For everyone who says they enthusiastically supported Obama in '08 but now are disappointed in him..

[jenmito]

due to his stance on gay marriage, he was for civil unions (not gay marriage) in '08. He did NOT promise to be for gay marriage, so why are so many people so disappointed in him, saying they won't support him again? If anything, it looks like he is leaning towards publicly being for gay marriage (which he didn't say in '08). Where is the sudden outrage coming from? He didn't betray anyone.

[Vanje]

1. Progressives are dissappointed in Obama for MANY reasons.

[jenmito]

14. I'm talking about being disappointed in him NOW even though they were so

enthusiastic in their support for him in '08 with the same positions.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Hippie Puncher]

2. because they didn't really support Obama in 2008?

;)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

4. There are lots of other examples of this ....

I regularly hear folks getting angry with him for the bank bailouts. He voted FOR the bailouts prior to the 2008 election. How could one have been enthusiastic about him and then act surprised about the bailouts.

Or Iraq ... said he'd get us down to about 30-50k troops in 16 months. Did it in 19 months. Folks act surprised.

Afghanistan ... said he was going to increase the focus there and add troops right away. He did. Folks act surprised.

He said he'd kill OBL is pakistan would not, or could not ... he kills OBL ... folks act surprised.

As a candidate he said that he was willing to use our military ... he does ... folks act surprised.

He frequently said that turning the economy around would take a long time. Probably years, 10 or more even. Its as if no one heard him.

I actually think that lots of folks were so happy to see the end of the Bush era, that they didn't really listen to what Obama said, and assumed that within a year, the world was going to change completely. The change he talked about was all long term, not immediate. But many seem to have not heard any of that.

[tekisui]

7. You vastly mischaracterize reactions. It isn't surprise it is frustration

at what were bad proposals and are still bad policies.

I would have liked to see an intelligent man correct bad policies and positions 2 and a half years in.

[JoePhilly]

9. Then why were they so enthusiastic?

I mean ... if Obama was saying he was going to do all these bad things ... why were folks SO enthusiastic?

That is the point of the OP. There are many who claim they were enthusiastic Obama supporters, but who regularly complain about policies that Obama was VERY clear about as a candidate.

I have no issue with policy disagreements. But then I hear people claim that they were enthusiastic supporters ... and then Obama bailout out the banks, or ADDED troops to Afganistan ... or, killed OBL ... or, as the OP mentioned, does not support gay marriage.

You can wish he changed positions ... but you can't claim to have been enthusiastic when you knew his actual positions, and then be angry because he did not change them.

Makes no sense.

[tekisui]

13. Well, for example his Afghanistan position changed by degrees.

Obama also often, and still does, without great specificity and as such holds malleable positions. What sounded good on the trail, when put into practice, while not always contradicting, certainly is different that could have been interpreted.

A couple issues, such as the medical marijuana raids and record deportations do directly counter the campaign. On healthcare he never fought for single-payer although that impression was given on the trail. Gitmo is still open. And, we have yet to charge anyone from the bush administration for their various crimes, although he ran on cleaning that up. It goes on....

But, as has often been said, where the fuck else is anyone to go?

[bornskeptic]

87. He made it clear from the beginning of the primaries that he did not support single payer.

In one of the earliest debates Hillary Clinton asked him directly why he no longer supported single payer. He explained that he thought it might be better in theory, but wasn't practical under current conditions in the US.
The three main pillars of his healthcare plan were:
(1)Increasing coverage
(2)Reducing Costs
(3)Allowing those who wished to keep their current insurance or doctor to do so.
These points were repeated over and over.
Number 3 is obviously totally incompatible with single payer.

[dflprincess]

89. He also made it clear he opposed mandates

until he decided selling us out for the sake of protecting insurance company profits was the way to go.

And here we are, still waiting for reform that will actually give us access to care - not force us to buy the same shoddy products that we can't afford to use from the same crooks who have been robbing us blind for years.

[Wait Wut]

8. Your last paragraph nailed it.

As much of a supporter of then Sen. Obama as I was, I was amazed at the blind following he had. They really weren't paying attention to his speeches. They were uninformed on the man, in general. Like you said, he wasn't Bush. He was young, black, attractive and eloquent.

[JoePhilly]

17. I don't think that was it at all.

His being young, black, attractive and eloquent wasn't the key factor. Although the right likes to make that claim.

His policy positions, and those of Hillary Clinton were very similar.

If Hillary had won, we'd be going through the same nonsense. The reason Hillary lost was that she appeared to be taking the nomination for granted. That gave Obama an advantage, because relatively speaking, he came across as more interested in the left. In reality, Hillary was disinterested, Obama was somewhat interested ... but that difference helped him, superficial as it is.

In any case, if Hillary won the primary ... the same bitching about the DLC would be going on ... she'd be called a war monger. She would have done most of the same things Obama has done. And the screaming would be just as loud. Although the right wing would have to drop the race nonsense, and would instead claim that Hillary was a bitch ... struggling with menopause issues, emotinally unhinged ... so on, so on.

The bottom line is that many thought that Bush had been such a huge and utter failure, that the next President was CLEARLY going be Washington, FDR, and Lincoln, all rolled into one. And, he or she, would transform the world in their first year.

[Wait Wut]

37. Should've clarified.

I’m not saying that’s why he was elected, but I do know that many of the young college students in my town were seeing him as just that. I would imagine there were non-college students in the US that felt the same. They talked about how “great” it would be to have a black man as President. How, “he’s younger” so more in touch with real Americans. He’s “educated” and can speak in complete sentences, unlike Bush. I didn’t argue with them. I didn’t argue with them when they would claim that he said something he didn’t, either. I would politely suggest they listen more closely to his speeches. They didn’t. I see some of them from time to time. Some have come around and realized that he walked into a bigger mess than they had thought. Others have gone off the deep end and claim they’ll vote for “anyone else”. They do tend to calm down when I ask them if they want me to buy them a beer. Then he’s “not so bad”.

Me? I still see the same man I saw during the campaign only wiser and probably a bit disillusioned.

I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion of Hillary. To this day I still hear, "if only Hillary had won". Yeah? If she had, things would be no better...probably worse.

[JoePhilly]

45. Right ...

I do think that some younger voters did expect miracles because they have no history of how our government works.

And I suspect many have no idea that way back when, the Dems and GOP members could actually talk. Back then, if a President said they wanted to work on X, they would have had some support from both sides. Now ... no way. The GOP opposes anything Obama does, even if they used to support it.

Too many are unaware of such realities I think.

[Wait Wut]

47. I think that's what frustrates me the most.

I know there's a lot of disagreement on "bipartisanship", but back then it was the norm. Our pols wouldn't necessarily vote party lines. Now, bipartisanship means "give an inch, I'll take a mile". There used to be Rs I respected. Hell, I had a lot of respect for McCain until he tried to go all teaper. Poor ol' guy seems to be suffering some dementia, now.

[jenmito]

11. Exactly. Good post. n/t

[mazzarro]

26. So we - the disappointed professional left - misunderstood him?

We naively thought that change was to be immediate rather than long term as you stated - then explain how doing same thing as was done in the past - especially by Bush - how will that will bring about change? If change is not going to be immediate then when is he going to start on the change since it will take a while for change to fully manifest? All he has been doing is repeating same things - if it is not Clinton's sellout policies; it is DLC/Corporatists/rethuglican ideas and policies. Once in a long while he throws in minor, halfhearted liberal issue on the plate and off-course quickly distances himself from it publicly.

[JoePhilly]

38. First, only call your self "professional left" if you get paid to blog.

Second ... You did not refute a single item in my post.

If you do not like his policies in those areas NOW, how could you have been enthusiastic THEN?

It makes no sense ...

Now ... if you want to claim that you were not an "enthusiastic" supporter of Obama in 2008, fine.

Oh ... and wanting Obama to be all the things you hated about Bush is equally ridiculous.

Just say you did not support Obama "enthusiastically" given the positions he held prior to the election.

My post is about those who claim to have been "enthusiastic" in 2008, but are now angry about policies Obama articulated pretty clearly before the election and now continues to maintain.

[OhioBlue]

79. you are not the professional left... just sayin' n/t

[Vanje]

5. "He's been against your marriages all along"

Your not really winning support for your guy this way.

[CakeGrrl]

6. People seem to forget it's not about "Your guy"

But at least you're clear that you don't support him.

Who do you think will give YOU the support you seek in 2012?

[flpoljunkie]

15. Good point. Civil union supporting Jon Huntsman, 'Redefining marriage would be impossible.'

Jon Huntsman: ‘Redefining Marriage Is Something That Would Be Impossible’
By Igor Volsky on Jun 22, 2011 at 8:12 am

One day after saying he would respect New York’s decision to pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage, former Utah Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “redefining marriage” is “impossible” and stressed that he does not support marriage equality for gays and lesbians:

HUNTSMAN: I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of. But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’ve spoken out about that, my support of civil unions, some people like it, some people don’t.

Video at link below, as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/22/250806/jon-huntsman-redefining-marriage-is-something-that-would-be-impossible/

[Vanje]

58. Not a God damned single one of them

Isnt that funny!
Go on , Laugh. Its a riot.

And I'll vote Obama. Guaranteed. I'll hold my nose and vote. and my vote will be worth every bit as much as YOUR vote.
I'll vote for Obama Because he sucks just a teeny tiny bit less than which ever Republican he'll be running against.

But DON"T ...Fucking DO NOT expect me to be happy about it. You hear me?

[jenmito]

10. Don't put quotes around something I didn't say. And did you vote for him? Even knowing his

position on this?

[Vanje]

59. Yes.

I voted for the guy.

My vote counted every bit as much as yours.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. In other words.....

Obama never promised you the pony so shut up! Stop the outrage! He did NOT betray you!

:eyes:

Unrec.

[jenmito]

16. Nope. I don't need anyone mis-characterizing what I said. n/t

[Marrah_G]

18. I voted for him despite his stance on Equality

I think he was wrong then and is wrong now.

I lost my enthusiasm when he kept moving to the right.

[jenmito]

23. I did, too, and the point is we KNEW his stance on the issue. So did those

who supported him then but not now explicitly because he doesn't support gay marriage publicly (yet).

[Vanje]

60. I'm not a one-issue voter

Obama has disappointed me on a LOT of issues.

But yeah. He's got my vote. He knows that. You know that.
He's got my vote but he does not have my respect.

[jenmito]

63. Then my OP doesn't apply to you.

And I DON'T know that. A poster said, just yesterday, that s/he will not be voting for Obama this time.

[Marrah_G]

76. Everyone has a right to their vote and to use whatever measure they so choose in deciding

Scolding them repeatedly doesn't exactly work the way you want it to.

[Marrah_G]

81. I'm incredibly disappointed on the job he is doing

Frankly any enthusiasm I had is gone and my energy has moved to local issues and making sure my family makes it.

His stance on equality to me says alot about him. Either he is a bigot or he is a coward. That lessens my respect for him and all other politicians who agree with him.

I'm still glad that McCain/Palin didn't win and I will most likely vote for Obama again unless there is some huge progressive groundswell that creates a viable alternative (something I think will never happen under the present conditions).

[Creideiki]

19. Hi, Jen!

Still peddling this?

Why, Jen? What's you're motive?

Do you want to stir up anti-gay sentiment already?

Here's my prediction for 2012--the LGBT community will once again support Democrats overwhelmingly because the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. He'll still be an ineffectual President in his second term for anyone who isn't a Wall Street Bankster, but, hey. That's Democracy, right?

PS--when President Obama was Illinois State Senator Obama, he was for gay marriage. Oh, but now that history's being scrubbed. Unfortunately, the conservadems don't have enough brain bleach to erase that inconvenient truth.

[jenmito]

21. "Still peddling this?" Sorry, but I'm not "peddling" anything. I'm asking why

people who supported him so enthusiastically in '08, with the same stance on the issue of gay marriage, are now NOT supporting because he's not doing something he never SAID he'd do?

And MY prediction for '12 is that he will be more liberal than he is now. And he has accomplished more in his first 2 years 5 months than most presidents.

And yes, I know he was for gay marriage back then, and I'm sure he really still IS, but, sadly, for political reasons, he was NOT for it during his '08 campaign. But he's "evolving" which I hope means he'll soon publicly support it (again).

[Creideiki]

49. So you disagree with his press secretary?

Isn't that grounds for dismissal?

[jenmito]

52. If you mean that Carney said Obama was always against same-sex marriage,

then yes, I disagree with him.

[Vanje]

61. I dont think you really want to know

But I'll tell you.

In 2008, I thought I was voting for a Roosevelt with some old fashioned ideas about GLBT equality.
Now I find we elected a Hoover with some old fashioned ideas about GLBT equality.

I am NOT happy.

Yeah. Obama will get my vote in 2012, but only because he sucks a wee bit less than Mitt, or Bachman, or whatever nutcake the Republicans elect.


Heck of a slogan : "Vote for Obama. He sucks slightly less!"

[boston bean]

94. So it's fine and dandy for you to think he is a liar on his gay marriage stance

but someone who is felt the same way shouldn't have been fooled, or be upset!

that is quite disingenous.

[Unvanguard]

20. I supported him in 2008 and I support him now. That doesn't mean his stance is acceptable.

And you also ignore the fact that circumstances have changed: the public has moved a lot toward support for same-sex marriage since Nov. 2008, and Obama's Administration has argued that sexual orientation discrimination deserves heightened scrutiny.

[jenmito]

22. Good. But his stance is "evolving" along with the American people.

Hopefully, he will "evolve" to support gay marriage soon. But he HAS done things for gay rights that no other president has done so far.

[Unvanguard]

25. He ought to finish evolving already.

The absurdities it forces him into are tiresome and embarrassing, and we could use his voice.

[jenmito]

27. I agree,

but that doesn't explain why people who supported him in '08 are so angry with him for having the same position he had when they supported him so strongly.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Couple of things there.

First a huge percentage of the country no longer has the same position as they held in 08, and it is hard to argue that lagging is leading. Also, in his political career he has held both positions, making either one suspect, neither certain.
I'll vote against a Republican any day. Show me one. Do not assume that is support for the idiocy of the Democrat in question.

[Unvanguard]

35. A lot of people were angry with him in 2008 about this too.

This is not a new thing. And, again, the circumstances are not the same.

[Vanje]

62. "evolving" = waffling

= pandering

[Pisces]

24. People like to self sabotage themselves

[TriMera]

28. He betrays us every day that he continues his "evolution".

Think about it; the President of the United States admits that he is really struggling long and hard over whether or not a substantial group of tax-paying, law abiding citizens in this country morally deserve the same rights as everyone else. How do you think that the objects of such a "moral struggle" should react to that knowledge? I, for one, am not flattered or grateful that he is "evolving".

The fact that people supported him in 2008, despite his professed views on marriage equality at the time, doesn't mean that those same people have to be happy with what is going on now.

[jenmito]

31. Did you support him in '08? BEFORE he said he's "evolving" on the issue of gay marriage?

He has done things for gay rights that he said he'd do. He was enthusiastically supported by gay people back THEN-the same people who are disappointed or angry at him NOW, even though he didn't break any promises regarding gay issues. The fact that he's "evolving" on the issue of gay marriage is something I hope he DOES "evolve" on soon, but it's not something he SAID he'd do.

[TriMera]

41. Yes, I voted for him and you missed the point.

This is not "sudden outrage" and it is disingenuous to paint it as such. LGBTQI people who supported Obama in 2008 have as many different reasons for that support as straight people who supported him. We are not all "one issue voters", contrary to popular belief.

Speaking for myself, the outrage that I feel now has more to do with his attitude and the unnecessary lies surrounding his position in 1996. All of that hurts the community and sets us back. When it comes down to it, he is responsible for bringing an issue that has existed all along to the surface in a bad light. Why don't you ask the POTUS why he feels the need to lie all of a sudden?

[jenmito]

43. You say it's due to more than one issue "contrary to popular belief" and then

go on to continue talking about that one issue. My OP is about those who specifically say they are no longer going to support Obama since he doesn't support gay marriage.

[muffin1]

40. Hi there!

Still fighting, I see. I thought I'd jump in for a minute (three posts in the last couple of days), and I already regret it. :) OMG, this place NEVER changes.

[TriMera]

42. Hey, girl!

Yeah, I'm a glutton for punishment. ;-)

[muffin1]

29. In all honesty?

I thought he was lying on the campaign trail. Yes, if he had been lying about not supporting same-sex marriage, I would have been thrilled to vote for a liar. I figured he would give it some time after winning, so it wouldn't LOOK like an obvious lie, then he would come out and say "After much thought...". You get the point. But he didn't. After almost three years, he's still "evolving".

[jenmito]

33. What you "thought" he was doing was obviously wrong.

It's not HIS fault that he didn't follow your imaginary scenario. After 2 years 5 months, he's moving towards supporting gay marriage. He didn't say he would. But he is.

[muffin1]

39. Hey, guess what?

I never said it was *his fault*. It is my fault for thinking a brilliant, Constitutional scholar, and a BLACK one, no less, would not be able to see discrimination when it's staring him in the face. Basically, we're left with the fact that Obama is either an idiot or a bigot. Since you seem to know him so well, maybe you can fill us in. And while you're at it, if Bush had not "believed" in mixed-race marriages, would be giving him the same leeway?

[jenmito]

44. Your question about Bush not believing in mixed-race marriages is ridiculous since

it's allowed and his belief doesn't change that. Yes, it IS your fault for supporting someone you HOPED he'd be and not who he was. He's neither an idiot nor a bigot. He's playing politics, unfortunately, with his non-support of gay marriage. But he's publicly giving hints about supporting it publicly in the future.

[muffin1]

46. Alright, I'll put it another way...

suppose I (or any DUer) started a thread with a statement like, "I am against mixed-race marriages. Nothing personal, it's just what I was taught in church. They can have civil unions, but marriage should be saved for people of the same race." Would you call me a racist?

[jenmito]

50. Again-it's a ridiculous comparison. Mixed-race marriages have been accepted by the vast majority

for decades. Same-sex marriage has just become accepted by the majority of the country (which is why I think he came out for civil unions with all the rights of "traditional marriage" without the title of "marriage.") For the record, I am for marriage equality in name as well as in rights, but I'm not president and didn't have to worry about getting elected. The point of my OP is that the very people who enthusiastically supported Obama when he held the position of civil unions but not marriage are now turning on him for not supporting marriage equality.

[muffin1]

51. That's fine - you don't intend to answer.

[jenmito]

53. I think it's a false comparison. Obama is for gay couples having the same rights as

straight couples without the name "marriage." I do not think that makes him a homophobe. But if someone were to be against mixed marriages, that would make them a racist even though I think it's ridiculous to try to compare the two in relation to the country's opinions.

[muffin1]

54. So it's the citizens' opinions

that make something racist or not? Homophobic or not? Well, I guess it was something other than racism that kept Obama's parents from being able to marry.

My example to you is CLEARLY racism. You know it, I know it, and everyone on this thread knows it. It is also a bigoted opinion that some people should have the right to marry and others should have "civil unions" because of their sexual orientation.

Separate but equal is NOT EQUAL.

I get it - you clearly would rather defend President Obama than admit reality.

[jenmito]

57. Maybe you should read my post again...

I said your example about mixed marriages would make the person a racist. Did you miss it subconsciously maybe?

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner-I was watching Obama speaking at the LGBT Leadership Gala. He was talking about how gay people should have equal rights and be able to live just like everyone else. He is no homophobe.

[muffin1]

65. I am trying to convey to you that BOTH positions are bigoted...

People who oppose mixed-race marriages and people who oppose same-sex marriages. You are the one who implied that NOW I would be considered a racist because times and opinions changed over the years. I am saying that no matter what society thought "back then", I would still be a racist. I'm also saying it doesn't matter how many people are against same-sex marriage - I don't care if 99% of people are against it - it is still bigoted of President Obama to hold the opinion that he does.

So...did he come out in favor of same-sex marriage at the Gala?

[jenmito]

66. I know what you're trying to convey...

but it's obvious that Obama is not a bigot or homophobe. I listened to him speak. I also know all the things he has done for LGBT rights, and he mentioned some tonight that some people never thought would come to fruition. But I also know the congress would never allow it nationally yet, as does Obama. And tonight he said he thinks NY is doing the right thing-it's democracy in action. Would a homophobe say that? No. He also said that he knows justice moves slowly, and he expects to be pushed.

[muffin1]

69. Yes,

a homophobe would say that if he was looking for support from the gay community in 2012. I really didn't expect him to take the stage and call people "fags".

[jenmito]

71. Bull.

A homophobe would not speak to them. He's the first president to do so. And if what you say is true, the Repub. candidates would've done it, too. But good try to justify your opinion of Obama.

[TriMera]

77. Please. At $1250 a plate and some paying up to $30,000 to

attend, he'll tell them whatever they want to hear (short of saying "I fully support gay marriage", that is). He needs those bucks and he'll take them wherever he can get them.

[jenmito]

78. Bull.

Explain, then, why other politicians, even Repubs., won't speak to them for the big bucks and say anything. The reason HE spoke there is because he's the most pro-gay rights president we've ever had and he has a record to back that up.

[Pab Sungenis]

80. The problem with Civil Unions

is that they don't work. The states that tried that compromise are now having to consider marriage after all because there literally is no way to apply all the rights of marriage without actually applying marriage itself.

[muffin1]

48. Hmmm...

Crickets I see on my last query to you.

[Vanje]

64. Hints

Obama has always given "hints" that he was actually in support of full equality.

I was duped by those "hints".

[jenmito]

67. No he hasn't. He said he's evolving on gay marriage at a press conference this past Dec. n/t

[Vanje]

72. Well excuse me

for thinking he wasn't a deep down damned homophobe all along.

[jenmito]

74. No-I won't excuse you. He's NOT a homophobe. Period. n/t

[Vanje]

75. If he was against bi-racial marriage, he'd be a racist. Yes?

I think so.

?But when he's against gay people marrying , what would you call it?
What would you call it?


Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander

[Bluenorthwest]

73. So 96, for it. 2008 against it. this past Dec, evolving. Is that the

For then against is not exactly 'evolving' now is it? He just says whatever gets him money that day.

[Bobbie Jo]

82. Ya know...it doesn't matter what he says or does

It will be wrong, disappointing, unimpressive, weak, heavy-handed, too much, not enough, etc...

After 3+ years of observing the patterns of discussion with regard to this president, this is the bottom line.

My apolitical but liberal mother summed it up for me just yesterday.

"They're going to call it wrong no matter what he does."

She's right.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Gay marriage is about reason #10 for me

:shrug:

After

Letting the banksters keep their bonuses but forcing the autoworkers to make concessions
Continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sending troops into Libya and Yemen (withdrawing a few thousand troops means zilch if there are ANY left)
Meeting in secret with the insurance companies before having the health care bill introduced but not meeting with the single payer advocates
Authorizing CIA assassinations
Keeping Guantanamo open
Signing an extension of the Bush tax cuts instead of making the Republicans be the bad guys
Appointing anti-Social Security Republicans and so-called Democrats to the Catfood Commission
Appointing Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education and openly approving of mass teacher firings and other attacks on public education (Obama himself never attended a public school in the U.S. Instead, he graduated from the poshest private school in Honolulu.)
Appointing only Conservative Democrats and Republicans to his Cabinet

[ImNotTed]

36. A lot of people on a lot of issues--

--need to wake up and smell Reality.

[Autumn]

55. I supported him in 2008, I listened to him , I didn't like

his stance on a lot of things, but I was just glad we were getting rid of a republican. Who the hell else was there to vote for? He really hasn't done anything to make me feel enthusiastic since then. If I had known he was a centrist then I still would have voted for him even if I didn't want to. I will vote for him in 2012 and I still won't want to vote for him, unfortunately he's the only game in town.

[libmom74]

84. I'm tired of voting for the lesser

of two Corporatists. How can we draft Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold or anyone that truly cares about equal rights, ending the wars and helping the poor and middle class? In the internet age and with all of assaults against unions and working people happening there is no reason for us not to fight for better representation. If we continue down this road things will only get worse. I really can't see with this bad economy and milquetoast, wishy washy approach to everything how Obama is going to get re-elected. At least if he faces a strong populist challenge from the Left he will be forced to take a stand on issues instead of waffling or going all kumbaya bipartisan with the rabid Right.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. You could draft Sanders or Feingold and by the time you elected them, they would be centrists

It requires an absurd amount of fence straddling and compromising of your beliefs to get elected President. You do it one little bit at a time saying to yourself that the ends justify the means and think of all of the good you can do once you're President.

[hulka38]

91. That doesn't sound too Wellstonian.

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Sure it is, Wellstone was a fierce advocate for campaign finance reform

He knew that it's not individuals who are the problem, it's the system that is the problem.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. It was easier to support him prior to seeing so much of his

supporters. They make it very difficult to have the energy to endure the man's whining about who is sanctified and all that religio-bullshit. Add the fact that he failed to end the wars or deliver a public option, that he switched from opposing mandates to demanding them, and you get a guy whose promise did not really show itself, who has grating friends and some really bigoted views.

[Whisp]

86. unrec this post. to -395

calling Obama and his supporters bigots.

are you sure you took the right fork in the road to get here? I think it was the Slauson cutoff you meant to take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HXkfDeR9Nw
at about 5 minutes in for others that want to laugh along with me

[Bobbie Jo]

88. !

You deciphered that?

[Vattel]

70. How would you answer your own question?

[hulka38]

90. Right,

Progressives can't be disappointed with Obama's absence of leadership because behind the the large block "CHANGE" banner the fine print clearly states that he really didn't mean it.

[McCamy Taylor]

93. They are disappointed because the MSM tells them to be.