Obama is 20% into his presidency. Let me say it again: He is TWENTY PERCENT into his presidency

[potassiumnitrate]

(Yes, I'm assuming a second term. Because come on, who's going to beat Obama?)

Can we PLEASE keep things in perspective here? Twenty percent. It has been 1.666 years that he has been the president of the United States. Out of an 8 year term.

I just thought this needed to be said, because it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that the guy has barely gotten started. And let us NOT FORGET the gigantic fucking MESS that was left behind by the previous guy that he's just beginning to clean up!

God, people. Give the guy a chance. He can't fix everything overnight. He's doing his damnedest if you ask me. Maybe he has made some mistakes. Fine. He still has 80% to go. Plenty of time to learn from his mistakes. Frankly, he has accomplished more in such a short time than I could ever have imagined.

GET OUT THERE AND VOTE for the DEMOCRAT in two months, k? Or do Democrats really want to DROP THE BALL this fucking early?

[denimgirly]

1. If his 2nd term was anything like his 1st we can expect more Republican appeasements

I wont be voting for Obama for his 2nd term unless he finally listens to his progressive base that put him in office.

[KittyWampus]

3. I'm a Progressive and haven't percieved any Fuck You's from the White House-

maybe you are just thin-skinned and unrealistic.

Honestly, I think a lot of DU'ers really shouldn't pay attention to politics.

[Pirate Smile]

4. +1

[Andy823]

11. I couldn't have said it better myself!

Some want every thing done in the first year, when it took Bush 8 years to try and destroy things!

[ThomCat]

19. Then your standards are really incredibly low.

[uponit7771]

64. Or just realistic seeing the measure that is ahead

[Raster]

24. Really? What, in your esteemed opinion should we pay attention to?

Knitting? Cooking? And is just those DU'ers that don't agree with your line of thinking? I am progressive. Gay, progressive and a Democrat. And quite frankly, I am not feeling the love from this new changed and hopeful White House.

[maxsolomon]

70. did you feel the love from Clinton?

no? then stop expecting it from Obama.

did you feel the hate from Reagan/Bush1/Bush2?

yes? that's what you get when the GOP has power.

tolerance is superior to hate. lack of progress is preferable to regression. it's hard to get enthused about it, but this is the reality of American politics.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I haven't, either! I understand that Obama cannot change things alone. The milquetoast, cowardly

DemoCRAPS in the House and Senate are not making it easier for the president.

[donheld]

51. Nor can he with the help of his Goldman Sachs economic team.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. That, too!! n/t

[donheld]

49. Then you must be ignoring the fuck you they gave unions, Gays

and the rest of the liberal base. I'm guessing you ignored this by choice.

[uponit7771]

63. Liberal base is 85-95% on average in Obama's corner, Obama hasn't been perfect but damn good eonugh

...for me to support him with word and deed

[uponit7771]

62. +11000

[JoePhilly]

69. +100000

[jwirr]

7. Been voting since the 60s and one thing I have learned is that 2nd

terms are often much different from the 1st because it is their last term - they do not have to worry about getting elected again.

[lordcommander]

18. DING! DING! DING! we have a winnah! nt.

[Ken Burch]

23. The last second term of a Democratic president that wasn't a dead loss

Was FDR's.

Truman did nothing with his, other than to cave in to the Red Scare types on everything and build a massive war machine the country didn't need.

And Johnson basically gave up after 1966, so we can assume his second term would have been even more conservative(and thus a dead loss.)In fact, it's likely there would have been no difference between a second Johnson term(which he was certain not to get even if renominated)and Nixon's first. The war would still have lasted the whole term, thus nothing progressive could have happened.

And we all remember the nothingness of Bill Clinton's second term.

[suzie]

29. Vietnam Ceasefire? Do I recall a Vietnam ceasefire before LBJ left office?

So, with perfect hindsight you've projected that LBJ would have given up the ceasefire and reignited the conflict, then gone into Cambodia, Laos, with the resulting damage there.

I'd say that the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia not happening would have been a kind of progressive thing.

And the 28,000 names on the Wall that were added during the Nixon administration might have been kind of a progressive thing to have not happened.

I'm sure there are more, but this adoration for Richard Nixon is something that is just difficult for me even to think about.

[Ken Burch]

45. I don't adore Nixon. I was just pointing out

how similar his actual first-term policies were to Johnson's war policy.

And it's perfectly possible and even likely that, had Johnson had a second term, rather than offering a ceasefire just to make sure Hubert Humphrey didn't lose too badly, Johnson would have once again re-escalated the war, since he'd take his re-election as a mandate to keep the war going.

[suzie]

54. Well, if we're doing "ifs", which you seem to love, LBJ had 2 son-in-laws going off

to Vietnam.

He had a wife, probably his closest adviser, who was letting him know that Vietnam was indeed a huge problem out in the country.

And he had Walter Cronkite, probably the most respected news broadcaster ever, saying that it was time to admit that we couldn't win and negotiate.

If we're engaging in hysterical revisionism, it's just as likely that LBJ would have continued the de-escalation of the war.

The man was a supreme politician. He understood that when Walter Cronkite said, "We've lost" that the American public wasn't going to be far behind.

[Ken Burch]

58. A "supreme politician" wouldn't have forced Humphrey's delegates

To pass a "Keep The War Going-to hell with the primaries" Vietnam plank at the '68 convention. Humphrey didn't want to do that but Johnson forced him to(since Humphrey delegates were just pro-Johnson delegates on loan).
There was NO good reason for Johnson to do that, other than to make sure that Humphrey would lose to Nixon.

[suzie]

61. So, your belief is that LBJ wanted Nixon in office?

Because I really hadn't heard that.

[Ken Burch]

68. I've seen some evidence of that...

He clearly didn't want Humphrey to win. If he had, he wouldn't have forced Humphrey to destroy whatever chances of victory he had by spending the whole run-up to Chicago acting like a jut-jawed, arrogant, all-out hawk. He knew Humphrey needed the enthusiastic support of the RFK/McCarthy Dems to win, and he wouldn't let Humphrey get that support.

Also, Johnson chose not to go public with the proof he had, two weeks before the election, that Nixon's campaign had sent an emissary to the Paris Peace Talks to urge the South Vietnamese not to agree to any peace deal before the election. All LBJ had to do was to call a press conference and announce this, and Nixon would've lost by several million votes.

My personal theory was that Johnson and Nixon agreed that, in exchange for Nixon more or less leaving the Great Society alone in his first term, Johnson would make sure Humphrey lost(you'll notice he timed the bombing halt to be just slightly too late to help Humphrey close the gap).

Lyndon Johnson was a deeply vindictive man. He wasn't about to let his party dump him and then elect ANOTHER Democrat in his place.

[Hekate]

32. roflmao ogod stop, the laughter is hurting my sides roflmao no, seriously, stop

:spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl:

I can't take it, my sides are hurting. Surely this is satire on your part. :spray: :rofl:

Hekate

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. The voice of reason! Well done! n/t

[ClarkUSA]

57. So I take it you didn't vote for Bill "Welfare Reform/NAFTA/Media Dereg/Financial Dereg" Clinton?

And I'm sure you would never ever vote for DLC darling Hillary "Lobbyists are people, too" Clinton if she were to ever run for president again, right?

[RandomThoughts]

2. actually that would be 1 and 2 / 3rds of a year.

Not as you say it, but 1 2 3.

Depends how you see it.

[potassiumnitrate]

6. Isn't that what I said?

I'm pretty sure I'm right about the math here...

[RandomThoughts]

52. You used a number that fits a smear from some groups in your comment.

[Doctor_J]

5. His presidency will likely end on Jan 20 2011

as least the functional part. After that, however long the impeachment takes will determine its actual historical length. The time in between will be spent answering hundreds of subpoenas from Darrell Issa.

[griffi94]

8. i was considering that as well

he could very well be in the lame duck portion of his term.

[Knight Hawk]

33. Exactly

If he cant make much headway with the current House and Senate well you kinow the rest.............A sea change has occurred in the last 6 months or so in this country and I cant imagine it coming back.As Scott Fitzgerald said many years ago "there are no second acts in American life".His administration is dead in the water.The Progressive movement has lost its MO Jo.

[onehandle]

16. Actually it will end on November 4th.

As soon as it is announced that the GOP has retaken the House, Republicans will shut down Congress until January.

Obama will essentially be a lame duck at that point. Not saying that he won't be re-elected in 2012, but if we never take back the House while he is in Office, his Presidency is over.

[Hekate]

34. How are the campaigns against Issa and Michelle Bachman coming along? Maybe you can say...

... given that they are two of the Repubs who are swearing to make this happen, and they need to be stopped.

:shrug:

[bkozumplik]

50. maybe we should follow Obamas lead

I would like to welcome our new republican masters, and say that I look forward to enjoying your rule.

[Wilms]

9. "He's doing his damnedest" to protect Bush against War Crimes comeuppance.

He's continued the torture policy.

That's unpleasant.

[dkf]

10. Yes. He is not perfect but he is trying his best in an impossible situation

[VMI Dem]

12. I'm a straight, employed white male. I couldn't be happier.

:hi:

[Kalun D]

13. The Obama Admin

has done a heck of a lot of damage in just 1.666 years.

$Trillions for the crooked bankers, then they are appointed to the top oversight positions.

the gulf disaster is the worst environmental catastrophe in world history, and the government aided/abetted in the cover-up and it continues. Tons of toxic dispersants dumped on already toxic oil. Making the problem magnitudes worse, sinking the oil and keeping it from being skimmed. Then there's a photo op and we are told that 75% of the oil is gone when the scientists say 75% remains. Bald faced lies tell you this admin doesn't give damn about the environment.

[JTFrog]

37. More like bald faced liars. n/t

[impik]

14. Actually, he is 50% into his presidency

He won't run again. At least that's what i hope. Let the people of this country to get the president they deserve. I'm sure he'll be so much more "progressive" than Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

40. I think they cancelled the 2012 elections

if one is to take the OP at his or her word.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

15. It's not the PACE, it's the DIRECTION.

Why can't people get that through their thick skulls?

[Political Tiger]

17. K & R! n/t

[stray cat]

20. Democrats (voters) are really stupid if they end up throwing the elections to the GOP

moderates at least have an excuse - the as DU disowns them all the time anyway

[dflprincess]

42. If the Republicans win, don't blame the voters for handing them the elections n/t

[JoePhilly]

71. Who do you want to blame, space aliens???

The GOP is GAINING voters.

Do you understand?? GAINING VOTERS.

Dems and Liberals are not SWITCHING ...

The far left plans to STAY HOME, and the right leaning are planning to VOTE. They are NOT voting for a more liberal path, they HATE US.

Meanwhile, many complain about the PACE of change ... as if Obama could force the GOP to obstruct less. The low information voter has no idea about any of this ... what they hear is that OBAMA polarized the country because he is a SOCIALIST ... and then they see the disapproval numbers ... which include YOU ... and they come to believe that he IS a SOCIALIST because so many oppose him ... they do not get the nuance ... they do not understand that YOU want MORE and that the right wants LESS ... what they know is that "most people" oppose him.

And so they JOIN the chant ... OBAMA IS DOING TOO MUCH.

And then you wonder why the Dems in Congress retreat.

[jaxx]

21. K&R for a positive post on Sunday.

Well done.

[Bitwit1234]

22. I hope he acts more like a Democrat in the next 80%

[toddwv]

25. Sounds like some people are buying the right-wing media spiel.

Do I agree with everything that President Obama has done so far? No. Would I have liked a more explicitly progressive agenda? Yes. Let's not forget, though, that there were ALOT of fires that needed to be put out after the last admin did its best to torch the place. Those jobs still are completely finished yet. There are still ALOT of challenges left. It seems like the Republicans knew that they were going to completely lose power so they decided to destroy everything on their way out, sit back and let the right stream media lure everyone into collective forgetfulness, obstruct any progress as much as possible and then pick up where they left off once the responsibility started being transferred off their backs.

I still see a progressive agenda moving along and there are hints that there is more in the works. It may seem glacial to some, but that might just be how it needs to be. Let's face it, while the Boomers are still around, social progress is going to be slow and require constant pressure. So I'm hoping that the Obama team is looking at things at the short-term, mid-term and long-term. I could be wrong, some of the President's counsel seems to lack the cut of true progressives. That's normally fine because I would hope that Obama doesn't surround himself with yes-men. We've seen how that leads to disaster. We're reaching the mid-term, I would expect some shakeups in the White House to start occurring, particularly if the election proves to be a blood bath and also expect a more aggressive stance to be taken.

[druidity33]

26. you assume too much. nt.

[DrSteveB]

27. It's more like 40%

We should not assume there will be two terms. That's misleading. You should say "Presidencies" if you are going to make that leap.

[Brundle_Fly]

28. Here in Canada, we'd Kill

for an Obama.

Before you go blaming Obama, take a good look at your system. Money and power control your house and senate, Corporations create and destroy your politicos.

Imagine where you'd be if GWB was still in the office, or worse imagine you don't vote and get a President Newt, or Palin.

America TOTALLY Sucked from 2001-2008... It's 2010, women have better and equal incomes, oil and gas is slowly moving to clean energies, your out of Iraq ( mostly ) you had a health care revamp, perfect no, 30,000,000 new people covered YES, you can work with stem cells, science is not an evil ( at least on a admin level )

You americans can really piss me off, not even two years after Bush, you're whining about how bad it is... remember Obama is everyone's president, NOT YOURS, not the lefts, or the rights ( like his predecessor ) I for one, think he has been pretty awesome, and he's restored a great deal of my faith in your political structure, under tremendous pressures and propaganda.

suck it up... and VOTE.

[suzie]

30. +1,000,000

[Safetykitten]

41. How odd! Here in the US we would kill to have a good healthcare system.

[ibegurpard]

43. How about you do your part to get rid of Harper

and keep FOX news out of Canada?
because you've got your own issues to deal with.

[dflprincess]

44. The White House is also controlled by corporate money & power

And, women do not have better and equal incomes. The main point of the Ledbetter act was to give us more time to file discrimination suits if we find out we're being paid less than a male in the same job. It was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that said the time clock for a lawsuit began running with the first paycheck that contained the discrepancy. This law resets the clock each pay period.

By 2014 30 million more people may have insurance coverage, but they are still not guaranteed access to care. The CBO says that by 2019, the number of uninsured will be back up to 19 million and growing.

[Number23]

47. Americans piss me off too. Luckily not all of them. Just the whining idiots

You americans can really piss me off, not even two years after Bush, you're whining about how bad it is... remember Obama is everyone's president, NOT YOURS, not the lefts, or the rights ( like his predecessor ) I for one, think he has been pretty awesome,

+ 2012 :thumbsup:

[impik]

48. True of many many countries. Obama should leave

America and find a country worth of his talent and soul. America is too stupid and vicious.

[liquid diamond]

59. Thank you so much. It's sad to see a foreigner has to knock

some sense into the fools in this country.

[uponit7771]

65. TOUCHE` !!!!!!!

[davidwparker]

31. There will be no second term. Oh, I do plan to vote (D)

all the way, but please, there will be no second term.

He had opportunities in his first year, when there was a super majority, but due to leadership problems, could not unite the party. He let conservadems and repubs make a fool out him on health care when people were talking JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

It is just playing itself out now. Losses in the midterms will be to Obama misreading his mandate, bad picks in important posts, and no leadership skills.

[zipplewrath]

67. I'm not quite as pessimistic as you

But if I were Obama, I'd be pretty worried about now. His stimulus was too small, and they never got to 8% unemployment like they planned. His HCR took way too long, and "wasted" roughly 12 months on something they planned on taking about 6. He's never been able to move the GOP despite repeated attempts to work with them.

Basically he should notice that nothing is particularly working out the way he plans when he starts. As such, it should occur to him that in 2012, it's probably not going to work out the way he is planning. He needs new plans.

[firedupdem]

35. K&R

Built him up to tear him down. That's how the game is played. A lot of people on this board never supported him anyway, so ignore those.
Others voted for him because things were really messed up, and they wanted to say "hey, I voted Obama", but then they couldn't stand the site of him as president. They would rather the country go down in flames with one of their own, than support this administration.

[Hekate]

36. KnR. Thank you and hold on to your hat -- here it comes, in 3 2 1

All those Democrats here who inexplicably want a Democratic president out of office in 2012. They are really hoping for that outcome.

Here, have some :popcorn: for this show.

Hekate

[applegrove]

46. What a lovely sentiment. I'm grinning ear to ear just thinking that obama is only 20% through.

Think what else he will get done.

[smalll]

53. I remember OPs here on DU in the winter of 2008-2009 --

brilliantly funny ones, feigning indignation, and asking why Obama hadn't done anything, when he's already been President for NEGATIVE SEVENTEEN DAYS ALREADY!!!!

(Or -31, or -25, or -9, or whatever it was that day.)

Funny threads. Made great points. Sure, there were people doubting him prematurely, even before Inauguration day.

But now, to face threads like this one, granting him an extra term, semi-bejiggering the numbers, ignoring the fact he's about to lose Congress, and claiming he's only "TWENTY PERCENT" into his Presidency ---

well, let me just say this about that. Somewhere betweeen the "negative X days" and the "only 20%" threads, sane and sensible wit transmogrified into hopeless self-delusion. Where was the tipping point? I wouldn't want to hazard a guess. But we've advanced over these past two years from one end of the spectrum to another, that's for sure.

[Moostache]

56. Let's apply the 80-20 rule then....

The 80/20 rule states that you will get 80% of your results from your top 20% producers. For the sake of analogy, let's assume Obama IS getting a second term (far, far, far from certain) and let's stipulate that IF such a second term does occur, that he will NOT find political numbers more favorable than what he had to start off during this first "20%"...

For President Obama there can be no doubt that he will NEVER again have majorities as large in Congress nor will he have the people's undoubted mandate to act - even simple majorities in the House and Senate seem increasingly unlikely as the nation collectively goes brain dead once again. Coming into office with the largest majorities in a generation and the winds of a "change" election backing him by a margin of 10,000,000 votes and more than 7% margin, Obama was in the BEST position he can reasonably EVER expect to be in....and yet...

Structural changes to the covert military operations of the USA and the CIA in particular?
Nope...Gitmo? Still open... Black sites? Still no full and open accountability... War crimes prosecution for torture? Still not seen the light of day, and in fact may NEVER actually happen as a result...

Structural changes to the prosecution of 2 wars?
Nope...even after the dog-and-pony show of "leaving" Iraq, just 1 week later and US troops are engaged in combat operations (though not CALLED 'combat') once again... Afghanistan? Jesus Christ crucified, if anything Obama has made that quagmire hell-hole even WORSE because he is dumping MORE money and sacrificing MORE troops in that unimaginable bog...

Structural changes to medical coverage?
Nope...still gonna have private insurance as the cornerstone of the system...and there NEVER was serious fighting for a public option to control costs and fundamentally alter the system...

Structural changes to financial system and banking regulations?
Nope...Glass-Steagall still not restored fully and we are still gonna have banksters running their casino capitalism until the next snake-eyes roll...

Structural changes to the existing trade agreements?
Nope...still gonna have the basic framework of "free" market ideology and out-sourced manufacturing jobs still are not coming back...NAFTA, WTO and every other labor-killing abomination is still in place and completely off the table as far as administration agenda items go...

Structural change to energy policy?
Nope...still gonna have oil and gas companies run the whole thing and even in the face of the worst oil spill IN HISTORY, we are STILL gonna kow-tow to their desires to drill in locations that they can't stop an accident or contain its damages...

Structural change to climate change response?
Nope...showed up with no plan and no congressional agreement in Copenhagen and the entire world is basically at an impasse on climate change action because of it...kudos Barrack, you may not be as oblivious as the Commander-in-Chimp was, but you're record is stunningly close to the same policies on all the major issues...

Structural change to social policies like marriage and DADT?
Nope...foot dragging and studies and no action beyond platitudes...a simple executive order and the DADT days are OVER, yet do we get this from the "fierce advocate"? (You already know the answer...)

I voted for a DIFFERENT DIRECTION for America, not simply for someone to tap the brakes but maintain the same direction towards the edge of the cliff...

[dsc]

60. Not all time in a Presidency is created equal

The first two years of any Presidency are the most accomplished and the last two are the least, especially two term presidencies. While most of our two termers had scandals even the non scandalous Truman and Eisenhower had pretty unsuccessful last two years.

[zipplewrath]

66. A few political realities

1) His re-election is not guarenteed, and in fact is starting to look shakey.

2) All 8 years aren't created equal. The last 2 are virtually his "lame duck" years.

3) He's got about the biggest democratic majority in congress he is ever going to have right now. If he can't get it done now, it's only going to get harder soon.

4) If we aren't below about 8% unemployment by the summer of 2012, he's probably toast.

5) It doesn't look good.