Obama naysayers! Tell me how 5 months is enough time to change the World

[zulchzulu]

I have another thread where I point out that people like Bill Maher (a career complainer, albeit amusing sometimes) and Keith Olbermann (where I am a recently disappointed fan) were in Full Stage Conjecture trying to explain their disappointment in Obama's first term as President. That's convenient armchair quarterbacking until one realizes that it has only been about five months since Obama has been President. He's not a King or a Magician who can decree laws in a day or zap problems with the wink of an eye or the turning of a wand. He's a President.

So what are the steps to have a President pass a law? Isn't it like grabbing that remote and changing the channel? No. Here's how it works. Of course, it takes a majority of votes to pass, which is something to take into account before legislation is begun.

For legislation to pass, here are the basic steps needed:

• Legislation is authored and brought through committees pertaining to the new bill
  
• The House votes on the legislation after amendments are offered, debated, changed, omitted, amended and otherwise changed from the original bill
  
• The Senate votes on the legislation after amendments are offered, debated, changed, omitted, amended and otherwise changed from the original bill
  
• The bill then goes to conference committee where further amendments are offered, changed and differences in the bill between the House and Senate bill
  
• The bill is then voted on by the House and Senate with the possibility of further amendments that would then go through conference committee and then back to the House and Senate again
  
• The final bill, with all the changes made and amendments added are then sent to the president to sign into law.

We're not talking days. We're talking weeks. Months. Years.

Now, let's look at what Obama inherited:

• An economy as bad or worse than the Great Depression
  
• A banking industry teetering on the possibility of complete collapse
  
• An auto industry about to go bankrupt and cause millions of jobs to be lost
  
• A housing industry about to completely turn into a disaster
  
• Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and trouble in Pakistan
  
• Israel in war mode against the Palestinians
  
• North Korea and Iran in contentious nuclear bomb antics
  
• A healthcare industry in bad need of reform
  
• Equal rights for gays in the military and relationships
  
• Global warming
  
• A completely uncooperative Republican party
  
• Hundreds of other issues, problems and events too numerous to mention

OK, so five months have gone by and here is an assessment by someone who thinks that Obama has been as productive as FDR:

• Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
  
• Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
  
• Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
  
• Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.
  
• "Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
  
• Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
  
• Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.
  
• Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House
  
• "Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile.
  
• Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.
  
• Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/21/adviser-says-obamas-days-productive-fdr/

I would like to know succinctly from those who think Obama hasn't done enough yet to illustrate a timeline where Obama COULD have done more AND had the votes to get that particular legislation passed.

Let's see real answers and not just the usual playground insults.

[MNDemNY]

1. Can/will you defend this???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3925001

[katandmoon]

10. :::: crickets ::::

[MNDemNY]

11. The audacity.

[Dawgs]

22. I won't defend it, cause it's wrong, but I will agree that the OP is correct.

Obama has done more in five months, with a lot more problems, than any President in the past 80 years.

It's too bad that some can only focus on the things he has done wrong; especially considering the good greatly outweighs the bad. It's also amazing that some are mad at him for things he hasn't done, but will probably do in his second year.

[MNDemNY]

26. Why should one waste time and energy on what has been done right?

Must every criticism of Pres.Obama be prefaced with something good that he has done? Is it not the case that on a board such as DU that criticisms are more prevalent than praise? What goal does praise advance? Is this a site to discuss, or masturbate? I'll criticize and discuss, in my own way, you go ahead and jack-off.

[LWolf]

74. Is this a site to discuss, or to masturbate?

:spray:

I LOVE this question. I look forward to the responses. :popcorn:

[Dr.Phool]

84. I'll try to get a handle on it!

[LWolf]

95. .

:toast:

[NorthCarolina]

98. Or are you just stroking your *ego* ?

:yoiks:

[LWolf]

105. Heh.

While my ego really enjoys being stroked, my ego and I don't look for that kind of attention on DU. ;)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNDemNY]

27. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8473952&mesg_id=8474031

[zulchzulu]

28. That's called "topic drift"

The Guest List has nothing to do with my thread topic. But thanks for playing!

[MNDemNY]

29. That's called "duck and cover" .

[zulchzulu]

35. Why not bring up other thread topics in this thread while you're at it...

Hey, what about Pakistan? Palin? I hear rush Limbaugh's ass stinks... any more?

[MNDemNY]

36. Which one of those have to do with Obama's performance as POTUS??

[zulchzulu]

39. So you want to hijack the thread on the Guest List? I see your strategy

Nicely played...

:crazy:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNDemNY]

68. What is clear is that you will defend anything Obama does or does not do.

Your blind allegiance will destroy this country just as quick as Bushco would have. Even the OP does not go that far.

[NYC_SKP]

58. Oh, Let it Go!

He's got enough spies watching him, do you think he's going to sneak in secret mooslims?

Fuck.

[MNDemNY]

69. No, not "mooslims" corporate whores. Much worse.

He can "consult" with whomever, in fact I support him getting advice from anyone, but he must be open about it. To keep this policy intact, after his pledge for openness, is disingenuous, at best.

[uponit7771]

92. Yes, I don't give a damn about a "guest list"!!! Relative to healthcare, crashed banking system, 2

...wars, health crisis

[kayell]

97. The guest list is relevant to all those issues. Who is visiting/advising him on health care?

Are most of those visitors lobbiests or corporate bigs in the insurance industry? How many bankers are visiting, and from which corporations? How many visitors with ties to armaments manufacturers and others who profit from war? What is the ration of corporate whores to consumer watchdogs? That is one VERY relevant list.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. invite single payer advocates to your damn health care meetings!

That would have been huge.

But no.

It's business as usual,

It's no ideologically incorrect views allowed.

[Indydem]

3. What a novel idea n/t

[tekisui]

8. Single Payer is a big one, DADT/DOMA, his position on State Secrets,

escalating the war in Afghanistan, building a uber-Embassy in Pakistan, drone attacks in Pakistan and I will welcome the return of US troops from Iraq if/when it happens.

It isn't necessarily what he hasn't done, but the positions he has taken and things he has done that bother me.

[zulchzulu]

37. Are there enough votes to pass Single Payer, DADT, DOMA?

Let's see your timeline and how those pieces of legislation WOULD PASS.

Remember, this is a democracy... not a fiefdom with a King.

[tekisui]

48. L E A D E R S H I P

That is what it is about. He is the leader of the Party. He is in a powerful position. He could and should be busting heads in the Senate. He should be kicking the blue dog's asses and making them get in line. But, it is so much easier to throw your hands in the air and say, "Now is not the time, we don't have the votes, it is too politically expensive."

Excuses. All excuses to cover for an unwillingness to be a strong leader.

[avaistheone1]

52. If he wants to have a legacy Obama is going to have to exercise leadership.

[LWolf]

75. Instead, this is where the power is exercised:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5860677

bullying freshmen into funding more war.

[LooseWilly]

101. I totally missed that thread. Thanks for the post. No wonder the WH has no time for DADT...

On the other hand... it's good to see that they can get tough... if they want to.

Now I have a little more faith... and I'm a little bit more disgusted at the temerity in the face of the right that the WH is demonstrating on a number of issues.

:banghead:

[LWolf]

104. Now if they'd just "get tough" where it counts. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

108. Still keepin' the old powder dry.

[John Q. Citizen]

86. Doesn't require a vote to invite single payer experts to the meetings. Just the will.

[Indydem]

4. President can recind DADT with the wave of his hand...

Could have done it on the first day.

Don't get me started on the DOMA brief that came out of HIS justice department.

[zulchzulu]

7. Wrong... Congress has to pass legislation overturning Clinton's DADT policy

Nice try... but incorrect.

[katandmoon]

9. He can put a freeze on enforcing it -- but he's too chickenshit to do that

[Indydem]

12. Wrong on two fronts...

First, President Obama is the commander and chief of the US armed services. Any order he gives, goes. If he orders military personel to ignore DADT, that is his right and privledge as commander and chief.

Secondly, according to the Palm center at the University of Santa Barbara, in a report published months ago, The President has the legal authority and right to end DADT at his discretion. http://www.palmcenter.org/node/1286

Read up, improve your knowledge, get back to us.

[jaxx]

13. I think this is why he goes to court over every bush thing people think he supports.

He can write presidential executive orders all day long, and when the next guy comes along he can write his own and stop Obama's. If the congress and/or the courts make the laws/precedents, they are concrete until they would be overturned by vote or order. No one man/woman would be able to set law at the stroke of a pen.

[katandmoon]

20. So IOW, Obama's fierce advocacy for gays was just bullshit.

[jaxx]

25. I don't think so, did you read what I posted?

If he changes it with a exec order it can be changed right back. It has to be done so it's law.

[dgibby]

42. He doesn't need to change it with an executive order.

He CAN, however, put a moratorium on discharging GLBT service members until Congress gets off it's collective ass and changes the law.

[jaxx]

44. And it could still be changed.

What is this refusal to let it be done the right way?

[katandmoon]

90. So you have a problem with Obama going to bat for gay military members for 4 or maybe 8 years?

You don't thing that's better than nothing?

[ZombieHorde]

56. He has the power to halt the discharges until congress does that.

http://www.365gay.com/news/study-obama-doesnt-need-congress-to-halt-gay-discharges/

I will have to post this as an OP again since so many missed it.

[LooseWilly]

102. 10 USC 654...

The Secretary of Defense (who works for Obama) sets the procedures for investigations prior to dismissal under DADT. With a phone call Obama could have all investigations suspended. He could spend a few minutes taping something for YouTube saying that it is a move to ensure that no more personnel are dismissed, while the US is engaged in 2 wars, pending a review of DADT by Congress... and then he could suggest a timeframe for Congress to "get to" the bill... and once he says so publicly there would be a lot of pressure on Congress to at least go through the motions of re-visiting the law.

That would account for 20-30 minutes tops. He could do it from aboard Air Force One while traveling to his next speech to push healthcare...

[tekisui]

5. I think that the early days of a Presidency set the tone and direction.

No sensible person expected everything or even many things to be 'solved' in 5 months. Yet, we can judge the direction, pace and tone that has been set. From that we can extrapolate what our renewed expectations may be.

I think that he is going in the wrong direction on several issues. I think he has done very well on other issues. The international tone he has set has been his greatest success so far, IMO. He has reintroduced the US after 8 years in the wilderness.

On many issue, though, he is being too timid or passing the buck. I know his campaign positions, I know what he has said, and I understand political realities. But, he is at what will most likely be his highest approval ratings of his Presidency. If he doesn't take the political risks on some of the more liberal issues now, he never will be able to. It isn't that he is a failure, but that he could be more. The opportunities will start slipping by. Next year will be all election politics, and an even more timid agenda.

I applaud his successes, I have every intention of voting for him again, and still think he will turn out to be the greatest President of my lifetime, thus far. But, I know that he, with his popularity and Dems in both Houses could be a stronger leader and a more progressive leader.

[katandmoon]

6. He hasn't even TRIED to get the fucking votes

[Bluenorthwest]

14. He promised leadership on DOMA

And what he gives instead is silence in the face of that brief, and also in the face of all the progress being made all over the country.
I expected him to be a man of his word. I expected to see him attempt to lead. If he does begin to lead, he will get praise from me. But while he is silent, I will not be playing around with my family's well being to assist him.
He promised to use the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency to advocate for justice for the GLBT community. He has not done so at all. All he has to do is speak out. As he promised to do. Why is that so hard to understand? He is expected to keep his word. That is the bottom line.

[zulchzulu]

32. You would put DOMA ahead of a collapsing economy, bank, home, auto and health industry?

I'm against DOMA and am positive it will be addressed and rescinded. But is it more important than perhaps falling into a worldwide depression that could make the Great Depression look like a garden party?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Note.

He promised to lead. Part of leadership is stating priorities and communicating those decisions. Silence is simply not leadership.
You are assuming in the framing of your question things I have not said. I did not say DOMA should be 'ahead' of those issues. I said he should lead on DOMA as he said he would. Leadership is not a word that means 'deliver instant results' nor does it mean 'put this ahead of all things'. It just means that one sets the tone, the direction, and continues to communicate with those he's supposed to be leading. One can lead by saying 'we are biding our time for a reason'. One can even lead by saying 'shit, we need to run away.' But one can not lead in silence.
Of course, as some know, GLBT people also have a stake in all of those other issues. To imply otherwise is just a cheap shot, based on your presumptions, not on anything I have said. Also not based in reality. As if gay people do not have financial and health care needs. What a crock of crap to serve up!

He promised to lead and he is not leading. He is instead utterly silent in the face of great confusion about his intentions. If he is being misunderstood, that is his fault. He should use his bully pulpit, as he specifically promised to do.

[zulchzulu]

61. "He promised to lead and he is not leading. "

That is bullshit. You're lucky I responded at all.

[LooseWilly]

103. How is he leading on DOMA?

I mean, aside from his DoJ filing a brief that, among other things, suggests that just as a state has the right to not acknowledge the marriage of first cousins, so too should a state have the right to not acknowledge same sex marriages?

Other than that, it's been all silence.

(Ohh... I do hope I'm "lucky" enough to get a response and some sort of evidence of leadership on DOMA to prove me wrong headed. :tinfoilhat:)

[uponit7771]

93. Great, did Obama give a date and time for LBGT rights?

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Waited an hour to see if you were able to respond to what I said

instead of your own rewrite of what I said. But of course, you got nothing.

[Old Codger]

15. Just

Keep his word on transparency and openness, just once show me that he is different than the rest of the bunch, so far nothing.

[tekisui]

17. He is protecting "State Secrets" as strongly as any before.

[Old Codger]

38. Apparently

Their idea of "state secrets" is a little different than most of the rest of us, Obamas visitors? Gimme a break, what a crock of feces. He made promises and has gone back on his word too many times.

If he does not return to the fundamental basics that he preached so eloquently during his campaign he is destined to be a one hit wonder. So far it is the same old same old. (called politics as usual)

[indepat]

16. Kick to the greatest page with fervent hope every one of junior's obscenities

with be completely eradicated as expeditiously as possible. :D

[slipslidingaway]

18. Video - Bill Maher On Countdown

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=325034&mesg_id=325034

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlLjJHZui5I

[scheming daemons]

19. Obama has already accomplished one HELLUVA lot...

...and has been the hardest-working President in my lifetime.


I'm shocked at how much positive he's gotten done already, to be frank.

[zalinda]

21. Wow, you must be living high on the hog

because down here in the trenches, he sucks.

And, there have been at least 2 Presidents in my lifetime that have done much more than he has, or even hope to accomplish, the way he's going.

zalinda

[Dawgs]

23. Who? And what did those Presidents accomplish in their first five months?

Of course it's impossible to compare Obama to any President in the last eighty years, since no President has inherited as many problems since FDR. Are you over eighty years old?

[nichomachus]

30. If only someone had asked him to "change the world," this thread would make sense

But thanks for playing

[FLAprogressive]

33. it's another cheerleader "anti-'poutrage'" thread......gotta silence the critics

[FLAprogressive]

31. It's not what he hasn't done.....it's what he has done:

- More bailouts...Treasury filled with Wall Street shills
- Torture hasn't ended, no matter what you cheerleaders say
- Siding with Bush on every civil liberties policy
- Defended DOMA
- More warmongering in Afghanistan/Pakistan
- Throwing unions under the bus

[noamnety]

40. Yep, I am sick of people acting like the problem is the lack of speed

instead of the decisions and statements he has made.

[sniffa]

89. Indeed

[solstice]

46. THANK YOU.

[tekisui]

49. This is my complaint as well.

It is what he has done.

[NYC_SKP]

62. Every Fucking One of those Items is BUSH or CLINTON....

So call your congress person and let it go...



.

.

.

[FLAprogressive]

71. Yes, they are very Bush/Clinton esque. Not much change, eh?

[NYC_SKP]

77. Magic wand. Broken.

The only fair criticism is the he doesn't use the bully pulpit more.

It's easy to pretend that he can very quickly undo a war.

Or that by presidential proclamation undo DADT.

But the better way for some of these things is through a join effort with congress.

:donut:

[slipslidingaway]

34. If you want to fight the health care corporations, silencing their

challengers is not helpful, that was the tone set from the beginning with the WH summit on HC.

Policy is set from the top and unfortunately the policy was to exclude those who challenge the health care companies, when people ask will Obama challenge the HC corporations, we already have the answer.

P. Obama said during the campaign that he would allow all views to be discussed in the HC debate, that is not what was done.

:(


Imagine if Dr. Marcia Angell was allowed to speak at the summit? The end result might be a strong public option.


Conyers wanted Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young invited to the summit to represent single-payer health care...they were not invited.


Examining the Single Payer Health Care Option: Marcia Angell Testimony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQNphM6xUsE

Written statement of Dr. Marcia Angell

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090610MarciaAngellTestimony.pdf


Dr. Quentin Young, Longtime Obama Confidante and Physician to MLK, Criticizes Admin’s Rejection of Single-Payer Healthcare

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/dr_quentin_young_obama_confidante_and


"...AMY GOODMAN: This brouhaha over the last week with the White House healthcare summit, 120 people, there were going to be no single-payer advocates. Congressman Conyers asked to go. At first, he was told no. He directly asked President Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing. He asked to bring you and Marcia Angell—


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Yes.


AMY GOODMAN: —former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. You weren’t allowed to go. Do you have President Obama’s ear anymore? You have been an ally of his for years, for decades.


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, it’s mixed. I think we’re friends, certainly. At this gala that you mentioned, which was embarrassing, he did send a very complimentary letter. And I appreciate that, but I’d much rather have him enact single payer, to tell the truth. And we did—it’s fair to say, after a good deal of protest, I think we were told there was a—phones rang off the hook. They did allow our national president, Dr. Oliver Fein, to attend with Dr. Conyers—Congressman Conyers. That’s fine, but we need many more people representative of the American people at large to get this thing through the Congress, and Baucus, notwithstanding, be overruled..."


Dr. Oliver Fein reports on the White House health summit

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/09/dr-oliver-fein-reports-on-the-white-house-health-summit/

"Thanks to many grassroots activists and physicians who called the White House and threatened to demonstrate outside its gates, I was at the Health Care Summit at the White House on March 5 along with Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

...Besides the lawmakers, it is interesting to note which organizational leaders he called on to make statements. These included Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans; Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Businesses; and Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. A few other audience members were called on for statements, including Fredette West, president of Racial and Ethnic Disparities Health Coalition, and Irwin Redliner (a recently mentioned candidate for U.S. surgeon general) from National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

...What was my role in all of this? Despite my best efforts, I was unable to make a public statement at the meeting, although thanks to the PNHP staff in Chicago we were able distribute my prepared remarks to the media while the summit was under way...

...The media took great interest in the successful battle by Rep. Conyers and myself to get into the summit, with stories in the Congressional Quarterly, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among other places..."

[zulchzulu]

43. Let's see what happens. Also, are there enough votes to pass Single Payer now?

I'm for Single Payer, but am convinced that there are not enough votes to get the legislation passed right now.

Do you just go for Single Payer legislation knowing it will get shot down? Do you then lose your chance to get incrementally into a Single Payer solution?

This isn't a video game. This is legislation that (as illustrated in my OP) has to go through several steps before it gets passed.

Do you or does Amy Goodman have any information regarding how the Single Payer legislation would actually get passed at this time? Let's see it.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Are there enough votes to pass a strong public option now?

Would there be enough votes if P. Obama had allowed a single-payer advocate to speak at the WH summit?

While I cannot say for sure, most likely the chances would be improved.


Kucinich has some ideas on how to advance a single-payer plan, you educate and rally the American people.

2 minute video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2OUyZesqRg

[suzie]

78. Saying "rally the American people" is not a plan, simply verbiage.

[slipslidingaway]

85. Did you watch the video, the plan would be to first educate

the citizens as to what and why a SPHC system is needed, gain support, put pressure on their Reps in Congress and have a real debate.

Cost of SPHC vs. the public option plays an important role.

[suzie]

91. Yes, I did watch the video.

Kucinich says he would "rally the American people and educate them about their healthcare". That's simply talk, which is what Dennis Kucinich does so well--and a certain group goes "Oh wow, Dennis, you are soooooo wonderful."

A plan involves setting up websites, running town halls, putting out publications, enabling people to meet in their own communities, figuring out how to deal with the AMA, etc. "Rallying" without any of that kind of a "plan" is simply talk.

[slipslidingaway]

99. This video was recorded when Kucinich was running for POTUS

if he had won then the things you listed would have been done.

:)

[suzie]

110. I usually vote for politicians who lay out specifics.

Somehow the "We need to do this" rarely translates into anything without specifics. But of course, Dennis Kucinich can be so perfectly trusted to do whatever he says in a campaign statement, unlike other politicians.

Why, there are no major issues on which he changed his stance overnight.

[zipplewrath]

45. Will you do the same?

Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.

It, however, wasn't filled with many of the features that many progressives wanted. It was limited in it's work in the areas of alternative energies. There wasn't the huge "green technologies" we had been hearing about in the campaign. It was stripped of many of it's aid to states which would have helped protect education issues. And oh, the Bush tax cuts for the rich are still in place. This stimulus bill was only nominally different from what McCain would have been forced to sign anyway.

Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The EIT were already ended and the memos justifying them had already been withdrawn. He currently has changed exactly nothing and actually continues to reserve the authority to restart them. He is pursuing "indefinite detentions". About the only thing he is changing is the "location". McCain wouldn't have done much different. He didn't like Gitmo and didn't like the EIT.

Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Which is vastly longer than progressives wanted, and in fact isn't all that different from what Bush negotiated with Iraq before he left. We still have over 100,000 troops in Iraq, they are still dying. It isn't the 9 -16 months he discussed on the campaign trail. McCain wouldn't have done very much different. Obama is being very deferential to the military in many respects and this is one of them.

Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.

Putting 21,000 additional troops there isn't what progressives wanted. Truth is, again, McCain would have done this. And the money being spent on this is outrageous.

"Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

I'll give him this one. It took an executive order. Now, you want to talk about coal mining?

Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).

Yup, this was passed in the last congress but Bush vetoed it. Obama signed it. Now, that isn't exactly an example of leadership, and it's only nominally "change", but he did do it. McCain probably would have vetoed it, or heavily modified it.

Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.

See above. I'll give him credit for signing it.

Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House

And then IMMEDIATELY started giving exemptions in some of the highest positions. And Geitner's actions with TARP and bailouts haven't exactly been to the liking of progressives, possibly because he was involved in the very organizations he is now suppose to be regulating. Not exactly a progressive choice here. No, he wasn't a lobbiest, he was just a participant.

"Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile.

I don't think you want to hold up North Korea as an example of any "success". Even Bush, by his second term, was taking much the same approach.

Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.

Yup. Check the box. Got 'er done. Executive order and all.

Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility."

It's nice, but it's not exactly an "accomplishment". This one is going to be one of the real long poles. I'm not holding anything against him in the foreign policy department because it is going to take time to see any real improvement in that area. Cairo was a good start.


Now, let's talk about the things he has done that progressives DON'T like. How about the continued secrecy. It's not just the photos, all though that's bad enough. It's an example of how much influence the military has on Obama. But it is the continuing heavy presence in Iraq. It is the defense of secrecy laws. It is the continued suppression of the visitors log. It is the defense of DOMA on the most offensive grounds. It is the utter silence on the gains in unigendered marriage laws. It is complete lack of ANY action on DADT. It is "having their backs" at the CIA to protect the tortures. It is avoiding the investigation and prosecution of anyone with respect to torture. No negotiations planned on NAFTA, despite claiming he would on the campaign trail. It is the exclusion of single payer from the dialog. The complete lack of any detail or commitment beyond name only to "public option", which now may include "co-opts". Really, it is the exclusion of Dr. Dean at all from this discussion. Progressives weren't crazy about Rahm either by the by. And of course, right out of the gate, there was the whole Rick Warren insult. And quite honestly, as nice a choice as Sotomayor is, she's not exactly the progressive equivalent of Justice Roberts now is she?

So on balance, yeah, he's a better than Bush, and he's a bit better than McCain, but he is a LONG way from the primary stuff the progressives were hoping for, and in some cases the exact opposite of what they expected. Really, looking at the last 5 months, and projecting for the next 5, progressives don't have alot of reasons to be optimistic. By all measures what they can expect is for him to continue to cave on their most important issues and do the whole "triangulate/move to the middle" that we got out of the last democrat. It's the last democrat that gave us DADT and DOMA and it would appear we're headed down that same basic road.

You can disagree with the progressives, but you can't claim their concerns are baseless. Can you explain why progressives should feel hopeful?

[jberryhill]

47. NAY!

[Kalyke]

50. How many threads do you need to start to say the same thing?

[zulchzulu]

57. I wanted to show the steps involved in passing legislation and other comparisons

It's a little different... perhaps over your head?

[Touchdown]

109. Until that horse he's beating is not just dead, but flattened.

O & M's criticisms are a matter of opinion. To the "Only been 5 months" orwellian misdirection crowd, they're words are a traitorous fact, so they will never get over them and move on until everybody joins their pity party.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Here's what's going to happen.

By the end of his first term, Obama will have pulled out of Iraq, turned the economy around, gotten health care passed, repealed DADT, and a host of other important progressive accomplishments...

and what are these whiny little pony-less poutraged teabaggers going to do?

They're going to claim personal responsibility.

[NYC_SKP]

59. Yep. n/t

[tekisui]

60. Out of Iraq? I'll bet money against that one.

Healthcare passed? Will it be true healthcare? Or will it be a health insurance plan with many millions still without adequate or affordable coverage?

[bvar22]

67. WOW. Now THAT is HOPE.

However, you WILL be disappointed on Iraq.
Obama has never promised to "Pull out of Iraq".
If you read the fine print, you will discover that Obama has in fact PROMISED Indefinite (Permanent) Military Occupation of Iraq.

If we are lucky, we will see a reduction in US Military Forces to somewhere around 50 - 70,000, but a probable INCREASE of Private Security Contractors (mercenaries). The monthly tab for Iraq will INCREASE as US taxpayers continue to pay the bill for the US Occupation, but with fewer grunts and MORE expensive Hi-Tech toys, Private Mercenaries, bribes, and propping up the puppet government.

[FLAprogressive]

72. shh -- don't tell the truth in GD:P. This is "all cheerleading, all the time"

[ZombieHorde]

55. As CIC he could halt the DADT discharges until it is overturned.

[NYC_SKP]

64. I like the way you'd think Obama went back in time and started DODT, the war, the recession...

These things:

- More bailouts...Treasury filled with Wall Street shills
- Torture hasn't ended, no matter what you cheerleaders say
- Siding with Bush on every civil liberties policy
- Defended DOMA
- More warmongering in Afghanistan/Pakistan
- Throwing unions under the bus

And virtually every think they're moaning about.

Good post, recommended.

I'm still ecstatic with our imperfect but fuckin' awesome pres!



.

.

[FLAprogressive]

73. so he's supposed to continue them? Aim high America!

[mzmolly]

65. Good question. I don't even have my spring cleaning

done. ;)

[HamdenRice]

66. Don't you get it? He wasn't elected "president". He was elected King and "Chief Wizard"

That means that he can decree anything instantly and it must be done without any opposition.

And if any other power centers -- like Congress, the Military, the Supreme Court, state governments, lobbyists, global markets -- try to prevent him from carrying out his decree, the he can wave his magic wand, or as several DUers point out, "wave his hand," and supersede all normal human channels of power, politics and policy and make things magically happen, like "POOF" in a Harry Potter movie.

Sheeesh! You didn't know that??!!

[LWolf]

70. Can you post some evidence that naysayers have said, at any time,

that they expected him to "change the world" in 5 months?

I've been an Obama naysayer since he entered the primary race. I never expected positive change from him, and I'm not surprised that I'm not getting it.

Those who are, because they projected their own "hopes" for the change THEY wished for, not what Obama promised, on him, are noticing that the people he listens to, the people he puts into positions of influence, and his plans, are all going the wrong way to achieve the change they wanted when Bush was evicted.

Simply beginning to take some steps in the right direction, which, if you haven't figured that out, is the LEFT direction, would be enough for the vast majority of his naysayers.

The LEFT direction on war and peace, on health care, on education, and on the economy, to begin with.

[Forkboy]

76. I'm waiting for month number 47 of his first term.

I figure with only one month left in his term we can shelve the "it's only been x amount of months" line.

[960]

79. It's not the speed, it's the direction.

[uponit7771]

94. Other than DOMA it's not the direction it's people whining "are we there yet"

[Willo]

80. The problem with the OP is that all problems started with Bush.

Since Bush is no longer in office all problems can be fixed.

Five months is more than enough time to take us back to the pre-Bush days. The glory days of old. I mean, what or who could POSSIBLY be stopping him?

Bush wrote it, Obama can erase it.
Bush stole it, Obama can make it reappear.

Simple magician shit 101. It's the least that can be expected from our elected snake oil salesman.

Actually, now that I think about it, he probably gave the fuck up and stopped trying. Where's the incentive?
After three months, he's still wasn't trusted..."that's not change, audacity of nope, I was robbed, whine, whine, whine".
He's supposed to do the good stuff. No applause required. If it ain't good then he's a typical politician.

No reason after five months he should give a fuck. He's probably thinking, take this job and shove it and while you're at it, please give the people what they deserve.

[zulchzulu]

81. So how does a President have magical powers or that of a monarchist King again?

I guess I missed the part where Presidents don't have to work with Congress and the Senate and gets votes and then sign the legislation anymore.

I had no idea that Presidents have the same power as King Henry VIII. Who knew?


:crazy:

[Willo]

82. See the things you learn if you live long enough?

Congress and Senate were not a problem in the pre-Bush era, ergo, not a problem post-Bush.

But allow me to correct you on one teensy thing... it's not "presidents" plural, it's President Obama.

[nichomachus]

83. Well, first tell us who said he should change the world?

He's headed in the wrong direction on a whole bunch of issues. There's a huge difference between changing something for the better and making it worse.

There was no need for his administration to compare my marriage to incest or child molestation -- but he had plenty of time to do that, hasn't retracted it, and sends out a bunch of mealy mouthed apologists to make false and misleading comments.

We are not as stupid as you claim we are.

[Thickasabrick]

87. It's what he HAS done.....defending DOMA, blocking guest list, etc.

Bad moves. We might as well have Mitt Romney in the White House....who by the way will probably win if this kinda shit keeps up.

[zulchzulu]

96. Obama did not defend DOMA ferchrissakes...

I know. You read it on some asshat blog perhaps.

The DOMA brief was written by civil servant lawyers Justice Department who are out of the jurisdiction of the President. Maybe you don't know that the Justice Department is NOT part of the Executive Branch.

But if it makes you feel good to distort Obama's opinions, good for you! I guess Obama is responsible for every brief released by the Justice Department. He could bomb them, yunno...

:eyes:

[newinnm]

106. The justice department IS in the executive branch

Need a little civics lesson huh... http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/executive_branch/



nnnm

[zulchzulu]

107. OK...

Yes, the Justice Department is part of the Federal Executive Branch... not the Executive Office of the President. My bad for not clearing that up.

Still, the main point is that the DOJ's briefs (especially ones authored during the Bush administration) are not under the Executive Office of the President's jurisdiction.

And Obama is not responsible for every legal brief that the Justice Department issues.

And Obama did not endorse the DOMA brief that was released, authored by lawyers in the DOJ from the Bush administration.

And Obama clearly stated today that he supports ending DOMA.

So here's a little gold star for you for your Google searching skills.

[Fire Walk With Me]

88. If Obama stays at this pace, he will completely undo Republican malfeasance within four years.

This is a glorious thing to watch! (I had lost my faith in political and social sanity, and he's restoring it.)

[democracy1st]

100. I think mostly what most people are disappointed in are his financial advisors and the democratic

party continuously not fighting back,this goes back to letting Joe Lieberman off the hook and all these centrist appointments.