General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am without a doubt, unequivocably, unapologetically, and enthusiastically voting for Obama in Nov!
I'm getting a bit weary of some people complaining about Obama didn't do this, Obama didn't do that, Obama DID do this, Obama DID do that.
Obama walked into the greatest economic disaster to hit the country, and possibly the world, since the Great Depression. So if he and Congress fulfilled 24 of 25 climate goal changes, and missed one, that is understandable, and totally forgiveable.
He has, despite the overwhelming problems confronting him on a global scale, and despite being bushwacked at every turn by the Republicans, racked up a long list of historical accomplishments too numerous to list here (others have posted the long lists in the past).
One of my main issues of concern is the environment and climate change. While I'm disappointed, and even angry, at some of the things he's done or not done in this area, I'm well aware that Obama has done more for the environment and clean energy and climate change in the U.S. than any President in our history.
So I'm gonna say it once and for all:
I AM WITHOUT A DOUBT, UNEQUIVOCABLY, UNAPOLOGETICALLY, AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY VOTING FOR OBAMA IN NOVEMBER!!!!
I will be a contributor to his campaign. And for the first time in my life, I've volunteered on a local level. Don't try to tell me there's no enthusiasm out there for him. And don't try to convince me not to vote for him, because you're wasting your keystrokes. I SUPPORT OBAMA 100%.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
calimary
(81,323 posts)GOBAMA!
Lugnut
(9,791 posts)GOBAMA!
kardonb
(777 posts)Count me in ! Especially when you look at what the other side has to offer . Makes me shudder just to think of that .
Gobama Biden 2012 !
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)You have said what I have tried to say so many times.
shraby
(21,946 posts)
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)
(Unless my name has been removed from the voter list for suspicion of VWRD - Voting While Registered Democrat)
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)and he has royally pissed me off on occasion. But I am not so fucking ignorant to think the alternative is anywhere near acceptable, nor will I piss on the positive because I didn't get what I wanted.
And In my case, a straight white male in the upper 10%, I got squat, but again, I am not so fucking ignorant to throw it down the disposal for purity.
And yes I AM FUCKING PISSED OFF! Mostly at the left wing haters! FOR FUCKS SAKE, on days like this I can see why fucking asshole right wingers call out the left.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)stockholmer
(3,751 posts)What a shame that these 2 are so-called best that a nation of 310 million and its uber-corrupt political system of bought-and-paid-for hollow little people can offer up.
The 2 party sham system guarantees a horrid outcome for the vast majority of its citizens. The systemic controllers sit back and laugh at the kabuki theatre that they have wrought.
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown), Tragedy and Hope (1966)
http://archive.org/download/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope.pdf
Logical
(22,457 posts)
BillyJack
(819 posts)That your vote (along with everyone else's vote) is counted/tabulated accurately. There's the rub.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,641 posts)He has done many good things, but he has also done many bad things. Or he has allowed them to be done.
Nonetheless, he has my vote.
Romney would be an unmitigated disaster.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)My dear CaliforniaPeggy, ... you can say that AGAIN!!!
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,641 posts)But I won't! 
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts) 
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)it would be altered enough so that it would, as the Republicans like to say, shrivel on the vine.
Obama's done a few lousy things, but "many"? I don't know about that. He's done a long list of exceptional and historical things, but I can think of only a few things that were bad. And make no mistake, they were bad. But they were few.
I say get him a second term & hold his feet to the fire to be more liberal. He might just do it, since he'd be a lame duck. IF he can get around Congress or if we can get more Democrats in Congress.
But you know, he's not a progressive. He never was and didn't campaign saying he was. So maybe since I knew that, and actually liked that at the time, I'm not as disappointed as others who expected him to be progressive. He's just not. But maybe his eyes have been opened about a few things.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)appleannie1
(5,067 posts)we have food on the table, SS to buy it with and a roof over our heads. Heaven knows if Romney gets elected we might as well dig our graves and climb in them.
ailsagirl
(22,897 posts)Though sometimes I really wonder when I see the polls. The unthinkable prospect you mentioned, in and of itself, *should* be enough to turn ALL voters off, regardless of party!!
What gives?
mzmolly
(50,996 posts) 
mercymechap
(579 posts)There was a thread on why voting for Obama in 2012 may not be a good thing. I guess they are of the opinion that not voting for anyone will somehow cause neither Obama or Romney to win?
I don't understand when Democrats start tearing at their own party. There may be some things that Obama has done that I don't agree with, but overall, I would vote for a Democrat over any Republican, especially after what I've been seeing in the past 3 years.
With members of the Republican party vowing to do everything possible to make Obama fail, regardless of what it does to the country I don't understand why anyone that carries the Democrat label would be remiss about voting for Obama and allowing another Republican to finish the job that Bush started, putting us in the toilet.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)by the time I went to post my response, the OP had been remvoed. IMO, it was a thinly veiled attempt at convincing others not to vote for Obama. It pretended to put forth a logical argument regarding several issues. Even the positive things he said were followed up by negative things he posts that others said, all in the "positive-vote FOR" section of his OP.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)I could say that his thread was invaded by republicans who want to push Obama even further right by telling him that liberal policies don't matter, that he will do just fine by being more and more conservative.
I could say that this thread has been invaded by republicans who want to alienate and Democrats who might be wavering. One good way to do that is to pretend to be a big old Obama fan who calls anyone who calls out a pointless or silly post a republican. That would be a really good strategy for cutting votes for Obama and helping romney.
But then, I think.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Probably not the areas that are your main areas of concern.
He said aside the largest tract of land EVER to be protected by the government. We will have cars required to get 54.5 mpg in the not too distant future. Subsidies for installing and buying green things were increased. He promised to decrease emmissions by 85% from today's levels in a few decades. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and supported it beforehand.
All these and many more are liberal policies.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Just on education, war, privacy issues, unions, corporate interests. Yep those are biggies to me. Sure rom-rom is worse there. (We guess, since no one knows what he stands for) But if you champion and cheer the corporatization of education because he upped the mpg numbers, if you stand quietly by with averted looks while he doubles down on bush's invasion of homes and adds death without trial for citizens to bush's extreme rendition and torture because he saved more land, then you aid, abet, and encourage the professional politician in him to take more license with traditional Democratic values.
Now if you were with us when we castigated him heavily for his bad actions as much as you lauded him for his better efforts, then you get a pass. Can you show me a post where you ever called him a corporate whore for making back room deals with pharma? Can you show me a post where you decried the union busting tirades of his corporate education tool, arne duncan?
I can show you posts where I attacked republicans for what they have done. I can show you posts where I praised him for actions befitting a decent Democrat.
Blind faith and allegiance regardless of principle is the hallmark of the republican electorate. We can do better. But only if Democrats insist that Democrats act like Democrats.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)that you regard as conservative?
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)by Madfloridian. Educate yourself. This isn't even a debatable issue.
This administration's education plan comes straight from bill bennet. The president's hand-picked (from his basketball buddies) Sec of Ed is a nasty piece of work who knows nothing about schools, teaching, or education. But he sides with the corporate ed crowd who make it a point to say how schooling should be cheaper, that corporations would do it better, and that the problem is that teachers and teacher unions are harming children. That has been the message sent out by gomer norquist and his minions since ronny reagan was the neo-conservative mouthpiece.
If you buy any of that message from arne duncan, you are flirting with the dark side. You can't mouth the same words and espouse the same goals of the far right and pretend to be a liberal. Those who buy arne's blather are either closet conservatives or they are too lazy to learn from anything but the media lies.
If you are serious about wanting to know what is wrong with doubling down on bush's NCLB, then I can point you to some resources. You won't find them in the mainstream media.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)involved in the Scott recall.
I support the education bills that I know have been passed. Actually, the worst thing is that nothing reformative has been passed, but that's because of the economy and the Republican's bushwacking everything in Congress.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Supporting unions with talk is cheap. Sending in your ed sec to trash unions and help districts cut union teachers to hire corporate short termers says more than words. If you don't know about this, then you are uninformed on this subject.
Which education bills do you support? You believe in more teaching to the test? You believe in george bush's education program? That's what we are getting here.
Look. You can be as gung ho as yo want. But on this issue, you display a woeful lack of information. It would seem that your support is based on the fact that this administration wanted it. Tell us why you think teachers and their unions are harming children. Tell us why you think it is a good idea to lay off experienced teachers and spend more money per teacher to hire corporate workers under contracts supported by the ed dept. Tell us why you think that we need more and more tests for kids and why we must stop teaching a whole curriculum to train kids for the tests.
If you support these things and know why you do, then you are right that we disagree, and that you are sound in your support of the administration's educational programs. I just wonder why someone on a Democratic site would be so in favor of enacting the programs first suggested by ronald reagan's education secretary.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)for many aspects of our country, and I will definitely vote for him again.
Time for change
(13,715 posts)Following the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagan, the U.S. under pressure from other countries to do something, committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gases (from 1990 levels) by 2020.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-commits-to-greenhouse-gas-cuts-under-copenhagen-accord
This must be compared with the recommendations of climate change scientists, who warned that we must reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic consequences.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-us-fuel-economy-standards
You consider that to be fulfilling 24 of 25 climate change goals? Do you really think that sugar coating our record on climate change (or anything else) is going to help our country just because we have a Democratic president?
MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)not to vote for him?
What I don't understand is, those that are "angry" over kill lists, etc, are assaulted until the cows come home, and are often treated like traitors because they can't summon the enthusiasm you seemingly have despite the disappointments they harbor. Mostly, they like you, consider the choice in Nov a no-brainer because of the alternative, so the only thing that seems to differentiate them is a lack of enthusiasm over being left no other choice.
It's almost like the level of enthusiasm has come define moral character, reasonableness, and rationality -- and perhaps intelligence level as well -- within the BHO supporter ranks. The simple fact of the matter is, in the final analysis it's a vote for him whether enthusiastic or not that matters. Some don't like or even hate the job they go to daily, while remaining fully aware of the less agreeable alternative of unemployment. And if they go to work and complain about the terms and conditions of employment there -- the company did this, the company didn't do that, etc -- for the betterment of all, they are called what?
I'm betting the history books will record his failure to provide leadership on climate change issues as his largest one. He's been the voice for women, gays, and displaced hispanic kids recently, but can't seem to speak for the planet.
Sorry if that (and more) has become an "enthusiasm" killer for some of us. I think what slays me most of all is that you enthusiastic ones appear to think you're some kinda vast majority that can kick the less enthusiastic around, if the afrementioned conduct can serve as a barometer for it. http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/02/10/do-democrats-really-have-enthusiasm-advantage/
But is that so?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)He's been the voice for women, gays, and displaced hispanic kids recently, but can't seem to speak for the planet.
He's easy for things that don't cost corporate money.
--imm
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)trying to address the worst economic disaster to hit the country since the Great Depression. Of COURSE things are going to be a bit different from times that are less disastrous. The money is not there for some things, for one. The focus of the government has to be on the economy, for another.
Notwithstanding this, Obama set aside millions of acres to be protected....the largest area ever set aside by any President. Cars will be required to get 54.5 mpg in the not too distant future. He pledged an 85% decrease in emmissions from today's levels within a couple of decades. All this while lowering the import of oil. Not too shabby. More than Clinton or Carter did. Or any other President in our history.
He has done an excellent job on climate change and the environment. It's not what I wanted or what is needed. But it's far more than any other President has ever done, and more than could have been expected, really, considering the circumstances of the country while he did these things. (He and Congress.)
There are things he's done that also get me angry. Looks like they might start drilling in the Arctic Nat'l Wildlife Refuge. I hope that doesn't happen.
As a realist, I accept that I cannot get the whole ball of wax from ANYONE. People like Howard Dean and Kucinich will NEVER be elected President, so if that's what you're waiting for, you're on the losing end.
Obama has really done an excellent job as President. His second term holds a lot of promise. He's gotten his sea legs, and he'll be a lame duck. If we also vote in more Democrats in Congress, the sky's the limit.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)the sad part is, in my recollection most of the things you listed as being "good for the environment" have been couched in "energy" terms, and sold as such in conjunction with the "energy" pursuits you disapprove of, not with a focus on their impact on global warming. That's why I say, he hasn't really spoken for the planet much, and what little he has is way outta proportion with the speaking for and action on the interests of selected demographics.
Perhaps maybe you missed the overarching point of my post. I too was a Dean supporter in 2004, and would have preferred Dennis even the last time around. The main point I was trying to make is that there seems to be some major intra-party divisions arising between the "purists" and those who choose to criticize BHO in conjunction with expressions of disenchantment, a loss of enthusiasm, etc, here on DU, and just about everywhere else I sporadically read and post. As noted in my previous response, the only thing that seems to differentiate you and them, is your enthusiasm.
I'm not and didn't intend to be criticizing your enthusiasm despite the many reasons you've shared that could have resulted in a diminshment of it as it has in so many others, I was commenting to whatever readers that might stumble upon in both camps -- the enthused and those who have lost it wholly or in part -- in an effort to end the BS, which is largely coming from the "purist" camp. As noted as well, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is the number of bodies in the voting booth in Nov, and I see all the condemnation of those who criticize BHO (absent your enthusiasm qualification) as threat to the body count. To see what I mean, try posting a post purely and solely critical of BHO on this or that issue, and see what happens around here.
I say this because I'm a realist too. People with complaints need to air them without fear of reprisal from those who are otherwise their ideological and political allies, and acceptance within that fold can't be conditional upon their sharing the level of enthusiasm those like you and others have maintained despite the many disappointments they may or may not have, like the ones you shared.
I was not very enthused at all when I voted for BHO the first time for many reasons I won't bore you with here. Like you however, for at least as many reasons I don't regret my vote, and despite the fact that all the reasons I was unenthused about have achieved fruition. What I know I would regret, is sitting idly/silently by as efforts were/are made to paint those like me that have criticisms and reservations while lacking the enthusiasm you have maintained, are treated like an enemy. Not only is it counter-productive to our shared goal -- getting him reelected -- it's just plain wrong no matter how you slice it, and particularly when BHO himself has said he wants us to hold his feet to the fire. If not for that -- as about any politically astute gay person could tell you for example, would their civil rights problems have been rectified as or to the extent they have been?
I've thought about doing a top post on this matter, because it is of great concern to me, but as a relative newbie, it's doubtful that I can compete with the many expert C&Pers here and their entourages. I have therefore decided to raise this point where ever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, to maximize the reading of it. So far that has been directly to the "purists" around here that would like to see no doubt, any criticism of BHO disallowed and perhaps even, a banning offense. I doubt seriously anyone like me is trying to dampen the enthusiasm of those like you as they charge, but rather following their own drum beat or music produced by their conscience strings in an effort to promote change, much as you'd like to on the subject of the climate. I see the divisions being created creating a climate conducive for less participation in Nov, not more, by the insistance that everyone be part of nothing but the cheerleading squad, or else.
I'll apologize if you think this off point and a muddying of your post, despite my holding the opposite pov. I see it as being more than tangential to your top post, since the "enthusiasm" you focused on seesm to be the difference between second class BHO supporterhood and not, if not outright treason to the cause.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)as others.
Some other people are disappointed that he hasn't been a progressive. I'm not. That's because he didn't campaign as one, and he clearly isn't one. I expected the moderate that I saw campaigning. He was more conserevative than I expected, and I'm disappointed and downright angry about some things he did. At one point I swore I would vote Republican in 2012. I changed my mind.
I cut him slack because of the country's and the earth's economic situation that hit before he took office. It was truly an overwhelming situation. I also cut him slack because of how the Republicans reacted to him and stood in the way and played games.
Ironically, I think he's far more likely now to be more left than he ever was, now that he has experienced the Republican Party in its full glory, and witnessed the harm it can and will do, like willingly hurt citizens economically rather than do something for the economy to get better which would help Obama. When he's a lame duck in office, esp if there's a stronger Democratic Congress, I think he's likely to do even more historically significant, and progressive, things. But I don't know for sure. He sure decided to get on board the gay rights bus, which was a surprise, and a change from before. He is the type who will change, and make changes.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)as I've advised my lefty allies elsewhere almost from the start of his first term, I don't really think that we're gonna see the real BHO until his second, because that's when he'll start focusing on his legacy, as opposed to merely reacting to and working on the mess he was handed. My pov towards him pretty much mirrors your own, starting with the low expectations to begin with. I guess what differentiates us the most, is the fact that I can't muster the enthusiasm you seemingly have.
My hope has long been, and the rightwingnuts have been fully cooperative in, his evoluting into something else of the more transformative kind I always thought he had the potential for, and hopefully will become if as I've long suspected and predicted, the dems retake the house and retain the senate. Total defeat of the rightwingnuts in that form this fall should signal to him that he's on the wrong side of history with compromise rather than the change he initially ran on, therefore giving us far less to be pissed or disappointed over legislatively in the next four years.
The reason why I don't share your enthusiasm, is much the same reason I don't and never have fallen starry-eyed in love. The higher you go and invest in things emotionally, the harder the fall when it happens. He was a much better choice than Mr "bomb, bomb Iran!", as he is over the Mutt, or any rightwinger to me, but I could never get excited about him like I would someone like Kucinich with whom I share so much with.
I think that best explains the level of the lack of enthusiasm in many -- unlike you and I, they really hadn't studied nor knew the person they were voting for in terms of his political persuasions. For example, the opinion and or pursuits he needs most (well, other than his silence of global warming, which dwarfs all others put together imo, given the stakes) to shed imo is this.
"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938."http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000867.html one of the many reasons his conduct this term should come as no surprise to anyone as you noted, that paid attention. The only surprise to me has been things like all the droning, kill lists, etc.
My attitude towards his accomplishments is pretty much here http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/19/measuring-obamas-record/ It's not his domestic efforts I have much/the most problem with (other than his silence on global warming) , but rather the foreign policy ones. As we know, we need more bread and butter, not guns and wars. I couldn't help but notice the author excluded any mention of that from the piece, and I sincerely hope his pursuits in that department don't become "historically significant" should that pursuit continue.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It is true what "they" say that the country is governed by compromise. I expect this. And when you compromise, you can't get far left or far right plans installed easily.
I automatically know when a politician promises something in a campaign, he's expressing just a philosophy, that it's unlikely that that particular law will not get passed in that form. That's because this isn't a kingdom. It's a democracy. They need the approval of many others, some of whom belong to the opposing party or who hold different views, even if they're in the same party.
Global warming disappointments? I'm not disappointed much in that area because he's done more than any President any history. That's not enough? It's not enough to get 54.5 mpg in cars in the foreseeable future? That was not easy to get that passed. And it is a virtual miracle that it was passed. That goes directly to global warming. Also, global warming cannot be solved in a few years, even if extreme measures were passed. It is GLOBAL, for one thing. It is Mexican polllution that is drifting to the Arctic, not American, for example. China is a cesspool of pollution. It's no wonder they can promise more cutting back of emmissions...because their emmissions are so high to begin with. We have limited control over those things.
So I'm enthusiastic because Obama is NOT like the Republicans. He has done, and will do, decidedly liberal things that are good for the country, that Republicans would NEVER do and in fact, fight hard against.
Bearing in mind that most things in a democratic government is compromise. That's what governing is about.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)considering that global warming has really only been a political issue of significance spanning three admins at most, that's not saying much. My point was not to belittle what efforts http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/29/president-obama-announces-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard he's made (although I am a bit confused about the "passed" characterization, if you mean legislatively, although the CAFE standards have their origin there http://www.nhtsa.gov/) to impact it, given our collective guilt as a country
The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies - with 18 tonnes emitted per personbut rather to address the silence that has long needed to be eliminated. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/27/490493/obama-silent-climate-change-big-iowa-energy-speech/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#_
That is something over which BHO has direct control -- speaking on global warming -- which is why so many have faulted him for not doing so, as already noted, gays, etc did previously. http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+record+global+warming&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en his actions and inaction notwithstanding.
I'm in fairly good company in regards to this opinion, and BHO has made some unlikely friends http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/his_nickname_is_george_w_obama
over the matter.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether disappointment is warranted, and whether an adverse impact on ones enthusiasm level is justified.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or even false. Most of the outrage is drummed up using some topic. That topic, if looked into dispassionately, always turns out not to be a big deal.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)which is nothing more than a hollow declaration usually indicative of ____________ , and hardly the kinda thing that poses a threat to me or what I've posted in any way, shape, or form, nor is it something worthy of more of a time and text investment than this.
And given how much I have posted here in terms of disappointments that you've avoided any efforts to undermine, one can only conclude you're at least aware that you aren't up to the task of accomplishing that. SO at least you don't exaggerate and act upon your abilities beyond simply "declaring" others are exaggerating. Knowing ones limitiations is admirable, even when the thing limited is extremely small in and of itself.
Thanks for making that much clear for the readers, as well as your self-appointment as the judge of what is or is not a "big deal", despite being wholly unable to designate a specific thing that should or shouldn't be considered such.
Just don't hire yourself as an attorney, because they have to formulate and sustain real arguments, as opposed to just issuing edicts and admonitions over alleged manufactured outrages you can't identify, even though you "declared" them "exaggerations".
too funny -- I'll conclude with a callout to the poster I've been conversing with, with a "see what I mean? Criticism of BHO absent expressed enthusiasm regardless in conjunction with it, is taboo to the "purists" around here." He truly is a sinless/mistakeless
"always turns out not to be a big deal."" messiah to some...lol
kimbutgar
(21,163 posts)I realize it is imperative we re-elect President Obama...
"Romney has bought the Republican nomination. He is a mean, sadistic man who, if elected, would make Caligula look like Walt Disney".
Every time I see rmoney I feel uncomfortable like I am seeing Dorian Gray.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)As November approaches, the equivocating here gets more and more annoying.
love0bama-4ever
(65 posts)I would vote for that wonderful man to stay in WH the rest of his life. That's how much I like him. Obama is DaMan, now and forever.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts) 
chazzio
(26 posts)I'm with you 100%. I like your enthusiasm.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)
dsteven9
(12 posts)...in to DU REC you!!!!
Thank you!!!! I TOO, SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA 100%
I suddenly feel so comfortable...I can go to sleep now, LOL!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)give me the boo boo-jeebies so badly that I have contributed around $50 to Obama's campaign (which happens to be the first time I donated money to any cause before.) As soon as I'm able to, I will cast my vote for Obama and keep my fingers crossed that we regain a comfortable majority in the House and Senate.
I also want the satisfaction of seeing the look on Mitch McConnell's face once their plan of making him a 1-term president fails.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)for different and varied reasons, the major one being that is a tombstone-able offense at DU!
I will not be contributing to his campaign, I think he will do just fine with the many wealthy people who give him millions. I heard he will raise close to a billion bucks eventually.
I'm one who is not enthusiastic about him, and am disinterested in the election campaign in general. I figure he will probably win though, on account of Romney is bound to blunder and kill his campaign by self-inflicted fire sooner or later, he is a rather poor candidate in terms of his weaknesses and easy prey really in how they can paint him as a serial flip-flopper and phony type of candidate.
I do think there is a very distinctive lack of enthusiasm for Obama this time around, from many of those who supported him in 2008, like young people and liberals/progressives. But yea, its great you are so enthusiastic, and to be honest, the Obama campaign needs folks like you badly, especially this time around because of the general lack of excitement and passion for his candidacy IMHO.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It was one of those pretend let's-discuss-the-pros-and-cons-of-voting-for-Obama posts. Others haven't been so overt....just entirely, and repetitively, negative posts about him. Another tipoff to a trying to get others not to vote for Obama post.
This is a Democratic forum. Obama is the Democratic President running for re-election. There is something that Obama has done that every Democrat would approve of. For someone to repeatedly post negative posts about him, ONLY referencing things that person doesn't like, is not normal for your average Democrat. It's something else.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)All this does is to signal to the administration that they got our vote, so quit paying attention to those guys. The same thing happens non swing states, no one pays attention to you when you declare your unconditional love when the courtship is still going on.
Give him a reason to look our way and play a little hard to get
Avalux
(35,015 posts)This is not a romantic relationship.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)Its exactly like a courtship and Obama will end the sweet talks and the presents if we declare that we are already convinced especially when we could still use some love.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)I will vote for him, continue to donate to him, and do whatever else I can to see him re-elected.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)stand between sanity and down right nuttyville.
lame54
(35,294 posts)So, he thought it would be a good idea to bust pot smokers
and you gotta love the drones and the B.S. justification for the civilians that get killed from them
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)And he is a going to win!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Twice I was enthusiastic. This is not one of them.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)While I may not be 100% thrilled with everything he's done, I'd be shocked if ANY president could manage that....you cannot please everyone, no matter what.
Still, given the unholy mess he came into, he's done what he can. My biggest quibble is that he keeps trying to cooperate with people who will never, ever, in a million years cooperate with him in any way.
Tomorrow, my DH and I are meeting with the local OFA coordinator to find out how we can help with reelection efforts.
