Too easy for your critics, Mr. President: "Some of you think I’m a sap"

[bigtree]

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

President Obama on Wednesday at a Democratic fundraiser in Dallas applauded former President George W. Bush on the eve of the opening of his presidential library.

"I’m really looking forward to attending the Bush library opening tomorrow," Obama said, according to a White House pool report. "One of the things I will insist upon is whatever our political differences, President Bush loves this country and loves its people and shares that same concern, and was concerned about all people in America, not just those who voted Republican. I think that’s true about him and I think that’s true about most of us.”

Obama also promised to continue his charm offensive aimed at Republicans. "Occasionally I may make some of you angry because I’m going to reach out to Republicans and I’m going to keep on doing it,” Obama said, according to the report. “Even if some of you think I’m a sap, I’m going to keep on doing it because that’s what I think the country needs.”


read: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-bush-loves-this-country-loves-its-people


President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived at Love Field on Wednesday and headed by motorcade to a fundraiser in Dallas.
Kye R. Lee/Staff Photographer


Democratic principles need to dominate the political arena, not sidle up beside republicans looking for some reciprocal grope

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. That's fine, Mr. President.

But how about reaching out to the left once in a while? Or perhaps, even once? Constantly pissing on our backs is NOT the way to energize your base. Sure, you are the president of the country, not the democrats. Yes, you have to reach across the aisle and involve them in governing, even if they spit in your face, stab you in the back, and poison your coffee. I understand that it is part of your job.

But.

[L0oniX]

78. Too busy reaching out to the 1% and the enemy ...erm oh ...same thing.

[magellan]

2. "I’m going to reach out to Republicans and I’m going to keep on doing it"

Sap.

[sendero]

3. If you are standing there with egg on your face...

.... saying "I have egg on my face" does not make the egg go away.

Bringing the country together, trying to reach consensus - admirable goals. Going about it in a way that has zero chance of success, not so admirable.

[djean111]

4. Not a sap. He is doing what he wants to do.

An eleventy-diminsional chess player, with the 99% as pawns, is not a sap.
Neither party makes any pretense of representing "the people" any more - they represent The United States of Wall Street.

[magellan]

7. Agreed

But to those who don't understand that sad fact (the majority of Americans who voted for him), he just looks like a sap.

[Marr]

45. Exactly-- and I believe he is completely sincere when he says that

he believes "that is what the country needs".

He thinks the rich need more breaks, and the poor and middle class have it too easy. That's really what it boils down to.

[tblue]

81. We are the saps.

So many Democrats still believe, still defend him. Those are your saps, IMHO. And he knows it. On social issues he's pretty good. On the rest, not so much. And yet a huge % of Dems respond with limitless grace, forgiveness, patience, and understanding, and unconditional support. I don't though. Not anymore.

[kentuck]

5. Why is this depressing??

His biggest strength is his biggest weakness...

[treestar]

6. He really doesn't have a choice

unless he wants to go over what is the latest cliff. The Republicans deserve to be voted out of office.

And the filibuster has to go. Their abuse of it under President Obama proves they do not have the interests of the country at heart, only their power of obstruction.

[msongs]

11. umm the filibuster is ALLOWED by Harry Reid and his buddies. dont blame repubs for using what they

are allowed by dems

[treestar]

12. The Republicans are abusing it

And it must go. I don't know if Harry Reid and his buddies are solely to blame. Apparently he did not have the votes to change it.

I don't know how to get rid of this absurd procedure, but simply blaming people in office for the votes of others is not enough. We have to vote in people who will vote to change it.

[whathehell]

27. True...Harry, Diane Feinstein and two others voted the Talking Filibuster down

and that was it for me...I no longer give to the DCCC or the DSCC and I tell

them WHY...I'm sick to death of lame, double talking corporate dems who

do virtually NOTHING for the base.

I so hope we can get Elizabeth Warren along with another real democrat to run in 2016.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. If Jebbie runs in 2016 {and I believe he will}, Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a chance

and if enough of the base cast their votes for her {if she runs, which I doubt}, we'll get another Bush.

[whathehell]

36. Is that your professional opinion?...I think it's a bit early to be declaring defeat.

I'm not as sure as you are regarding Jeb...His own mother just

said she didn't think he should run, that there were "enough Bush presidents".

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Kabuki theater. There's a reason why Hillary hasn't come out and said she's running in 2016

when everybody knows she will. It's just political suicide and stupid to make such a commitment this early. Four years is a lifetime in politics, and you don't want to give your political opponents a head's up so that they can gather their political assassins around to strategize how to take you down early. Remember Al Gore? They knew he'd be running and the strategy was set in place LONG before Clinton won his second term.

I'm not declaring defeat at all. I'm being realistic using recent history as my guide, and I'm trying to tell you that you're setting yourself up for a painful awakening and defeat if you stubbornly set your heart and hopes on Elizabeth Warren. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the vast majority of voting Americans don't like liberal candidates. They don't like TeaBagger Republicans, either. We'd otherwise would have had a President Dennis Kucinich 2009, or President Rickie Sanitorium, wouldn't we?

[whathehell]

44. You haven't answered the question about your professional credentials yet, and

so I'm going to bet that my opinion, along with some other progressived here,

is as good as yours. In so doing, I'll just reiterate one of the only things in your

post I agree with, and that is that "Four years is a lifetime in politics".

I don't think, at this early point at least, that we have to settle for a Corporate Dem like Hillary.

I'll vote for her if she's nominated, but if Jeb gets the nomination, I'm betting there

will be little difference between them.

As far as "the vast majority of voting Americans" not liking liberal candidates, you're probably

not old enough to even remember when that was not at ALL the case -- I'm am, and I'm betting

that four years may just be long enough to turn the tide to the point of electing a

more liberal Dem than what we have in Obama -- We need not have anyone as left as Kucinich

although it's good to recall that Kucinich's strong liberalism was not the ONLY obstacle he had in running for prez.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. You were *serious* about that??

You don't need to agree with me. It's just my opinion.

I'm a Progressive, meaning, I'm practical and realistic about what can and can't be done in this country to move this country forward with our type of government. But the aim is to always move forward, however incrementally. As a Progressive, I understand the political realities President Obama has to face.

You're more liberal than I am, meaning, you strive to want only the best and can be pretty unrealistic about it. People with impossibly high standards always set themselves up for deep disappointment. It's an honorable and admirable thing if you can control your blood pressure.

I'll vote for her if she's nominated, but if Jeb gets the nomination, I'm betting there will be little difference between them.

Well, I'm glad to see that you understand that the name of the game is to WIN power, even if your principles get a little dented. I believe everyone feels that way when they vote for a candidate that's flawed here and there. No one can be 100% what 100% of the people want. That's just not possible.

But the statement in bold above bothers me. It's exactly what Liberals said when Al Gore was running against GWBush in 2000. Hindsight being what it is, they were proven wrong, but are you willing to risk another Bush to find out if that statement holds true for Hillary?

Elizabeth Warren is too left for most of the country. She would surely NOT win states like Virginia, Ohio, Florida, or New Hampshire. That's just the reality.

And DK's "strong liberalism" was also Kabuki theater. He possesses one of the most anti-abortion voting records of any Democrat in Congress. Pro-choice is a core Democratic value, but as a Democrat he'd been anti-choice for most of his political career, and only decided to become pro-choice when he decided to run for president in - get this - 2003. In as recent as 2001, DK voted to support Bush's decision to withhold international family-planning money from organizations that perform, or even discuss abortions. And during during 1999 and 2000 he sided with the National Right to Life Committee on 19 of 20 votes. Obama has always been staunchly pro-choice, but he's labeled a "Republican lite". The irony.

As for my age . . . I'm old enough to remember the 2000 election and recount debacle, the manipulated energy crisis by Duhbya's buddy, Kenny-Boy when he realized Bush would be crowned president by his pals in SCOTUS, the black-outs here, eight years of Duhbya, the Iraq war, and Schwarzenegger . . . and I'm old enough to never want that to ever happen again.

[whathehell]

64. Not really..

Just my way of saying that your view is just an "opinion", like mine.

You are actually so old as to remember the 20000 election?

Wow...I don't know if I can compete with that level of experience, you

see, because I'm old enough to remember John Kennedy's election!

As for DK's voting record on choice, I'm not too surprised, as he's of Croatian

descent (like me) and was probably raised as a Roman Catholic.

As for the difference between he and Obama's positions there, it's noted,

but at this point, I feel strongly that Democrats are going to have to start giving attention

to ECONOMIC issues, not just social ones, as all but the few progressives like Elizabeth Warren

have been doing.

Having said all of that, I appreciate your knowledge and having this conversation with you,

but I'm afraid that we may never agree. I'm a yellow dog, you are a blue one.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. If you consider me a "Blue Dog" Democrat, then you *must* consider DK a Republican.

Because I've always been pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-union, pro-strict environmental policies, pro-worker, pro-equal rights for all, and my faith is my faith and has no bearing on public policy, unlike Dennis Kucinich.

That said, I'm also practical. I know the political realities this president has to face. Granted, I'd only known of them when the Senate voted 90-6 to deny President Obama the funds and means to close Gitmo and bring detainees into the United States to try in our courts. It's when I realized that he's not only up against Republicans in Congress. He's up against Democrats, too. It helps me to understand why he's having difficulties getting good legislation through into law.

Still, having the Democrats gain and maintain the majority and political power in DC is vital to move this country forward. I'd like to see Nancy Pelosi take the gavel again. That's paramount to me. It should be to you, too. You can have the best and brightest ideas, but if you don't have the majority to back it up, you get nothing.

Well, apparently you'll never agree with my positions - which is being supportive of Obama - but as I've already stated in my previous post, I'm pragmatic and understand the political realities he has to face. You, apparently, don't or you don't care. But that doesn't make me a Blue Dog Dem. It makes me a pragmatic progressive and Democrat who actually wants to help this country move forward for the good of the people first and foremost, whether it's done perfectly along what I want or not. Hey! Although I'm not from the South, that makes me a Yellow Dog Dem, too, because I vote straight Democratic Party each and every election.

[whathehell]

72. Um, no and guess what, BlueCali? There is nothing I "must" do, at least not at your command, lol

and sorry, but it's generally silly, and reflective of your lack of political experience,

to call someone, especially anyone like Dennis Kucinich, a "republican" on the basis of one issue.

If you insist on going there, though, you would have to say the same thing for Obama,

since for one thing, he's followed Bush's foreign policy more than not, and many claim it's "almost to the letter"

In addition, he is NOT, as you so erroneously told KoKo, "saving Social Security" -- Quite the opposite

as he's the first supposed "Democrat" to propose CUTS to it, and he's getting well-deserved criticism

for it usually spelled out as "No democrat cuts Social Security"!, so much so, in fact, that the Whitehouse,

has publicly admitted to being "shell shocked" by it. It's not surprising, since something

like 85% of Americans ACROSS the political board want NO changes to Social Security -- Got that?

Sorry, honey, I think everyone here can see you are a "fan", and that's cute and all, but

it just doesn't replace political knowledge and understanding.

[BlueCaliDem]

75. Yeah, you *must*. Otherwise you'd

be a hypocrite. And we both know you aren't, right? Good. Got that settled.

he is NOT, as you so erroneously told KoKo, "saving Social Security" -- Quite the opposite

as he's the first supposed "Democrat" to propose CUTS to it, and he's getting well-deserved criticism

Didn't you confess that you were around when JFK was elected? So how on God's green earth could you get your history so incredibly WRONG.

Carter not only changed the index, he proposed doing so in a way that reduced benefits more than chained-CPI would. Carter also scaled back eligibility rules for Social Security's disability insurance.

What's more, in 1993, President Clinton taxed benefits for higher-income Social Security beneficiaries, which had the practical effect of cutting benefits for quite a few retirees. Clinton later said he wanted to cut Social Security even more, reducing benefits by about 1% per year, though Congress wouldn't go for it.

Taken together, the last Democratic president who didn't try to make at least some kind of Social Security cuts was President Johnson, who left office more than 44 years ago.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708056-social-securitys-peculiar-partisan-problem?lite

The above are historical and documented FACTS so only anti-Obamanites would continue to perpetuate that unwarranted, unjust criticism of President Obama who is trying to avoid the SSA Trustee Board's projected 25% cut in benefits in 2033 IF nothing is done, and thus is trying to save social security. In other words, I was correct. You are wrong. Your apology is accepted.

For a more broader explanation, try ProSense's post from April 12, 2013: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660643

So I return back to you your own words with some revision: Sorry, honey, I think everyone here can see you are an "anti-Obamanite", and that's cute and all, but it just doesn't replace political knowledge and understanding of historical and documented fact.

God! If feels good to win a debate, don't you agree? Oops. No. You don't.

[whathehell]

88. Um, no dear. It's only your opinion, you see, and it's not one that I, or many others here,

it seems, particularly respect, at least on this issue. but since you don't seem to do nuance

well, I'll try explaining this to you in a manner you might understand:

You're an obvious "obamabot" whose blind adoration won't allow you to see or

admit to any substantial flaws in your idol, despite evidence to the contrary.

We get it, lol. So glad, btw, that you've congratulated yourself, lol, for your imaginary "win" of

of a debate. It seems a good, preemptive strategy, as your unlikely to see anyone

else here joining in with you.

So you see, dear on the basis of these and a some other observations, I just don't

accept your premises or have any real respect for your thinking...Sorry. Maybe when

you get a bit older, you'll understand the difference between "love" and objective evaluation.

Until then, dear, I have serious people here with whom I'm interested in having conversations.

That means I'll be welcoming you to my "I" list and saying "buh bye".

[BlueCaliDem]

90. Has anybody ever

accused you of being a poor sport? I believe I have that honor now.

I have corrected your erroneous "facts" and offered the truth based on documented and recorded history, and then you get offended enough to put me on "I"? How utterly immature, my dear. But I won't return the favor because I know you're just misguided and woefully uninformed, and I still love ya, whatthehell.

[HiPointDem]

60. if 'everybody knows' then it makes no difference whether she announces or not, so far as

your scenario about not giving opponents a heads up.

[BlueCaliDem]

62. I should've written - "everybody believes they know". It could be another political kabuki dance

for all we know, while another Dem is waiting in the wings to blind side them. It's happened before.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. I blame Repub VOTERS, not the President or Reid, that the filibuster is still in place.

What most on the Left forget is that even if Reid and the Democrats had done away with the filibuster, the House is still in Republican hands, thanks to idiot Republican voters and heavy gerrymandering. Doing away with the filibuster rule in the Senate wouldn't have changed a thing other than a few feel-good cheers.

No new laws would get passed since the House Republicans have shown they are not willing to govern, and the Republican House is now the place where good legislation goes to die. House Republicans could have worked together with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to get legislation through IF they were interested in working for the American people. But they're not. Haven't you noticed that?

So other than pissing off the Republicans in the Senate - who the Democrats have to work with whether they like it or not - by taking away the filibuster, what would that have accomplished? I'll tell you. Nothing. I believe the Democrats know this. I also believe that they know that nothing will get done unless the people put pressure on their congresscritters forcing them to do what we're paying them to do and until the House reverts back under Democratic control.

Look, I was angry and frustrated, too, when Reid and the Democrats didn't do squat to change the filibuster rule. But after a few months, I now understand it wouldn't have helped get good legislation through anyway. It still needs to go to the House and Boehner has shown he is a weak Speaker and too afraid of a primary to work with the Democrats to run over the TeaBaggers who are now controlling the House.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Sap?

Praising the giggling murderer.......instead of prosecuting...might make one a sap.

[malaise]

13. Why does he get the blame for not prosecuting Bush and Cheney

and not Nancy Pelosi et al?

[zipplewrath]

15. Can't they both?

It is frequently mentioned that she "took impeachment off the table". Doesn't mean he couldn't have done something.

[GeorgeGist]

68. Perhaps because DOJ is an Evecutive branch department.

[ananda]

9. "Sap" isn't the word that came to my mind, Mr. President.

That's way too easy and gentle.

I'm thinking more in terms of sociopath-appeasing corporatist with
some sort of abuse syndrome.

Also, you could look to brave souls like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie
Sanders, and Alan Grayson for guidance.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. ...

I'm thinking more in terms of sociopath-appeasing corporatist with some sort of abuse syndrome.



Harsh but probably true.


He does appear to need approval most, from those who would back stab him.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Yeah, I was going to say "sap" doesn't come to mind for me either. "Sap" is passive, victimized.

This man has made his own, intentional, choices. Choices.

PB

[whathehell]

40. Agreed, and I think we may be the saps for not recognizing that.

Sad but...

[smirkymonkey]

96. +1000

*this*

[Union Scribe]

14. "I’m going to keep on doing it"

Sounds like that definition of insanity that is credited to Einstein. He may not have said it, but someone should repeat it to the Pres anyway.

[Hotler]

16. .......

[zipplewrath]

17. Arrogance

It hasn't worked.
People keep trying to tell me to stop.
I'm right, their wrong, and I'm going to do it anyway despite the proof to the contrary.

It's either faith based thinking, or arrogance. Although it could be both.

[KoKo]

43. That's what's puzzling about his revelation...

I'm wondering if there's something wrong with him...that goes further than his being what some say: "A moderate Republican."

He is disdainful of the very Democrats who voted him into office twice! Where does this disdainment come from and why didn't we see it. What did we miss that we should have seen in his first campaign?

Chris Hedges early on in Obama's first term called him "Brand Obama." Is that what he was? Did we not see beyond the Advertising Campaign?

[MotherPetrie]

18. What an incredibly distasteful and disheartening statement

So he stands with war criminals like Bush while nyah-nyahing his own supporters. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly, Mr. Prez.

[geek tragedy]

19. It's because you are a sap, Mr. President.

He's getting high on his own supply, of Hopium.

[SidDithers]

20. DURec...

Threads like this bring out the best ODS.



Sid

[kentuck]

22. Yep...

and some people don't recognize it.

[bigtree]

23. heh, Sid!

. . . I think the Prez positioned himself perfectly for that, today. Gotta hand it to him!

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Yep. It sure does.

But I'm pretty sure they didn't even vote for him to begin with.

[HughBeaumont]

21. I'm going to keep playing Frogger on a crowded street.

Eventually, I'll make it across without all of these collisions.

I don't deal with people like Mitch McConnell; I tell them to go fuck themselves, over and over again, until they gain some humanity and stop being moral failures as human beings.

[reformist2]

24. Of course Obama has to congratulate W on his library. It's embarrassing he has to apologize for it.

[hfojvt]

25. I don't blame him for reaching out to Republicans

but this just seems really idiotic.

"One of the things I will insist upon is whatever our political differences, President Bush loves this country and loves its people and shares that same concern, and was concerned about all people in America, not just those who voted Republican."

Idiotic to believe that and idiotic to say it.

When you have the bully pulpit, it would be nice if you told the truth. Even if it makes SOME people mad at you.

The TRUTH is that Bush did not give giant tax cuts to rich people because he loves his country - he did it for his base, and he even publicly joked about it - the haves and the have mores.

Bush did not invade Iraq because he loves his country, or even because, as he claimed, that he loves the people of Iraq and wanted to free them from Saddam. Again, he did it for his base. He did it to channel a whole bunch of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of military contractors. He did it for the oil companies, who broke records for their profits every year while he was in office.

Look, I embrace the heresy here, that there are decent people who are Republicans, maybe even some of them who have been elected to office, but Bush, Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell are not among those decent people.

Obama needs to reach out to decent Republicans - first by telling the truth about those who are not decent. The more Obama smiles and pretends that the indecent are really decent, the more he just enables their indecency. Some of these people have spent decades SHOWING that they do not care about their country. They are not gonna change their stripes unless they start getting called on their crimes.

We did not elect YOU in 2008, Mr. Obama, so you could lie to our faces.

We were HOPING that that, at the very least, would CHANGE.

[LibDemAlways]

33. Excellent post. However, while some misguided ordinary

Americans may be decent people and, at the same time, Republicans, I have a hard time accepting that any R office holder - perpetually on the take and voting against anything that could benefit John Q Public - is remotely decent.

[forestpath]

26. The country needs somebody who will stand up to Republicans. That Obama so wilfully

enables, praises and caters to them doesn't make him a sap. It makes him a Republican.

[whathehell]

29. Agreed.

I think he is a republican, moderate variety, and always has been.

[truebrit71]

28. Still haven't figured out that you're Charlie Brown and the gop is the one holding the football...

...amazing how such a smart guy can't see the forest for the trees...

[bowens43]

30. He's right. He is a sap.

[BlueCaliDem]

38. Right. That's why he was elected president - TWICE. eom

[djean111]

46. Lesser evil. Appallingly bad GOP nominee.

Obama's only mandate was to not be Romney.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Bullshit.

His mandate is getting rid of DOMA. Immigration reform. Protecting Social Security. Making the wealthy pay for their right to be in this country. Help in creating jobs. Keeping Democratic values strong and intact. He has a mandate all right. You just don't want to see it simply because he's not pure enough for you. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. He isn't perfect to me, either, but he's doing the best he can with the Congress he was given.

[vi5]

87. I thought those things were the Senate?

Funny how when something doesn't get done (DOMA, Immigration reform) it's the Senate's fault but when it does get done it's Obama's masterful work and skilled negotiation. And "protecting social security"? HA! Best laugh I've had all day.

[BlueCaliDem]

91. Doesn't matter if it's still in the Senate.

It still remains the mandate he was given by the people who'd brung him, and his proposals reflect that. I thought that distinction was obvious to you. But as I've mentioned in my previous post, it would be clear to you if you weren't so obsessed with keeping your deep, deep dislike for President Obama alive. It has distorted your view to the point that he can't do anything right no matter what he does.

And "protecting social security"? HA! Best laugh I've had all day.

If you could stop laughing for a few moments and clear your head, and if you'd do a little research on the C-CPI, and if you knew anything about Presidents Carter and Clinton having cut Social Security benefits, not the growth rate but basic benefits, and if you weren't so blinded by your deep-seated dislike for this president for whatever personal reasons you harbor, you'd be able to see that's exactly what he's trying to do. Much like with the Tearepublicans, too bad you see the president through that distorted prism, and that there are just too many "ifs" for you to overcome.

But don't worry. The majority of Americans can, and the majority counts.

[vi5]

93. I have nothing against President Obama as a person

But if that helps you justify your own blind loyalty and selling out of progressive ideals and helps you sleep at night, then have at it.

I just don't like Republican policies no matter who proposes them. And I'm not a raging hypocrite who is o.k. with something when a democrat proposes or initiates them but not o.k. with them when a Republican does.

And I don't like people who don't act or take stands until either the political winds have shifted so far, or other people/bodies/institutions have done the heavy lifting and then rushing in to take credit. And that's what he does. But then when it fails everyone is quick to blame the other people/bodies/institutions.

Chained CPI is cutting social security. Period. You can spin it all you want but it is. And I don't really give a shit if Carter did it or Clinton did it. They were not perfect either and I had problems with that as well.

And hey, in the end if the majority of Americans are so wise and understanding as to the intricate ways of politics and the multi-layered and forward thinking and nuanced maneuvering of our President, and it's their votes that count then he won't need me, my money or my support. Good for him, and good for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Yes. Yes, exactly. That IS why he was elected president.

He raised and spent more than $1 billion for reelection. Reformers don't get that kind of support. Bernie Sanders is no sap, and because of that he would fail miserably in a presidential run.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. So you, too, believe that money decides elections?

What a capitalistic p.o.v. And a wrong one at that.

If the amount of money was the deciding factor, not the messaging or campaign style of the candidate or his favorability among the majority of the electorate, Romney would be president today. The Rightwing PACs, Romney's own war-chest, and the RNC together outspent Obama and the Democrats last election. They still lost by millions of votes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. If Obama had raised "only" $500 million, he would have lost.

Spending is the primary success metric of candidacies.

If you buy TV time, the TV people will treat you as credible and serious.

[BlueCaliDem]

89. A good campaign-style, a good message, and an affable candidate

are the primary variables necessary and vital for successful fundraising. Period.

You forget that last November was President Obama's re-election campaign, not his first run for the presidency. When he decided to run for the presidency as a junior U.S. Senator, he had a negative balance in his campaign account. Hillary started out with tens of millions already so he was FAR behind. But it was his message, his campaign style, and his affability that drew in more people and more money as he got better at campaigning.

So you're half right. If Obama "only" had $500 million to spend on his campaign for president, it meant his campaign-style, his message, and his likeability was sub-par and unpopular, and only then can you rightfully call him a "sap".

[whathehell]

39. Actually, I think we may be the saps.

for falling for his line of you know what twice, not that we had much of an option.

[LibDemAlways]

31. There's something very haunting about a photo of President and first lady arriving at

Love Field and embarking on a motorcade through Dallas.

As for Obama's comments, his praise of the chimp is stomach-turning. And reaching out to a pit of venomous snakes who've repeatedly bitten his ass in the past is either incredibly stupid or, as another poster said, the height of arrogance.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. OR, it could be that he still has a Republican HOUSE TO CONTEND WITH.

If he doesn't want to be a lame-duck president this early in his second term, and he really wants to get something done, the LAST thing he needs to do is antagonize the people whose votes he'll need in order to get anything through. Although Corporate Media readily reports on the asswipes in the House and Senate, there are Republicans in the House the president and Democrats can work with to get legislation through since there's no filibuster in the House anymore.

Never heard of the idiom, "You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"?

[djean111]

48. What frightens me is what kind of "honey" will he use next?

Chained CPI today - raise social security age and/or Medicare age tomorrow?
The GOP seems to know that Obama will keep piling goodies on the platter he presents to them.
What, exactly, is he trying to get done? And at what fucking cost?
I think the legacy thing is horseshit, by the way. Plus, evidently, presidential turds really can be polished up all shiny and pretty by the next prez.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. He's already presented his budget proposal. If anything changes,

or any other type of "honey" is presented, look to blame the Democrats in Congress.

As for touching social security . . . it's not as if he's the first Democrat or Democratic president to do it in order to preserve it. Look to Carter and Clinton, but I never heard anyone complain about them touching S.S., did I? Carter cut social security benefits with Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress. Tip O'Neil, the "savior of Social Security", stood behind raising the eligibility age. And Clinton signed into law taxing social security benefits for incomes above $34,000. I'm sure you're outraged about what those presidents did, too, right?

What exactly is he trying to get done? A budget to stop sequestration. Gun safety laws. Immigration reform. Where have you been?

At what cost? The loss of respect from the Left who never really supported him anyway.

[KoKo]

49. Throwing vinegar on your Dem supporters and honey on

your Party's opponents is the correct strategy, you say?

[BlueCaliDem]

51. You're too cute by half.

And totally don't get it. It's not about you. It's about the country. It's about political realities you never have to worry about. It's about being mentioned in the history books as one of the first black presidents in the U.S. and whether that was a success or a failure.

You'd be more productive focusing your hatred on the Republicans rather than the president who has to work with them. They're the problem, not him. Stop with this unproductive kvetching that only serves to give you heartburn. Unlike you, he doesn't have the luxury to sit behind his desk and judge. He actually has to try and work with the enemy because they STILL OWN THE HOUSE. Get it now?

[veganlush]

56. you're absolutely right

...he's President of everyone, not just dems, and he has to be the adult in the room, always. Of course he's right to be civil and gracious at the library opening. He's doing the best that he can with the shitty hand the voters dealt him, and he's doing pretty well at that. He has to keep smiling and pushing, and being the adult until the voters get it right and get the obstructionists out of the way. I'm not religious, but thank the lord we got this President.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. I agree 100%.

Most people understand the political realities this president is faced with after he was delivered a 2010 shellacking. It was intended partly as a slap in his face and partly a way to "purify" the Democratic Party by getting rid of Blue Dog Dems. The shortsightedness of that tactic was, more Republicans won seats across the nation - and just not your average assholes, either. Teapublicans, the worst kind of Republicans, took control and after some handy gerrymandering, are safely able to call the shots.

Yet for some strange reason, some Liberals believed that by shoving the Democratic Party and the president's face up against the wall and tying their hands on their backs, it would somehow give them the incentive to march forward on even more liberal policies?? I don't understand that disconnect. If anything, Liberals should've known better than to try a coup like that. They should've seen the writing on the wall when Duhbya still got enough votes to win a second term.

I've noticed that Americans are innately loathed to change. They hate it no matter how much they profess to want it, and if they have to change, they do so kicking and screaming. They're slow to warm up to any kind of sudden changes {unless it's wars} which in political power merely means that it will take several election cycles and great pain and suffering before any good and beneficial changes will happen.

[GeorgeGist]

69. Under the circumstances ...

Why attract flies?

[BlueCaliDem]

71. So you're solution is . . . do nothing?

Let the sequestration hit and let the economy keep falling as it has been lately? That's a better solution in your not so humble opinion?

[uponit7771]

55. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Sap? No. Just another 3rd Way politician protecting the establishment.

[JoePhilly]

52. The folks who hate Obama have to release that hate when the opportunity

arises, regardless of how silly the situation.

If they did not take advantage of such opportunities, they'd explode.



And you have to realize, the Boston bombing knocked most of their regular outrage topics out of the news cycle. So their anger has been building up and building up.

Today's ceremony allows them to vent their outrage some.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. I've noticed.

I just wished that they'd see how self-defeating that is for the country. I'd thought they'd learned their lesson during the 2000 election debacle.

Their outrage exploded in 2010 when some who wished it were Hillary not Barack, had been president. The opportunity to show their outrage was by staying home in the midterms. Not all of them, but enough that gave the Republicans the edge with a rabid TeaBagger movement funded by moneyed corporations that were attempting to repeal the PPACA. What did that accomplish aside from a few days of gloating for the Left? A deeply gerrymandered House in 2012 that the Democrats might not be able to win back unless they start gerrymandering districts in progressive states - OR - the off chance the Republican voters will have an epiphany that can break through their thick haze of racism and hatred for all things Obama and Democratic Party. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

[JoePhilly]

59. I also think ...

that the larger damage they do is not so much their own staying home, but that their constant carping just adds to the political fog causing others to stay home.

I'm talking about those folks who lean left, but who might not be overly motivated to vote in an given election ... those are the ones impacted.

Voting takes energy and if Obama (or Dems) are being attacked endlessly from the right and from the left, the left leaning voter only hears "Obama sucks" or "Dems suck" ... and they throw up their hands and say "why vote at all".

And they stay home. Turn out drops, and that always helps the GOP.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. This is my fear as well.

Not only that, but they're giving the GOP propaganda machine {U.S. Corporate Media} all the backing they need to really bury the knife in deep, and allowing them to say, "Obama and the Democrats are not popular with their base, either", which also aids in depressing turn-out. Result? A 2010 repeat. Don't they see that?

[Jamaal510]

66. I'm as

liberal as the next guy, but I think it's ridiculous that some of these so-called "true progressives" online seem to be expecting Pres. Obama to be somebody who can bypass Congress. They're acting like he is the President of just the political left, when he is the president of all Americans, including the 47-49% who did not vote for him. And I keep seeing threads about chained CPI, where people neglect to mention that there is more to the President's proposed budget plan than just CPI. They go on as if it's so lopsided in favor of the GOP, but there are things in it that our side would favor, such as tobacco tax hikes for universal pre-schooling, alternative energy, and top income tax hikes. Also, keep in mind that even he has said again and again that this was not his ideal plan, but has proposed it just to avoid gridlock and get things done. For someone supposedly so eager to cut entitlements, Obama has had over 4 years to do so, and still has yet to do it.
I said it before and I'll say it again--if a person just hangs around the Internet, they would expect him to be just as much of a stumbling-bumbling boob as Bush ll.

[whathehell]

65. The people who think disagreement with Obama = hatred of him

need to take remedial education classes

[Bobbie Jo]

73. The people who think gratuitous sniping

= disagreement with Obama need to take remedial vocabulary and comprehension classes.

[whathehell]

74. Well, first of all, you'd have to define and defend the use of "gratuitous" in this situation

because, you see, one person's "gratuitous" is another's "germane".

So, unless you can successfully do that, I'd say it's you and the other genius

who accused Obama's critics of "hatred, who may need those courses.

[Bobbie Jo]

80. "genius"

= more gratuitous sniping.

[whathehell]

92. No, I didn't think you'd be up to that particular challenge.

and you've proven me right.

[Bobbie Jo]

94. Yeah

Because obviously I'm a fucking idiot.

I'll leave you to carry on with the riveting snipefest.

[Erose999]

61. President Obama is right....

I do think he's a sap.

Legitimizing of war criminals and theives in the last thing "this country needs". And "reaching out" to the likes of Agent Orange and the Paul "Ed Grimley wants his hairdo back" Ryan ain't gonna do a thing to help.

He should have asked for Dubya's head on a silver platter. Sent him and Dickless Cheney and all the rest to the gallows for their crimes.

[whatchamacallit]

67. He obviously doesn't have a clue

what the country needs.

[L0oniX]

76. Obama ...applauded former President George W. Bush ...BBBBAAAARRRRFFFFFFFFSSSSPPPPPEEEEEWWWWW

CCCCCHHHHUUUUNNNNKKKKSSSSSSFFFFFFFLLLLLLYYYYIIIIINNNNGGGGEEEEEVVVVEEEERRRRRYYYYYWWWWWWHHHHHEEEEERRRRREEEEE

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Barack; that fucker George wrecked our country.

This goddamn bipartisan circle-jerk ISN'T what the country needs. We need to look at the problems and fix them, which includes acknowledging where the problems came from.

The guy in the photo raised $1 billion dollars for reelection from the same 1% that is eating our lunch. "Looking for a grand compromise"? Gee, I wonder why?

[liberal N proud]

82. There is a difference between reaching out and giving the house away

I have no problem with reaching out to the other side, but damn!

[The Second Stone]

85. God forbid he should reach out to the majority who elected

him.

[vi5]

86. Good. He can reach out to them for votes and money.

I'm fucking tired of him reaching out to me for donations and votes and "boots on the ground" campaigning while he reaches out to Republicans for policy ideas and the basis for his economic policies.

I'm done with it. After 27 years of blind, loyal, full ticket voting support of the Democratic party I have finally had enough.

[Boomerproud]

95. Well, Mr. President, it's worked so well for you so far.

I really don't have anything to add. His anger is misdirected. I thought he was savvier than that. I was wrong.