In 2008 I supported John Edwards....And then Obama. ...What was I thinking?

[Armstead]

In 2008, I felt very strongly that I wanted Anybody but Hillary.

After 8 years of the Corporate Centrist DLC presidency of Bill Clinton, I dreaded the thought of going back to that.

Bill Clinton had set up the economic disaster that followed in the 00s -- and ultimately the destruction of the middle class and the further marginalization of the poor during thaty decade. Bush had simply built on the foundation of deregulation and privatization that Clinton had built.

I also thought in 2008, that after the mess Bush had created the chickens had come home to roost for the GOP.

And it looked like a chance for a fresh start for the Democrats -- and the mood of the country was ripe for a resurgence of progressive populism or liberalism, or whatever you wanted to call it.

I settled on John Edwards. I liked his populist message and he seemed to be the one who "got it" regarding what was needed for a true, broadly-based economic recovery....But I also must admit, there was something about him I didn't quite trust. He was a little too slick and oily...But I overlooked my misgivings.

Ooooops. I screwed that one up.... When he (fortunately) crashed and burned, I looked for another alternative.

This time I settled on Barack Obama. He seemed like a reasonable alternative to Hillary. And some of his speeches (to paraphrase Chris Matthews) sent a tingle up my leg.......But once again, I must admit there was something about him I didn't quite trust. At time his political positions seemed a bit nebulous. There seemed to be a reluctance to actually be a liberal or progressive. But, again, I overlooked my misgivings.

Here on DU I defended and supported him staunchly. And I got caught up in the fever as he won the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

But his actions as President caused my initial mistrust to grow, as President Obama seemed either weak or not committed to a truly liberal agenda. It was a mixed picture as he sent mixed signals. He'd make great speeches and suggest constructive solutions. But then he'd do or say things that seemed like backsliding to the Corporate Centrist Club.....And giving far too much to the GOP.

Last year's election rekindled my enthusiasm for him. But to a large extent it would be more honest to say that Romney and the GOP rekindled my enthusiasm for him. Compared to them, he was 1,0000 percent better. I dreaded a Romney presidency so much that I quashed the section of my brain that had doubts about Obama.

And after the election, his Inauguration speech was so on target that I became actively enthusiastic about him. He brought up the issues that I think matter....And his tone seemed determined to move the country forward in a more progressive/liberal direction. And he seemed like, since he didn't have to win reelection again, he might actually mean it this time.


Oooops wrong again.

[jsr]

1. He made good speeches.

Great speeches.

[ProSense]

2. Maybe

This time I settled on Barack Obama. He seemed like a reasonable alternative to Hillary. And some of his speeches (to paraphrase Chris Matthews) sent a tingle up my leg.......But once again, I must admit there was something about him I didn't quite trust. At time his political positions seemed a bit nebulous. There seemed to be a reluctance to actually be a liberal or progressive. But, again, I overlooked my misgivings.

Here on DU I defended and supported him staunchly. And I got caught up in the fever as he won the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

But his actions as President caused my initial mistrust to grow, as President Obama seemed either weak or not committed to a truly liberal agenda. It was a mixed picture as he sent mixed signals. He'd make great speeches and suggest constructive solutions. But then he'd do or say things that seemed like backsliding to the Corporate Centrist Club.....And giving far too much to the GOP.

Last year's election rekindled my enthusiasm for him. But to a large extent it would be more honest to say that Romney and the GOP rekindled my enthusiasm for him. Compared to them, he was 1,0000 percent better. I dreaded a Romney presidency so much that I quashed the section of my brain that had doubts about Obama.

And after the election, his Inauguration speech was so on target that I became actively enthusiastic about him. He brought up the issues that I think matter....And his tone seemed determined to move the country forward in a more progressive/liberal direction. And he seemed like, since he didn't have to win reelection again, he might actually mean it this time.

...try focusing on some of the positive. He's President for another four years.

President's budget: Excellent proposals that Congress should support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

[Armstead]

4. Believe it or not I try to

I realize it has not seemed it on DU but I have tried to look at the good things he HAS done.

I shall also continue to hope for the best, despite my disappointment and cynicism about his performance.

But he keeps undercutting that with bigger muck ups (in my opinion, of course). I still think he screwed the pooch with healthcare for example, by initiating mandates without even a public option.

And I am especially angry that he has joined the AUSTERITY BRIGADE of the GOP and Corporate Elites, who are using a form of Shock Docturne to create an excuse to further neuter the public sector.

Fool me once...etc.

[ProSense]

21. Hey,

"I still think he screwed the pooch with healthcare for example, by initiating mandates without even a public option. "

...I think you're absolutely wrong.

Howard Dean on the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022560359

Alan Grayson in January 2011:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

In 2012, despite the RW efforts to attack Grayson on his support for health care reform, he won.

U.S. Chamber Hits Alan Grayson, Bill Nelson With Anti-‘Obamacare’ Ads

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is airing ads in Florida, attacking incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson and congressional candidate Alan Grayson over their support for health care reform. Grayson, who lost his seat in 2010, voted for the law in 2009.

The ads claim that reform could cost 20 million Americans their health care coverage and, in the ad against Grayson, recalls that a Florida judge “ruled parts of Obamacare unconstitutional.”

The ads ask Floridians to call Grayson and Nelson and ask them to support the repeal of “Obamacare.” Of course, as a private citizen, Grayson cannot do anything to repeal health care reform even if he did change his mind.

Watch the ads at FactCheck.org.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/us-chamber-hits-alan-grayson-bill-nelson-with

[Armstead]

60. You usually do think I'm absolutely wrong

That's what makes horse racing

[hfojvt]

17. "focus on some of the positive"

by which you apparently mean "fool yourself into thinking that the negative is really positive".

Like how ATRA, which gives much bigger tax cuts to the rich, than it does to the poor, will decrease inequality.

Once you accept that up is down, that tax cuts are tax increases, that bad is good, then everything comes up roses, and you can let your dogs outside and they deposit gumdrops in your yard.

[ProSense]

20. Positive:

Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2670334

[markpkessinger]

85. "Ignore the smell of the decaying corpse in the middle of the room . . ."

". . . and focus on the flowers brought in to cover the stench."

There, don't you feel better now?

[JDPriestly]

92. Enough of that ProSense. If he can't stand up for seniors on Social Security

what kind of Democrat is he?

This is a last straw kind of situation. We have accepted a lot of compromises since Nixon. Our economy has gotten worse and worse as we have imported more and more of our products. The quality of what we can buy with our dollars has declined since even the late 1980s.

I think we are all tired of the downward economic spiral. I read today on DU that Bernanke's son is running up a debt of $400,000 to go to medical school.

We in the middle class, we in the lower middle class, are pretty much being excluded from things like a medical education due to the cost of the student loans.

Bernanke may be able to pay for his son's loans, but an average family cannot. The children of average families choose between that medical degree or marriage and children in many cases.

That is why the chained CPI is such a blow. It is a reminder that we no longer live in a society in which our hard work and merit is rewarded.

We earn our Social Security benefits, and part of the promise of Social Security is that those benefits will provide the same buying power regardless of inflation.

Obama has proposed breaking the promise of Social Security.

If he is not our friend, if he does not defend our interests, where are we to turn? Our children who owe huge student loans and are trying to raise families?

And I ask this not just for myself, but for all my neighbors who can't get on the internet and ask these questions for themselves.

Who is sticking up for Americans, for poor and middle class Americans?

[olddots]

3. We can only hope for the best and keep voting and nudging all the time.

In 1970 I worked for the Shirley Chisholm campaign and for McCarthy -Ive voted my heart in primaries and had to settle for the insiders
but I have dem friends in their 80s and 90s who tell me to never give up .if we give up ----we give up .

[Armstead]

5. I don't advocate giving up

But i have to admit that after observing what has happened since the 70's, it gets harder to accept the bullshit of politicians who are not what they portray themselves as.

[Phlem]

80. +1

-p

[xxqqqzme]

6. R from me

You have described my take on '08 to a 'T'. I never got enthused w/ Obama.

All of the candidates came to the CA Dem Party convention that year except Dodd. Edwards was a pied piper. After his speech, half the delegates followed him out the door. Clinton.& Obama were not inspired. I was most impressed by Richardson. I had never heard him before. Liked what he said.

I vote by mail so I voted early in the primary. Like many of my friends, the day after mailing my ballot, the Edwards shit hit the fan. Haven't made that mistake again.

[Armstead]

7. I was one of the lemmings in that one I guess

[hfojvt]

18. I still don't regret supporting Edwards

I supported his policies, not his person. The person did some bad things, the policies did not.

As for Richardson, ugh. He was one of the first to cry that raising the cap on social security would be a big tax increase on the middle class.

[tblue]

57. I'd still vote for John Edwards.

I'd probably vote for him if I ever had the chance again. He did the unforgivable in his personal life, or so they say and, yes, he did some questionable things to cover his tracks. But I've never felt the need to judge what he does regarding his love affair. If his political career is ever resurrected, and if he's the only one who even addresses poverty, I will be behind him and proudly so.

[Yavin4]

8. Guess what. You'll Never Have to Vote for Obama nor Edwards for President Ever Again

Now, what will you do?

[Armstead]

13. Probably have to convince myself yet again that the next Corporate Dem....

....That is being forced on us through this money- driven system will at least better than the GOP alternative, yet again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Sometimes I think it is good to reflect on our political journeys

One thing thing that stands out for me is that we all need to chill just a little bit during our primary wars on places like DU. During the heat of them almost anyone who fails to support whoever we each think is the only Democrat who it makes any sense to support gets blasted as if s/he were a traitor to human decency. A year or two later most of us can see some of the advantages that others saw in different Democratic candidates, and the warts in the one we were backing.

That said I always thought that Hillary was the best bet of the Corporate Democrats, and yes I put her in that camp, and yes that camp includes my adversaries far too much of the time. I always preferred Hillary to Bill, and no they are not clones of a single human being. I think she is a corporate Dem less out of wealthy class allegiances than out of her own pragmatic beliefs about what can and can not be accomplished regarding social change in this nation given our political system and the positions that key sectors occupy within it. We, she and I, disagree on that frequently, but I believe she is a born fighter who never underestimates the resolve of her Republican opposition to attempt to thwart her agenda by any and all means possible. Bill has an overdose of "crowd pleaser" genes in him that makes him naturally triangulate whether or not it tactically is necessary. With Hillary I believe she does so more for strategic reasons, though again, I often disagree with her strategy.

Romney made it easy to be enthusiastic for Obama in a binary contest. Obama stands for the right things mostly, just not firmly enough, but ultimately that risks the whole ball game.

[hfojvt]

23. I guess that Hillary is a fighter

would explain why she voted for the invasion of Iraq instead of fighting against it.

Plus, during her campaign, the only thing or principle she seemed willing to fight for was - electing herself to the Presidency. Otherwise she seemed to stand for nothing, other than proposing tax cuts for the rich, and opposing tax increases on the rich.

One of my main problems with her though was my fear that her name would fire up the Republicans so much, that while she won the Presidency she would hurt us enough downticket to be stuck with a Republican Congress.

But now I hear from Republicans who like Hillary. She's gotten lots of positive press as SOS.

I guess I fooled myself into hoping that Obama was less of a corporate Democrat, and that his mandate for change would actually produce some.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. We are talking shades of corporate here, obviously

Either Obama or Clinton would have started 2008 with commanding majorities in Congress. Hillary had been a punching bag for the right for over a decade already. I think her initial approach to Congressional Republicans would have been less "post partisan" than Obama's. I understand the position of those who felt built in opposition to Hillary would have hurt Democrats down ticket more than under Obama as our nominee. I didn't agree with it at the time but there was a case for it.

[Beacool]

49. Oh yeah, I guess Hillary was too ambitious.

Never a good thing in a woman. What was Obama then, pray tell? He had only been in the Senate a mere two years before he thought that he was ready to be president.

To me the overconfident, over ambitious and arrogant one was Obama, not Hillary. She had worked hard, paid her dues and garnered experience. Experience that would have come in handy in handling the bag of angry cats that is Congress. I never had the feeling that he really gave a crap about the "little" people. Of the two Obamas, I think that Michelle does care a lot more than her husband.

My opinion, no one else has to agree with it.

[hfojvt]

55. it's not about being ambitious

it is about have principles, having a purpose.

Hillary's only principles, only purpose seemed to be - elect Hillary.

Oh, and she also took a stand against tax increases on the rich. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

Of course everybody who runs for President wants to be President, but for some it usually goes beyond that (or at least they pretend it does for the campaign). For John Edwards, he talked about the two Americas and he was running for President to help "the other America", the poor and struggling America. For Obama, he talked about meaningful change and hope. Sorta empty slogans, but it was something beyond "Obama is 44". Or "Hillary has more experience".

If Hillary had a message in 2008, what was it? If she has a message in 2016, what will it be? (not that she is likely to need one)

And in my view, Hillary was the candidate with the LEAST experience that I care about. The experience of being an ordinary American. She was so out of touch that she thought $110,000 a year job makes a person "middle class". By 2008, her experience was 8 years as a Senator, 8 years as First Lady and 16 years as wife of a Governor. As in 32 years of NOT being an "ordinary American". If somebody in that office is gonna give a rat's a$$ about ordinary Americans, well I think it kinda helps if they have some experience walking in the shoes of an ordinary American.

[Beacool]

58. "Hillary's only principles, only purpose seemed to be - elect Hillary".

Change the name to Obama and I would agree. Other than "hope and change" and getting himself into the WH, why was Obama running?

Hillary ran because she thought that she could make a difference. It's as simple as that. Do you realize that you're taking about people who spend most of their waking hours talking about how to make a difference in the world? That's their passion. Why do you think that Bill established his foundation? This is a man who at the time already had a quadruple bypass. He could have easily spent the rest of his life giving paid speeches, playing golf, campaigning for Dems when asked to and not much more (ala both Bush Presidents). Instead, he spends most of his time worrying about his foundation. Chelsea is now on board too and the foundation changed it's official name to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. It has now become a family endeavor.

Look, I'm not saying they are perfect people because they are not, but who is? I'm just saying that if you spend any time with them you realize that service is what they have in common since they met.

[Number23]

66. "Change the name to Obama and I would agree."

And no one would expect you do to anything else. EVER. No matter how boring and irrelevant it made your opinion.

[Beacool]

67. No more boring and irrelevant as that of the Obama perpetual apologists.

[Number23]

68. Yeah, being the PERPETUAL Hillary apologist is so much more worthy of your time

And as has been pointed out SOOOO many times, she deserves so much better than you as the undisputed leader of her fan club.

[Beacool]

69. You are either being funny or disingenuous.

Obama is the one in the WH. He sold you all a bill of goods. He may be a lot of things, but progressive he's not. He voted for FISA the minute after he got he nomination. Hillary voted against it. He signed an extension to FISA last December.

"As everyone’s attention is focused on the slew of taxes set to increase in 2013, President Barack Obama has quietly signed into law a five-year extension to the warrantless intercept program that monitors the overseas activity of suspected spies and terrorists.

The program would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president’s approval, but won final passage in the Senate on Friday before heading to the president’s desk over the weekend."

http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/280960.html



I always see the same people defending him no matter what he does. Do you think that the chained CPI is a good idea? How about not only keeping Guantanamo open, but there are plans to renovate it. Do you agree with the expansion of Bush's drone policy? The list is long.

[Number23]

70. LOL Love your desperate attempts to change the subject

Not that I am the slightest bit interested in playing your stupid deflection game, but I have spoken out about the drone policy, the proposed SS cuts and plenty of other issues. I have been exceedingly open about the fact that I have not agreed with everything the man has done, just as you have been exceedingly open about the fact that you despise him because he whupped your girl and you will never, EVER support anything that he does as a result. Your endless rage that the "bill of goods" that Hillary was selling wasn't actually bought by the people who needed to buy it is beyond ridiculous, petty and unseemly at this point.

YOU are the only one being disingenuous here and I wish you'd give it up. Everyone has seen through your shit FOR YEARS. So your "I always see the same people defending him no matter what" of which I assume you are trying to include me in that group, is every bit as true as everything else you type about the President. You could type 'the sky was blue when the President stepped outside' and I'd still check another source.

[Beacool]

73. Everyone?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

You believe what you want to believe, but no one is obligated to like any politician. It's still a semi free country.

Bye.......

[Number23]

74. Yes, dear. EVERYONE.

If I had a dollar for every time you've been laughed at/written off because of your unending a) hate of Obama and b) devotion to Hillary, I could buy my own jet stream.

And yes, you scamper off. I would acknowledge your attempt to change the subject YET AGAIN with your "no one is obligated to like any politician" foolishness but it's really not worth the time or effort.

[Beacool]

79. Whatever.............

As for being liked by anonymous people on a LW site, please.......... Who cares?

[Number23]

87. You're right. That is certainly not something you'll ever have to worry about.

[Beacool]

90. Are we in high school?

Is this a popularity contest? The whole thread is puerile.

[Number23]

91. What happened to your clever "whatever" and "bye" from like, 5 posts ago?

You should have stopped a long time ago. And not just in this thread.

Since you rely so much on smileys, maybe you should just use them to make your point from this point on.

will mean "I'm trying to passive aggressively insult someone" (a VERY common tactic and smiley for you)

will just automatically go in any thread about Hillary

will just automatically go in any thread about President Barack Obama

[Beacool]

96. Sweetie, you got issues.

[Number23]

100. If you mean "I hate haters," then yes, you are right

And I guess will now mean "I've got nothing but I'm going to keep typing because I ain't got shit else to do"

[hfojvt]

72. make a difference HOW?

That is the question. What was the difference she was planning to make as President, besides one of her apparently key goals of "keeping people who make over $110,000 from paying higher FICA taxes"

Now, post-election Obama is also all about that, but at least during the primary, he pretended to be something different, as that clip shows.

And one of the reasons I love that clip is because it sorta echoes my own journal posted about a week before that debate http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65

It's nice that Bill has a hobby and hopefully he is doing some good, but he is also very, very rich, so I don't buy this "it is all about service for the Clintons". Their personal net worth says something different than ALL.

And I thought Clinton's service in his first two terms wasn't very good at all. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665533

Which is why I don't want any more Clinton Presidencies. I'd rather elect a Democrat than a DLCer. I know Clintons are DLC . I was hoping Obama was not.

Turns out I was wrong.

[tblue]

59. Can't agree with your last point.

I just don't see it. I think he has undermined the liberal soul of the Democratic party. Very difficult for me to look past that. But that's me. May not be you, but it's me.

[Zoeisright]

43. If that isn't a given with you,

you need to do more thinking. The repuke platform is disgustingly racist, misogynist, cruel, ignorant, and selfish. If you vote for anyone based on that platform, you have no morals.

[Armstead]

61. I didn't say I'd ever support a Repuglican

But I must admit that sometimes I think the Democrat's pattern of co-opting liberalism actually is more harmful, because it defuses any real chance for a true contest of ideas and positions.

[sabrina 1]

89. Focus on Congress, cast a symbolic vote for president. If we have a strong, progressive Dem

Congress, if we work harder than ever before in the primaries, throw out the corporate puppets (we've had time to figure out who they are now) no president can do much harm because a real Democratic Congress will stop them.

We spend way too much and money and effort on the Presidential Race, just decide to vote for the Dem nominee because there is no way anyone can vote for the Republican, but don't waste too much time on it.

The next national election has to be all about Congress. THAT is where the power is. We neglect the most important races while being distracted by the show that is the presidential election.

I won't be doing that again. Starting in 2014 we have to begin the process of replacing the pretend Democrats along with as many Republicans as possible. We can do it, we did it before but we were not prepared for what happened afterwards. Now we are. Knowledge is power, there are more of us than of them. We have Elizabeth Barret in the Senate. She needs more Democrats, real Democrats to help her win the battles she faces.

The presidency has become too compromised, Even the best Dem could not fight off Wall St even if he wanted to. Congress is where the people can have some influence. We have none over the WH.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. This reflects my experiences exactly,

except for the defending-and-supporting-him-staunchly-on-DU part.

I, too, chose him over the others that you mention, and in the same sequence. But I did not defend and support him staunchly. My suspicions about him grew from the time that he voted to give immunity to the telecoms that spied upon all of us for the Bush Administration to the present.

[PDittie]

11. Yeah that would be me as well

The whole single-payer/public option/nothing business really soured me, and from there it went downhill. The drones sealed it shut.

I still defend him to this day against the Republican smears -- "look: the stock market hit all-time highs this week; Obama sure is a lousy socialist Marxist" was something I posted on FB a few days ago -- but that's solely for piss value. Despising the GOP just isn't enough for me to vote for Democrats any more.

Does anyone know what Hillary's stance on chained CPI is?

[hfojvt]

25. I had qualms about Obama almost from the start

for example, that he boasted about reforming taxes in Illinois http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/43

and even before that, about his book, "The Audacity of Hope"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/5

okay I read the excerpt from the book and I have a few problems
Posted by hfojvt in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sun May 21st 2006, 01:55 PM

"First, I note that the article you referenced took the book excerpt and used it to bash progressives - those shrill lunatics of the left who so quickly accused Obama of selling out.

Obama, in this excerpt, seems to frame the issue in such a way that puts him in a DLC position as opposed to, say, a DU or leftist blogosphere position.

"Not only did we disagree, but we disagreed vehemently, with partisans on each side of the divide unrestrained in the vitriol they hurled at opponents."

DU, or progressives, in that summation are "partisans on the left" the other side of the coin of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. Granted, DU may have its share of bombastic name-callers, but in spite of the noise they make, I do not believe that represents the majority of DU. DU does not consist of "partisans ... unrestrained in ... vitriol" but, is, in general far more reasonable and fact based. In fact, most of the vitriol is a rational response to the audacity, perfidity and apparent freedom from accountability demonstrated by Republicans.

To pretend as if nothing is wrong seems to me to be "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster" that the BFEE represents. Which is apparently where Obama is.

[Larrylarry]

10. Oh please

There's something called Congress perhaps you've heard of it ?

Please tell me how the president moves the country in a more progressive and Liberal direction when Congress is standing in the way of everything

[Armstead]

12. I'm very aware of Congress....Pissed at them too. But still....

I realize the role the GOP has had in blocking everything.

I also realize this puts Obama and the Dems in a very tough position.

That expliains a lot.

BUT that is not an excuse for not fighting them in a real contest of ideas. If deadlocks are going to happen, AT LEAST fight them on OUR terms instead of always letting them set the terms.

It is a lot more complicated than that, I know. But it always seems that the GOP and the Corps have the upper hand, no matter which party wins the most votes.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

35. +1

[ljm2002]

36. Oh please

There's something called appeasement perhaps you've heard of it?

Please tell me how the president moves the country in a more progressive and Liberal direction without he himself pushing hard in that direction

[kaiserhog]

14. Obama's failures

Obama's two biggest failures were 1) in the first days of his presidency to focus on a bigger and better thought out plan to stimulate the economy and 2) the failure to take control of Deepwater Horizon disaster. I had an economic professor say that economics is psychology and inho the Deepwater Horizon spill cast a pall on the country that slowed growth.

[karynnj]

29. The FIRST thing Obama DID do was the stimulus - and it was as big as could pass Congress

They needed the votes of Snowe, Specter and Collins. To get them, the package was made smaller and tax cuts replaced some more effective measures.

As to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, I think the response - especially putting Dr Cho in charge was as good a move as could be done. There was no one in government more capable of heading a team to look for solutions for something that had no already tried proven way to deal with it. The problem was in the lax regulation that led to the problem to begin with.

[ljm2002]

37. re: Deepwater Horizon...

...perhaps you have forgotten that the DH disaster occurred just days after President Obama had announced he would allow more offshore drilling, stating that the modern rigs were actual quite safe.

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Coast Guard didn't do a damned thing without BP's permission. They were joined at the hip. The government did not take charge, it operated as a subsidiary of BP.

Both things still rankle me...

[karynnj]

39. The first thing was coincidence and had nothing to do with the problem

I say this as I completely disagreed with Obama's position in that speech - and hated that he - with nuclear - gave away one of the few big chips that people like Kerry, Markey and Boxer were trying to use to get a climate change package that could pass Congress.

The second comment is your conjecture - and not true.

[ljm2002]

41. Well of course the timing was coincidence...

...but it certainly served to painfully highlight Obama's unexpected (to me) coziness with industry.

As for the second comment being my conjecture, well, sort of. I based my opinion on watching many of the news stories and announcements made by President Obama, BP and the Coast Guard, including the Admiral (don't remember his name now) who was put in charge but who never, not even once, referred to the operation as something he was running but rather, he always used the term "we" to include BP. And this was not a mere turn of phrase, he used it when talking about how decisions were being made. But we don't have to rehash it -- I understand that unless I was on the inside I really can't know as in hard and fast knowledge, so truly it is just my opinion. However I will say that I have a pretty good nose for this stuff, having worked in corporations for the bulk of my career spanning 30+ years, and I'm very good at parsing corporate-speak, listening for what is said and for what is not said. You of course have every right to your opinion but I'll stick to mine.

[carolinayellowdog]

16. dazzled by star quality and "electability" memes in my case

"I care about people like you" is the message the 1% has to frame through its spokesman, so the messenger better be damn convincing to overcome the inherent skepticism we have in light of elections being all about money. I could always see a bit of snake oil salesman in E and O respectively. But where I once thought it was 10% of their character, I now think it's 100% of Edwards and 50% of Obama. ZERO percent of Elizabeth Warren, whom I trust more than anyone in office prior to her arrival in DC.

Dean was a lot more real than Edwards, and got crucified over something stupid and superifical. I deeply regret voting for Edwards in the 2004 primary and not Dean for extrinsic rather than intrinsic reasons. ("Yeah, he seems a little smarmy but will sell better than the good doctor.&quot

[karynnj]

32. It is true that Dean is far far more real than Edwards, but so was John Kerry

The fact is that Dean lost to Kerry not because of the scream - he lost because Kerry, face to face, pulled off a very commanding victory in Iowa. Imagine there were no scream and consider what the news coverage would have been that evening. The national media - ignoring the Des Moines Register tracking poll that showed Dean and Gephardt fading fast and Kerry and Edwards gaining traction - were speaking of Gephardt and Dean battling it out to win Iowa. In fact, Kerry got 38% to Dean's 18%. Without the scream, the stories would have been Kerry (and to a lesser degree Edwards) doing far better than expected, Gephardt signalling he was out AND a look into "what went wrong" in the Dean campaign.

What would the "what went wrong" coverage look like. From other campaigns, it would be a collection of every bad bit of film from the campaign - and all campaigns have them. It would include the ad feud with Gephardt - which made BOTH look bad, the video that showed Dean lose his temper with a (very) annoying old heckler in Iowa. Even a 1 minute summary of this - done by each news station - would have hurt at least as much as the silly scream. Not to mention, he was unlucky that it was Kerry who won. Every Iowa winner gets some momentum boost in NH. Kerry was already known in NH and his win showed him in a good light. From the numbers, it looks like Dean's numbers froze at that point, while Clark and undecided - both relatively high - nearly disappeared - with Kerry improving by somewhere near that amount. (My conjecture is that neither Edwards nor Gephardt would have gained as much)

[carolinayellowdog]

42. no argument on any of your points, but by the VA primary Kerry looked like a done deal

so I voted for Edwards to give him a vote of confidence as VP nominee. That was no help to Kerry! another reason to regret. By that point it was clear that Kerry had a lot more substance. I just thought he was unelectable as a frosty Massachusetts millionaire and the aw-shucks son of a millworker was just the thing to help the ticket.

All cosmetic bullshit.

on edit-- I like your sig line, and following suit my accurate username would now be virginiaemoprog

[woo me with science]

33. +1 That "electability" crap. Don't get me started.

The corporate oligarchy selects their candidate and their corporate media presents him as the only real "electable" choice.

What utter garbage.

We're already hearing the "not electable" smear applied to Elizabeth Warren, despite the fact that what she is saying is exactly what Americans have been screaming to our government and telling pollsters for years now.

[ananda]

19. In 2008 I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries..

.. because I could see the direction Obama was going.

But when Clinton lost the nomination, I held my nose and voted for Obama
as the lesser of evils, which I also did in 2012.

I just wish we'd get a candidate I don't have to hold my nose for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. In 2008 I went for Kuch and Edwards...

And took flack when I said Obama was center right. I looked at his actual voting record, silly me. I voted for him since it was the lesser, and 2012 the choice given by the GOP made it unimaginable to vote for anybody but Obama.

Truth be told, the only way we'll get somebody far more liberal is when the people sart staging national strikes. Period, full stop, end of discussion.

We need people to take responsibility, realize we have little to lose and yes, go on national strikes. Until we scare the Jeebus out of the political, I will add comfortable, elite...things will not change.

[ljm2002]

40. That was my trajectory as well...

...only we had caucuses here in NV and Kucinich was out of the picture early so I went with Edwards.

As it turns out, we're damned lucky he crashed and burned! But he did have the right message and he was the only viable candidate who was putting that message forward.

Obama was an unknown to me, I did not know too much about him as I had not followed his career nor read his book. His speeches sounded good but I thought he was a bit arrogant, and also I thought he was green and didn't know he was green. Hillary Clinton was too corporate and a bit too war mongery for my taste, but she would not have caved so readily to the Repubs in Congress IMO. She was definitely not green, and I felt she would have fought them better.

OTOH, Hillary has the same corporatist streak that Bill (and, apparently, Chelsea) has. Drat.

[Armstead]

62. On positions, Kuch was the one I more closely identified with

I just didn't see him a presidential material.

[ozone_man]

24. Obama said in 2008 that he was no liberal

I wasn't sure if that was a tactic to gain the right/moderate vote. But, the Wall Street backing, GS e.g., was another indicator of his corporate allegiance. Still, we hoped that he really was a liberal and that he would reveal it at some point, but I don't think so. And his financial appointments were another indicator, rehiring some of Clinton's appointments responsible for this financial mess. So here we are again.

We saw Dean as someone who would make a difference, but sadly, that didn't happen. I'm afraid the system requires change larger than any one politician can achieve, and if there is one who might stand a chance, like Dean, he is taken down. I continue to think that it will take an economic failure similar or larger than the one in 2008 to effect real change. Otherwise it is preserving the status quo.

[karynnj]

38. Could it be that had Dean won the nomination and Presidency, you would have been dissapointed

even more in him?

First of all, in 2005 and 2006, Dean was for the Korb plan for Iraq that would have required staying there far longer than Kerry/Feingold. This suggests that if you thought that he would have actively changed things in 2005 - even as much as Kerry actually spoke of - you would have been disappointed.

Here is my most realistic view of what Dean (or Kerry for that matter) would have faced:

Dean (or Kerry) would have come in with the very dysfunctional 109th Congress with both Houses controlled by Republicans. There is NO WAY that either could have passed healthcare or anything else that moved the progressive agenda.

What both would have been able to do would be to fix foreign policy. I would hope that Dean would have selected Kerry or Biden as SOS - as he, like all governors, would not have the strong connections of someone who was on the SFRC for decades.) Here, Kerry would be the more progressive, liberal choice. Dean MIGHT have been able to use the window when Arafat died to move the Middle East in a better direction. I don't see Dean using the surge in Iraq - rather I would hope that he would use the Sunni awakening to have Iraqis change Iraq.

I do think that a President Dean might have reversed the Bush SEC approval changing bank leverage from 1:12 to 1:44 (done in 2004 to juice the economy - but it was the gasoline on the fire created by derivatives) He also would have fought for some of the foreclosure bills Democrats pushed in Congress. All the same, I don't think he could have changed the 2008 collapse enough to make it not exist. Now, remember that Bush got a lot of Democratic support in bailing things out. If there were a Democratic President, do you think that coooperation would be there from the Republicans?

[TDale313]

54. My take, as a Hardcore Deaniac...

I, for one, was absolutely aware that he was never the far left candidate the media painted him out to be. He was centrist in a lot of ways. And I am sure he would have disappointed me at times. But ya know what? To this day I would still trust his judgement, and admire his straightforward approach. He called it like he saw it, he seemed to genuinely not like "the game" Part of why IMO the insiders in both parties and the media came after him so hard. And I have said "Howard Dean (was/is) right!" so often it's practically a mantra

[karynnj]

71. I have also said that Dean was right - especially on the 50 state strategy

I also spend hours a week on the Burlington bike path, which is the first thing Dean became politically active on per things I read in 2004. So I personally benefit from things he did. I have also said even more that Kerry was right - on many many things.

In 2003. I went back and forth between Dean and Kerry - wanting either of them - and completely NOT wanting the others. My biggest fear is that they would split the same pool of people. (Had I been spending time on message boards that year, I would have seen that - pretty much due to Trippi - there were not many who wanted both. What was strange is that when Dean bowed out, more of the most active online people went to Edwards - who was more hawkish and far to Kerry's right. This was my introduction to the role that personality (or really perceived personality - as JK was by far the nicer of the two) played online. )

[AndyA]

26. I was concerned about a Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton lock on the presidency

That's an uninterrupted run of possibly 28 years. Too much like a monarchy. It seems they're all really the same, though. The true powers that be control all of them.

[karynnj]

28. I supported Obama - but it was because I could not overlook the obvious phoniness of Edwards

AND had similar reasons to yours for not wanting a return to the Clintons. None of the second tier impressed me either. I was an oddity here on DU - someone NOT inspired by any of the 2008 choices, who had been inspired in 2004. Part of that was that as 2004 progressed and I learned more about Kerry, I experienced something I never had before - a candidate who looked better when I learned more. The norm each election year was to accept a glossy view of Democratic candidates - then see the warts and the failings as I read less biased sources of their actions- then to finally see that that person was better than the alternatives. With Kerry, the media never helped him in creating that glossy picture and when I tried to learn more, I saw someone - not always right - but a very smart, decent person with considerable vision.

I think that the expectations in 2008 were far too high for what could be achieved with any candidate. Only with more hindsight will we be able to measure what Obama has achieved. I suspect that -even if nothing significant is achieved in this term and there are no major failings - Obama will fare well in history. He will be seen as having kept our economy from falling over the cliff. It may be noted that he fought the austerity that has made things worse in Europe. The not much praised stimulus likely was the key to that - and though nowhere near as big as people like Krugman correctly called for - it was as big as could pass the Congress. (There were no real spare votes - it was reduced and restructured to get Specter, Collins and Snowe - without whom it would have failed.) The hated grand bargain in 2010 had parts that were additional stimulus.

He has actually improved the situation for healthcare for many many people. I know that the ACA is not close to perfect, but having watched the HELP committee and especially the Finance committee hearings, I am impressed that they were able to create a very comprehensive program that can be improved that managed to JUST get the votes needed. In 2008, it was an aspiration that healthcare would be passed - and everyone was excited enough that they hoped for a more perfect solution than the one that passed. I suspect that time will see this as a major accomplishment that was a necessary and major first step.

He did get us out of Iraq - coopting the Republicans by following the timeline defined by Bush after the Democratic Senate pushed him after 2 years of bills that were defended by saying that without a timeline, the Iraqis would never make the tough decisions. We know that McCain would still have troops there and we do not know what HRC would have done. On Afghanistan, it looks like his second tern National Security team is more united in the same defining a timeline and getting out. Even if these two big wars are ended, the world is STILL a messier place than when Bush entered the White House, but we will have less at risk when Obama leaves the WH than when he entered - no small achievement.

These accomplishments seen in contrast to the incredibly hpyer partisan times are pretty impressive. One OT comment is that I think that the remembered high enthusiasm and the belief that so much was possible may be the root of much of the current excitement behind Clinton. She is the Democratic choice of 2008 not taken. For many, the comparison of the POTENTIAL of Clinton is compared to the REALITY of Obama. She is uniquely positioned to be able to latch into the incredible excitement and sense of possibility that we had in 2008.

[forestpath]

30. I also supported John Edwards in 2008 for the same reasons you did.

I voted for Hillary in my state's primary only because there was so much misogynistic crap about her in the press at the time. I knew she wouldn't win the nomination. I really didn't see much to choose from between her and Obama although I watched a lot of his speeches that summer and they swayed me.

By 2012 I was thoroughly disillusioned with him and felt betrayed on almost everything. Then he began affecting an interest in women's reproductive rights and gay rights - I say "affecting" because part of me felt it was just an act to get votes, given the timing.

I was so freaked out by the thought of a Romney win that I suppressed my misgivings about Obama and declared a truce through the campaign season. But now I'm back to feeling betrayed.

I can see Obama making 47% comments exactly like Romney now. Because that's the way he governs.

[Zorra]

31. I didn't even vote in the primary, because it seemed pointless, a choice between

two corporatist centrists.

If I had the 2008 primary to do over again, I would vote for Hillary in the primary, because, in hindsight, I feel that she would have been a much more progressive President than Obama has proven to be.

oh, well


Occupy!

[gvstn]

34. I too though Obama would be more liberal than Hillary

I knew he was unseasoned but thought he would at least try to make a difference. He just seems weak. Too much like Jimmy Carter. A man with ideals who can't make them happen. At least Carter was consistently for his ideals. Obama just seems like he is not up for the fight. I'm really disappointed but am grateful we at least have a "place-holder" rather than Romney.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Give the same amount of trust and skepticism to "our" folks as "the opposition" to start

Don't allow yourself to substitute what you hope is meant for what is meant when presented with open rhetoric.

Refuse to ignore when the walk doesn't match the talk, no matter how great that talk is without serious questions getting serious answers.

Making the opposition the standard of measure is always a bad idea, even when one is forced to take the least bad, least bad should know that they are accountable to a higher standard or the ground will crack beneath their feet.

Make economics priority and filter #1, see who they have surrounded themselves with on such matters.


Did we force the option or was it provided to us blessed from the very folks we are trying to corral?

Are we talking about changing the game or employing new tactics to the same old environment?

[Armstead]

63. Alasd the environment seem set in stone...So my own hope has been that...

a series of talented leaders who actually do have progressive principles are able to channel the fairly large urge in the populace for populist reform.

Given our system that's about the only alternative.

[TheKentuckian]

102. I think that path has been closed off, lots of fail safes and bureaucratic entropy since FDR

plus the rise of the multi-national corporations and their invasive influence and capture handcuffs movement within the system.

Even if not the political parties and the media are captured so anyone not up for playing ball will be cut off at the knees and declared not viable and destroyed by hook or crook.

[Flying Squirrel]

45. This is exactly what happened with me.

From now on I'm not ignoring gut feelings. And my gut feeling is that the Democratic Party is dead.

[AverageJoe90]

46. You do realize that Obama couldn't actually do much in his first term, right?

Even heard of a little thing called "obstruction?"

And also, Obama only just started his second term, so give him a little time.....

[Armstead]

64. The obstructionm will be there regardless of what Obama did (does)

The real issue is how he handles that..

Too often, in my opinion, he has let the obstructionists set the terms for the debates, instead of leading a clear charge against them.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

47. I think the bigger problem is the poor choices we have to begin with

pre-approved by a shadow elite.

not sure how to overcome that problem

[immoderate]

53. Bingo! And welcome to DU!

We don't get any good choices. Rulers don't allow it.

--imm

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

56. Thank you immoderate, good to be here with so many kindred spirits!

[DCBob]

48. So, knowing what you know now what would you have done in 2008?

back to Hillary? McCain? What? Who?

[Armstead]

65. With wisdom of hindsight I would porobably have rolled the dice on Hillary

Don't know if she would have been any better, but i think she might have put up more of a fight.

[Beacool]

50. Well, that's what happens when you vote for someone who has a short record.

It's hard to figure out what they will do in the WH when they don't have much of a voting record.

He does have the soaring speech thing down pat, though. I'll give him credit for that much. He also ran a good campaign. Notice how well he is at selling himself, but not others? Who was the one in 2010 and 2012 who went all over the country campaigning for Dems? Bill Clinton, that's who. The one who is almost as reviled as Ronnie on this site.

[Cleita]

51. Me too. However, I was excited by John Edwards because I liked his message

of populism and I thought he was sincere. It's too bad he turned out to be another multi-millionaire fraud. I was lukewarm for Obama because I too didn't want Hillary. Although I will say that at least I wasn't that fooled by whose roses he was going to water. I just didn't think he would be trying to uproot those rose bushes he chose not to water that had been flourishing there for decades

[graham4anything]

52. Wow, I didn't realize all the people here were for Edwards.The $400 haircut man.

Why?
Why would anyone have not seen him for what he was from the first second he entered the law room?

But then again, it doesn't surprise me.

Must have been those haircuts.

Remember time and again in 2000 and 2004 I pleaded for bob Graham to be the VP

I knew the second Edwards wormed his way onto the ticket in 2004 that all hope was lost.

Populist? Edwards???

LBJ was a populist.
Edwards took it all the way to his own bank account.

But LBJ had big ears, and everyone called my Bob Graham, old, ugly and obsessive.

Politics is strange.

the trouble is, people do not seem to know about Adlai Stevenson.
Now, there was a populist, and some even considered him sexy.
But they voted for Reaganthe first. I mean Eisenhower.
Then Voted for Reagan the second. Reagan himself.

[Carolina]

75. Same thing many of us were thinking

They sounded good. And They were better than Bush or DLC types like HRC

But hindsight is 20/20. And they have all betrayed we, the people.

George Carlin was right.

[Auntie Bush]

76. Who are you going to vote for if she is our nominee?

I often wonder this when I see Dems who are anti Clinton...Hillary that is!

[Carolina]

93. No one

I'll vote for 3rd/independent candidate or sit it out since it doesn't seem to matter.

With BHO, we're still wasting $ in Afghanistan, that hellhole called Guantanamo is still open, drones are proliferating, human and civil rghts are dwindling, oil rules and destroys the planet, SS is on the table......

Repukes --> fast track to hell
DLC Dems --> slow road to hell

It's still hell

[Auntie Bush]

95. We're already on the slow road now...I can't live with that...although I'm not very pleased.

But God help us if we ever got on the fast road.

I'd fear for women's rights...or rather lack of rights, and more Conservative SC judges.
No vote for Obama is an extra vote for the ReThugs who will destroy our safety net and put us on a high speed rail directly toward hell. Obama's road has a lot of twists and turns, stops at every station and a few breakdowns on the way. Who knows, maybe his will never make it. Which train would you rather be on?

[Carolina]

97. Sadly, Auntie Bush

I am reaching a point of giving up or worse, not caring. I know it sounds awful, but I just can't seem to get out of my funk. I remember Kennedy and Johnson... real investigative journalism... activism that mattered and wasn't systematically shut down. I remember when corporations paid their fair share of taxes... Yes, there were problems, but they seemed surmountable. Now, not so much, especially with the kind of leadership (or lack) that we have. Today is about soundbites, appearances, superficiality, pacification, adversarial-in-your-face confrontation, tactics but no solutions.

Serious debate, genuine journalism, visionary leadership... dead as dinosaurs.

I am glad I am as old as I am...

[Auntie Bush]

98. Me too.

Sometimes I feel sorry for my kids and my grand children.
That's he only thing that's good about getting old.
But I'll vote for a Dem since that's the best we can do.
I can't see wasting a vote and helping ReThugs conflict their damage on our country.
Don't give up!

[Carolina]

99. I have one grown son

who does not wish to have children. There are days when I see my sister's lovely granddaughters and wish I had some little ones to spoil. Then, there are days when I understand my son.

I do fear for the young ones and the world we leave them -- environmentally, economically and politically. In my free time (I'm still working), I sometimes volunteer at an elementary school; and though the events Sandy Hook had me rethinking that, I enjoy the innocence, idealism and pure fun of the kids.

So, I know in my heart, I'll always vote Democratic; I just feel so disheartened presently.

[Walk away]

77. This place is going to be a nightmare for 3 1/2 years until we all get back to....

being Democrats!

[Armstead]

84. No different than its been for the last 12 years

[BlueStreak]

78. You were thinking, "Is this really the best we can do?"

And yes, that is probably the best we can do under the current aristocracy rules. It isn't clear to me that any of the other candidates would have done any better. Most of them are good soldiers to the overlords, like Hillary and Obama. Kucinich was an exception, but they would have destroyed him.

Despite the considerable restraints Obama operates under, he has actually accomplished a few good things -- probably more than any other candidate would have.

[Kolesar]

81. What happened at 1 AM yesterday that got you all excited? eom

[Armstead]

83. Came home after a long day and night of helping girlfriend move..

Moving is always exciting. All that lifting and hauling, especislly when it's damp and cold outside.

So what would be more natural after such a moving experience than opening up DU and writing a post about 2008?

[Warpy]

82. Same thing I was, that his mixed health care plan had a chance

of getting passed and was the best idea for a transition to a national health insurance system out there. You might even have bought his "two Americas" rhetoric while I tend to be cynical as hell about rhetoric like that. I supported Edwards. I wasn't auditioning him as a prospective husband, I was hoping he'd be greasy enough to get the job done.

I found Obama to be a political naif and far too conservative. I find Hillary Clinton to be even more conservative.

Oh, I'll vote for whatever stiff the party finally offers us. I won't be happy about it. I'll just hope he or she is greasy enough to get the job done.

[leveymg]

86. Brutal honesty is rarely appreciated at the time. But, thank you, anyway.

A lot of us feel that way. You said it for us.

[truebluegreen]

88. I'm thinking that the XXII amendment was a bad idea.

And the same goes for life-time appointments to the bench, especially the Supreme Court.

Nobody should be unaccountable to the people.

[madokie]

94. There is nothing wrong with being blind

Not the case with not being able to see

[Honeycombe8]

101. He is as he presented himself to be: a moderate Democrat. If you saw something else,

that was wishful thinking, I suppose. I knew from the start that he was a moderate liberal/Democrat, although not a Blue Dog.

I believe that a progressive cannot win the Presidency here. Neither can a tea bagger. Americans like moderates for their highest level leader.

I'm upset about Social Security, and will be upset about Keystone if that happens. But we could've done a lot worse. Don't forget all the good things he's done, because of the disappointing things. The ACA (which I happen to believe is good in that it increases medical care to millions), the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the decision to get OBL, setting aside millions of acres to preserve for the country, and increasing the U.S. reputation around the world. He's intelligent, thoughtful, not prone to rash decisions (like the fake cowboy Bush).