Laying in bed last naught thinking about why there is such disappointment

[WCGreen]

with the Obama Administration on our side. It dawned on me just a bit ago that there was so much that needed to be address because, after all, the progressives have been in the political wilderness for so long we were about to go feral...

The party Apparatchik know that if they rush toward us they too will be relegated to the political wilderness.

So the sane and safe action for most of the rank and file elected democrats was to seek the safety that conventional wisdom offers, the calming effect that having a bill passed or even an amendment to a bill discussed in committee brings to one's soul.

That, my Friends, is a very sorry state to be in.

You see the other side has all the money, they can entice lefty outliers with promises of campaign contributions and a seat at the mythical table of power...

The disappointment we all feel is based totally, at least in my way of looking at stuff, on that hoary old proverb that the more things change the more they stay the same.

We had such high hopes, such a eloquent speaker could surely propel the nation.

And yet, here we are.

Oh yes somethings have changed. Lifetime caps on Health Insurance payouts are gone and no one can be denied coverage but it leaves too much at the table...

And so, off we go searching high and low for progressives to stand for election. This cycle is too late. Maybe in the presidential year we can get us a few more progressive elected.

Until then, we have Democratic Underground to carry the day...

[donco6]

1. yeah -

there is that.

[sendero]

2. You are trying to make it complicated....

.... it's not. We thought the days of corporations and the military running the show were over, but they are clearly not.

Obama, despite his truly inspirational rhetoric, has feet of clay when it comes to any positive action.

It's been two years, and I've given up all hope. At every turn Obama proves he's really no more than a more eloquent Bush.

[YOY]

5. +1 and a mention that Republicans still hate him...despite doing exactly what they promote.

If if got the choice of who is going to insult my intelligence and lie to me, I prefer a scumbag I didn't vote for versus someone I've trusted and hoped in.

[geckosfeet]

7. It hasn't been two years. The rest doesn't deserve consideration.

[WCGreen]

15. I wonder if people really think that Obama was going to come in

snap his fingers and say all good again.

It took us almost 30 years to get to this point in out history how could it all turn around on a dime...

[rurallib]

10. and please include the Senate. We have (on paper) a huge majority

and we couldn't pass a mother's day bill.

[kctim]

17. The problem is

that it was NOT a huge progressive majority, it was a Democratic Party majority. Believing otherwise only makes one scream that they are being ignored.

[sendero]

20. Good party leaders...

.. get what they want from their senators. Obama doesn't want anything good, so he doesn't get it. It's as simple as that.

[readmoreoften]

19. +1

[mdmc]

3. perhaps the disappointment comes from being out in the wilderness?

progressives are still out in the wilderness.

[vi5]

4. Look, I'm hardly a fire breathing radical....

...and I'm not even inherently against big corporations since both my wife and I work for big corporations.

My issue is that at every turn, under this administration and this congressional leadership, too much consideration and too many concessions have been given to the needs of the rich and the corporations, and the finance industry and wall street and we're expected to not only to be ecstatic for the few scraps that have been given to average working people and the poor but to get on our knees and be thankful because "It's more than the republicans would have done!".

I'm just not buying it. Yes, some good has been done and yes it's more than the republicans would have done. But as long as we allow the leaders of our party to set the bar so damn low, nothing is going to change. If I, as a die hard, lifelong party loyal Democrat and political news junkie have to squint to see the good that Democrats being charge has done, then what hope is there for the people who aren't party loyal and who don't have time to read all day to find out about the scraps that have been given to the poor and the middle class under this current leadership.

And I think what's most frustrating is this: I'm not saying that we can or should sit back and expect our leaders to do all the work. Obama can't do it alone, his staff can't do it alone, and even the Senate and House can't do it alone. But what kills me is the obvious and outspoken disdain the Democratic party seems to have and now has no shame in showing towards it's base and towards the people it asks to vote for them. What I saw this week regarding Unions was completely reprehensible to me and it may have caused me to completely turn a corner in how I see the democratic party, coming as it does on top of similar sell-outs and dismissive responses to women's right's groups, gay groups, etc. It's one thing to say to your voting base and these interest groups "Hey, we can't do it alone. We need you guys to help out and be active and involved as well." It's another to expect that their involvement be limited to donating money to the party itself or the party approved candidates, and getting out and voting. But when that involvement comes with an expectation of respect and action on the part of our elected leaders and what the people get in response is laughter, condescension or dismissiveness......I just cannot abide by that and it's what most pisses me off.

[DrDan]

6. the other side has all the money????

In 2008, the D's outpaced the R's by over $20M.

[laughingliberal]

16. I believe 'other side' was meant to include corporate enabling, working class dissing Democrats, too

Just guessing.

[zippy890]

8. such high hopes was naivete

did people REALLY think Obama is a progressive? he was, and is not.

do people really think a progressive candidate could win an election in this country?

ain't gonna happen. but we play a vital role in this country politically counteracting the
right wing and forcing our country to move ever-so-slowly, painfully slowly, into the 21rst century.

sometimes its like 1 step forward 2 steps back. but we got to keep being that 1 step forward or all is truly
down the drain for us.

I always knew the consummate politician that Obama is, but you have to be to become President. I had no illusions,
but am glad he is president.

[izquierdista]

11. 19th

If we move any further on health care, we may get to where Bismark moved Germany, ever-so-slowly, in the 19th century.

[global1]

9. I Think Your On To Something Here.......

We hear that "Change takes time" and "Washington is Washington" and we are also fighting an uphill battle with years of melding the system into what we have today; years of destruction by the Right; a media and corporatocracy that don't want the change; greed; etc.

All these - and probably a lot more factors control - just how much change can be made and how fast things could change. It took decades to get us into the situation we are in now - it can't just change overnight because we have - as you say it - an "eloquent speaker" to propel this nation. Think of what that eloquent speaker is up against - including that he broke a racial barrier to get to where he is.

He may be a most well meaning and genuine person - but the forces that got us to where we are today are so embedded and powerful and the greed is so pervasive - that he can't do it all in 500 days, in a term, or maybe not even in two terms. It is going to have to be a concerted effort over many presidency's like his to get things back on track.

Think of the Supreme Court and courts in general - their effect is lasting well beyond a presidency(s). I believe we still have Reagan appointments on the bench. In the case of SCOTUS - those appointments are lifelong.

Look at the pile of crap this President inherited. And we have the additional problem of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes; what he is up against; what forces even within his own party and his own administration might be holding him back.

We don't know the insidiousness of the problems. Come on - how could it have been possible to uncover the problems that have been discovered after this disaster in the Gulf - before we had such a disaster. On the surface I'm sure that things looked like they were ok and by the book. It took such a disaster for us all to find out that the oil companies were writing their own reports - only to be inked in by the minions that were supposed to be regulating them. I'm sure there are countless examples of that sort of thing that we'll be uncovering for decades - after the likes of guys like Cheney, and Rove, and Bush.

So what we are faced with it is frustration. Think of what level of frustration the President has. No matter how well intentioned and how good a person he is - the forces out are such that they are holding him back.

Obama is a very smart man. I have to think that he knows what needs and has to be done - but he has to weigh every single move he makes and every single word he says. If he reacts in a subtle way behind the scenes - he's not decisive enough or not forceful enough. If he gets mad and expresses it - he's the angry black man. If he does some fundraising for his party - they jump on him for neglecting some other issue. If he takes a break from his busy first 500 days in office to be with his family and just rest his mind - he is taking his eye off the ball. These examples can go on and on. Just listen to the cable news and the talking heads. Everybody knows what he should be doing and isn't. Everybody knows what he shouldn't be doing and is. BUT - and it is a big BUT - none of them or us is walking in his shoes and has the inside skinny on what he is up against or what he has to take into consideration before making a decision or even not making a decision. We can only criticize.

The 24/7 news cycle he is thrust into is at such a pace that no other president in history has had to encounter. Bush didn't have it so bad because 1. he was part of the establishment that got us to where we are today and worsened it; 2. the MSM (at least those that weren't on his side) had during BushCo developed their styles that now have been taken to new heights in their quest to make news; and 3. he had the most of the whole Washington establishment working for him - because he kept them in their comfort zones.

And this 24/7 news cycle isn't going to get any better. Those cable news outlets and talking heads aren't going to ease up the pace - it's only going to get more furious.

I don't know how long its going to take or how hard its going to be to get there - But - if we don't have patience; if we don't trust our leader; if we don't give him a chance; if we fall prey to the propaganda and the lies; - it ain't going to change.

We need to keep the faith. We need to keep pushing our President to do the right things. We need to keep up his support and not be influenced by the negativity we encounter on a 24/7 basis. We also need to jump on him when we feel he is veering off the path - but temper that jump with the fact that we are the wind behind his sails that will make him tack straight or relatively straight and in the right direction. We need to continue to be the wind in his sails.

I often wonder what the conversations are between he and Michelle when he gets back to his living quarters in the WH and has some private time. I would like to be a fly on the wall to hear their frustrations and hear Michelle bucking him up to get him ready for his next day and the next and the next.

Bottom line - I still think we were right for supporting his bid for the presidency and getting him in a position to effect change - even if it's not up to the level that we thought it would be or wished it could be.

It's going to take time to get the "Change we can believe in" and we all have to resign ourselves that it won't happen overnight. But the worst thing we can do is abandon him or turn our backs on him at the time that he needs us the most.

[WCGreen]

21. well stated....

[lamp_shade]

12. Who's this "Our Side" you speak of Kimosabe?

[WCGreen]

14. as in not the republicans

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Well said...

[EFerrari]

18. How politically risky is it to refrain from insulting members of your own coalition in public.

[Jakes Progress]

22. I think the key to your OP is the term "conventional wisdom"

With timidity and fear they hope to eke out a place for themselves. They do not seek to make change so much as fit in. And they are very strong followers of conventional wisdom.

That CW is frequently wrong doesn't faze them. It is the cautious, the tentative, the incremental, the safest thing they can think of. Audacity. Belief. Conviction. Determination. These are not things they find compelling. Instead the seek the safe warmth of trying to do what they think every one else thinks.

The real problem with this is that they are wrong. The country really did want a change. People overwhelmingly wanted health care reform of a type much more people friendly than the corporate reward that we got. People really did want our soldiers to come home, along with the billions we spend there. But conventional wisdom inside the beltway, though flawed and totally inaccurate, is a strong opiate of the elected who lack faith in themselves.

[WCGreen]

23. People want easy change....

They don't want to change their lives they want the government to change it for us.

It's easy to change by saying no because that appeals to the base emotions of the primate within us. It basically is saying is that I have mine and you can go fuck yourself...

Yes people want do want the soldiers to go home but the realistic problem is that most adults feel that since we broke it we have to somehow cobble it back together before we leave.

And to sit on the sidelines and lob criticism is just as childish as yelling NO!

Engagement takes a person who can be patient and also realistic.

I for one am glad that president Obama is thoughtful and not reckless and if that is "naive" and not "cool" then so be it...

[Jakes Progress]

26. Not naive or uncool,

just wasteful. Blowing a chance that won't come again.

The "I have mine, you can...." is exactly the attitude that dominates the go-slow, incremental philosophy of government. I won't risk my wealth, position, reputation, power to get you any. I won't take any chance that I might lose to see that everyone gains. Patience is easy for those who already have things. They don't mind if the poor suffer a while more as long as they don't risk their stuff. The only thing that is realistic about it is if those who favor this method are realistic with themselves about their hesitation to practice the "audacity of change".

I, for one, am unhappy that president Obama is timid and hesitant and unable to move the people he needs to move. If that is too progressive or liberal, then so be it.

[Laelth]

27. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WCGreen]

28. Perhaps he took a look at all the people he had to work

with and the people who could get elected and made a decision.

Sometimes I think people have an over blown view of the president.

Again, in government, and in any organization, for that matter, it is easy to very easy to say no and much harder to change course.

I have been in government, business and the non-profit sector and I have seen there are similarities. Those similarities are based almost exclusively around an institutional bias against change.

[stillwaiting]

35. Did ya see how fast the Obama Administration got what they wanted on a couple of things...

1. Funding for the Afghanistan war

2. Demanding re-importation of drugs be retracted from health care legislation

Seriously, it was lightning fast. They made strong and harsh demands and Congress fell in line very fast. It then became clear, very fast, that this was the way it's going to be and there really wasn't substantial debate on the issue after the Admin. got involved. These two instances disprove the lies that have constantly been spouted by the Administration and its mouthpieces that they have to wait on Congress. It's a very big and insulting lie.

[WCGreen]

36. that's primarily because those measures had strong republican support..

While all other proposals by Obama were left to wallow in Partisan Land...

[Jakes Progress]

37. But we will never know

what he could have done with that powerful gift of oratory. We will never know what he might have done with his supposed powers of persuasion. We will never know what he might have done with the bully pulpit of the presidency.

He chose to leave those arrows in his quiver and timidly wait for republicans to rally and form the debate.

As I said, a once in a lifetime opportunity - wasted, allowed to drift down the river of history unused.

[WCGreen]

39. well, he did run as a knew type of politician...

I think he felt he needed to try to come to some kind of partisan agreement before going all partisan.

Rachel made that point on Bill Maher's show last night when Bill Frist tried to say president Obama went directly to partisan politics.

[Jakes Progress]

41. He ran with more fervor than he governs.

It is not a matter of partisanship. Somethings are just right, and some things are just wrong. People understood that when he ran and when they voted for him. He has been cowed by the Washington establishment, told he can't do this, that he can't do that. He just ducked his head and said "I guess you're right." That didn't make him a new kind of politician. It made him just like all the others.

[Robeson]

24. On a historical analogy, what we are are Romans in the early empire...

...who still believed in a Republic, but can't bring ourselves to confront the fact we are no longer a Republic, but, indeed, are an empire. Both parties serve the empire. I realize that's not very uplifting, but we didn't have a choice where we were born.

[WCGreen]

29. Great analogy...

I should have recognized that. Thanks for injecting that into the discussion....

[old mark]

25. We have 2 very conservative democratic presidents - Bill Clinton and Obama...

We had democratic majorities in congress and a Democratic president campaigning on "Change"...and now people are blaming the left for expecting things to have improved?

Obama is what used to be a Moderate republican back about 30 years ago...He is a sad reminder of how far RIGHT the mainstream Democratic politicians have moved since the late 1970's, and how little the real working class and the liberal left have been represented in the US. Many youngert people have never seen this-ther usd to be liberals on TV -real actual serious intelligent people who were progressives on TV!!! there wer such people in Congress!!! They made and passed laws, many of which have been dismantled since then...

The Democratic Party is in a terrible state, has left its traditional base long ago in persuit of long careers and corporate money. Obama IS as liberal a President as we are likely to see unless we take the party back.
Are we ready to do that?

mark

[WCGreen]

30. Did you ever think that perhaps after 30 years of republican

talking points being repeated ad infinitum hasn't had an effect on the way people perceive government.

I believe the propaganda arm of the conservatives in this country have effectively silenced any but centrist voices.

Most people rely on the MSM to get their information.

Don't you think that perhaps the center has moved to the right because of this?

Never mind that the democratic party has decided to play along in order to stay in power. That's not the best thing i could think of but doesn't that explain a lot about what is happening.

I'm just being realistic.

I know that it has taken 30 years to move this country to the right. I know it's going to take more than 18 months to revert back to even the center.

[old mark]

31. I understand that - I am outraged that there is such an antipathy by the party

and the last 2 Democratic presidents to us "old Democrats". I really lost much of my respect for the Democrats in the 1980s and have seen little reason to get any back...
Oh, and why should the GOP - pack of fucking idiots-have better control and access to the MSM than the supposedly smarter Democrats - If it's just a matter of money, how hard is it to apply some money to the media? The "stupid" GOP seems to have figured how to do that a long time ago...Do the Democratis politicians think they are better people and don't have to have publicity/propaganda?
Does losing to bigoted idiots make us somehow more moral?


mark

[WCGreen]

32. Good Question...

But I would put forth that the media of the last thirty years has morphed back to the way it was in the late 1890's and early 1900's. By this I mean the money is the message and that those intrepid journalists of the mid century are no longer tolerated by the companies that own and operate the major media outlets.

Well, except for the Washington Post and the New York Times. I prefer the Times.

In any case, it's not that we both have money it's that the independent money is drawn more to the myth of self reliance and preservation of wealth that has been the mantra of the GOP since Ronald Reagan soften up Barry Goldwater's message in 1976.

Still, the democrats have been loath to embrace a true progressive simply because they believe, with much evidence to support them, that the media would turn that populism into socialism which we know is akin to the dreaded C word. And right here in River City, no less...

Oh yes, lest we forget, the media concentration is ever more conscious of offending large corporations so the exposes and dirt being dug up is usually at the expense of those who cannot fight back.

[old mark]

33. Seems like the Guilded Age is back with a vengance...nt

[WCGreen]

34. I really do feel we have regressed to that age...

In spirit, at least...

[G_j]

38. there is at least one issue that should not be seen as a progressive one

the high crimes of the Bush admin. and accountability, the ultimate 'law and order' issue.

[WCGreen]

40. That is one of my biggest disappointments with president Obama...