of congress would have supported it. He could have screamed for it every day for a year and it would not have changed.

Just an example to highlight.

I like him a lot. I wish we could have a Howard Dean type President, but just as the republican's can't elect a Rick Santorum far right person, the democrats won't elect a Howard Dean. For what we can get, the Big Dog and BHO are the best we can do. The problem is congress.

[think_critically]

110. Very Smart

That is probably one of the smartest things I've seen posted on this board. You are spot on. The guy ran as a compromiser who wanted to bring people together. That was his big selling point. People seem to forget that. He is a greater good long view pragmatist so why would anybody be surprised by the decisions he's made. Like the poster said, being that way works when you are dealing with rational people but when you deal with people who hate you then it's a different ball game. The sad reality is that there really is nothing else he can do. He can become a hard charging liberal but that will get him no where. He can try to compromise and reach out but they will just throw it back in his face. We are in an era where it is nearly impossible to govern effectively. Perhaps when the black man leaves office things will change but for now it's hopeless. For God's sake we can't even get these assholes to agree on universal background checks. If we can't do that why on earth would anybody thing it is even remotely possible to push any progressive legislation through congress. Folks need to get off their soap boxes and start dealing with reality.

[Cosmocat]

111. Man

Thanks.

Side note, when Sandy Hook happened, a lot of folks here were dead certain that there would be significant gun control legislation because of it, and I said no way.

You can't even get the DEMOCRATS to cross that threshold.

My father in law, a truly good person, but a BIG NRA guy, as well as most of the rest of the in in laws were all anxious about it, and I flat told them nothing was going to happen. He probably wanted the new toy anyways, but used it to motivate himself to pop about $1,400 for a pretty nice assault style rifle (which, of course, is a big part of why the NRA made a big deal out of digging its heels in). And, I must admit, I am going to go fire it with him the next time I am up there ...

Only thing we are going to see get down is immigration, and only because the Rs think they need to do it to win elections. They just have to spin around a while longer trying to find a way to do what everyone (in particular the POTUS) has been saying had to get down for years now while making it seem to be THEIR idea while trying to spin it as doing what the POTUS has recommended is in fact not what he recommended, and if we had done what they say he had recommended the Founding Fathers would have arisen and blighted us from existence.

[CrispyQ]

97. The entire party is a disappointment.

I have a dem senator who votes more like a repub than a dem. I voted for his challenger in the primary last time he was up for reelection, to no avail.

Woo nailed it in the first reply.

[steve2470]

98. I completely understand nt

[duffyduff]

104. Criticism isn't bashing

His record speaks for itself, and some of it is unspeakable.

[markpkessinger]

106. I'm right there with you, Cali n/t