Skip to main content

View Diary: The most underappreciated president ever (for those who haven't read my diary) (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This diary is utter BS -- it commits the same (10+ / 0-)

    silliness that it criticizes.  Greenwald and Ugyar find fault with PBO "100 percent of the time"?  Not that I've ever seen.  

    Or maybe I'm just projecting.  Taking pretty much a Chomsky/Vidal perspective, I see PBO as simply somewhat of an improvement on the corporatist/imperialist Clintonian model of right-center Democratic politician.  PBO himself recently described his domestic policies as old-fashioned moderate Republicanism.   Why should it be considered critical of PBO to agree with his own self-description?

    So, by self-description, PBO has defined himself as center-right on economic issues and hard right, but not quite as insane as the Bushies,  on security issues.   And are progressives supposed to be satisfied with right center domestic policies and very rightist national-security doctrines just because they're promoted by a half-AA man?  

    Alternately, please tell me how ANY of  PBO's policies, aside from immigration and LGBT issues, have promoted progressive policies.

    SURPRISE:  I voted for Obama in both 2008 & 2012, the 1st time I'd voted for a Dem for Pres. in a non-swing state since 1972.


    I'm not an idiot.  

    1.  PBO voted ag. the Iraq invasion, so that maybe he's not as insane about American imperialism and militarism as your average hypergingoistic national pol;

    2.  PBO appears to see a crucial role for truly multi-lateral attempts to control tyranny and terrorism overseas,  both diplomatically and militarily -- translation: he seems to be a lot saner than Bush and his fellow-travelers in the other party in this regard -- maybe not really same, but not nearly as insane;

    3. Holder and Geithner may be Wall St. pimps, but at least PBO doesn't tug his forelock when confronted with Jaime Daimon (of course, PBO doesn't have a forelock, but let's not get bogged down in the literal here -- neither does Paul Ryan, who's actually got an Adams Family widow's peak, whatever the hell that means, but certainly  kisses the butts of Wall St. banksters at every opportunity, to completely mix up anatomical metaphors); and Liz Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and many, many other worthies (including Uncle Joe) are members of PBO's party;

    4.  PBO may not be a staunch defender of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; but at least he doesn't seem to want to eviscerate them by turning them over to the tender mercies of the insurance companies and Wall Street; and he did fight to pass a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance, even if it was based on the model of a right-wing think-tank and Mitt Romney.  

    I obviously could go on, but I'm sure you get the general theme -- PBO's policy initiatives could be a lot worse, and some of them ain't half bad.  But why any real progressive would give PBO anything more than such a very qualified endorsement -- "Sheesh -- you are so much not as bad as the barbaric yahoos in the other party" -- is very far beyond me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (78)
  • Baltimore (77)
  • Freddie Gray (57)
  • Bernie Sanders (54)
  • Civil Rights (45)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (34)
  • Media (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site