Skip to main content

DallasDoc, (one of the great, great contributors on this site) as many of you do here, pushed me into yet another moral dilemma the other day that started my wheels turning again, seeking answers as to President Obama's real agenda, vs. his rhetoric and actions to date.

Doc said, (I'm para-phasing) that President Obama is not going to lead, and he doubted that President Obama could even be dragged into leading, and I could not agree more. The question for me is why, and what will that cost be to our nation and our party in the long run. What are the repercussions of allowing President Obama to play out his continued duplicity, that he somehow honestly believes, no one is noticing?

BTW Doc, I hope it is A-OK, if I used your phrase here.  You really (as we Southerners like to say:) Whopped me up side the head,  and I for one love that kind of dissent and debate.  

Doc made me realize that there is a deep blind spot we are all refusing to see as a party, and I believe that blind spot is staring us right in the face, and many of us, who are watching this national economic catastrophe (the Shock Doctrine) take place in front of our very eyes, are still in deep denial as to who President Obama really is and who he is working for and what he truly represents. I know others here are saying 'they always saw it coming,' but I for one, was willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt over and over again, until it became exceeding clear to me that he is in fact enabling the Republicrat/Corporate agenda to continue in the dismantling of the New Deal, and the final destruction of what is left of the working poor and the Middle Class of this nation.

First and foremost:  I refuse to believe the President Obama does not understand the full significance and power that he holds of having the Bully Pulpit in the White House.  That is total bullshit.  He certainly understood it when he ran for perhaps the longest campaign (18 months) in our nation's history.  He certain understood exactly the words and promises he was making and he certainly understood when he gave the following speeches:

http://www.barackobamaquotations.com/  

I refuse to believe anymore that President Obama is capitulating; I refuse to believe anymore that President Obama is caving; I refuse to believe anymore that the 'fake filibuster' is anything more than a tool being used by both parties to concede our Middle Class to a state of deep destruction; I refuse to believe that when President Obama put the Cat Food Commission front and center, instead of a real Job's Commission, that it was anything more than his real agenda to begin with; I refuse to believe that when President Obama, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summer's and Ben Bernanke's plans have been all along to 'above all costs protect the Banks' when millions of people are being throw out of their jobs and homes at the expense of what Bush/Paulson/Rubin/Greenspan and Wall St/the Banks have done (ruined the national and international economies of the World) and that the laws of this land, are being ignored and disobeyed, as Wall St/the Banks and the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate America continue to loot our treasury with little, if any true over site, transparency or accountability.  

To continue to believe the President Obama does not know exactly what he is doing is a delusion, and worse than that, it is to ignore how much this is going to cost our party and our nation in the end. President Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and it's high time for all of us to face up to that ugly brutal truth. And I am most certainly not the only Democrat that feels this way, I can assure you.

Nearly half of Democrats, according to a recent Associated Press poll, would like Obama to face a primary challenger in 2012. By a count of roughly two to one, Obama supporters do not believe he'll deliver on his promise to bring change to Washington. A third of Democrats do not think the president will be re-elected. Few expected the political climate to change so drastically, or for Obama to be facing a revolt within his own ranks, in just two years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Americans across the board (regardless of party affiliation) are furious, and they are furious for good reasons.  The laws of our nation have become meaningless, but it is now taking on a much sinister and deep reactionary quality, and this is where the rubber meets the road, because in the end, when the Democrat Party Platform was trashed, and thrown out (the Working Man and Woman's Party...as close as we would ever get to a Labor Progressive Movement) then all bets were off.  

When 75 percent of the entire population wanted a Public Option, and a return to Glass-Steagall on Wall St., and were literally spit in their faces by both parties, all that tells me is that we have reached a level of such deep critical corruption, (which Obama refuses to acknowledge) that in the end, President Obama is in fact yet another a wolf in wolf's clothing, trying to pass himself on as the new 'Hero of the Middle Class' when that was a lie to begin with...a lie.

So stop this bullshit meme...that President Obama is caving or capitulating.  If we can get to that 'space' in our brains, then perhaps we can move forward again, and understand the real truth:  Our government is in a deep deep state of chaos and the last person we can depend upon is President Obama to use the 'bully pulpit' because in fact, he simply does has no intention of doing so, nor will he be dragged kicking and screaming to that same bully pulpit. Holding his feet to the fire is a delusion, that just ain't gonna happen folks.  

In recent days several center-left blogger/columnists have suggested that progressives should be happy to cut a deal now on Social Security and other issues related to the budget. The argument is that the cuts being put forward by the commissions are not that onerous, they don't involve privatization, and we could be facing much worse in the future.

While politics always requires compromise, this position misreads the economic and political landscape in four important ways.

1) The problem of the moment is unemployment. This really is a disaster for large segments of the population. That is not just a talking point.

  1. The bad guy in this story is Wall Street. The financial sector is a cancer on the economy. This is precisely the moment when we should be on the attack, not running for shelter.
  1. Health care costs are the real problem. This is not cheap rhetoric; health care is what needs to be fixed.
  1. The overwhelming majority of the non-pundit population agrees with us.


The current economic situation really is a disaster for tens of millions of people across the country. More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether. For most of these people, every day is a struggle to support their family and hold onto their home. The projections do not show any substantial improvement in this situation for years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

To honestly believe that both parties are not aware of these 4 points that Dean Baker presents, is again, another delusion. To honestly believe the President Obama and the Democrats, are not being emailed, written letters or being called on the phone daily one these 4 points for the past several months is another delusion.

In a brilliant op-ed published in the LA Times immediately after the midterm elections, longtime educator and organizer Marshall Ganz observed that Barack Obama "entered office wrapped in a mantle of moral leadership. His call for change was rooted in values that had long been eclipsed in our public life: a sense of mutual responsibility, commitment to equality and belief in inclusive diversity. Those values inspired a new generation of voters, restored faith to the cynical and created a national movement. Now, eighteen months and an 'enthusiasm gap' later, the nation's major challenges remain largely unmet, and a discredited conservative movement has reinvented itself in a more virulent form." Borrowing categorical distinctions conceived by political scientist James MacGregor Burns in the late 1970s, Ganz (who played a role in mapping out the original organizing strategy for the Obama campaign) assessed that immediately upon becoming president, Obama abandoned the "transformational" model promised by his presidential campaign in favor of a "transactional" model. "'Transformational' leadership," Ganz explained, "engages followers in the risky and often exhilarating work of changing the world, work that often changes the activists themselves. Its sources are shared values that become wellsprings of the courage, creativity and hope needed to open new pathways to success. 'Transactional' leadership, on the other hand, is about horse-trading, operating within the routine, and it is practiced to maintain, rather than change, the status quo."

The nation was ready for change, but Obama picked the status quo. And so "much of the public's anger, disappointment and frustration has been turned on a leader who failed to lead." Ganz identified "three crucial choices that undermined the president's transformational mission": "First, he abandoned the bully pulpit of moral argument and public education. Next, he chose to lead with a politics of compromise rather than advocacy. And finally, he chose to demobilize the movement that elected him president. By shifting focus from a public ready to drive change—as in 'yes we can'—he shifted the focus to himself and attempted to negotiate change from the inside, as in 'yes I can.'"

As a result of these choices, Obama not only failed to convince the public that he can turn the economy around—the central axis upon which judgment of the success or failure of his presidency will turn—but also lost the confidence of many of his original supporters. Yet in his refusal to adapt the inspirational rhetoric of his campaign to his presidency, he allowed the forces of right-wing reaction to claim the mantle of the common man. They even managed to make it appear to most people as if the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, were the party in the pocket of Wall Street and the big-spending fat cats.  That's a given. But the disappearance of the heroic narrative of the campaign and its replacement with an ongoing series of back-room dealings of exactly the kind Candidate Obama so eloquently condemned must be apportioned the lion's share of the blame. Imagine if young people and first-time voters heard their president sounding like the candidate who told his audience, upon securing the Democratic nomination for president, "We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.  "A few days after the midterm elections, Van Jones spoke to a progressive gathering in Washington. After recalling the pageant of progressive performers who came to DC to celebrate Obama's inauguration at the Lincoln Memorial—which featured, among many others, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Stevie Wonder, Pete Seeger and the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington—Jones reminded his listeners, "You had the full beauty of the American people, the full force of our culture on display.... None of those people quit the movement and joined the Tea Party. All that creativity, all that power, all that spirit, all that soul—it's still here. We went from We Are One to We Are Done.... Well, guess what? The days are now over when any of us can afford to wait for a politician in Washington, DC, to set the tone and the tenor and the face of our movement."

http://www.thenation.com/...

I cannot remember when another candidate in our party, was given, on a silver platter the most astounding mandate to carry out his 'Candidate Obama' agenda in the entire history of our party. President Obama has not simply squandered this once in a life time opportunity, but he has knowingly and willingly caused a huge chasm in own deeply fractured party, and he has also knowingly allowed the Republicans to steal the narrative (while hiding in the shadows of creating the horrifying Cat Food Commission, and not daring to draw even one single line in the sand against the Bush extension of the tax cuts for the same 'elite classes' that all have 'money in the rigged stock markets' as millions now face being cut off from Food Stamps and unemployment insurance.    

Obama Wooing "Economic Royalists"

Friday 19 November 2010

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

In his first term, President Franklin Roosevelt denounced "the economic royalists." He drew the line against the heartless rich: "They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."  What a different Democratic president we have today. For two years - from putting Wall Street operatives at the top of his economic team to signaling that he'll go along with extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - Barack Obama has increasingly made a mockery of hopes for a green New Deal.

The news from the White House keeps getting grimmer. Since the midterm election, we're told, Obama has concluded that he must be more conciliatory toward the ascendant Republican leadership in Congress - and must do more to appease big business.  Fifteen days after the election, The Washington Post reported that Obama - seeking a replacement for departing top economic adviser Lawrence Summers - "is eager to recruit someone from the business community for the job to help repair the president's frayed relationship with corporate America."

The last thing we need is further acquiescence to the economic royalists. What we need is exactly the opposite: leadership to push back against the Republican Party's right-wing ideologues and the forces they represent. We need principled backbones in high places - and much stronger progressive activism at the grassroots. In moral and electoral terms, the status quo is indefensible. Economic realities include high unemployment, routine home foreclosures, huge tax breaks for large corporations and widening gaps between the wealthy and the rest of us - in tandem with endless war and runaway military spending. Escalation of warfare in Afghanistan is running parallel to escalation of class war - waged from the top down - in Washington. The presidentially appointed co-chairs of the deficit commission, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, are pushing scenarios that would undermine Social Security. Let's get a grip on matters of principle. More and more warfare in Afghanistan? Extending massive tax cuts for the wealthy? Promoting plans to slash Social Security and Medicare? Pretending that "clean coal" is not an oxymoron? Failing to uphold habeas corpus and other precious civil liberties? ...The best way to fight the Republican Party is to stop giving ground to it. The best way to defeat right-wing xenophobic "populism" is to build genuine progressive populism. In the process, we can draw on the spirit of the New Deal. Back in the 1930s, millions of progressive activists - under all sorts of names - fought for economic equity, while FDR became willing to make common cause with them. Today, our scope of understanding has grown to include more dimensions of social justice and ecological imperatives. These days, progressives have plenty of reasons to feel discouraged. But we have a lot more good reasons to rededicate ourselves to the vital tasks ahead.

http://www.truth-out.org/...

DallasDoc talked about depending upon Nancy Pelosi, and other progressives to lead us out of the fray, but I fear it is way to late for this 'Hail Mary Pass' at all.  

I suppose the false equivalency argument I hate most of all is this: At least we didn't get John McCain or Sarah Palin, but the truth is we are going to get wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy worse than that in the end.  Now that Orange Tan Man Drunk Cry Baby (Wheeper of the House) is going to be in charge, there are going to be 'LOTS OF INVESTIGATIONS' and this is the lesson that we Democrats just keep fucking up over and over again.  The Rules of Engagement have changed and they changed a very long time ago, but what we refuse to see coming (after Bill Clinton got blackmailed by the Savage Blackmailing Republicans and the Save Right Wing Supreme Court) was this which only proves to me again and again, not only have we been sold out by the Whores in our Senate, but by our entire government:

This is the best article I have ever read in my life, and I hope you have the courage to read the entire thing, before you start flaming me.  Know this about me: regardless of who is in the White House, I have always been a deep, abiding loyal Democrat, and I always will be until I know, without a doubt, that our own party has been swallowed up and there is no other hope for the Middle Class of this nation, and that is the place I've finally found myself.  Call it 'Mutiny on the Bounty' as a matter of fact, call it anything you want, but nothing is working anymore in our nation, and to keep pretending that President Obama and Clinton were not part and parcel of that entire event, is to lie to yourselves.  Who is destroying our party?  It was not me, and I know it was not you.  Wake up and smell the coffee people, before it is way to late.  I get you to read this great article and truth telling.  The longer we refuse to face the truth, of the total Oligarchy madness that has overtaken our nation, and why: President Obama refuses to lead, the longer our pain will be.  I suppose that is up to you, but I'm at least going to go to my own grave knowing I spoke out about it in the end.

There is no hope left for achieving significant reform or restoring our democracy through established mechanisms of power. The electoral process has been hijacked by corporations. The judiciary has been corrupted and bought. The press shuts out the most important voices in the country and feeds us the banal and the absurd. Universities prostitute themselves for corporate dollars. Labor unions are marginal and ineffectual forces. The economy is in the hands of corporate swindlers and speculators. And the public, enchanted by electronic hallucinations, remains passive and supine. We have no tools left within the power structure in our fight to halt unchecked corporate pillage. The liberal class, which Barack Obama represents, was never endowed with much vision or courage, but it did occasionally respond when pressured by popular democratic movements. This was how we got the New Deal, civil rights legislation and the array of consumer legislation pushed through by Ralph Nader and his allies in the Democratic Party. The complete surrendering of power, however, to corporate interests means that those of us who seek nonviolent yet profound change have no one within the power elite we can trust for support. The corporate coup has ossified the structures of power. It has obliterated all checks on corporate malfeasance. It has left us stripped of the tools of mass organization that once nudged the system forward toward justice.

Obama knows where power lies and serves these centers of power. The tragedy—if tragedy is the right word—is that Obama, after selling his soul to corporations, has been discarded. Corporate power doesn’t need brand Obama anymore. They have found new brands in the tea party, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Obama has been abandoned by those who once bundled contributions for him by the millions of dollars. Obama and the Democratic Party will, I expect, spend the next two years being even more obsequious to corporate power. Obama clearly loves the pomp and privilege of statecraft that much. But I am not sure it will work. In Manuel de Lope’s novel "The Wrong Blood," set during the first rumblings that led to the Spanish Civil War, he writes "... nobody knew this at the time and those who had premonitions wouldn’t go so far as to believe them, because fear rejects what intuition accepts."

But the signs are now so palpable that even fear is not working. Our worst premonitions are becoming reality. Our intuition has proved correct. We are reaching the breaking point. An explosion, unless we halt the increased pressure, seems inevitable. And what is left for those of us who cannot embrace the contaminants of violence? If the system shuts us out how can we influence it through nonviolent mechanisms of popular protest? How can we restore a civil society? How can we battle back against those who will mobilize hatred to cement into place an American fascism? I do not know if we can win this battle. I suspect we cannot. But I do know that if we stop resisting, if we stop rebelling, something fundamental will die within us. As the corporate vise tightens, as the vast corporate system begins to break down with fossil fuel decline, extreme climate change and the expansion of global poverty, even mundane and ordinary acts to assert our common humanity and justice will be condemned as subversive.  It is time to think of resistance in a new way, something that is no longer carried out to reform a system but as an end in itself. African-Americans understood this during the long night of slavery. German opposition leaders understood it under the Nazis. Dissidents in the former Soviet Union knew this during the nightmare of communism. Resistance in these closed systems was local and often solitary. It was done with the understanding that evil must always be defied. The tiny acts of rebellion—day after day, month after month, year after year and decade after decade—exposed to everyone who witnessed them the heartlessness, cruelty and inhumanity of the oppressor. They were acts of truth and beauty. We must take to the street. We must jam as many wrenches into the corporate system as we can. We must not make it easy for them. But we also must no longer live in self-delusion. This is a battle that will outlive us. And if we fight, even with this tragic vision, we will lead lives worth living and keep alive another way of being.

http://www.truthdig.com/...

Wow....thanks Chris Hedges for putting into words of truth that dare not be spoken, and thanks to anyone on this site that recognizes my own angst for the party I've loved all my life.  

And BTW, thanks, DallasDoc for whopping me up side the head, and making me think deeply, and that is what I love most about my own party.....as I said in another post recently, that Bill Clinton said: 'When Democrats think, they win.

I had said in the same post that what I hated most about the Republicans is how they all walk in the 'Goose Step' and have one thing in mind no matter what the cost:  Bring the Democrats down, get the power back, get the money back, and get the fascist, Karl Rove/Goebbels fake Christian perverts gay bashing misogonists back in charge.

The moral cost to our nation and our party by President Obama refusing to lead, will be felt for decades to come, regardless of how you want to spin it or deny it.  The Corruption was allowed to continue in all aspects of our government, and regardless of what you wish to think, this point to deny that is utterly incomprehensible.  The Clinton's never left the White House, and they never will, and that is why Howard Dean was destroyed by the MSM.  

That is the exact same reason, that Congressman Alan Grayson was destroyed by both parties.  He was the one person, that was smart enough, brave enough and the guts and courage, to not only stand up for President Obama, but went after Wall St./the Banks like a crazed Ferret on Acid.  

Which of course reminds me of how Robert Kennedy had the courage to go after Jimmy Hoffa.  You get it yet?

My questions are many.  Most of all, I ask you as my fellow Democrats, if all we have left is to 'cower in our beds at night' hoping they do not come after 'us' next, when you are sure to lose your jobs, which are never coming back, and which will probably lead you to an illegal 'foreclosure mill' that probably will not be upheld by our own Government, then what do we have left?

It is time to think of resistance in a new way, something that is no longer carried out to reform a system but as an end in itself. African-Americans understood this during the long night of slavery. German opposition leaders understood it under the Nazis. Dissidents in the former Soviet Union knew this during the nightmare of communism. Resistance in these closed systems was local and often solitary. It was done with the understanding that evil must always be defied. The tiny acts of rebellion—day after day, month after month, year after year and decade after decade—exposed to everyone who witnessed them the heartlessness, cruelty and inhumanity of the oppressor. They were acts of truth and beauty. We must take to the street. We must jam as many wrenches into the corporate system as we can. We must not make it easy for them. But we also must no longer live in self-delusion. This is a battle that will outlive us. And if we fight, even with this tragic vision, we will lead lives worth living and keep alive another way of being.

http://www.truthdig.com/...

An act of truth and beauty.  That is how I've always thought and believed my own party was all about in the end.  My party, was filled with diversity, and truth telling, that big tent that included and welcomed all Americans who were willing to fight for the 'golden city on the hill'....who believed in one true dictum:

We would stand by the party of the Working Man's/Woman's party, the party of the Unions that built this nation, and where, I ask you has that gone?

Before you start, immediately flaming me, I want to all take a long deep breath, and think about what I have said in this diary, to know this: Like you, I took a 6 month leave off of my regular job, to elect President Obama, OK?  Let me remind you of this...I'm not the only one:

Nearly half of Democrats, according to a recent Associated Press poll, would like Obama to face a primary challenger in 2012. By a count of roughly two to one, Obama supporters do not believe he'll deliver on his promise to bring change to Washington. A third of Democrats do not think the president will be re-elected. Few expected the political climate to change so drastically, or for Obama to be facing a revolt within his own ranks, in just two years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The real truth of what is going on in our nation, is like going out to a frozen tundra of Siberia....it makes us cold in our hearts, we want to turn away from it, we do not want to believe this is happening in our nation, but it is.

Why isn't President Obama leading, and why is it that we cannot face this horrifying truth that is staring us in the eyes?  Believe me, I wish it were not so, more than you know.  

At the heart of what is going on in our entire International and national destruction is being played out all across the world: How Wall St./the Banks corrupted and got away with stealing trillions of dollars, and no one................................no one, is being held accountable.  And in the end, all that did was to hold off the pain, that 'we the people' are all now paying for over and over and over again.

You can, I suppose dress it up anyway you want to:  It was legal, it was both parties fault, it was an accident, no one knew, but everyone in our nation who is suffering knows different.

Dare to know the truth? Where all our money is going, the only place where our youngest and brightest can get a job?  The Silent Draft...The Military Industrial Complex, and how many have died to date, the Oil for Money battle?

"EVERY morning I wake up and go looking for dead people," says Michael White, a computer programmer from Stone Mountain, Ga., who publishes the Web site iCasualties.org, which tracks deaths and injuries among coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is grim work of trolling through news sites and official releases about each episode, assessing the reliability of those accounts and then entering the details about the wounded and killed into a database.

Mr. White, 54, has done so since the 2003 invasion of Iraq — "when everything was flowers and chocolate," he said. Yet he had a hunch that events might not continue so smoothly.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

We, as a party are in for the fight of our lives.  Are we up to it?  Can we admit the truth?  Can we admit that President Obama is not leading and why he is not leading?  Do you believe that we can 'drag him kicking and screaming' into not dismantling the New Deal that FDR put into place?  Do you actually, I mean really think, based on his actions to date, what is now coming down the pike?

Again, no one in this history of our party was given the mandate he was given, and now, we are going to faced with 'Clinton on Steroids.'  It wasn't that President Obama was not up to the job, or that he didn't understand the job, in my view, he knew what the job was going to be in the first place and he kept 'hiding in the shadows and smoke and mirrors...sending out trial balloons over and over again' hoping that no one noticed in the end, that he never meant what he said in the first place.  Go ahead, blame it on the bullshit 'Filibuster' are the crap-o-la Nuclear Option.  There are no excuses left.  

I want to ask you this honest question.  What do you think that will cost our nation in the end, let alone our fragmented party?  

Because in my honest opinion, I think President Obama's actions only prove one thing to me:  He never wanted to be a real player or leader, he never expected to be a two term President, and now what we are facing is the worst possible reactionary politics of all:

President Mitt Romney, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, or the Dancing with the Stars Gizzley Momma of them all: that fucking idiot from hell: Sarah Palin.

I'd like to end this diary by saying a great Happy Holidays (Thanksgiving and Christmas) to all the Americans that went to the polls, that are now living on the streets, and their cars, that are about to have their food stamps and unemployment benefits cut off at the knees.  The feckless Whores of the Senate, would not even vote on that issue before they took off on their Gulf Stream Jets, for the Cayman Island, where all their money is hidden.

Corruption always hold a great price in any nation, and now we are living that lie, and until we are a people stop letting 'them' divide us, and destroy us, with the 'DECOYS' we will never get it, and they will continue to destroy a great nation, the great experiment that has been allowed to turn into just another third world dump of the fully and critical globalisation, that President Obama refuses to lead, but I think we all get that by now, don't we?

Thanks as always.  I welcome this debate, and I would like to remind you of a great idiom my own Union believing Irish Dad taught me, that brought me down to civility every night at our dinner table, when he insisted that we all have, what he called a 'Moot Court'...to take both sides of the argument.  I learned a lot from that one lesson.  He said, remember this: "Be an advocate for your country, never take it personally, think about how the people of this nation will pay in the end when our leaders refuse to do so, and be prepared to say these magical words:  'We can agree to disagree.'  Years and years later, I finally have learned that single lesson by dad taught me: That is what the Democratic Party has always been about, which is the exact opposite of what the Republican Party has been about.

Ms. B.

Originally posted to Badabing on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:51 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (232+ / 4-)
    Recommended by:
    chase, claude, JekyllnHyde, ljb, jec, raboof, Paleo, Marie, roonie, XOVER, importer, GreenSooner, tiggers thotful spot, msl, mattman, wytcld, tnichlsn, musicalhair, TJ, prfb, niemann, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, conchita, magnetics, Euroliberal, Agathena, stevej, Spiny, JuliaAnn, Major Tom, antirove, KathleenM1, Wamsutta, Eric Blair, psnyder, Joe Bacon, businessdem, 2laneIA, Bailey Savings and Loan, Viola Lee, churchylafemme, flatford39, noveocanes, RuralLiberal, chickeee, eodell, alizard, clarknyc, Pohjola, dkmich, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, Vicky, TheOrchid, BigDuck, Josiah Bartlett, greeseyparrot, Big Tex, Fabian, humphrey, Bluesee, PAbluestater, rstnfld, NoMoreLies, disrael, Independent Musings, Technowitch, Alice Venturi, Flint, run around, Simplify, craigkg, FutureNow, SJerseyIndy, cassidy3, lotlizard, Sandino, techno, WisePiper, deepsouthdoug, Pluto, nymosyn, Ekaterin, Paddy999, debedb, dehrha02, Mother Mags, xrepub, Crazy like a fox, Keone Michaels, Medium Head Boy, Kingsmeg, ej25, Ky DEM, Yellow Canary, Hear Our Voices, Son of a Cat, jwhitmill, blueoasis, NBBooks, Tanya, 4Freedom, gatorcog, JVolvo, Pilgrim X, bajadudes, profh, fiddlingnero, means are the ends, poxonyou, pkbarbiedoll, nhox42, Spongebob76, bmcphail, Grannus, NonnyO, AntKat, Bobjack23, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, dov12348, out of left field, bluicebank, khereva, wa ma, Haningchadus14, california keefer, ColoTim, DAO, Sydserious, yowsta, daveygodigaditch, gustynpip, suejazz, bnasley, artisan, HCKAD, ImpeachKingBushII, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, trueblueliberal, Jahiz, Terra Mystica, cynndara, Shahryar, MikePhoenix, elwior, jakebob, Quicksilver2723, rubine, petulans, Joncleir, Blueslide, Mike Taylor, David Futurama, CIndyCasella, ZhenRen, dreamghost, Pris from LA, nippersdad, Rick Aucoin, ceebee7, BigAlinWashSt, Nisi Prius, banjolele, Carol in San Antonio, dark daze, Nailbanger, JesseCW, zaka1, kevinpdx, Losty, strangedemocracy, prndl, ohmyheck, angel d, George Pirpiris, ruscle, parallaxblue, Renie57, shayes, JamesEB, roadbear, lcarr23, GeeBee, duufus, SoCalHobbit, Earth Ling, JRandomPoster, Funkygal, Betty Pinson, farbuska, not2plato, Colorado is the Shiznit, FeloniousMonk, nervousnellie, AuroraDawn, VoteBlue, Situational Lefty, Billdbq, mrsgoo, Wolf10, Angela Quattrano, LSmith, jgnyc, Vtdblue, chira2, daveusf, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, realityvist, No one gets out alive, Azazello, The Cheshire Cat, BlueDragon, Farmer Labor, laker, APA Guy, damfino, ahumbleopinion, pineapple head joe, just want to comment, burntorangeandblue, congenitalefty, Mr Robert, cedar park, plasmon, supercereal, Frank33, Marmaduke2, camelopardalis, craigh
    Hidden by:
    yuriwho, faster democrat kill kill, zeiben, SoCalSal
    •  I'm sick of these crappy whiney diaries. (19+ / 11-)

      Vote Republican next time. See if I care.

      "Music is the language of the heart of man."

      by 21zna9 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:47:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No need to vote Republican! (15+ / 1-)

        I am sick of over-argued simplistic diaries like this one, also, 21zna9. They
        are so unnecessary - and now I will tell you why:

        Before 2012 Mr Obama will announce that he is a unitary candidate; that without leaving the Democratic Party he is joining the Republican Party, and through
        a non-transparent deal with top Wall Streeters and Republican leaders (?)
        he will be on the ticket for president for both major parties.

        This strategy of course has been clear to some of us since 2008, and the
        wheel is coming full circle. Now we know why all the "bi-partisan"
        rhetoric from Obama -- he actually meant it!  But his definition is a little
        bit different.

        So we are all now going to be members of one party with one candidate
        for President:  The Unitary Party, and Mr O. will easily be reelected. And
        maybe for a third term if that pesky constitution can be further revised
        by the Unitary Supreme Court.

        Goodbye America!!!
        ####

        •  The repugs will never buy that n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          science nerd, randomfacts
        •  "Unitary Party" is not necessary, since effective (29+ / 0-)

          -ly that's what's happening more and more already. The Beltway and Wall St. establishment runs both parties, anyway, and they don't give a rat's ass which one is promoting their causes. Obama is a pawn, a shill, for the plutocrats, and as noted, he'll be discarded soon for another shill from the Republican Party.  

          [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

          by Vtdblue on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:28:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Toto Pulled the Curtain on BO's FISA Bill Vote (25+ / 0-)

            When Senator Obama pulled a 180 on his voracious promise to hold the Bush Crime Family responsible & voted for a get out of jail card for those war criminals, I saw behind the curtain. I have argued on here for ages Obama & Dems do NOT cave & they are NOT spineless. They represent the plutocracy that owns them. Are there exceptions? Sure. Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich & a few others are left to fight the entire GOP, the White House & way too many corporate owned "Democrats". Two-Bills & seven-words are in the nut shell: Bill Moyers said, "Money ruined democracy." Bill Maher said, "You can't govern stupid."

            •  Appallingly accurate words to live by, eh? (9+ / 0-)

              Bill Moyers said, "Money ruined democracy."

              Bill Maher said, "You can't govern stupid."

              I'm coming around to the same conclusions, reluctantly. Up to now I had been assuming much of it to be the incompetence of spineless political imbeciles. But now I think you and others are correct about the bought-and-paid-for malice aforethought.

              [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

              by Vtdblue on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:48:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  wow. you guys are hanging yourselves tonight. (0+ / 0-)

                it's like a coming out party for idiots.  i can't believe the shit you guys are saying here.  holy shit.  i can just cut and paste anything from here when i need to show someone how much you guys have no clue what you are talking about.  the folks you throw off balance with smart ass ridicule will be able to blow you all right the fuck off.  thanks!

                We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                by bluefaction on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:17:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yabadabadoo! (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jec, Pohjola, blueoasis, cynndara, JesseCW

                  Hey, anyone got any good bronto burger recipes? I hear they're good with mastedon chips.

                  "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                  by kovie on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:34:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It looks like you, bluefaction, have your own (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, Badabing

                  coming out party for idiots who believe all that they hear.  Have you ever learned to agree to disagree?  Have you ever had your precious ego hurt by constructive criticism and grew from the experience?  Have you ever had an open mind regarding that which you hold sacred?  Please answer yes to at least one and you have that Hope factor for yourself and the Dem. Party.   As far as your audacity, we'll talk about that next time.

                  •  read my diary for today and ask me that again (0+ / 0-)

                    We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                    by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:32:51 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK I read it, rec'd it and think it was a good (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Badabing

                      diary.  However, it certainly could have had more to it, as in substance.   Maybe, with some valid cut and paste material which you accused Badabing of doing, coupled with diligent hard work which obviously went into her diary, you'd get more than 20-something rec'ds.  How ironic is that?

                      Anyway, I digress.  Please tell me which question does your diary answer, because I think that you answered none, nil, nada.

                      For someone so open minded, how can you justify your attacks on the diarist here?  You appear to be able to have a good old, fashioned debate, but I don't see it regardless!  Maybe next time you will chill out a little and not be such a holier than thou, hard headed Blue-Balled Dog.  Good Luck with that.

                      •  i was an evangelical minister (0+ / 0-)

                        not only evangelical but pentecostal/charismatic and i can see someone going off the deep end from about a mile away.  i grew up on this stuff.  i went to seminary on this stuff.  badabing has gone off the reservation.  maybe some of you here can't see that.  it's pretty obvious to me.  she isn't just talking for attention or to push some kind of overton window.  she believes that she has a revelation and she's preaching it to everyone.  i just hope that it's a short term thing, cause i've seen people who go off for years and decades and they just get worse over time.  they get paranoid about not just the government but about their own family and friends.

                        i had a close friend from seminary who went off the reservation.  i tried to help him for years to no avail.  i don't expect to be able to help badabing either, but i sure as hell am not going to stand by and let her push some crazy conspiracy theory on this community without saying anything.

                        i am afraid of sarah palin and other evangelicals like her, honestly afraid of them, because i know that they are lost in their own delusions and they can't stop seeing everyone who doesn't agree with them as threats.  they can't handle living in a world of uncertainty so you are either with them or against them.  and that is dangerous when it's coupled with being the most powerful person on the planet.  i don't worry about her being some kind of tyrant.  i just worry about her starting a war with Iran or severely setting back relations with Russia.  

                        obviously, Badabing is not a threat to anyone but her own self and her own happiness.  but again, i am not just going to stand by and let this kind of conspiracy theory nonsense go unchallenged.

                        We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                        by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:43:43 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Dood, c'mon, Badabing is a very talented writer, (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          claude, On The Bus, Badabing, cynndara

                          and she is not going off the deep end.  She works hard at her craft, and is quite thorough--  that is obvious if you have really read any of her diaries.   If you haven't, then you should because she is compelling, crafty, and astute, three qualities, that frankly many writers have a difficultly with.  

                          As far as a threat to her own happiness, that's quite funny b/c she has a great sense of humor, no matter how serious her subject is.  And this diary is very serious, as well as backed by strong points with detailed research.   She is a professional writer and that is obvious.  And btw, I only know her from here and have no vested interest in sticking up for her.  She is a strong writer because she doesn't hide behind numbers, trite talking points. Badabing is brave and unflinching in knocking the President off his little used bully pulpit, which is almost sacrilegious here.

                          Truthfully, I worry more about you and the way you attacked her with F.U.s and the mere mention of CUCKOOS NEST.  C'mon, man, you actually ran off the reservation there, to use your odd description which appears somewhat racist I must say.

                          As far as Palin, she is truly an idiot, especially considering the fact that she is the poster girl for Fux  Noir.  She is more apt to starting a war here, between classes, having forgotten where her roots are, just like all the other talking heads on Fux and the rest of the msm.  Please, just try to have honest debate using constructive criticism here and wherever else you go because it makes for a much better world for all of US.  Peace....  

                          •  well, you have your opinion and i have mine (0+ / 0-)

                            and i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, won't me

                            We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                            by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:18:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thank you yowsta, I appreciate your vote of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            yowsta

                            confidence in my, and I do work very hard at my diaries.  

                            Ms. B.

                          •  I know that you work hard at your diaries and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Badabing

                            that's why you always make the Rec'd List!  Where did you go to College?  just curious.  Thanks again for your contributions here.  Have a Happy Gobble Gobble Day, and keep those diaries coming.

                          •  I went to Berklee School of Music in (0+ / 0-)

                            Boston....I was a professional jazz vocalist for 25 years. In 1996 I produced a one of its kind collaboration with 48 of Boston's greatest jazz Musicians (a collectors item now, unavailable,) which was sponsored by Dimock Community Health Center and Berklee School of Music, which was a benefit CD for Children with Aid.  It good great reviews from the Boston Globe and New York publications.  The name of the CD was:  A CHILD IS BORN.  Lots of great musicians, including the late Herb Pomeroy (on the title cut, a Child is Born, in which I sing on) and Billy Pierce, Wanentta Jackson, and tons of other great people.

                            I also took several creative writing courses at Emerson in Boston.

                            thanks for your kind words and have a great thanksgiving.

                            Ms. B.

                      •  my diary was about expressing my support (0+ / 0-)

                        for all of the gay kids who have to endure being bullied.  i loved the video and i want to help spread it around.  and i wanted to share my own person story with my friend who was gay in high school and how he helped me be a better person.  it didn't need anything but an intro to the video and my short story.  

                        how does it answer your questions?

                        have i ever been open minded about something i felt was sacred.  yes, clearly, i was opened minded about my religion.

                        have i ever had my ego hurt from constructive criticism and grown from the experience.  yes, clearly, i quit being a minister when my friend said he thought i was going to tell him to stop being gay or he'd burn in hell.

                        have i ever learned to agree to disagree?  yes, clearly, i agree to disagree that a Sarah Mclaughlin song caused me to cry because it was the goddamn draft I tell ya!!

                        We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                        by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:57:43 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Yup. I gave what happened under Clinton a pass (0+ / 0-)

                because it was only one administration, full of foibles and political calculations.  I told myself that the next Dem admin would (simply had to, darnit) return to Dem values and objectives.

                Now we have two data points of money as the nearly singular policy driver.  That establishes a trend.

                I've come to the same conclusion you have, equally reluctantly.

                "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

                by Terra Mystica on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:51:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  And then the mask will come off! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keikekaze, No one gets out alive

          And beneath it.... Montgomery Burns! Muhauahahaha

          (oh, come on now. you knew if was him. don't act all surprised).

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. - Harry S. Truman

          by faster democrat kill kill on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:59:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  tin foil territory (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenSooner, FistJab

          I'm as down on Obama as the next guy -- and would fully support a primary challenge to him -- but to suggest he's going to run for President as both a Democrat and a Republican (and somehow win the two primaries, LOL) is right up there with people who don't think we've ever been to the moon or who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

          Get a grip.

          •  Serious question: who would you run against him? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Lighthouse Keeper, cynndara

            I'm against a primary challenge because there is nobody to Obama's left in the party who can win the nomination, let alone the presidency.

            I largely agree with the diarist about Obama, but think he's much more symptom than cause.

            The problem isn't Obama, it's the Democratic Party as presently constituted.

            Totally agree, btw, that the notion that Obama would try to run as a "unitary candidate" is not only crazy and tinfoily...it's also legally impossible in all but a tiny handful of states that allow electoral fusion.

            Better tinfoil hats, please!

            "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

            by GreenSooner on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:23:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  C'mon greensooner... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, yowsta, Badabing

              right now Obama IS the Democratic party. So, I don't understand your willingness to forgive him of culpability. No one has a bigger platform than the POTUS to espouse Democratic ideals and he is failing miserably.

              •  I'm not forgiving him of anything. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cynndara, No one gets out alive

                But it's not true that Obama is the Democratic Party.  That's neither the way our parties nor our system of government work.

                Pelosi and Reid are also the Democratic Party...and neither is much better than Obama (though, I guess, I'd say Pelosi>Obama>Reid...though it's close).

                Here's where we disagree:

                No one has a bigger platform than the POTUS to espouse Democratic ideals and he is failing miserably.

                Obama has certainly failed to use the bully pulpit. And that's a particular problem of his, one that's more about temperament than about ideology (and I think the transactional/tranformational distinction is entirely correct here: Obama is by nature a transactional guy).

                But the other, deeper problem is ideological. The problem is not simply a failure to effectively espouse Democratic ideals. The problem is that the dominant ideals of the Democratic Party today are the ideals of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. And in this regard, Obama is symptom, not cause.  It's very telling that the only two candidates who seriously competed for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Obama and HRC, were essentially identical on the issues.

                "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                by GreenSooner on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:41:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, I strongly disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis

                  Obama is the titular head of the Democratic party. And he has failed to espouse Democratic ideals. Where we disagree most vehemently is in what you and I consider those ideals to be. You think Democrats are Corporatists, I think they have been invaded by Corporatists.

                  •  The _titular_ head of the Democratic Party (3+ / 0-)

                    ...is Tim Kaine.

                    I think you mean that Obama's the effective head of the Democratic Party.

                    I agree.

                    But American political parties cannot be reduced to the person who leads them, nor does the person who leads them ever get to entirely shape them.

                    And to clarify:  I don't think the Democrats are essentially Corporatists (I don't think they're essentially anything).  But I think the Corporatist invasion of the Party has been going on for decades and is entirely successful. That doesn't mean that the party entirely consists of Corporatists.  It's still the party of Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich. But Corporatists run the Party and define what it stands for.  That could change; the party could be successfully invaded by progressives. But it would take more than switching out presidential candidates (or, to be more blunt, the shape of the party today makes it virtually impossibl for a progressive to become the party's presidential nominee).

                    "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                    by GreenSooner on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:53:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well you proved fou's point, (0+ / 0-)

                      I am uneducated...lol...and that's not a dig at you.

                      But though you and I agree on the disaster this Administration has been I feel that we don't agree at all on the Democratic Party. There are many good folks in Congress beyond Kucinich and Barbara Lee. Two of my least favorites BTW. What we need is for the folks with a D behind their name to start acting like it. I think that it's more a case of the folks already there acting on conviction than it is to bring in some outsiders.

                      •  Let me put this as a question then. (0+ / 0-)

                        After decades of their acting the way they have, in what sense are you asking Democrats to "act like Democrats"?

                        In my view, "acting like Democrats" means doing whatever it is that Democrats do.  And it's been at least thirty years since what Democrats actually do is push for progressive policies.

                        And this is not merely semantics.  Because the the problem with the "why don't they act like Democrats?" view is that it's a kind of "if the tsar only knew!" fantasy.  The problem isn't that Democrats are spineless or incompetent. The problem is that the majority of today's elected Democrats are, at best, the equivalent of Rockefeller Republicans (and even that's pretty unfair to Rockefeller Republicans).

                        It's a bit like criticizing Republicans for not "acting like the Party of Lincoln" on issues of race.

                        Now the difference I've just described is really tactical/rhetorical. But if, in fact, Kucinich and Lee are among your least favorite Democrats, I think the real difference between us may be that you actually like corporate, militarist Democrats.

                        In which case, you're demand that they live up to their own values makes perfect sense.

                        "I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up." - Barack Obama

                        by GreenSooner on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 06:37:05 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. As I said above, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Badabing

              I got NOTHIN'.

              OK. Sheldon Whitehouse. Sherrod Brown.

              Both of these guys have a lot more on the ball. I would support either.

              Hey, Obama came out of nowhere. Who's to say someone else couldn't do so?

          •  Ryan! (0+ / 0-)

            I've got a grip; now you get a sense of humor.
            It will help you understand a lot, which you seem
            to be missing.

        •  Wow, this isn't snark. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes, sherijr, Deathtongue

          You're actually ... seriously chasing your tail.

          Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

          by fou on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:54:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  LOL! And I thought that I was king of (3+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenSooner, blueoasis, Deathtongue
          Hidden by:
          BlueDragon

          conspiricy theories regarding this President. Hats off my friend, you take the cake.

        •  Don't worry, I'm sure Nader will run. (0+ / 0-)

          Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. Mark Twain

          by Deathtongue on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:29:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Grownup comments, please. That's just plain (0+ / 0-)

          silly.

        •  It's simpler than that (0+ / 0-)

          A year from now Obama will announce that he is leaving the Democratic Party to run in the Republican primaries. He can save the leaderless moderate Republicans from the extremists on the right, and he can get the bi-partisanship that he has always sought - by joining them rather than being the target of their sniping.

          The Republicans will look around and see that they have no other candidate who can win, and they will take him up on his offer. Independents will gladly support a moderate, and the Tea Party will fall in line rather than split the vote and allow a progressive Democrat win the Presidency.

          Democrats get their party back. Republicans gain a strategy that doesn't involve racism. And Obama gets another four years.

      •  You ever see that movie "Dante's Peak" (22+ / 0-)

        starring Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton, about the volcano that erupts in the Pacific Northwest and wipes out an entire town? Remember that scene where the moronic grandmother refuses to evacuate her home on the mountain, assuring her grandkids, "Sweetie, I've lived on the mountain my entire life, and I know the mountain, and it would never hurt use."

        Well, you're that stupid grandmother.

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:13:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who cares? (3+ / 0-)

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:17:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm sick of simplistic responses (11+ / 0-)

        Such as the one you give -- calling this diary "crappy" and "whiney" -- just because you're not wise enough to (if not get the points made in the diary) at least agree that discussing challenging ideas has some value.  

      •  oh no! Poor baby! (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, blueoasis, yowsta, Badabing, ohmyheck

        here, come here...let me hold you. Look, here is a pic of a blue dog. There ya go. Feel better now?

        371/400- "this makes you extremely progressive" whatever that means.

        by cedar park on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:32:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your concern has been noted (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fabian, George Pirpiris, damfino

        Now go back to the pretty pictures...

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:30:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  who wants to look at pretty pictures (0+ / 0-)

          when we can sit back and watch one flew over the cookoo's nest right here in this diary!

          We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

          by bluefaction on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:40:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the 12 year old Obama defenders? (0+ / 0-)

            They're not "crazy", just self-deluded in their unending fanboyism.

            "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

            by kovie on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you see fanboys, because you are NUTS (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sam I Am

              sane people see normal folks who like the Obamas and like to think about good things along with the bad because that's what sane people do.  crazy people are imbalanced because they can't deal with the uncertainty of not being at one extreme or the other.  

              We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

              by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:24:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What you call "normal" people (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis, Badabing, cynndara

                are functional morons who think that TIME magazine and CNN are serious media outlets and consider American Idol to be serious culture. Yes, we have them on the left too, and they can mask their idiocy with bullshit college degrees in marketing and business and broadcasting. And what you call "nuts" is people who refuse to keep the blinders on just because it "feels good". It felt good to believe that the earth was flat once, too, just as it feels good to deny global warming and evolution.

                But I do appreciate your in-depth psychological insight, Sigmund.

                "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                by kovie on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:33:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you need to discover these things called facts (0+ / 0-)
                  1. only a small percentage of people in this country read TIME or watch CNN or American Idol.  a tiny percentage.  the rest of the people of this country are too busy living a life.  
                  1. the people who discovered that the earth was a globe and that climate is changing were scientists not conspiracy theorists like you.  conspiracy theorists are the one's who thought the moon landing was a movie and think that al gore has manipulated the world's climate scientists into believing in global warming.

                  i am a professional scientist.  i was an evangelical minister about 16 years ago.  i know make believe when i hear it, kovie.   you are swallowing crazy shit.  as crazy as the Obama is the anti-christ shit.  

                  We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                  by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:57:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  70 million people watched the finale of DWTS (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, Badabing, JesseCW

                    last night. That's hardly a "small percentage". I have no idea where you get your numbers but it's not from that place called reality, whatever kind of scientist you are.

                    Lemme guess, you're one of those types who think Obama's done a pretty good job (so long as one conveniently ignores reality, of course, and keep staring at the pretty pictures). And that left and right are equally crazy and unhelpful.

                    And I'm the "crazy" one. Heh.

                    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                    by kovie on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:23:34 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  70 million people DID NOT watch the show (0+ / 0-)

                      http://www.nbclosangeles.com/...

                      70 million people 'tuned in' at some point of the show and that was a massive record breaking number in and of itself.  there were about 23 million people, out of the 310 million living in this country, who watched the show.

                      and let's be honest and admit that half or more of the people watching the show last night were kids who can't even vote.  

                      and let's be honest and admit that a massive portion of the adult audience that tuned in did so because their was a Palin on the show and they wanted to see if she won or lost.  Kind of like the vice presidential debate in 08 between Biden and Palin except that the debate actually got 70 million viewers.

                      what kind of a scientist am i?  i make video games for a living.  i program physics simulations and ai and graphics.  you know.  the easy sciences.

                      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                      by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:00:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  You got me worried. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Badabing

                    A professional scientist who used to be an evangelical minister?  Sounds like something out of the seventeenth century to me, as in, where all educated people started out in the Church, and therefore the Church controlled the intellectual foundations of all scholarly pursuits . . . having worked with scientists, I know it's a profession that takes literally decades to become a functioning member of . . . so, um, what field, exactly, are you in?  And, uh, what institution do you practice in?  

                    •  i am 37 years old. (0+ / 0-)

                      i went to seminary the fall after graduating high school
                      i quit being a minister barely 2 years after graduating seminary

                      i then went back to college to figure out what the hell i was going to do with my life after having always thought i'd be a minister

                      i tried out radio broadcasting for a quarter.  got hired at a station as a weekend radio announcer.  it was fun, but not quite enough and the pay was terrible.

                      i tried out graphic design for a quarter.  got hired by professional photographers to work for them digitally manipulating their photographs.  it was fun, but also not quite enough even if the pay was worthwhile.

                      and then one day i was visiting my family and at a book store with my older brother who was getting ready to graduate with a computer science degree with minors in math and physics.  he was looking at some huge book about programming in the store.  i remember thinking about how different we were.  he was the one into science and i was into art and public speaking and entertainment.

                      when i went home i was at a book store and out of pure chance i saw the same book my brother had been looking at.  i was just curious to see what it looked like inside and i picked it up to take a peak.  next thing i knew it was the middle of the night and i was whizzing past the 3rd chapter and i discovered that my brother wasn't the only one who was good at nerdy things.

                      so, i went back to college again but that time for computer science.  but i never did graduate with a computer science degree.  i just sort of whizzed by all the classes learning everything on my own.  not uncommon for computer science.  i was hired for a programming job making web pages and then i got married and never got back to college because i was too busy working.

                      my brother started working with me 9 1/2 years ago and we've worked together ever since.  from web pages to accounting software.  and then he wanted to make video games, a long story, and so we learned how to make video games and we've been doing them for nearly 7 years now.

                      i never did the math and physics classes in college so i learned all of that on my own.  which was like breaking bricks with my face at times.  but i did it.  

                      funny enough, after all these years, i went back to college part time this year to take all the math and science classes so i could still have that piece of paper.  i don't need it to prove anything for work.  that meant nothing compared to being able to do the work.  school doesn't teach you how to be a professional.  not by a long shot.  but i want to prove to my future children that education is an absolute must no matter what they do and no matter if they can do it better than fully educated people.  basically, i am not going to have my kids tell me 'but dad, you didn't graduate college and you were still successful'.  cause my success came the fucking hard way.  my education came the really fucking hard way.  try to learn all the math you need for physics programming for video games in a matter of weeks.  you'll be listening to a doctor tell you that if you don't slow down that you're going to have a heart attack at 35 too.  i don't want that for my kids, so, i am making sure that they can't give me that crap.  they are finishing college if i have to handcuff myself to them and drag them to class.

                      besides.  college is fun.  i am only taking 2 classes right now but it's a blast.  in addition to the math class i am taking i am doing anthropology too and it's amazing!  i love it!  i wish i hadn't been raised so deeply in religion because i think i would have probably found my way into a career in anthropology instead of ministry.  and who knows.  maybe i'll get a degree in anthropology and change careers in my 40s.  i probably won't want to make video games forever.  :)

                      though, it is really fun to invent cutting edge technology and work from my home office.  a 9 to 5 could really suck after years of this.  i could never spend this much time on daily kos with a 9 to 5.  :P

                      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                      by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:51:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Hey blue, fanboys is an acronym for conjunctions? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Badabing
              •  That must be it. Mental illness. There's no (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, Badabing

                other explination for caring about your country instead of reducing the President to one half of a celebrity couple.

                "The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us beware" Mary Ellen Lease

                by JesseCW on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:42:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Please learn how to spell Cuckoo, bluefaction! Or (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Badabing

            are you talking about One Flew over The Cookie Monster's Head with Blue Dogs In Tow?  As far as cuckoos, you add that brand in this diary!

            •  i don't know how to spell the movie title (0+ / 0-)

              you caught me.  now i am discredited.  

              We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

              by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:58:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think I "caught you," but rather you (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis, Badabing

                snagged yourself.  Now get your bluefaction back into honest traction and good debate!   Learn to disagree without F-Bombs!

                •  without f bombs?! fuck that! ;P (0+ / 0-)

                  i used to be a minister.  i didn't swear until i was 24(unless you count that one time i repeated the word shit when i came inside from playing with the neighbor kids when i was about 4).  i am 37 now.  i figure that i have a good 4 or 5 more years of excessive cussin to make up for.  ;P

                  We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                  by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:25:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then tell me, you who were once a minister, (0+ / 0-)

                    where does the word Fuck come from?  Is it really an acronym?  If so what does it mean in its original context?  And, am I wasting time and energy with one who has been using the word for thirteen years?

                    •  well, mostly for 10 years (0+ / 0-)

                      with increased frequency after having watched a number of seasons of curb your enthusiasm on dvd one year.

                      but to the word fuck.  why would you ask me that question when we are both writing comments on the internet?  i can google the answer if i don't know.  right?  so, why are you asking that question?

                      for the record, from what i heard about fuck 18 years ago, the word was used as a placeholder for labeling crimes that were considered to foul to be explicitness named.  crimes like fucking a horse or your mother or your kid.  i don't know if it's correct information though.  i just heard it from some kid in seminary while we were walking around chatting about the history of interesting words.

                      i've always had a great love for the history of words, but i never really cared about the history of fuck.

                      on the other hand.  about 11 years ago when i went back to college for computer science and i was taking a math class i could not stand that i couldn't find anyone who knew what a co-efficient was.  they knew what it did, but nobody, up to the dean of the math department, actually knew what it was.  they just accepted what it did.  but having been someone who always needed to understand things i went on a search for the answer.  

                      i found it.  i told the math dean and he told me i was going to the wrong college if i wanted to actually understand what i was learning and he told me i should move to england and go to school there instead.

                      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                      by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:20:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, you're thirty-seven (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    yowsta, BlueDragon

                    and you quit being a minister sixteen years ago . . . when you were 21?  Good gods, man, did your church ordain babies?

                •  It's not the typos (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  yowsta, Badabing, cynndara, JesseCW, BlueDragon

                  We all do that. It's calling people "nuts" because they happen to not believe that denial is an effective way to deal with reality, and prefer to call out shit when they smell it.

                  The Santa Claus wing of the party is seriously in denial. Just Cheer Louder!

                  "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                  by kovie on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:35:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  kovie, you don't get it, do you? (0+ / 0-)

                    this entire diary is making the claim that everyone is self delusional about Obama.  YOU just claimed that everyone but you and the chosen few are in denial about Obama.  you can't get pissed at someone for saying that calling everyone else crazy means that you are crazy.  well, you can, but not justifiably.

                    We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

                    by bluefaction on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:06:33 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  It's not as hopeless as it may seem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing, cynndara

        If you want a progressive America then you've got to start building a progressive party and that's not what's been going on for the last four years. Let's be upfront about this now, electing Democrats is not the same thing as electing progressives. The right figured this out in the post-New Deal era. Nominating a Nelson Rockefeller or George Romney to do battle against a Lyndon Johnson wasn't a net gain for conservatives. It wasn't even better at the margins, for whatever small policy gains might be had at the edges were more than off-set by the ever leftward drift of the candidates and the narrative itself. That started to go in reverse with Jimmy Carter. From that point forward Democrats embraced an ascendant right-wing ideology.

        If you want a progressive Democratic Party it's doable, but is there a vision independent of the party? It's generally not difficult to take over a local Democratic Party, ward by ward, precinct by precinct, district by district. Politics at that level is retail. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. The Goldwater movement is a template to be studied, unfortunately, there probably aren't five people that post on Kos that know anything about how the right built their power structure, which was itself based on older progressive grassroots movements in the U.S. and abroad. The early left wing movements were tough, born out of labor strife or street level combat with right-wing thuggery. Today's left is soft as wet tissue paper.

        The problem isn't whining diary entries that simply tell the truth, it's the lack of any call to action or blueprint for success in those diaries. I personally question whether persons on the left are tough enough to achieve structural reform. They're too cowed by the party hierarchy, when Rahm Emanuel calls them a bunch of retards they go sit in a corner and cry. It's almost like they're waiting for permission to throw Rahm Emanuel from the ramparts and stomp the shit out of people like Ben Nelson. When Nelson Rockefeller wagged his finger at the belligerents at the 1964 GOP convention like the Right was some naughty, immature mob of children, they just tossed his ass off the ledge. And on the way down he mouthed the same platitudes we now here the apologists for the Democratic status quo mouth. It's about time we start tossing some people off the ledge, and don't worry, they're going to tell you what a mistake you're making just before they get splattered on the ground.

        •  <Grin> (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing, BlueDragon

          When you're ready to do some tossing and want little-old-lady-in-combat-boots backup, give me a call.

        •  i don't think (0+ / 0-)

          this is the problem:

          I personally question whether persons on the left are tough enough to achieve structural reform. They're too cowed by the party hierarchy, when Rahm Emanuel calls them a bunch of retards they go sit in a corner and cry.

          The problem is: there aren't enough leftists with any standing to have a dinner party.

          Those crying fools were never leftists: they were and are classic ineffectual liberals.

          When I was a kid: liberal was a dirty word on the left.  Decent people lost that argument when the right defined 'liberal' as left.  

          It was all over the moment they changed that word.

          Gaia is heartbroken.

          by BlueDragon on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:30:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You make an astute observation (0+ / 0-)

            Back in the day liberals were mocked, both in the U.S. and Europe as well-meaning, but ineffectual boobs. The right-wing caricature of the limo liberal has a basis in reality. When the left was most effective it was at its most militant, it wasn't willing to compromise, and it was largely a working class movement. Today liberal friends are what I'd describe as smart people who want to do good, so long as they can do well. Many of their progressive positions are in fact nothing more than libertarian positions on some social hot button issues--abortion, gay unions, drug decriminalization--without so much as an iota of concern on many of the economic issues.

            Over the years its become endemic to Daily Kos, a few years ago we had people openly questioning why anyone would want to primary Joe Lieberman since he was such a "good liberal", or why anyone is so hard on Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson because they're just representing their states, in this context representing their states is code for representing Wal-Mart or Mutual of Omaha. Their state or district becomes a synonym for the dominant corporate gangster in their backyard. I find it a truism that liberals are most comfortable with transactional policy making even as it yields nothing of value.

            Barack Obama is praised for getting a health care bill passed regardless of the substance of the bill or the means by which it was passed or the possible unintended negative consequences of it passing. An inadequate stimulus doesn't just fail to jump start the economy prolonging economic suffering, it discredits Keynesian spending in the future because it failed. Liberals are persons of the left, they're just not willing to operate outside the constraints of the current structure. Liberals don't talk about abolishing the filibuster, they generally want to retain it because to abolish it comes too close to breaking the status quo. They'd rather carry on with the unnecessary fiction of achieving some Democratic supermajority that will one day dole out all the legislation we need. Liberals don't want to talk about class warfare, or stoop to the level of the right because then we'd lose our self-imposed superiority complex. Little do these people seem to realize that the belligerence the GOP traffics in today was learned from the left years ago.

      •  And lots of us are sick of your crappy whiney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        diaries and comments.  Why don't you stay in the BWD diaries instead of jumping in here just to pee in the pool.

        Don't tax the rich, starve the poor.

        by dkmich on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:07:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  then don't read them <eom> (0+ / 0-)

        www.johnboehnerwheresmyjob.com

        by Renie57 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:43:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That will you get you where you want to be. (0+ / 0-)

        Go ahead and not care that you lose more votes.

        Wonderful election strategy. Brilliant!, even.

        More and Better Democrats

        by SJerseyIndy on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:29:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, DallasDoc is a great contributor (10+ / 1-)

      It's great to see you pay homage to the Doc...

      so perhaps you could start recommending the Doc's diaries...

      No rec here
      No rec here
      No rec here
      No rec here
      No rec here
      No rec here

      Well, you get the picture.

      Someone please get me out of this alternate reality...I can't take it any more!

      by Cinnamon Rollover on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:51:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  EXCELLENT DIARY!!! (24+ / 0-)

      I wish that I could rec it 100 times. I don't know if Obama is capitulating, if he's a turncoat or if he's a repug plant. I just want him gone, before he destroys the we see the Dems and we see the party go the way that the party party went after the Carter administration, that is to say out of power for over a decade.

    •  i saw this happen with a church once (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yuriwho, science nerd

      they went right off the deep end into their fantasy and nothing anyone could say to them could keep them from leaping.  the sad part was that they drug their families down with them.

      and i'm talking about you, Badabing and this fantasy you call a revelation.  

      keep an eye on how many tips and recs you get and realize that they are barely a tiny fraction of the number of people who are a part of this website and they are nothing compared to the tens of millions of democrats who are too busy working and living to come up with this kind of beautiful mind shit.

      good luck with the next few years, Badabing.  you are in for an interesting ride if you don't get off your bandwagon to the far side.

      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

      by bluefaction on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:20:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This was a really strange comment. (4+ / 0-)

        I'm not quite sure what to make of it. You talk about other people's fantasies, yet you fantasize yourself a prophet that warns Badabing of danger in her future? Or something? I don't get it, but I'm guessing that this is snark?

        •  i fantasize myself a prophet? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yuriwho

          um, i just know what happens to people who start to really believe the conspiracy theories.  and this entire diary is a instance of someone going right off the reservation.  reading this diary was like listening to that crazy lady who kept trying to sue for Obama's birth certificate.  

          We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

          by bluefaction on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:09:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Some good points in this diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, ruscle

      but it's about twice as long as it needs to be.  I encourage you to prune, edit, and put it up again.

    •  I would like to suggest a subtly different analys (14+ / 0-)

      I would like to suggest a subtly different analysis of who President Obama is, by pointing people to Thorstein Veblen’s 1898 classic, The Theory of the Leisure Class. It is not easy reading, but I firmly believe that Veblen offers much better insight into the nature and problems of class in modern industrial societies than does Marx. I present here excerpts from Chapter Nine: The Conservation of Archaic Traits

      But I strongly urge people who are seriously groping for understanding and solutions to the clear slef-immolation of our society to read the entire chapter, if not the entire book. Read slowly and carefully -- Veblen is "thought-dense" – quite unlike contemporary writers we are more familiar with.

      . . . modern economic institutions fall into two roughly distinct categories -- the pecuniary and the industrial. The like is true of employments. Under the former head are employments that have to do with ownership or acquisition; under the latter head, those that have to do with workmanship or production.

      . . . These two classes of employment differ materially in respect of the aptitudes required for each; and the training which they give similarly follows two divergent lines. The discipline of the pecuniary employments acts to conserve and to cultivate certain of the predatory aptitudes and the predatory animus. . . Under the modern, peaceable system, it is of course the peaceable range of predatory habits and aptitudes that is chiefly fostered by a life of acquisition. That is to say, the pecuniary employments give proficiency in the general line of practices comprised under fraud, rather than in those that belong under the more archaic method of forcible seizure. [Emphasis mine.]

      . . . . [Earlier, Veblen explained that] In the early barbarian, or predatory stage proper, the test of fitness was prowess, in the naive sense of the word. To gain entrance to the class, the candidate had to he gifted with clannishness, massiveness, ferocity, unscrupulousness, and tenacity of purpose. These were the qualities that counted toward the accumulation and continued tenure of wealth. The economic basis of the leisure class, then as later, was the possession of wealth; but the methods of accumulating wealth, and the gifts required for holding it, have changed in some degree since the early days of the predatory culture. In consequence of the selective process the dominant traits of the early barbarian leisure class were bold aggression, an alert sense of status, and a free resort to fraud. The members of the class held their place by tenure of prowess. In the later barbarian culture society attained settled methods of acquisition and possession under the quasi-peaceable regime of status. Simple aggression and unrestrained violence in great measure gave place to shrewd practice and chicanery, as the best approved method of accumulating wealth.

      Veblen then explains why and how the development of modern industrial societies required a weakening of the barbarian traits of ferocity, unscrupulousness, etc., in order to achieve an economic organization of complex interdependencies:

      . . . . The modern industry requires an impersonal, non-invidious interest in the work in hand. Without this the elaborate processes of industry would be impossible, and would, indeed, never have been conceived. This interest in work differentiates the workman from the criminal on the one hand, and from the captain of industry on the other. Since work must be done in order to the continued life of the community, there results a qualified selection favoring the spiritual aptitude for work, within a certain range of occupations.

      But in the United States, since the election of Ronald Reagan brought to power the ideas of Milton Friedman, the financial system has come to predominate the entire economy. (How financiers took over old-line industrial companies and looted them, including raiding the pension funds of workers, is covered by Donald Bartlett and James Steele in their important series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer back in 1992, which were published as the book America; What Went Wrong.

      This process of financialization went hand in glove with the process of de-industrialization: the financiers were making money – lots of it – by literally destroying in months, industrial companies that had taken years to build up. By the late 1980s, these financiers were being thought of as "captains of industry" even though they had no interest in actual industrial activity other than looting it. These were the great heroes of the new American economic landscape, which was actually slowly grinding down the working class. Hardly anyone was willing to admit it until the big crash of 2008, and even now people prefer to talk about how the middle class is under attack, rather than facing the truth that the American working class has already been destroyed: a male in his thirties without a college education is doing worse economically, today, than his father did back in the 1970s and 1980s.  

      These new heroes of America, these financial parasites, are the people who had the money to give to the think tanks, and the colleges, and the universities – and both political parties. Small wonder that the world view of these financial parasites came to dominate American intellectual institutions. It was the process by which Veblen’s pecuniary culture rose to dominance:

      . . . . These pecuniary employments, tending to conserve the predatory temperament, are the employments which have to do with ownership -- the immediate function of the leisure class proper -- and the subsidiary functions concerned with acquisition and accumulation. These cover the class of persons and that range of duties in the economic process which have to do with the ownership of enterprises engaged in competitive industry; especially those fundamental lines of economic management which are classed as financiering operations.

      . . . . Freedom from scruple, from sympathy, honesty and regard for life, may, within fairly wide limits, be said to further the success of the individual in the pecuniary culture. The highly successful men of all times have commonly been of this type; except those whose success has not been scored in terms of either wealth or power. It is only within narrow limits, and then only in a Pickwickian sense, that honesty is the best policy.

      . . . . The pecuniary struggle produces an underfed class, of large proportions. This underfeeding consists in a deficiency of the necessaries of life or of the necessaries of a decent expenditure. In either case the result is a closely enforced struggle for the means with which to meet the daily needs; whether it be the physical or the higher needs. The strain of self-assertion against odds takes up the whole energy of the individual; he bends his efforts to compass his own invidious ends alone, and becomes continually more narrowly self-seeking. The industrial traits in this way tend to obsolescence through disuse. Indirectly, therefore, by imposing a scheme of pecuniary decency and by withdrawing as much as may be of the means of life from the lower classes, the institution of a leisure class acts to conserve the pecuniary traits in the body of the population.

      Again, to fully understand that Barack Obama is simply a faithful example of the stage of America’s pecuniary culture we have now reached, you really need to dive in and read the entire chapter, if not the entire book.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:01:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  damn! Awesome. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Badabing

        Thank you.

        371/400- "this makes you extremely progressive" whatever that means.

        by cedar park on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:40:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Superb! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        See also Carrol Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, a History of the World in our Time, and his discussion of the difference between commercial capitalists and industrial capitalists (Veblen's pecuniary and industrial individuals as masters of their respective economic resources), and the tension between the two driving the onset of WWII.

      •  The BEST comment I have read in a long time! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        I really wish you had written diary based upon this comment so that it was not lost in the bulk of 800+ comments here.  I would definitely both tip and recommend it.  

        This particular excerpt briefly summarizes what has happened here in the United States.

        ..even now people prefer to talk about how the middle class is under attack, rather than facing the truth that the American working class has already been destroyed...

        It happened so easily. We were so blinded by the cheap overseas goods and cheap credit we had here that we did not even realize how badly our entire economy was being destroyed as it was happening.

        The question now begs...is there any way we can restore the balance or are we permanently doomed to third world status?

        The United States is not just losing its capacity to do great things. It's losing its soul.--Bob Herbert

        by gulfgal98 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:03:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  HR'd for wacko conspiracy theory and drivel n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

      by SoCalSal on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:57:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Democratic Party doesn't exist, therefore, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      it isn't in for the the fight of its life. It is doing exactly what it wants done.   Hedges piece argues that it is time to throw them under the bus - along with Obama.    Birchers are Republicans, Democrats are Republicans.  

      WE THE PEOPLE are in for the fight of our lives.  

      Don't tax the rich, starve the poor.

      by dkmich on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:06:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This specultation crossed over into CT (0+ / 0-)

      territory, and dances around the subject of using violence as a means of protest. Thought about it overnight just to make sure I wasn't having a kneejerk reaction. Notifying the admin.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. - Harry S. Truman

      by faster democrat kill kill on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 09:30:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Before I read, I must jump in and say... (44+ / 0-)

    ...Mutiny on the Bounty is a wonderful meme to introduce, Badabing!

    I just happened to see it again, with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson (before his DNA transformed him into an Orc) -- and I thought of our current troubles in America -- contained in that shipboard microcosm.

    Well, off to read. Carry on...

  •  To the ramparts, mon ami! (35+ / 0-)

    Either that, or strike!

    If we have a sit down, stay at home strike, it will be hard to find and excuse to crack our heads open.

    If the consumer economy just - stopped - for a week or two, I think the banksters / corpsters would be thinking that they might compromise.

    Worth a try?

    Either that, or get used to the chains...

    It's time for the pitchforks and torches! Guillotines are way too complicated.

    by No one gets out alive on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:02:40 PM PST

  •  Wait... Not sure I get the title. (14+ / 0-)

    Who are the players on this allegorical  Bounty?  Who's Bligh?  Who's Christian?

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:04:34 PM PST

  •  I am ping ponging (24+ / 0-)

    between the ineptitude and collusion myself and have been for some time now.

    The only possible defense is that he genuinely does not know what it is like to live hand to mouth other than in a highly abstracted way.

    Just because they give you a seat at the table doesn't mean that they want to feed you.

    by stevej on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:09:06 PM PST

    •  No more 'stupid cards' for him steve...we are all (17+ / 0-)

      done with that...ok?

      thanks...

      Not after the Cat Food Commission, and Alan Simpson slathering at the mouth for the wonderful 'Bloodbath to come in April, and how he is covering Obama's fanny'...

      Not after Obama is refusing to protect Social Security, the final safety net, and the Bush taxes cut, and the endless wars.. or even trying...........

      I mean really tryyyyyyyyyyyyyying to renegotiate NAFTA or really stand up for DADT...

      I'm friend, I'm as done as BP ruining the entire Gulf Region and getting away it.

      I'm fucking done.

      thanks..

      Ms. B.

    •  The Party is Compassionate Conservative (14+ / 0-)

      and Obama is definitely conservative. Never been a time he was anything but impatient and uncomfortable with the left.

      Remember a community organizer doesn't change the world, he just works to tweak the system he finds himself in.

      Even if the community he's organizing is the global superpower.

      But we never had a realistic chance for much more, it was mostly a matter of style and allies.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:17:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Goose, tell me what you think Obama's agenda is, (12+ / 0-)

        what is his vision, where does he stand in relation to the Middle Class, where does he stand in relation to the FRAUD TO COVER UP THE FRAUD, that is destroying the housing market, where does he stand as to our jobs being sold overseas, where does he stand for the ENDLESS WARS, that are draining us dry, where does he stand on:

        LEADERSHIP..

        Please, I welcome your thoughts on this debate, I really do.

        Ms. B.

        •  It's not really a debate, is it? (6+ / 0-)

          It's more of a done deal.

          See our holiday goodies in the Kool Kos Katalogue

          by 4Freedom on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama clear he wants "compromise" on tax cuts (16+ / 0-)

          Who is Obama representing ? Does he think the Dems in Congress aren't stinging from the election and want to continue to do what their constituents ELECTED them to do ? Apparently Obama doesn't really care who elected HIM !

          1. Tax cuts for the wealthy:

          http://politicalwire.com/...

          He doesn't care that borrowing for tax cuts for wealthy continues to blow a big hole in the budget. We are paying 50% of revenue to service the national debt, yet he wants to give in to the GOP and meet them halfway. These liars continue to go to the lowest common denominator to discredit him and he goes along with it.

          1. Military salaries are some of the best in the economy. Parents are convincing their children to go. In this economy, it's no wonder that middle class families, who can barely hang onto their house,  are sending their young men and women to hellholes in the Middle East to "defend their country." But it's a travesty no one told the kids they'd lose their lives to roadside bombs, be maimed for life, or witness horrors that will haunt them every night they sleep.

          What exactly are we doing to sustain this continued effort ? Bankrupting the economy ? Why are we there ? Propping up unstable governments so we can continue to beg others nearby for their crude?

          So we are trading in our children's future for debt and oil. Pathetic.

          1. If we spent a tenth of what we are spending on defense to universities and education, and lowering tuition costs, wouldn't we be more "competitive" and actually be producing more as a nation ?
          1. Our jobs continue to be exported to other countries because the US is letting them go. Corporations, who are spending millions on upper management, because it's "competitive" and the only way to "keep them," have convinced the public that they have to ship jobs overseas to be profitable,  lay them off or not give a living wage. What's wrong with limits on executive pay to a ratio to the least paid worker.  If they don't want to pay the taxes, then limit their pay. It's not like it would really cause them pain either way. What about tax incentives to keep US workers WORKING.

          All I can say is that this nation has its priorities all wrong, Obama is going along with a lot of it, continues to let himself get demonized without fighting back, and is letting down his "base" if you now even call it that, at the expense of this country's future.

          The lamb cannot lie down with the lion. Wake up Obama.

  •  Pretty good diary Ms. B... Been really fighting (15+ / 0-)

    this concept in my own mind now for quite a bit of time.

    Not there yet, but am on the edge.

    I often wonder if I was lucky enough to come in reaching distance of President Obama that I would slap him up the side of his head instead of reaching for a handshake.

    I have worked my ass off for this party...when do they work their ass for you & me.

    Speaker Boehner, Where are the jobs???

    by flatford39 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:15:11 PM PST

    •  Obama's economic team, his smear of FDR (9+ / 0-)

      Look at Obama's economic team. And look at who he appointed to the deficit commission (including the lovely Alan Simpson). It's clear whose counsel he seeks, and who he sees as his allies.

      Not only is Obama no FDR; he went so far as to parrot a right-wing smear of FDR:

      Many readers responded in shocked disbelief: The President can’t mean what he said. He must have misspoken — he can’t really be claiming that Roosevelt sat on his hands, deliberately letting the Depression get worse and worse…

      Whether our highly intellectual president picked up the idea by reading it or hearing somebody else say it, it was, and is, in the air. And you can be sure that his words will now be rattling around for years to come and likely cited as proof of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “irresponsibility.”

    •  Well, I would not slap him updside the head, you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flatford39, cynndara

      see, I was raised by a Byrd Col, in the USAF, who was the Commander for SAC, (they dropped the big ones), and my dad, always taught me, to respect the Commander in Chief, this is why I get upset with people that call President Obama 'Barry'...regardless of how I dissent with my President, I will respect him until the day I die.  I just do not agree with his methods, his policies or his lack of hands on Leadership.  I can and we all must, learn to separate those to different issues.  

      To be honest with you, the only two Presidents I did not respect, was George W. Bush, because of the way he was elected, and how he lied us into war, and systematically destroyed our economy and unions, the same way that Ronald Reagan did.  And I still have deep regrets about Bill Clinton, but then, I realized after Chimpy stole the election, how the Rules of Engagement had changed drastically.  

      If I ever met President Obama, I would ask him this one question:

      How could you have ever, brought the newest youngest two generations into our party, the new Democrats, who put you over the top, and then destroyed them?  How could you have done that.  I think this was the part of my heart, that I just will never be able to get over.  If that makes any sense to you, so be it.  The rest is history, and this is what we will pay for, in the next few generations.  I don't know if that makes sense to you or anyone else, but to me, I remember being that young person at one time in my life, and for that, I can never forgive him.  He stole something from our own party, that did not belong to him.  He stole the 'audacity of hope' in our own party for the next few generations, who are now filled with apathy, and will never again go to the polls for him, or perhaps any other Democrat for a long time to come...

      got that?  But regardless, of how I dissent, I refuse to not respect him, as the Commander in Chief, because I believe in that.  I know some people may find that hard to understand, but this is how I feel.  

      Thanks for you comment, and like all human beings, we all have deep, and complicated mixed emotions that we may not understand, but I do believe in sticking to some basic values.  I think one of the most basic elements we all share now, is that President Obama has refused, over and over again, to Lead, and show us where he stands:

      This is deeply confusing and deeply dividing us, and that is a failure of Leadership on his part.  He apparently has not learned a great valuable lesson of President Lincoln (who he apparently admired and quoted:)

         

      You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
             Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
             16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

      But now, by his own fault, he has finally come to that fork in the road, and he is not fooling anyone anymore.  President Clinton made the same mistake, moving to the right was just another way the Rethug savages are blackmailing our nation.  Swift boating is all they know, and when we found someone, Alan Grayson, who got that message, both parties destroyed him.  

      I'm tired of being destroyed.  I'm tired of the swift boating, I'm tired of not playing on a the new battle ground of what is become the scorch and burn politics and I'm tired of being burned by the money and greed.  I know what happened.  We all know what happened, but we have got to change our strategy and fight them on the same court, don't we?

      The Democrats keep playing on a intellectual field, and honestly asking Americans to think things out, when the Republicans have turned their Mad Men War Rooms into Hate, Fear, Cut throat Money Machines from Hell, to do whatever it takes to win.  

      I'm a woman, I do not believe in sports analogies, but this reminds me most of how the Yankees (had the most money in the whole fucking world to get the best team players against the Red Socks) and yes, I'm an old Boston girl, but when the big money wins, it always wins, and except the Red Socks had heart and soul.  That is why the won in the end, only I think, our heart and soul is being bled dry, because our Leaders, including President Obama really do not care about how our Middle Class is dying, and because of that, our nation is dying right before our eyes.  It makes me so sad.

      Thanks...did not mean this to be so long, forgive me..

      Ms. B.

      •  Dear sister (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        Don't get sad, get mad.  Sadness is only another kind of dying; it kills the soul and then the body follows after.  Remember that even if the most visible leader betrayed us (he was, after all, so annointed because he could mobilize Big Money, which is all we really needed to know about him), there are many others who are not Big Leaders only because they refuse to kowtow to the Powers That Be (and who finance campaigns). Yes, they took Grayson and Feingold's offices, but they didn't kill them (and they HAVE killed some, in the past) -- they're still with us.  So is Dennis Kucinich, bless his pointy ears, despite the way that "they" have marginalized him as a Vegan space-cadet.  And there are thousands of others whose names are known only to the small circles of their local parties or non-partisan organizations, who continue to struggle however and wherever they can.

        Mourn your illusions.  Enjoy your holiday with your family.  And then put on your queen-strength Big Girl Panty-Girdle, pick a battle, and fight.

        •  You made me feel like a million bucks...thanks (0+ / 0-)

          so so much cynndara....that means so much, and I really needed that !!!!

          And then put on your queen-strength Big Girl Panty-Girdle, pick a battle, and fight.

          You are a blessing to me, thanks so much!!

          Ms. B.

  •  When I saw Obama's cabinet choices. (29+ / 0-)

    I knew we were in for nothing but the status quo.  I've made my decision to run as a delegate for any credible Democrat that will primary Obama.

    Distrust of authority should be the first civic duty. - Norman Douglas

    by Fossil on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:16:35 PM PST

  •  Who's the Winning Democratic Base for 2012? (10+ / 0-)

    I don't see it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:18:07 PM PST

    •  I think we had better decide that soon... (17+ / 0-)

      and I would say, the only populist candidate that went after Wall St/the Banks from the get go was the only Democrat, that understood this:

      The rules of engagement changed a long time ago in our nation; when George W. Bush stole the election, and when the Supreme Court allowed that, and allowed more: Corporations as people:

      Alan Grayson....yeah, he ain't all pretty and smiley, but he sure as hell was destroyed by both parties.  The real question is why?

      Thanks...We need a huge populist sea change, and if we don't get that, then guess what?  We are going to get exactly what we deserve...

      Ms. B.

      •  Going all Santayana on us? (5+ / 0-)

        If we didn't catch the drift this time around, it will repeat on us?

        That would be intolerable, but then, so are the new TSA scanning machines and pat-downs. So are illegitimate wars, and drones, and Goldman Sachs bonuses.

        See our holiday goodies in the Kool Kos Katalogue

        by 4Freedom on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:39:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well given that the base has already decided (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          they won't vote for Obama, what incentive does he have to even push progressive policies.

          You guys already decided he's a corporate hack that intentionally wants to betray democratic policies and destroy America. You don't want to see him elected in 2012 and you're not willing to see what he's going to do in the next 2 years.

          So why should he give a damn what you have to say?

          •  We Democrats Aren't Worthy of Him (5+ / 0-)

            Surely the Republicans would welcome Him with open arms. After all, they welcome switching Democratic Representatives all the time. Even St. Ronnie used to be a Democrat.

            best,

            john

            I support socialized water

            by jabney on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:34:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just so long as he remembers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Major Tom

              that nobody who switches to the Republican party these days is elected in their primary, let alone to office.

            •  Democrats are not worthy of Obama? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jabney, blueoasis, Badabing, dreamghost

              The working people. The poor. The lower class. The uninsured. The Widowed, orphaned, retired (Social Security). The once-vast middle class that has not seen a real gain in standard of living for 30 years. Union members. Minorities of every type. GLBT community. People pleading for Immigration Reform.

              You're right.  All those people are not worthy of the great Obama. And who is?

              Apparently the wealthy and those who don't need Social Security to retire. So, like, um, .... the top 5% of the nation, plus the scared people who get herded along by the latest TV shysters, now on FAUX rather than Christian channels.

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:14:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Incentive? (7+ / 0-)

            9.6% unemployment, 25% of the population on food stamps, another quagmire in Afghanistan, 50 million or more still without health insurance, DADT still official policy, and he needs incentive from us to do something about any of those things? How cruel are you to be able to ask a question like that? You believe he is so small-minded that because we criticize him, he's just not going to anything about any of those things?

            He doesn't give a damn about what anybody progressive has to say, and never has.

            Unemployment: 9.5% Receiving food assistance: 25%

            by badger on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:53:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  PhillyJeff, please think about what you wrote. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Badabing

            Does it actually make sense to you?  We're supposed to continue to support a prez that has done none of what we believe needs to be done  because if we don't, he'll have no incentive to do anything for us in the future?  Our support in the past has not provided him an incentive to pay attention to our agenda;  why do you think it will change in the future?  And if it's not going to, what's the benefit of continuing to support him?

            I'm sorry, but the pure stupidity of your position is mind boggling.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:43:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, it doesn't make political sense. (0+ / 0-)

              Which is why it is meant as subtle critique
              of the political wisdom of sourcing a poll
              from the news service that always has our
              Presidents back in his evil quest for the global
              corporate agenda of a nautical colonial empire.

              •  The president has done NOTHING? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larsstephens

                Think of the mind-boggling stupidity of your post?

                He passed NO stimulus? It may not have been big enough, but that was NOTHING?

                He passed HCR. Maybe it didn't go as far as you wanted. But that was NOTHING? It had ZERO positive qualities?

                The president doesn't write laws. He can use the "bully pulpit," but when we compliment him on that diarists get attacked as White House propagandists. If you're pissed at the bills, blame the Senate.

                You have already decided not to support him. You say as much in your post. The diarist thinks he is actively attempting to destroy the Democratic party. So I'm assuming he's not going to vote for such an evil conspirator.

                Therefore you are not his base. You have already decided not to vote for him, and nothing he can do can change your mind. You believe his accomplishments are nothing, and he certainly can't get anything more progressive done with this House.

                So again, if you and the OP have already decided there is no chance you will vote for him in 2012, why should he pay attention to your agenda now?

                When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:02:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe if you calm down a little, you can post to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Badabing

                  the comment you're responding to.

                  Considering the political will and having both houses of Congress on his side, I would definitely consider what he's done in the last two years as nothing.  He could and should have gotten incredibly more accomplished.  He chose not to.  I'm not willing to settle for the tiny crumbs he tried throwing the way of the middle class.

                  No, I no longer do support him.  But I did.  I was one of those nearly in tears with happiness when he was elected.  I knew he wasn't going to be a progressive, but I did think he understood and stood for the poor and middle classes.  He doesn't.  I was his base.  I no longer am.  And that's the case of a good part of his base.

                  Please explain to me why I should think that by continuing to support him, he'd finally start paying attention to my agenda?  You seem to be ignoring that point.  He hasn't paid attention in the past; how will my continued support make him start?

                  The fact is, he's provided no incentive to me to continue to support him.  It's a two way street.  He pays attention to my agenda; I support him.  He ignores my agenda, he loses my support.  But somehow you seem to thing that if he pays attention to my agenda, I should support him and if he ignores my agenda, I should support him.  That makes no sense, and you're so emotional, you can't seem to understand that.

                  Bottom line is, I and other progressives owe him nothing; he does owe us something.  Without our support, he wouldn't be where he is.  And I doubt he's going to stay where he is without our support either.

                  It's taken me two long years to accept my disappointment and actually say I no longer support him.  But he's just a man.  A man to whom I owe nothing.  If there's a viable candidate who more heartily supports my agenda, I'll enthusiastically support him or her over Obama.  If you want to support a person, one person, over an agenda, you go for it.  But I'm not going to.

                  "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                  by gustynpip on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:02:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, I might VOTE for him (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Badabing

                  Votes are cheap.  Votes are NOTHING AT ALL, honey, which is why I don't mind wasting one for the lesser of two slime-buckets.

                  What I won't do is stir one foot outside my door to encourage anyone else to vote for him. What I won't do is open my wallet and contribute to that miracle of small-dollar individual contributions that first got him going.  What I won't do is tell anybody how great he is, although I WILL openly laugh at people in my workplace who call him the Antichrist, or a Muslim, or even a Socialist.

                  What I won't do is listen to or read his so-inspiring speeches, or allow my emotions to upwell in hope, belief, or inspiration at his ability to read the words written by competent speech-writers without drooling. "Trust No-one", "Believe Nothing", and "Show Me" are unfortunately the only sane watchwords in a society founded on the reward of deceit.
                   

                  •  So basically you aren't voting for him (0+ / 0-)

                    So by definition you either prefer Palin in 2012 or you don't care.

                    So again, why should Obama try to attract your vote. You've already decided you're not voting for him because he "disappointed you," despite being the most progressive president in the last 40 year.

                    Enjoy president Palin. You'd rather see her elected over Obama because he was mean to you, and that's your right.

                    But Obama doesn't owe you anything. He's worked very hard and accomplished more than Carter and Clinton put together in 2 years. For that he's been called a Nazi Kenyan tribesman, his wife was called a whore, and his kids were called Ghetto Trash. And from the left he's a spineless weakling disappointing wall street hack who hates America.

                    Obama doesn't owe you anything. But if you don't want to vote in 2012, and if you're willing to contribute to a Palin presidency, then you owe the rest of the country a hell of a lot.

                    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                    by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:00:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, Jeff, I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

                  I was snarking on this
                  diarists mutinous bounty.

      •  Badabing - Dem 2012 primary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, Badabing, Larsstephens

        First, someone would need to raise about $50 million just to be a real candidate and $200 million total just to have a chance. Obama has unlimited fund raising ability. It's not going to happen.

        Regarding Alan Grayson I think the analysis is easy. He painted a big target on his back and said to corporate American "I double dare you to try and take me out". And they did.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:24:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, both parties took him out, but that does not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, nymosyn, parallaxblue

          mean we cannot threaten President Obama within in inch of his ass, to staight'in up and fly right, does it?

          We better think about dragging him screaming and crawling back to his base, because he ain't even
          'lookin over here' to who elected him, is he?

          I honestly do not even know if it is too late for that, but I'm sure not willing to go silently into that black abyss...are you?

          Thanks..

          Ms. B.

          •  Ms B - Obama feels secure (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, gustynpip, Badabing

            I think the President does not think any Dem can challenge him and if they try he can stomp them. He just has the ability to raise so much money that it makes the President very hard to challenge.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:57:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You may be right. (6+ / 0-)

              And that is not a great thing for our nation.

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:15:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why is your retort "we're not worthy" (0+ / 0-)

                You've already decided that not only are his policies bad, but he is intentionally instituting bad policies. It's not just that he "doesn't know what he's doing."

                You're insinuating that he wants the right to take power, that he doesn't want democratic principles to take hold, and you're pretty close to insinuating that he wants America to fail.

                Other people in other diaries have explicitly stated that they believe that Obama is intentionally destroying America, and they get rec after rec.

                So given that he is such a terrible leader and evil character, I would assume that you would never vote for him in 2012 no matter what he does. If he sucks as a leader and doesn't care about the people, it's better that ANYONE but him win in the primary regardless of whether they can win in 2012.

                And therefore, since since progressives on this site have decided he's a spineless weakling coward with "no balls" who isn't a real leader, is beholden to corporate interests, and isn't a real Democrat, then why should he listen to anything you say.

                You're not his base. You won't vote for him. You dislike him personally and attack him personally. Just as it makes no sense for him to court the hardcore racist tea party vote, it makes no sense for him to court your vote either.

                So you are free to vote Kucinich or Nader or whoever you want in 2012. However, when President Huckabee or President Palin is elected, please accept responsibility and admit that you were ok with that eventuality and any repercussions to America because of it.

                •  Not sure what you are talking about in your (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Badabing

                  verbose response to my short statement.

                  "we're not worthy" ?  in my statement directly above this one, as in "Parent"?  Where are you coming from dude?  You've made a heck of a lot of assumptions about me and put a lot of words in my mouth here.

                  In case you haven't noticed, Dems lost the Independent (i.e. center) vote in the mid-terms.

                  Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                  by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:26:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  There is a positive (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Badabing

                  in some negatives.  GW Bush's incompetence woke more people to the ongoing destruction of the nation and the world than any leader in the last thirty years.  So while I wouldn't raise finger to HELP Palin or Huckabee . . . well, there could be an  upside to their election.  For one thing, the Tea Partiers could discover that they didn't really want what they thought they did.  Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.  What sucks is, sometimes it has to get a hell of a lot worse.

          •  Threaten, like, as with a bullwhip. eh? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Grayson lost because of his idiotic (0+ / 0-)

          "Taliban Dan" ad. He finally went too far with his bluster and hyperbole and it got the best of him.

          It's really easy to blame everything on everyone else, but he did a lot of that to himself.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 02:04:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's just working for a 7 figure salary (7+ / 0-)

    from Goldman Sachs after he's finished as Prez.  Snark?

    Actually I think he's got the DNA of a Hamlet - it's in him to dither and fritter.  It's not diabolical.  He can be no greater than the Hamlet personality that limits him.    

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

    by deepsouthdoug on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:23:40 PM PST

    •  He strikes me more as Macchiavelli's (6+ / 0-)

      assistant. I would love to know who the Macchiavelli is, though. Hamlet couldn't make his mind up, but Obama has clearly been auditioning for this role since Harvard.

    •  He could've had such a salary long ago, but becam (6+ / 0-)

      community organizer instead.  Can the average Kossack say they have done anything as noble?  Didn't think so.

      •  seen (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Badabing, nippersdad

        this yet?

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:06:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  New Yorker: Obama "accomplished very little" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Badabing, nippersdad, angel d

        From the New Yorker:

        Obama spent three years in the city, from 1985, after he graduated from Columbia University, to the end of the Washington era. As a community organizer, he tried to turn a partnership of churches into a political force on the South Side. But the work accomplished very little…

        “When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,” Obama told me last year…

        "When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place."

        Obama was hardly a standout community organizer. Lots of people did similar volunteer work after college, and many people continue throughout their life. I volunteered at a homeless shelter, helped run a drop-in center that provided free clothes to the community, collected food for the local food bank, participated in various social justice and environmental campaigns, registered voters, knocked on doors to GOTV, helped compile a local resource guide for homeless and poor people, etc etc. None of this is particular noble; it's just doing your civic duty.

        •  Lol so now you're going to back to 1985 (0+ / 0-)

          to prove he's a failure. He passes up millions as a high powered lawyer to help the community, and you attack him for not being effective enough.

          Where is it going to end? Honestly? Is there anything the man can do that you support? Has he done ONE FUCKING SINGLE POSITIVE THING in his life?

          Why not just go back all the way to Hawaii and ask for his birth certificate. You're damn close already.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:02:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think he's following in Clinton's footsteps (7+ / 0-)

      however, given how much more the private jet crowd owes him than they ever owed Clinton, I think the Obama Foundation will ultimately get Obama his own private jet and its endowment will be measured in billions.

      The good news is that none of us (except anyone around here who owns a private jet) are going to be asked to donate to the Obama Foundation any more than we were asked to donate to Clinton's.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:05:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does Clinton have his own jet? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        Does Clinton fly commercial at all or does he fly something like Net-Jets? Clinton has made more than $100 million since he left office so he could afford a plane. However, most people at that level share a plane or have a service like Net-Jets. To me that is when someone is actually rich - when they stop flying commercial airplanes. It cost about 20 times the cost of first class. That's a big premium for convenience, service and saving time and hassle.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:20:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blah blah blah (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          magurakurin, dmh44, Larsstephens

          Who exactly is your progressive fantasy candidate who is dirt poor but can manage to get elected in a national campaign. Why not push for Alvin Greene then?

          Obama has done more for America and for underprivileged Americans than any of us ever will. It's about time he gets some fucking respect as our Democratic president.

          The personal attacks against Obama on this site are getting out of control. Why not just call him and Michelle pimps and ho's, or call him a Nazi Kenyan Witch doctor while you're at it.

          •  Philly Jeff - Obama? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Badabing

            I was just writing about what kind of private jet does Bill Clinton have. I didn't even mention  President Obama. Why the rant for me?

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:38:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sry meant to reply to original commenter (0+ / 0-)

              Must have misclicked.

              It's just incredibly frustrating for a guy who turned down high paying corporate jobs to be a community organizer, and ultimately took the most thankless job in the history of the world (the American presidency). Now he's getting attacked for being a corporate sellout.

              If he wanted money, he'd be making a hell of a lot more than 7 figures these days. He cares about people, and he cares about America.

              Maybe he's misguided in his policies. Maybe he's not doing the right things. But it's insane and frankly disrespectful to the man to imply that he's just in it for the money and doesn't care about people.

              •  Jeff - Obama's income (5+ / 0-)

                There is no doubt with his Harvard Law School pedigree that the President could have been making serious money from the time he left Harvard. However, it has been his foray into politics that has led him to a path of gold. His books, where he has made his only real money to date, would not have interested many if he was not on the national political stage. Post his Presidency he can make the same kind of money as both Gore and Clinton, each have made more than $100 million since leaving office, although they have used very different strategies.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:45:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Source? (0+ / 0-)

                  The only article I've seen on Clinton – from 2007 – has him making $40 million in speaking fees, including $650,000 from Goldman Sachs for four speeches. Not pocket change by any stretch of the imagination, but I was wondering if you have a more up-to-date source for the $100 million figure.

                  •  from an article on the Clinton Foundation (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Badabing, nippersdad

                    guidestar - clinton foundation donors

                    So who’s on the list? Well, foreign governments continue to be big donors. The list includes Norway, which has given between $10 million and $25 million over the past several years, and Oman, whose donations have totaled between $1 million and $5 million. But some foreign governments that had been multi-million-dollar donors in the past, including Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar, did not give in 2009.

                    Among the top donors is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave more than $25 million. (You can also see the Gates Foundation’s report on GuideStar.)

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:16:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't have a source for Bill C. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    alizard, Badabing

                    I have read in several places that he had earned $110 million since leaving office. The articles seemed to lay out enough data that it seemed reasonable. Wish I had a direct source, but I don't. Gore has made most of his money through option grants at Apple and Google where he serves on their board of directors. Those numbers have been developed using the SEC documents from those two companies.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 06:39:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  So when he was community organizing (0+ / 0-)

                  he knew he was going to be president? It's all a plot from the beginning to get into politics, then the senate and become the first black president?

                  The guy 2 things up is already calling him a failure of a community organizer.

                  How long is it going to be before daily kos starts saying that his mom knew it back in Hawaii which is why she forged his birth certificate.

                  Honestly this shit has to stop.

                  When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                  by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:04:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  from what I've heard (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, Badabing, nippersdad

          Clinton usually borrows corporate jets to get around in. And I completely agree with you that not having to fly commercial is one of the ways to define rich, though really rich means owning one's own private jet, not renting timeshares or buying a fraction of a plane.

          My point is that Obama has done vastly more for various corporate interests than Clinton did. Clinton never delivered the entire US population to the health insurance industry as enforced customers, for instance. He never had the chance to deliver a massive bailout to Wall Street of which TARP is only a small part. I'm not blaming Clinton, times were different.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:24:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  My vote is for eco-terrorism (9+ / 0-)

    I love the story of the 'Green Banksy': one still unknown person who managed to shut down the UK's biggest and most heavily defended coal-fired power plant and singlehandedly reduced Britain's CO2 emissions by 2% for the duration. 49 more and they could have done the whole thing.

    Seriously, though, if the system is so hopelessly corrupted that working with it is not longer an option for making change, then we'd be fools not to consider alternatives ... and the clock is ticking.

    •  It is way past the bit tick tock, it is wayyyy (6+ / 0-)

      past that point.

      thanks, good comment.

      Ms. B.

      •  2 degrees C of warming already inevitable (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, Badabing, Losty, parallaxblue

        But without putting an end to all burning of fossil fuels (not to mention eliminating all livestock, stopping all cement production, etc.), we're looking at 6 degrees of warming by 2100, and that would be more than enough to turn Antarctica into prime real estate ... assuming anything could survive 6 months of darkness every winter.

        •  The only real solution (0+ / 0-)

          is to reduce the human population by at least 50%.  The problem is that there are just too damned many of us; we're straining the resources of our biological niche, even if it's the entire world.

          And that's why no one is willing to seriously talk about serious solutions . . . because killing 4.5 BILLION people is a non-starter for everyone.  And nothing else will do the job . . . so we're waiting for Mother Nature to do it for us, and hoping that it happens soon enough that whoever's left will survive.

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      shut down the UK's biggest and most heavily defended coal-fired power plant and singlehandedly reduced Britain's CO2 emissions by 2% for the duration. 49 more and they could have done the whole thing.

      That assumes that the entirety of Britain's CO2 emissions were produced by fifty power plants.

      Stopping all CO2 emissions would also require that they shut down every automobile, every gas-fired stove, every motor, every smaller coal power plant.

      What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

      by mistersite on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:34:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and my point is lost ... done for tonight n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis
        •  What does eco-terrorism accomplish? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          How does temporarily stopping one power plant stop global warming? All it does is cause damage, piss people off, and give ammunition to people on the right that want to shut us down. It's insanely counterproductive and accomplishes nothing long-term that will make any impact.

          If you are that committed, go fight for climate change legislation, work at a green energy company, or go around convincing your neighbors to take common sense measures to green their homes.

          •  Piffles. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Badabing

            talk about drops of water in an ocean.

            If you're serious about global warming, figure out how to simultaneously spread a good, stiff version of H5N1 around the subways in Manhattan, Shanghai, Tokyo, Bombay, and London.  Remember, we need a total of 50% mortality, but secondary deaths from shutdown of critical services will do just as well as anything.

            Or find a nice little xenoestrogen that will silently sterilize 90% of all women, and drop it in the water supplies of every major city on the globe.  We have things out there that are reducing fertility, but not by nearly enough.

            Climate change leglislation will never be strong enough and will always be far too late to do more than minimal good.  Green energy and conservation are nice and feelgood, but ultimately all they do -- like the Green Revolution before them -- is to increase the numbers of humans running around consuming food and crapping into the biosphere.

            We need to reduce the numbers of humans. Period.

            •  What looking glass did we go through here?! (0+ / 0-)

              What is this place?  This thread makes me feel physically ill.  Imagine such vile suggestions on Dkos! I would have never thought.

              •  Truth can be uncomfortable (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Badabing

                When you can stare at it without losing your stomach, you might be strong enough to start doing something about it.

                Nine BILLION humans on this planet.  That, not the specific means of energy use or agriculture or toxic waste, is the cause of ecocide.  We have lost the luxury of continuing to blindly feed our instincts to live long and multiply.

  •  Glad you highlighted the Hedges article. I (18+ / 0-)

    agree that real reform won't come through established mechanisms of power, such as the electoral system, which makes me believe any primary challenger to Obama is fruitless.  The system is gone so any challenger isn't going to be any different.  Resistance is the only way man, we know that.    

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:28:47 PM PST

    •  Isn't that an amazing article Big Al? (6+ / 0-)

      btw, email me at zapho@live.com, and I'll email you back ok?

      I've been having trouble lately with my email.  I'm snowed in up here in Amboy..LOL

      Best to you Al.

    •  Al, I agree that a progressive challenger (5+ / 0-)

      could not possibly raise sufficient capital to mount a winning campaign, but with enough grass roots support and some substantial funding, s/he could serve to sow the seeds of education among a populace dumbed down by Fox and the Fox Lites.

      A primary challenge to Obama, WILL receive a lot of coverage from the press, even if the goal of that coverage is to mock the challenger. A genuine progressive needs to seize the national microphone.  A serious primary challenge will deliver that opportunity.

      Change must come from the bottom up, but, in order to enlist the people in the struggle to take back their government, they must first understand what has been, and is, happening.

      BWD, please come back! Your fans are wreaking havoc on the wreck list!

      by WisePiper on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:45:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you kidding me? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arendt

        Jane Hamsher is way ahead of you fools.  The Koch Brothers will be more than happy to fund a progressive to primary Obama, and you true believing morons will be none the wiser.

        Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

        by fou on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:59:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have seen this discovery several times (17+ / 0-)

    in the weeks since the election.  Reposting a paragraph:  

    in 2008, Dan Maffei whomped the repub, 141,000 to 101,000. this year it is a 500 vote loss . 40,000 went missing. What the hell? A celebrity candidate gets people out, then they go to back to sleep?  

    Who worked like a dog to get good things done and then gets trashed for it?

    Disgusting. We had 8 years of the crook, Bush stealing one election and then the idiot vote gave him a pass to keep on keeping on.  2004 was as bad as....well it was a bit worse than November 2, 2010 but really....60% of American voters just didn't bother.

    Maybe this country is past the point of saving.

          Time for other places, nations, ideas, philosophies  to step up. The complacency and indifference all over America is beyond fixing.

    Apathy is too gentle and inappropriate for a synonym for despair for that is what it was for what is happening to us.

    I am tired of excuses, of seeing good people cut down or screwed every day.

    The people needing help, stuff turned in their favor are about to be kicked by the CatFood commission, a whitewash of bank thefts of peoples homes to preserve the crippling debts...(50% of ALL mortgages may be underwater within a few more years, it is pushing 20% now).

    we need a revolution. Not it would be nice if this or that happened, or a reform or two comes about....
    No!  We need a 2nd American revolution, because we are about to go from 1st world status to Third world status in a hurry and immense angst and suffering will then be permanent. just look at jobs leaving and jobs permanently cut and the adjustment to doing business elsewhere as we are a" maturing, and less and less capable country". Our business people at the top are turning their backs on America in favor of a globalization. They are in favor of funds in the mideast, Chinese and other Asian billionaires and want to see America's workers shoved aside.

          Saving 1/2 of GM was a ploy to keep Dems believing in the system.  1/2 of jobs went away and the workers fired or cut loose to search for nonexistent jobs.  nice way with two tier wage groups and massive cuts to kill the initiative. who will trust the dems now? what fool will that be?

    when the DOJ left the corruption alone, when Wall Street has not had any prosecutions since plea deal with Angelo Mazillo  and now 2 and 3 out of the Madoff network, you know there is no appetite for taking down fraud.  the DOJ is as corrupt as the Supreme Court is a puppet for the corporate oligarchs. Commerce clause trumps every people clause.

      This is how America dies, with a whimper and an empty speech full of generalizations and soothing nothings, not a bang or thunder.

    cast away illusions, prepare for struggle

    by Pete Rock on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:29:29 PM PST

  •  "let me be clear ..." (7+ / 0-)

    Someone is going to take up the populist cause. Chances are they will be from cloud coo coo Christian right. We need a national populist figure on the left as well.
    So - primary challenge starts but ... who?

    That's the only real question for a site promoting more and better Democrats.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:57 PM PST

    •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      Dennis Kucinich has been doing it every election for the last two decades.  Why not give the job to someone with experience and stellar left-wing credentials?

      •  Couldn't get any traction ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... but I'd back him - and vote for Obama in the general.

        Think there has to be a new face and have no ideas on this. As long as the left of center agrees to close ranks after the convention I think it's a good idea.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:25:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree (8+ / 0-)

    with respect to the idea that the corporate machine that had at least as much to do with electing President Obama as we did has abandoned him.

    I think their attacks on him are at least in part intended to give him political cover in the "if Wall Street is mad at him, how can he be a bad guy?" sense.

    However, I believe that Wall Street's real opinion of Obama will show up after he leaves the White House, just as was the case with Bill Clinton.

    The Clinton Foundation has lots of money. Ever seen that foundation hit up the "little people" for money?

    I expect the Obama Foundation to be much better funded than the Clinton Foundation, and many of the banksters who vilify him publicly today will be giving it multi-million dollar donations.

    I expect this because, if they do not, what's going to happen when the next corporate CEO tries to sell a deal to a head of state of any nation that's obviously bad for the nation?

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:51:29 PM PST

    •  Money talks . . . (0+ / 0-)

      and in the past election cycle by almost a 5 to 1 margin Wall Street interest groups and hedge funds effectively said they preferred the GOP.

      Not really clear to me how this was "cover" given that the people that they rewarded voted against an already weak Financial Reform bill and are pushing even harder to undermine the few measures that are in the bill.  They are also pushing hard as hell to keep the "carried interest" rule in place and working in quite a few ways to weaken the current legislation.  

      Power players on Wall Street clearly do see a difference between the two political parties.  In 2008 they tilted towards the Democratic party, but not by an absurd margin considering that the Dems were slated to control about 60 seats in the Senate, the White House, and almost 60 percent of the House.  To some extent the biggest bundlers always try to hedge their bets.  But in 2010 they didn't.  The skewed donor margins in this past election cycle speak volumes about who they trust the most to carry out their agenda.  Even Obama's fairly tepid measures to reign in the excess of the financial sector are too much for them.

  •  At least Bush delivered for his base... (10+ / 0-)

    ...there is lots and lots to complain about with W, but he did deliver for his base.

    -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

    by Blueslide on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:52:44 PM PST

    •  depends on how you define "his base" (8+ / 0-)

      If you're arguing that he made the private jet crowd richer, I agree completely.

      If you're arguing that he made the party rank-and-file happy... I recommend discussing this with a teabagger who's noticed that abortion isn't completely illegal and that all "people of color" whether US citizens or not haven't been deported yet.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:10:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama delivered (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi, Sam I Am, Larsstephens, hardart

      preventing a depression, for the entire country
      health care for 32 million
      tax cuts for 95% of the country
      financial reform
      etc

      •  Mil, don't you realize (6+ / 0-)

        Obama hasn't accomplished a single thing in his entire 2 years. Everything he's done has made the country worse. That is the going narrative here.

        And I could care less about the teabaggers collective opinions.

        Obama is the president, and the president signs legislation. I don't recall him vetoing any progressive legislation passed by the House and Senate.

        So if you have a problem with the legislative accomplishments in the last 2 years, take it up with the Senate which did a great job of killing and/or watering down progressive legislation.

        NOT . . . EVERYTHING . . . IS . . . OBAMA'S . . . FAULT.

        •  Failure to lead (8+ / 0-)

          Obama should have given marching orders to the senate, and used his gift for speechifying to bring the public along behind them. Instead he played a timid game of leaving the stage to his elders. He is directly and completely responsible for the failure of the health care plan to be progressive, and will be responsible if the Republicans now dismantle it through blackmail based on their capability to shut down government funding for just about everything - a power they have only because he demoralized his voting base. Obama is directly responsible for failure to push through climate change legislation, and to make the moral case to the people for it. It's an emergency. It's worse than New Orleans. It's worse than My Pet Goat. He fiddles while the world awaits its drowning.

          And even if you disagree with me on those, he's directly responsible for not pursuing war crimes trials against Cheney and co., for not pursuing financial crimes trials against Goldball Sacks, and for not closing Gitmo. That makes Obama himself complicit in condoning war crimes, financial crimes, and serious violation of the Constitution. As a Constitutional lawyer, he knows what he's done.

      •  Who did 'Obama save' tell me that ok? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, cynndara, Blueslide, angel d

        A few weeks ago, during a blizzard that deposited several feet of snow on Washington, I met Geithner in his office. Dressed casually in bluejeans and snow boots, he seemed to have largely given up hope of convincing the public that the financial-rescue plan was well calibrated, but he insisted that it had been necessary. "My basic view is that we did a pretty successful job of putting out a severe financial crisis and avoiding a Great Depression or Great Deflation type of thing," he said. "We saved the economy, but we kind of lost the public country doing it."

        Read more http://www.newyorker.com/...

        Wake up and smell the coffee ok?  They did not save anyone but the Banks and Wall Street, who are still looting us, and getting away with Foreclosure Madness, as millions are being illegally thrown out their homes..

        what part of that don't you get?

        who got paid off for totally wrecking our economy...are you worried about losing your home or job?

        Why?

        Go it yet?

        Thanks..

        Ms. B.

        •  Wow, you are clueless. (0+ / 0-)

          Why are you citing an article that supports my argument, and explains why you're wrong?

          Did you even read the subtitl?  "Timothy Geithner’s financial plan is working—and making him very unpopular."

          Or the paragraph that you quoted above, which says basically the same thing?

          Let me explain what that means. The article says the Obama administration saved the country from a depression, but that the steps that were necessary to do that were unpopular, largely because people like you didn't understand why the plan was necessary or what would have happened if it hadn't been implemented.

          So: who did Obama save? Us. All of us. From an economic catastrophe far worse than the country has experienced the past couple years.

          Try to read the New Yorker article again, a little more carefully. You might actually learn something.

          •  Badabing doesn't let facts get in the way of (0+ / 0-)

            his conspiracy theories. He and Jesse Venture are going to blow the lid off of this "Obama is a Manchurian Candidate out to destroy America from within" conspiracy . . . this week on Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura!

            Remember to tune in next week when Badabing shows how Obama was behind the JFK assassination. Obama was born in '61, JFK was assassinated in '63. Coincidence? I think not!

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:09:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I wish I knew what I think. (6+ / 0-)

    I understand your passion. I agree we need a populist leader. I so agree. Ordinarily your diary would have me fired up. I am just not there emotionally.

    I keep quoting Shakespeare aloud to myself at odd moments during the day, "I am amazed and know not what to say." The dog looks concerned.

    We need to do something different. Which means I need to do something different. I am just not sure what different looks like.

    I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

    by CherryTheTart on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:57:23 PM PST

  •  A masterpiece! (18+ / 1-)

    "The final destruction of the Democratic Party" - wow, just wow wow wow.  Danger Will Robinson, danger!

    But seriously, this is your masterpiece.  I think it is the most absurd piece of bullshit written by a supposed Democrat, that I have ever read here...

    and so it's your masterpiece, and should rocket to the top of the big board in less than two hours.

    I suggest you also post it at Red State - then you can have a top diary at both places at the same time.

  •  What do you mean 'we', kemo sabe? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, bnasley, Badabing

    Some of us have said this for quite awhile. Better late then never for you, I guess.

  •  Either the people take matters into (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, boofdah, Badabing, parallaxblue

    their own hands soon, or we have a completely fascist state run by the likes of Sarah Palin.

    •  look! a shiny object! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      badger, Badabing

      let me place all of my attention on the shiny object!

      •  Here's a pretty pony pk, with your initials (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom

        engraved on it in Gold Lame, courtesy of Ben Benanake who has all the money in all the world, because he had all the printing presses, in all the world, and gets to take 6 percent interest off the top, and devalue the dollar daily, so that now our groceries are going to go through the roof (again) and hopefully no one will notice, lest of all your new shiny Bernanke Pony.....

        (I hope you name him Benny Boy) after Bernanke, and I'm sending you a really special combination fake Unicorn and Diamond Tiara for your new shinny pony..

        I know you will appreciate this, because you are such a wonderful Democrat, and here is some new Cherry Kool Aid to drink, brought to you by, all the 'true believers'...

        You pal,

        Ms. B.

    •  It will be more subtle than that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      Like, say, a fascist state run by Obama... or Mitt or (fill in the blank).  

  •  This diary is why Democrats never hold onto power (28+ / 0-)

    The freaking INSTANT we get control of all 3 branches of government, be it Clinton, Obama, etc, our first instinct is to attack our party for not being pure enough, threaten not to vote, don't vote, and then complain that the Republicans won . . . again.

    It happened in 2000 when a lot of Dems decided Gore = Bush and we might as well vote for Nader. And it's happening again and will happen in 2012 when Dems decide Obama sucks, we should primary him, and Palin or Huckabee or Christie wins in 2012.

    Obama has accomplished more than any Dem. president since LBJ, and you can argue that LBJ's legacy of escalating Vietnam takes a lot of the luster away from getting the Civil Rights Act passed (which was a huge accomplishment, don't get me wrong.)

    Obama also was able to win in 2008, and bring a lot of Dems along on his coattails. Gore couldn't do it. Kerry couldn't do it. Dean (despite how much we love him) couldn't even get the nomination.

    So it's been pissing me off to no end to see Dems not only attack his policies, but insinuate that somehow he WANTS America to fail. That somehow Obama is singularly evil and singularly a failure.

    Our last Dem president CHAMPIONED NAFTA and DADT. You really think that Hillary would have ran to the left of Dennis Kucinich? I mean get a grip on reality people.

    If you want to push for a primary, fine. When we get a Republican president in 2012, I don't want to have to fucking listen to you whine and complain that it's Obama's fault. I don't need to hear any gloating diaries (Cenk anyone?) gleefully cheering that their nonstop Obama bashing was vindicated. If you want to make you bed, go ahead. Have fun lying in it.

    •  BS (22+ / 0-)
      Obama lost his supporters (including myself) for good reasons.  He is not the same person who was running fr president in 2008.  He is as controlled by special interests as any republican president in history.
      •  WTF WTF WTF Where is Admiral Adama?!?!?! (6+ / 0-)

        There are way too many Cylons around here...

        "He is as controlled by special interests as any republican president in history."

        Someone please get me out of this alternate reality...I can't take it anymore!

        •  34 million captive customers (20+ / 0-)

          no price controls

          Afghanistan extended to 2014 at a cost of ~450 billion at least

          no unemployment extension

          no jobs commission

          hand-picked budget commission openly talking about austerity

          what part of this do you not get?

          •  Honestly, who did you want to win in 2008? (3+ / 0-)

            Hillary? You think Hillary wasn't controlled by special interests? Really? Obama is and was the most progressive president we possibly could have right now. Maybe it sucks, but it's reality.

            HCR was not everything we wanted. You know what else wasn't when it was passed? Social Security? How'd that work out? If you're angry about HCR blame the Senate. Obama doesn't write legislation.

            The unemployment extension is congress's fault, and a "jobs commission" wouldn't do anything anyway since congress won't pass anything anyway.

            The SS commission I admit issued stupid findings, but fortunately they're non-binding and have zero weight at all. Everyone disagrees with them, and they're not going to be implemented.

            Afghanistan is a fucking mess, which Obama was handed to him when he took office. 2014 is a lot earlier than President McCain would have exited.

            So my point is fine, you hate Obama's policies. You disregard everything positive he's done. Your post, like most on this site, focuses 100% on the negative and assumes he hasn't done ANYTHING.

            Does it really help anything to attack him personally? To call him weak and stupid? To insinuate he's working with Republicans to destroy America? Even if you think he's the worst Dem president ever, you should still fucking vote for him, and still fucking do everything possible to get him elected in 2012. And calling him names and personal attacks isn't the way to do it.

            Because if you think Obama is bad, wait until you see President Palin. You think health care, wars, unemployment, SS, and jobs will improve?

            •  Let me put it like this (0+ / 0-)

              Lyndon Johnson did some good things when he was president, but I would have never voted for him.  He was a war criminal.  By escalating insane wars you lose the support of your base.  Obama's problem goes even beyond that.

        •  don' t let the door hit you in the ass. nt. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, Blue Wind
        •  Did you ever watch Caprica? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cynndara

          it was a great show, better and smarter than Battlestar.  The world that Adama grew up in, the one portrayed in Caprica was one where corporations dominated everything and leaders bowed to the will of those corporations and the corporations stopped at nothing to beat each other.  

          That is the world we live in.  We live in a world where corporations can do anything they want, they are not bound by the laws of man because the laws only apply within nations and the corporations exist outside of them.  Government is supposed to represent the people.  However, when corporations became people under the law, the government had two sets of people they could follow and they chose to follow corporations who can provide them with campaign financing and jobs.

          The reality of the presidents actions is that they disproportionally benefit the rich and powerful over the average citizen.  The healthcare reform and credit reform have not helped the average citizen, both cost far too much.  Banks have started to overcharge and create random fees because that was not outlawed in the bill.  The ability to renegotiate the terms of your mortgage has not materialized.  

          Doing something is not equivalent to do the right thing.  When you don't do enough the result is the same as doing nothing.  Throwing a cup of water on a house fire does nothing to stop the fire and when you claim to have helped put out the fire by contributing that cup, you lose credibility.

      •  It's good that you titled your comment "BS" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhillyJeff

        That way I know what to expect when I opened your comment. I wish everyone would do that. Thanks. :)

    •  Amen. (8+ / 0-)

      "Stand! There's a cross you have to bear. Things to go through if you're going anywhere." - "Stand" Sly & the Family Stone

      by mirandasright on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:25:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama lost his supporters (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        magurakurin, Larsstephens, David PA

        2 weeks after taking office when you people started criticizing him for not enacting every piece of progressive legislation everyone wanted immediately.

        Name ONE democratic candidate less controlled by special interests who can actually WIN A NATIONAL ELECTION.

        Don't say Hillary, because calling her more progressive and less controlled by special interests is laughable, and she also LOST TO OBAMA.

        If you want to run Kucinich as the Dem candidate in 2012 be my guest. Because if that happens we will have president Palin, and then you can be happy Obama lost.

        Obama is the most progressive president we've had in at least 40 years if not more. The least you could do is give him a little respect and not attack him personally and/or call him a republican.

        Or, if he's as bad as a Republican, vote Palin in 2012. You're the same people who said Bush = Gore in 2000 and voted Nader. Lets see if president Palin with a Republican House and Senate is just as bad as Obama was.

    •  What use is there having a Dem like Obama? (4+ / 0-)

      Who caves on everything under the sun.  If he is going to act like a Republican, he might as well just resign and let Palin take over.  

      •  The "use" for Obama is (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Izzzy, Larsstephens, David PA, randomfacts

        HCR (which is better than no HCR), not having a 2nd great depression (or do you think McCain would be better on the stimulus), saving the US auto industry (surely McCain would have saved those jobs), etc. etc.

        The "use" for Obama is not having President Palin to go along with Republican supermajorities in the House and Sentate (which you are going to get if Obama is not the nominee in 2012, regardless of who runs on the R side).

        Your argument is EXACTLY the same as the 2000 Bush = Gore argument. Do you still believe that there was no use in voting for Gore?

        •  2nd great depression is still coming (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing, cynndara

          You really believe the financial industry can survive? The crash has been delayed, but not for long enough to matter. All the bankers were made whole, despite that the major ones were involved in what can fairly be termed criminal enterprise. Talk about moral hazard! There might be another year or two before we get the same crash we "avoided."

    •  The reason Democrats can't hold on to power (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, Badabing, randomfacts

      The freaking INSTANT we get control of all 3 branches of government,

      We had control of  Legislative and executive branches and accomplished nothing. (We don't control Judicial which would be the 3rd branch of government.}

      It is impossible to introduce into society a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." Frederic Bastiat

      by california keefer on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:41:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Accomplished NOTHING? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am

        I meant House and the Senate, I shouldn't have said 3 branches.

        But honestly http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

        You can't name ONE THING we accomplished? Nothing?

        Stimulus = nothing? HCR = nothing? Saving GM - nothing?

        You are honestly going to say you don't give a flying fuck about those GM workers who aren't unemployed right now?

        Progressives are supposed to live in the real world. Apparently we don't. In progressive world if you don't accomplish anything you're a total failure.

        You know who else had failures? Every president in history, including FDR and JFK. At least Obama didn't inter an entire race of people in America.

        •  nothing maybe harsh but (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, Badabing, cynndara

          Stimulus = nothing?

          too small

          HCR = nothing

          ? Rube goldberg of a compromised bill

          Saving GM - nothing

          The union givebacks guarantee that working as an autoworker will never again be a ticket to the middle class.
          What do these bills all have in common ? progressives supported the president but they were all compromised by blue dog Democrats or Republicans in the name of  fake partisanship.

          Since the midterm election, we're told, Obama has concluded that he must be more conciliatory toward the ascendant Republican leadership in Congress - and must do more to appease big business.  Fifteen days after the election, The Washington Post reported that Obama - seeking a replacement for departing top economic adviser Lawrence Summers - "is eager to recruit someone from the business community for the job to help repair the president's frayed relationship with corporate America."

          If what Obama wants for the rest of his presidency is to kiss Republican a$$, I don't think this country or the Democratic party will survive six more years of Obama. I will support a primary from any progressive candidate (That doesn't mean Hilary)
          It's the failure of some Democrats to differentiate themselves from Republicans that keep Democrats from power not legitimate criticism from the left. Your little clique that equates criticism of Obama with supporting the Republicans is also part of the problem.

          It is impossible to introduce into society a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." Frederic Bastiat

          by california keefer on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:19:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh but they will PhillyJeff. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sam I Am

      These assholes want a Republican in power. Hysterics don't to well with angst.  They'd much rather scream, and Republicans will give them plenty to scream about.

      Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

      by fou on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:01:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So again, those things are NOTHING? (0+ / 0-)

        too small

        So the stimulus had no effect, and saved not one job? You can't even admit that, can you? At least you're on board with McCain about the stimulus not doing anything.

        ? Rube goldberg of a compromised bill

        I suppose you favor "repeal and replace" right? Where have I heard that before? Definitely need to repeal those things like no denying for preexisting conditions, letting kids stay on until they're 26, etc. And you do realize that the Senate and House actually write the laws right?

        The union givebacks guarantee that working as an autoworker will never again be a ticket to the middle class.

        So fuck those 1.4 million plus people whose jobs were saved. Fuck their kids too. Who cares if they can't eat. You'd rather see them unemployed and the entire auto industry in the US destroyed than save it. Obama's plan actually worked out pretty well for the workers. People like my Grandmother who own GM bonds that they depend on for income took a huge bath on that deal. But fuck them too right? They're not you so who cares?

        If what Obama wants for the rest of his presidency is to kiss Republican a$$, I don't think this country or the Democratic party will survive six more years of Obama. I will support a primary from any progressive candidate (That doesn't mean Hilary)

        So you don't like Hillary? Which "progressive" candidate do you think can win though? Because Obama kicked the shit out of your favorite candidate. If they're such a good, electable candidate, why did Obama kick their ass, and then defeat Hillary in a hardfought campaign. I love Howard Dean, but guess what? He couldn't even win the nomination. It's nice to see that you have a crystal ball that tells you Obama's future. Can you tell me the powerball next week, or does it only show you Obama's future failures.

        The important question is: If your laughable primary candidate who can't beat Sarah Palin in the general loses, will you vote Obama in 2012 or sit out? I think you'd rather sit out. And in that case, I hope you enjoy President Sarah. She'll do a lot more for Union rights, health care, and the middle class.

  •  I get the anger. Read that loud and clear. (19+ / 0-)

    Sort of funny, you were a strong Obama supporter, and now you feel let down. My intent is not to rub your nose [or anyone elses nose in it, for that matter].

    The illusion that one man can make a difference is just that: mostly an illusion. Barack Obama never was, and never will be that man.

    He was never built or designed to challenge authority, and to expect him to come to a different thought process is like expecting apple trees to produce orange juice.

    Obama was, is and always will be about process, which by its very nature rejects change. Everything the man does reeks of process, of finding common ground rather than striking out on one's own, of maintaining the status quo, rather than being at the edge of change.

    Unlike many here, I don't see a man who "sold us out", or became a corporate shill, or turned his back on liberals and progressives. I see a man who has always believed in process, and just cannot comprehend the process itself has been hijacked right out from under his grasp. He still thinks he'll get respect from Republicans and TeaBaggers. He still believes in 'good faith' of the opposition.

    It's sad and pathetic, but it's not a surprise to me: I predicted all of this in 2005. The man has no desire for change, he's transfixed by process and cannot see the train wreck he his leading Democrats into.

    President Jeb Bush, a Republican Senate with 65 seats, a Republican House with 300 seats.

    I will leave the country in 2013, not because I want to, but because I will need to survive, and I'm in the middle class.

    This country is so badly fucked, we're never getting any of it back. Those who families who make less than $70K a year are totally, and absolutely screwed. Counting on Barack Obama to save you was a mistake.

    He's not your man. He's not capable of rising above the history of THIS TIME to lead, it's not part of who he is, or what he is. Barack would have made a hell of a President, in a different time. He's simply incapable of rising to what is required in these times to lead us out of the wilderness. And, perhaps no one can, truly .. but Obama clearly does not have it in his heart and soul to do so, to even TRY. It's why so many people stayed home in 2010, and they will be staying home in 2012. He clearly is not the man to lead us out of the desert.

    Meanwhile, a Evil is gathering strength every day, a new replay of the worst of history has had to offer is right around the corner. All the signs are there, the wannabe dictators  sprouting up like weeds from every direction.

    I think back to the late 20s and 30s and marvel at all the intellectuals of the time who argued back and forth, as history bore down upon them. They quibbled about labels, and imagery as hate and the limbic system ravaged a whole Continent, threatening the whole planet.

    We get to live in an echo of that same time, while it lasts. A Great Abyss is almost upon us, and will engulf us, soon enough. The 'L' in the Drake Equation will be determined, within a few scant decades perhaps, a final number assigned to humanity's short, bright, turbulent  and oh so promising flicker, on a little star system at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy.

    Jews have a saying about what happened to them in the 20th Century, as witnesses to the Great Darkness which enveloped them: "Never Forget". Not only have we all forgotten, we never learned any of the basic lessons of how evil humans can be, even as it was drawn out in bright lights, dragged before an unwilling audience to view.

    I predict, we'll all get to witness it again, soon enough, in whatever guise history has to offer. Many already reject viewing the ugliness, they disclaim it, make excuses for it, blame others. The inherent power structure of all major governments on this planet embrace Evil out of necessity, deciding who will suffer, who will live, who will die.

    With modern technology aiding the self destructiveness of our species, it could be all over in the space of a quiet Tuesday afternoon.

    And Obama? He will not be to blame, he just simply failed to be a superman and rise above to 'save us'.

    Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

    by shpilk on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:13:32 PM PST

    •  The only thing I would add is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Badabing, David PA

      "who would have been better?"

      Who could have come in and done all of the things that you mentioned in this insightful comment? Hillary? Listen, I respect Hillary, but I don't see how she would have been any more progressive than Obama, and it's not certain she would have won if nominated.

      There are no other viable Dem. candidates who could have beaten McCain. None. You can be annoyed at that, or wish it weren't so, but there weren't any.

      So while I would agree that Obama would have been more successful in another era, he's the best president we could have got and he's accomplished a lot in an era of unprecedented obstruction and political gamesmanship.

      I think we at least owe him a little respect. And a little acknowledgement of the good things he did. I don't think that's too much to ask.

      •  Like I said, perhaps no one. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, lotlizard

        Howard Dean? Maybe. A Kennedy-esque Wellstone-like character? Perhaps.

        Obama refuses to tap into politics of persona, and retreats to technocracy and process.

        Hillary has something Barack does not have: the willingness to fight. Could have damaged her badly. It sure did during the primaries, where nearly all the bobbleheads said at the beginning it was Hillary's to lose. I wonder, did Barack beat her, or did Hillary really beat herself, with the horrible missteps and ugliness of her campaign?

        I think it's the latter.

        Being willing to fight is crucial, second only to knowing when not to fight, a lesson Ms Clinton and her staff learned. The hard way.

        Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

        by shpilk on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:09:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is not DeGaulle but he might be Gorbachev (6+ / 0-)

      I agree with much of what you say about Obama's belief in process. Despite the inane ranting of the Right, he does not have a messianic concept of himself, when that is exactly what is needed. When France's 4th Republic teetered toward chaos in the face of endless imperial wars, terrorism, the threat of a fascist coup, and parliamentary chaos, Charles DeGaulle saw it as his personal destiny to virtually seize power, with the backing of the army. He demanded the right to rule by decree for six months and singlehandedy created a new constitution for the 5th Republic. To this day France benefits from his vision in its stability and prosperity.

      But De Gaulle had long thought himself the savior of  France, and in 1940 he broke with his onetime mentor, the Vichy leader Petain, and went to England to proclaim himself the leader of Free France. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt were eager to work with this arrogant egomaniac but he overwhelmed them in the end with his absolute conviction that he was the leader of France.

      Obama's history, needless to say, bears no resemblance to that of DeGaulle. He adapted himself well to a series of environments, from childhood onward, and learned to study and respect those who had power, whether it was Jeremiah Wright or Larry Summers.

      The only world leader who followed a lifetime path of accommodation to those in power, and then struck out boldly, guided only by his own sense of destiny, was Mikhail Gorbachev. It was he who personally ended communism and bequeathed to Russia more freedom than it had ever known. (and yes, for all its troubles and semi-authoritarianism, Russia is a lot better place to live in  than it was in 1975 or 1905.)

      Gorbachev's example provides a tiny bit of hope that Obama will be able to rise above his history of accommodation to the status quo. It can be done.

      "Para dialogar, preguntad primero; después... escuchad." - Antonio Machado

      by Valatius on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:45:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure we'd want to follow Gorby's example. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        For all his (morally) good policy decisions like glasnost' and nuclear arms reductions, he presided over the collapse of a regime he was trying to hold together.  Things are now better in a lot of ways, but as unintended consequences of the policies that got away from him, and wouldn't have if he'd have been a stronger leader (for which we're thankful that he wasn't.)  Plus the extreme deprivation and violence that marked his term in office.  

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:54:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed, Obama is a technocrat, more than (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard, Badabing, arendt

        a cult figure: the cult figure is forced upon him because of the his age, his uniqueness at spanning cultures because of his personal experience and life, and he's very much at ease with who he is personally. I sense not uneasiness from Barack Obama at the adulation he receives, but a sense that he gains nothing from it [as it should be, but sadly in politics this is seen as a sign of weakness].

        By actively rejecting to use popular adulation, as many others would and have done as politicians, it's as if the man lacks an ego in his public life. It's odd. It's like Obama has got this repository of power he refuses to tap into, but his pragmatic and common sense refuses to let him use it.

        Perhaps the encapsulation of this apparent dichotomy is the picture of Barack Obama as he mocks himself, standing in front the statue of Superman.

        I get this sense that Gorbachev's experience was borne out of a different type of necessity: it wasn't that Gorbachev lead, as much as the times made Gorbachev lead. With Obama, it's almost like it's the exact opposite that is happening.

        Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

        by shpilk on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:04:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gorbachev spared the world endless trouble (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arendt

          … if only because Germans learned from him that injustices could be corrected and reunification attained peacefully, without their having to give far-right revanchist politicians any role.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

          by lotlizard on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:16:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We are not screwed. If, in ten or twenty years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Badabing

      30 and 35 year-olds have less education then their parents, then I will agree with your assessment that we are screwed. But right now, more and more people are going to community colleges and universities.

      Additional education leads to critical thought, and what is critical thought but the enemy of regression? That's why the right wing is trying to dismantle public education and attempting to make post-secondary education prohibitively expensive.

      We are not screwed, and we're not saved. We're at a crossroads.  

      •  Why are you so sure Hillary would be better (0+ / 0-)

        First, she couldn't even beat Obama. What makes you think she would have even beaten McCain. If Hillary won McCain doesn't pick Palin as VP and there's a good chance she loses.

        Second, I love Dean but he couldn't even beat Kerry, who was one of the most boring and bland candidates we could have possibly run.

        Again, I'm not saying Obama is perfect. I'm not saying that he is the most progressive person in America.

        What I'm saying is he is the most progressive candidate THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE ELECTED AT THIS POINT.

        If you know someone else who is more progressive and electable, again I'm asking you to point him out. Because the people you named tried already, and unfortunately they all lost.

        •  I don't support a primary opponent...do you mean (0+ / 0-)

          to reply to shpilk?

        •  that last thing I care about is reliving old (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cynndara

          history about Hilary, what does that have to do with where we are now?

          thanks for your comment, but President Obama ran as a progressive candidate, but everything to date, has proven that assumption to be untrue, hasn't it?

          My point being, is this:  We need a new direction, we need to understand that the old ways are not going to work, we need a deep populist candidate, that will go after these issues, which is what will gather at the hearts of all Americans:

          Alan Grayson:

            1. End the wars, and bring the troops home. Even if Obama didn’t cut a dollar from the defense budget, all the money spent on the troops, and all of the money that they spend, would be spent in the United States, and that money would circulate in the United States, boosting aggregate demand and creating jobs.
            2. Direct the Attorney General to prosecute foreclosure fraud and other white-collar crimes vigorously.
            3. Determine that China is a "currency manipulator" (which is stating the obvious), and impose trade sanctions on China, to offset Chinese manipulation of the exchange rate.
            4. Accelerate the award and performance of infrastructure projects and competitive grants to the full extent of FY11 appropriations now, instead of the usual end-of-September orgy of contract awards 11 months from now, to accelerate the spending of appropriated funds in order to create jobs.
            5. Employ Government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to: (a) finance and refinance loans at lower rates, and (b) temporarily eliminate the down payment requirement — if you can make the monthly payments on the house, then you can own it. (This is, in effect, how FHA mortgages have worked for years, but only at the low end of the market.)

          More on this from Bill Black:

             1. Appoint (on a recess basis) Michael Patriarca as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

             [Mike was the OCC wunderkind who was in charge of supervising the largest national banks then served as head of the OTS' West Region where he served with even greater distinction.  He has worked since that time in banking and insurance as a senior manager and consultant.  He is known for his competence, integrity, and courage.]

             The FHFA remains under the control of the (second) acting director.  Both acting directors had served as the senior leaders of FHFA’s predecessor (OFHEO) and failed dramatically as regulators.  FHFA is in a superb position to provide decisive leadership on a wide range of critical issues (e.g., finding the true losses on CDOs, the true incidence of fraud, and the true incidence of foreclosure fraud and abuse).

             2.  Appoint Paul Volcker (on a recess basis) as Secretary of the Treasury.  Accept Secretary Geithner’s resignation.

             3.  Appoint James Galbraith as the Comptroller of the Currency.

             Here are things that could be announced tomorrow and are critical, but couldn’t be completed in a day:

             1.   Direct the FDIC and the FHFA to conduct a scientific sample of the incidence/extent of losses, mortgage fraud, and foreclosure fraud and criminal referrals (and failure to file criminal referrals) by the regulatory agencies and institutions.

             2.  Create a national "hot line" to report mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

             3.  Direct each financial regulatory agency to make the filing of appropriate criminal referrals (by the agency and the industry) a major priority.  Create a national interagency task force composed of the regulators, the FBI, and the Department of Justice to coordinate and prioritize investigations and prosecutions.  Create a "Top 100″ list of the most significant cases.

          http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/...

          What I would like to ask you is this:  What do you find so obtuse about these basic ideals, that are directly in line with what most Americans really want, ok?

          They want to have accountability, they want the rule of law restored, they want the out of control Military Industrial Complex brought under control, they want a return to sanity, and if you actually want to or dare to call that 'the liberal purists progressives; then you just do not fucking get it at all.

          Most Americans just want to stop this insanity, and to have some basic real Agenda, a Plan, a Vision by President Obama, that makes any sense, to lead us back to credibility...

          What part of that do you not get?  This is not about Liberals/Centrists or otherwise, this is about President Obama at least having the fucking guts to give us a:

          BASIC FUCKING OUTLINE OF WHERE WE ARE GOING AND WHY.

          If that is too hard for anyone to understand on this site, then perhaps I must be living in China working a sweatshop for two cents a day, and counting my blessings....you tell me the difference.

          thanks for your input, I always appreciate the debate.

          Ms. B.

      •  I admire optimism and hope, so I can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        recommended your comment with out hesitation.

        But my view is different; the political and economic pressures of dwindling resources and worldwide destruction of our environment, the increasing reliance on profit driven technology rather than sustainable and well thought out science will result in catastrophic events we can only try to imagine. We have tinkered with an ecosphere that does not take kindly to tinkering.

        Like George Carlin said:
        "Planet Earth will be fine. It's human beings that are going away."  

        Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

        by shpilk on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:13:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the solution is give up? (0+ / 0-)

          What if you're wrong? What if there is something we can do? Giving up would be catastrophic.

          It's the same with Obama. In my opinion he's done a way better job than people tend to give him credit for. But even if you think he's done a terrible job, what does giving up, giving up on 2012, and giving up on trying to push progressive policies accomplish?

          •  No, we must never give up, ever ever ever... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard

            the solution is paying attention to all the amazing people Obama should have hired in the first place:

            Simon Johnson, Joe Stigliz, Elizabeth Warren (who is no in the throws of being fed to the Wolves by the Republicans who are coming right after her, which by the way, is exactly what Geithner was hoping would happen)  

            Stop pretending that President Obama did not have the choice (like JFK did) to go out and pick the greatest minds in our nation to surround himself with: he did, and if you don't know that, then you are missing in action.

            He picked Bush's Wrecking Crew, so all we got, was more wrecked, GOT THAT YET?  

            What would have happened if he had the the foresight and the guts to appoint Brooksley Born as the Treasurer?  What would have happened if he had the courage to appoint William K. Black as his Economic Adviser instead of Larry Summers?  What would have happened if he had the courage to name so many hungry progressive law makers, that where itching to get back into real action and set the record straight for all Americans, many of who the the Attorney Generals of the States Bush fired, and replaced with the worst of the worst, who's sole mission was to destroy every fucking single law on property rights, regulation, to make certain that the Banks/Wall St. would ruin our economy.  And most of all to silence all the WAR CRIMES, AND TORTURE.  

            To actually defend your feckless argument, does not even dare to go into the reality, does it?  You make it sound so simple:  

            In my opinion he's done a way better job than people tend to give him credit for. But even if you think he's done a terrible job, what does giving up, giving up on 2012, and giving up on trying to push progressive policies accomplish?

            Way better job than who?  Ok?  A President is always defined by who he has calls is closest advisers, and no one is giving up on him, but we are hopefully either going to push him into a new way, a new direction of we are not..

            Do you agree with that assumption, as least?

            I'll be awaiting that debate, and I welcome it...OK/

            And I respect your remarks, and I thank you.

            Ms. B.

            •  The reality is, President Obama made appointments (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Badabing

              … completely on his own that were objectively pro-continuation of Bush 43 era policies. In many cases, those appointees plotted the course leading to the current disastrous situation.

              It is too bad that so many of us are unwilling to even acknowledge this fact, preferring to deflect the discussion by trying to press people's emotional buttons.

              Thank you for getting to the meat of the matter:

              What would have happened if he had the the foresight and the guts to appoint Brooksley Born as the Treasurer?  What would have happened if he had the courage to appoint William K. Black as his Economic Adviser instead of Larry Summers?

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:26:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So you wanted him to appoint Liz Warren (0+ / 0-)

              and his appointing Liz Warren is more evidence that he hates America and doesn't want Liz Warren in power?

              Honestly, what can the guy do to appease you?

              When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

              by PhillyJeff on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:10:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Nope. I'll never stop fighting back, (0+ / 0-)

            in some way. But I hold little hope of any survival of humans past a few more generations.

            Civilization itself has become self-terminating; the focus of civilization has been hijacked by base emotions and crude needs.

            This isn't about just politics.

            Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

            by shpilk on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:28:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        "additional education leads to critical thought" . . . in a perfect world, which this is not.  There is a difference between education and indoctrination, and American "education" right up through the first two years of grad school consists of some technical skills training combined with overflowing helpings of indoctrination and little more.  Oh, yes, there is some critical thinking involved, as in, "how do I best convince the Gradegiver that I utterly and totally AGREE with him/her?".  Education in the US is schooling in conformity, nothing more.  Critical thinking is indulged only during late-night coffee-drinking by students whose parents are wealthy enough to pay the bills regardless of their offsprings' choice of topic or performance . . . that is, once again, the very, very Rich.

    •  Good luck (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      in your escape.  Are you going to Albania?  I know there's a lot of negatives written about it by the "developed" nations, but an average lifespan of 80 years without the benefit of modern medicine suggests something that doesn't meet the casual eye.

    •  PS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      I'm looking at Transylvania myself, but I haven't ruled Albania out entirely either.  More difficult language, though, for a complete newbie.

  •  75% for a new Glass-Steagall? (11+ / 0-)

    I don't think that 75% of the voters in the US even know what Glass-Steagall is. In 2007 less than 50% of adults knew who the Vice President was. And it was not like we had a shrinking violet at VP, Dick (Darth) Cheney was recieving a lot of press.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:14:02 PM PST

  •  Brilliant - thank you. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pkbarbiedoll, Badabing, angel d, ruscle

    ....especially for the link to the Hedges article.

    To believe without knowing is weakness; to believe because one knows, is power. Éliphas Lévi

    by Jahiz on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:17:21 PM PST

  •  Not quite ready yet to abandn Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, Wamsutta, Badabing

    Earlier today I was re-reading Jack London's 1908 novel The Iron Heel, which describes how an oligarchy seizes power in order to suppress the growing might of the working class. It is a remarkable foreshadowing of the fascism that rose in Europe within the next three decades.

    London's anger and fear of the future was not wrong, but fascism did not overtake the US. The reason was, almost entirely in my view, the heroic leadership of Franklin Roosevelt.  Like you, I had imagined Obama to be another Roosevelt.

    You do write an awfully convincing diary, but I am not yet ready to abandon the hope that Obama may yet be what I thought he was. The thing is, I can't give you a single reason for my hope.

    "Para dialogar, preguntad primero; después... escuchad." - Antonio Machado

    by Valatius on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:18:01 PM PST

    •  Barack's too much of a nice guy. (5+ / 0-)

      The die is already cast, he's not changing. If anything, he'll become more of a 'nice guy'.

      Fixing the US and world economy is easy. Tax speculation, not labor.

      by shpilk on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:19:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks shpilk, that is delusion, he is not a nice (4+ / 1-)

        guy, and we just have to STOP THIS NOW.

        Stop giving him the naive stupid card ok?

        There is wayyyyy too much at stake here, ok?

        Please please understand this, ok?

        Geese....I was where you were, 10 months ago, I finally got over it...

        What part of the Cat Food Commission don't you get? What part of NAFTA never being re-negotiated don't you get?  What part of the ENDLESS WARS, don't you get?  What part of the total loss of all the EQUITY IN OUR HOMES, with little if any recourse in the courts don't you get?  I could go on and on, but I'm tired, and it is late...

        It is so late, that we do not even know how late it is, but please please please, stop saying that 'Obama is just too nice'...he is not naive and he is not nice.

        He made a deal, and now we are all going to suffer the greatest consequences you can ever imagine.  I know you don't want to see that.  Neither do, I, but welcome to:

        President Huckabee land, or worse..Ok?

        That was the deal that was made, and to pretend otherwise, is delusion......

        wish it were not so.

        thanks, and bless you..

        Ms. B.

        •  So... (3+ / 0-)

          President Obama, if I'm getting the jist of your hyperbole...is actually an evil man that has made a deal to kill us all??? Because that's the only logical conclusion that I can draw from your comment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'll be happy to admit to. I'm just wondering because that's what this diary seems to be saying.

          No man undertakes a trade he has not learned; yet everyone thinks himself sufficiently qualified for the hardest of all trades, that of government-socrates

          by Socratic Method on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:59:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yah know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Badabing

            Every time I read Socrates, I'm surprised they didn't make him take the poison twenty years sooner.  Because he really did have a talent for deliberately distorting other people's arguments in a way that made it impossible to defend themselves.  Actually, I'm surprised that one of his drinking companions didn't just strangle him and save the State the trouble.  Would have happened if he'd been in Makedon instead of Athens.

        •  You've gone too far now (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          And for more HR justification, just go here.

          Someone please get me out of this alternate reality...I can't take it any more!

          by Cinnamon Rollover on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:07:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have been here far longer than you so please do (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pkbarbiedoll, Badabing

            yourself a favor and take back the HR.  It is violation of site rules and will only end up hurting you.

            •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

              the tone of this diary and this comment seem to suggest that the President is some evil goul out to make deals in order to destroy the country and kill people. I mean, this poster has not replied to my earlier comment calling for clarification of this strange and hateful comment, and he or she has not answered. I'm coming close to HRing the comment myself. I mean, the vile nature of this diary aside, are you prepared to back this person and this comment and say that Obama is some kind of conspiracy-led evil man with malice in his heart? By reading the comment above, that seems to be what he or she is suggesting. If that is the case, I have a donut ready for them.

              No man undertakes a trade he has not learned; yet everyone thinks himself sufficiently qualified for the hardest of all trades, that of government-socrates

              by Socratic Method on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:36:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My belief has nothing to do with the comment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Badabing

                and neither should yours.  HRs should only be used to hide the vilest of the vile not things that you don't agree with or things not stated in the most articulate way.  Claiming Obama is a puppet of the corporations is no more vile than saying Bush is a puppet of Cheney.  You may agree with one and disagree with the other but the insinuation of a conspiracy is not enough of a reason to attempt to hide a comment.  Sexist and racist comments, comments designed to derail a thread (such as anti-war posts in a IGTNT thread) can be hidden.  

                Simple offensiveness is not enough of a reason to hide something.  As a recent example Cenk probably should not have used the first lady as a rhetorical device the way he did, however that was not offensive enough to HR.  The crap the right posts about the first lady, on the other hand, should be hidden ASAP if posted here.

        •  uprated for HR abuse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing
    •  I'm not ready to abandon him either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing

      Though I can certainly undertand why so many are deeply disappointed by his performance so far.

      I hold onto the fact that there is still time for him to turn this thing around. Maybe he will.

    •  If Roosevelt had spent the first two years (11+ / 0-)

      of his presidency accommodating the Republicans, Social Security very likely wouldn't exist today.  He wouldn't have won re-election to a second term, let alone a fourth.

      You have to have the fire of confrontation in order to lead, even more so today than ever. The Republicans would literally rather cripple the nation than stand still in their quest for power.  Well, we are about to become a (even more) crippled nation.

      Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

      by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:45:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you YcatanMan, FDR, was a true man of the (5+ / 0-)

        the people, we have some how lost that in our nation, not one single American so called Public Servant is capable of the amazing Integrity that FDR had, and that is more than pitiful, it is heartless and brutal, it is why millions will be starving this Christmas.......

        .

        You have to have the fire of confrontation in order to lead, even more so today than ever. The Republicans would literally rather cripple the nation than stand still in their quest for power.  Well, we are about to become a (even more) crippled nation

        We have not even begun to pay for the President Obama at this point in time.  I was raised when Watts and Cleveland were burned to the ground, I remember the heartlessness of Nixon, and the 68,000 men/woman that were killed in vain in Vietnam, I remember, so much, and now tonight, I wish I did not.

        Thanks for your comment.

        Ms. B.

        •  FDR was a born aristocrat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing

          and as such, lacked the natural instinct of the upper bourgeousie, to make nicey and submissive to their Social Betters.  FDR was from one of the oldest political families in the country; he was a political protege of his Uncle Teddy, and so when Rockefeller and Morgan called him up on the phone and told him off, he felt completely comfortable telling them to stuff it.

          It's as if GW Bush had also had a few functioning neurons and a functioning moral conscience.  Same obliviousness to outside pressure, but exercised by someone who was at least qualified to hire the servants if not to do the work.

      •  I agree with you about FDR (4+ / 0-)

        but I just don't know what alternative there is to sticking with Obama. A primary challenge would make sense if I could imagine someone with Roosevelt's "fire of confrontation" taking him on. People are hungry for that kind of leadership. Certainly not Dennis Kucinich, altho I agree with him on all the issues. Russ Feingold? He didn't manage to smash that rich idiot who ran against him.

        And as for the Chris Hedges idea of a popular mass movement, I can't see it happening in the present culture. The present dialogue on Daily Kos is an example of how isolated and fragmented grass-roots progressives are. There is no union base from which a mass movement could be mobilized, and the college campuses are not exactly in a 1968-style ferment.

        Maybe we should just admit that Obama is a moderate Republican of the Bush I variety, and hope he holds off the John Birch type of loons. Bush I, at least, was in favor of the status quo, and not given to the kind of irrational impulses characteristic of his son and all the rest of the rabid right.

        "Para dialogar, preguntad primero; después... escuchad." - Antonio Machado

        by Valatius on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:06:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  FDR also interred Japanese Americans (0+ / 0-)

          had massive majorities in both the House and the Senate, and actually tried to balance the budget later in his presidency which caused the economy to falter again. WWII finally got us out of the malaise we were in.

          And before you tout SS etc that was derided as not far reaching enough when it was passed, and look how it worked out.

          There are no supermen in the presidency. There are only men. We want to put people like FDR (Japanese internment) and JFK (Bay of Pigs) on a pedestal like they can do no wrong. Well they did a hell of a lot of wrong too.

          •  Oh yeah, Abraham Lincoln, widely (0+ / 0-)

            considered the best or one of the best presidents ever, had this to say about black people:

            I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

            - Abraham Lincoln

            So before we start talking about our perfect presidents, lets look at what they actually did and all of their faults.

            •  Obama is the one who likes to idolize (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Badabing

              Lincoln's War Cabinet.

              Apparently, he does not realize that in Lincoln's time, the truly nut-case fanatics had all seceded to the South and were no longer part of the Republic.  The "opponents" Lincoln chose his cabinet members from including people like himself who believed the Union should survive.  So, they carried a common belief.

              Try to tell me what common beliefs Dems have with Reps these days?

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:03:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where did I reference Lincoln's war cabinet? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sam I Am

                The point of my reference is to show you that the presidents that are idolized by most people had serious flaws and made serious mistakes. And yet people act like they could do no wrong and made no mistakes whatsoever.

                For instance, if you think Obama's Guantanamo/Drone strike policy is bad, how does that compare to FDR's fucking interring an entire race? But no one says "well ok Obama isn't great on civil liberties but neither was FDR."

                Instead we get "see, Obama sucks. We need an FDR." Which is exactly my point.

          •  Actually, parts of your history are incorrect (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, Badabing, Nisi Prius

            FDR had growing majorities in both the House and the Senate precisely because he came out fighting hard for the little people against the banks and corporations. Because he had a strong program, people knew what it was, and he fought hard to implement it.

            The Japanese were not interred until 9 years after FDR's first election, so it's sorta hard to say that his first two terms were tainted by that.

            Thirdly, WWII did not get us out of the malaise: there were clear indicators (look for a graph) that the economy was much better and had recovered before WWII. If we'd not recovered a lot of our manufacturing capacity by then, we may not have won.  WWII's deficit spending - accompanied all along by restrictions, rationing, war bonds and every other means to focus the nation - sent our economy roaring out of a majority agrarian nation into a manufacturing nation.

            Blaming JFK for the Bay of Pigs is to not understand history. That was flopped on his desk a few days (less than four months) into his presidency and he was lied to by the CIA. He allowed it to move ahead and then cut it off when it was an obvious disaster. The entire planning and training for the Bay of Pigs was done under President Eisenhower.

            Or are you arguing that Kennedy should have dropped the 81st Airborne into Cuba?   The CIA Inspector General's report was that the cause of the failure of the mission was incompetence in planning and execution, specifically:

              1. The CIA exceeded its capabilities in developing the project from guerrilla support to overt armed action without any plausible deniability.
              2. Failure to realistically assess risks and to adequately communicate information and decisions internally and with other government principals.
              3. Insufficient involvement of leaders of the exiles.
              4. Failure to sufficiently organize internal resistance in Cuba.
              5. Failure to competently collect and analyze intelligence about Cuban forces.
              6. Poor internal management of communications and staff.
              7. Insufficient employment of high-quality staff.
              8. Insufficient Spanish-speakers, training facilities and material resources.
              9. Lack of stable policies and contingency plans.

            And that was Kennedy's fault, how?  I guess putting his faith in the previous president's plans (the general of the Allied Armed Forces in WWII) was his mistake. All Kennedy's fault.

            Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

            by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:00:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So FDR didn't inter the Japanese (0+ / 0-)

              Because it took him 9 years into his term to do it? It's a stain on his presidency and pretending it didn't happen is cheerleading just like you attack Obama supporters for.

              And JFK greenlighted the Bay of Pigs which was a mistake. I'm not saying it makes him a horrible president. It was a very costly mistake and again, absolving him from any responsibility is not being honest to history.

              Again, are you going to tell me that SS was NOT seen as a sellout of progressive principles when it was first enacted?

              And my comments on Kennedy is not to say he was a bad president. It is to say that you criticize Obama for every possible action while giving him no credit for any of the good he's done. Meanwhile every other president gets a pass on what they've done. The fact that you give FDR a pass on what the did to the Japanese because it was 9 years in is all you need to know. Give Obama 9 years and he's not going to set up camps for Muslims.

        •  Actually, I think Feingold and all of the Dems (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, Badabing, cynndara, Marmaduke2

          would have run a lot better if the White House had shown nothing but continual leadership, even punch boxing, on Jobs and the Economy.

          We have a leader - a President - to lead. How on earth Obama "over-learned" Clinton's lessons on health care but "under-learned" Clinton's "It's the Economy Stupid" is far beyond me.

          We have just witnessed the most tone-deaf ear toward the suffering of the unemployed and underemployed in over 80 years. And that's why the Dems got trounced: Faulty leadership and messaging from the White House.

          Roosevelt came out of the corner swinging after the election in 1932.  By 1934, much of the nation was catching on that his programs were helping the weakest and poorest and at least TRYING on behalf of the unemployed.  Thus, the mid-terms were won by Dems.

          Obama didn't learn that history lesson either. One too small "stimulus" package (that's a catchy name) and no other thoughts towards EMPLOYMENT?  I mean, the writing is freaking spray painted in graffiti on every wall in this unemployed nation:  "It's the Economy Stupid!"

          Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

          by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:35:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um, Feingold lost? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            Presidents don't write legislation? If the stimulus package was too small, you do realize that the House and Senate (where Feingold used to be) actually write those bills?

            I don't understand why everyone blames Obama for the Senate's failures. HE . . . DOESN'T... WRITE... LAWS.

            Roosevelt also had massive majorities in the House and Senate. (50-36 in 1932, 69-25 in 1934).

            Give Obama 69 votes in the Senate and you would have seen a lot more progressive legislation.

            Things don't happen in a vacuum.

            •  George W Bush didn't have 69 votes in the Senate. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, Badabing, cynndara

              How is it that all his programs got pushed through?

              Why does Obama need 69 votes, while Bush didn't?  Messaging.

              You notice that Roosevelt increased his majority in 1934 - the midterms - correct?  He  didn't do that by compromising with Republicans.

              Yeah, we know that Feingold lost.  As KOS wrote on the front page: this was not an election lost because of apathetic voters. This was an election lost by a leadership that failed to inspire the voters to support them. A lot of Democrats were collateral damage for the lack of turnout by former Obama supporters.  

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:08:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Republicans in the Senate passed those bills (0+ / 0-)

                Bush just signed them. If you're pissed off, go blame Harry Reid and the Dem leadership for being spineless and not putting bills to a vote.

                That's how bills get passed, and that's how the Repubs did it again and again. They threatened to abolish the filibuster (which would have been great for Dems, even in the minority, and they were stupid for not letting them do it), and the Dems caved. It's not Obama's fault Dems didn't do it right back.

                And if "former" Obama supporters didn't vote in 2010 they're fucking idiots, and it's their fault that Feingold lost and the Dems lost our majorities. If they are too stupid to realize that not voting is certain to make it impossible for anything remotely progressive to get passed then they really should blame themselves and not Obama for their actions.

                •  I'm sure you will encourage a lot of former (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lotlizard, Badabing

                  Obama voters to come out and vote for him again in 2012 by calling them fucking idiots.

                  Again, you blame the voters for the politician's lack of motivation. Politicians are supposed to go out and gain support of the voters. Convince voters to even change parties to vote for them.  Convince the independents to sway their way. You don't have to agree with me on this, but also know that KOS agrees on this point. So, is he "fucking stupid"?

                  Basically, in your version, Dems in Congress are gutless wonders.  In mine, Obama did a terrible job of messaging and telling people what he had actually accomplished for them.

                  Obama actually went on the Jon Stewart show and said, "We've even made things better for the people in ways they don't even know."  Wow... what a frank admission. And after the elections, Obama himself again admitted that they had a failure in messaging.  I'm agreeing with Obama on this.

                  You disagree with him.  That's ok with me.

                  Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                  by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:42:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Second point: (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, Badabing, cynndara, Nisi Prius

              Presidents for literally decades have sent proposed legislation down to the Congress. They frequently proposed their programs or the outlines of their programs in State of the Union messages. They worked together, in advance, with House and Senate leadership to schedule and promote a common agenda.

              Yet throughout much of the health insurance reform debate, Obama was silent or missing. That's how the Republicans grabbed the narrative and spread belief in their lies: MIA, "defaulting" to people like Max Baccus to "compromise" his way to a "bipartisan" solution.

              That turned out well for Obama's future proposals, didn't it?

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:13:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Max Baucus and Nelson were never going to (0+ / 0-)

                vote for a public option. You act like Obama could wave his magic wand and make them cave.

                We had the national media ignoring Obama and going 24-7 about death panels and "Obamacare." Messaging is not as easy as people think it is.

                And it's amusing that people on this site bash the president for poor messaging when they also believe that he's accomplished NOTHING over the past 2 years. If he accomplished nothing, what is there to message?

                Then when people actually point to his speeches like the one he gave on GM, they get called cultists? Someone like BWD puts up positive diaries and they get called propaganda.

                So which is it? Is his messaging poor, or did he accomplish nothing?

                •  Last point (0+ / 0-)

                  Almost every piece of progressive legislation was derided at the time of passage as inadequate and selling out progressive principles.

                  Case in point: Social Security. Even with 69 votes FDR got ripped for it. And look where it is now.

                  If HCR was so easy, why have presidents since Truman been trying to push for some kind of framework to get everyone insured and absolutely failed at it.

                  Even Clinton, who people seem to pine for as the messaging king, royally screwed up HCR and set us back 15 years.

                  So I'll at least get him credit for accomplishing something that no other Dem president could, even if it's not perfect.

                •  Every successful President (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YucatanMan, Badabing

                  can do exactly that.  Take recalcitrant Senators into the backroom, lay out exactly what he's going to do to them if they don't play ball on his team, and walk out with them smiling daggers and voting his way.

                  Perhaps Obama hadn't learned how to use all the levers yet, but he should know them by now.  I tend to think that having come from the Senate, he's too inclined to treat his former colleagues as friends and gentlemen instead of subordinates who owe him support.  Or perhaps, he hasn't taken the opportunity to demand and read their FBI dossiers like any sensible autocrat does.

  •  Obama is a "compromiser" not a fighter (9+ / 0-)

    Who is Obama representing ? Does he think the Dems in Congress aren't stinging from the election and want to continue to do what their constituents ELECTED them to do ? Apparently Obama doesn't really care who elected HIM !

      1. Tax cuts for the wealthy:

    http://politicalwire.com/...

    He doesn't care that borrowing for tax cuts for wealthy continues to blow a big hole in the budget. We are paying 50% of revenue to service the national debt, yet he wants to give in to the GOP and meet them halfway. These liars continue to go to the lowest common denominator to discredit him and he goes along with it.

      2. Military salaries are some of the best in the economy. Parents are convincing their children to go. In this economy, it's no wonder that middle class families, who can barely hang onto their house,  are sending their young men and women to hellholes in the Middle East to "defend their country." But it's a travesty no one told the kids they'd lose their lives to roadside bombs, be maimed for life, or witness horrors that will haunt them every night they sleep.

    What exactly are we doing to sustain this continued effort ? Bankrupting the economy ? Why are we there ? Propping up unstable governments so we can continue to beg others nearby for their crude?

    So we are trading in our children's future for debt and oil. Pathetic.

      3. If we spent a tenth of what we are spending on defense to universities and education, and lowering tuition costs, wouldn't we be more "competitive" and actually be producing more as a nation ?

      4. Our jobs continue to be exported to other countries because the US is letting them go. Corporations, who are spending millions on upper management, because it's "competitive" and the only way to "keep them," have convinced the public that they have to ship jobs overseas to be profitable,  lay them off or not give a living wage. What's wrong with limits on executive pay to a ratio to the least paid worker.  If they don't want to pay the taxes, then limit their pay. It's not like it would really cause them pain either way. What about tax incentives to keep US workers WORKING.

    All I can say is that this nation has its priorities all wrong, Obama is going along with a lot of it, continues to let himself get demonized without fighting back, and is letting down his "base" if you now even call it that, at the expense of this country's future.

    The lamb cannot lie down with the lion. Wake up Obama.

  •  Why can't I rec any comments??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, bnasley

    None of my recs are showing up. Why would that occur?

    Some people have a problem with realism, because it spoils their beautiful dreams of magical rainbows-kovie

    by demoKatz on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:23:04 PM PST

  •  Pew: 66% supported a challenge to Clinton (13+ / 0-)

    Roughly a third of Democrats (34%) say they would like to see other Democratic candidates challenge Obama for the party’s nomination in 2012. In December 1994, far more Democrats (66%) supported a primary challenge to President Clinton.

    link

  •  2012 nightmare: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Badabing, David PA, randomfacts

    A successful challenge from the left almost defeats Obama in the primaries. The disaffected left stays home and Palin wins.

    See our holiday goodies in the Kool Kos Katalogue

    by 4Freedom on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:26:47 PM PST

    •  It is a nightmare (11+ / 0-)

      And it seems to be what a majority of this site is actively hoping for.

      If you think Obama is a "Republican" president, see what President Palin will be like for 4 years.

      The sad thing is that doesn't seem to bother anyone on this site. But it should.

      •  This site (5+ / 0-)

        Has been taken over by tea party trolls. At this point, I'm not sure there's any point in trying to reform it, with people like BWD being bullied into leaving. Any suggestions of where to jump ship?

        Proud supporter of nuclear power!

        by zegota on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:38:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I honestly don't know the difference (6+ / 0-)

          between tea party trolls, fox news, and some of the diaries I see on this site.

          I'm not surprised BWD left. Hell, I wouldn't blame Obama if he quit. He has people on the right calling his wife a whore, his daughters "ghetto trash," and calling him a Nazi Kenyan tribesman.

          He has people on the left calling him a corporate Wall Street coward weaking hack who hates America. And then the same people on the left attack him for not listening to them. Honestly what Rahm and Gibbs called us is tame compared to the comments Obama gets on this site.

          There was a comment on the positive diary yesterday that got at least 14 recs for claiming that Obama might be actively and intentionally working to destroy America. That's Glenn Beck territory, and it got at least 14 recs! WTF is wrong with this site? How does that elect more and better dems?

          •  Obama did a good job electing Republicans (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Major Tom, Badabing

            this year.  If he was a bit progressive, he would have articulated a message that the party could run on this year.  He's essentially an Ed Brooke-style Republican.  The only reason he was ever a Democrat is because that is the only way into politics in Chicago.  

          •  What's amazing is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            magurakurin

            how viciously, tenaciously, ferociously, this site supported Obama over Clinton in 2008, as if the fate of the world hinged on it. Obama was their man. He was going to bring in the Revolution. He was going to change politics forever, change Washington forever. People like me back then tried to warn, hey this guy Obama, he's not all he's being made out to be, giving a few speeches doesn't mean all that. It's astounding how loudly I was shouted down. He was The One.

            The week after election day, there was a recc'd diary here whose sole purpose was to gloat about the fact that Obama had won one of Nebraska's electoral votes. It was the glow after the election. The same day as that diary, GM announced it only had a few months left to live. I made a comment to the effect of, "Hey guys, don't you think the imminent liquidation of GM is a little more important than whether Obama won an electoral vote in Nebraska? Shouldn't we be focusing on that?"

            I was shouted down. Early in Obama's term, in 2009, I tried to warn people. In April, when Arlen Specter defected to the Democrats, people thought it was the greatest thing ever. Another recc'd diary celebrating nothing but Arlen Specter. I posted a diary warning people. Obama is failing, I tried to say. The economy really sucks and he doesn't know what to do about it. Don't we have bigger things to worry about than an old fart like Specter? I included a line about Obama regarding 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall, and Obama's gotten pretty big'

            That diary got some donuts.

            Now, 18 months later. Here we are. The tribe has moved on --- too late, predictably --- to "disillusionment". To "hurt." To "betrayal." Now that it's too late for dissatisfaction to actually result in any positive change, DKos is dissatisfied. Now that it no longer matters, DKos is angry. Back when he could have been blocked from the party nomination, or back when he was still in campaign mode against McCain and answerable to his base, or back in the early stages of his Presidency when he still had more room for manueverability and more political capital and could have taken bolder stands on the important issues -- it was all worship, worship, worship.

            Now that his record's set in stone and he's the only one standing between us and Sarah Palin? Now it's acid, loathing, and puke.

        •  i thought it was just me. (4+ / 0-)

          i took the "are you a progressive" survey a while back, and i scored very liberal, which was a complete surprise, since i support this president, and according to folks around here i'm a corporatist/apologist, obamabot who doesn't understand true progressivism.

          what i see here is pure negativism.  it is really depressing.

          •  When I have time I want to write a diary (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            magurakurin, Larsstephens

            I'm sure I have no chance of making the rec list, since I don't hate Obama. I'm waffling between "WTF is wrong with you people" and "can't we restore sanity and stop saying Obama hates America?"

            I really think the problem is so many progressives feel that compromise = capitulation. They'd rather see no HCR bill, for instance, than any bill that isn't less than 100% perfect. It doesn't matter what can or can't pass, or what we do or don't have the votes for.

            I think that's why we seem to enjoy being out of power. It's easy to talk about what SHOULD be passed when there's no chance of passing it. When we actually have to get things done, we don't want to get messy. Hence this drive to primary Obama with someone who has no chance winning the general.

        •  Ah yes, the classic "I'm butter, you're glue" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, mattwb

          A favorite of Republicans.

          What this site has really been overrun with are Democratic party operatives bent on squashing dissent for Republican-lite policies to the tune of "it's-the-best-we-can-hope-for-60-Senate-votes-America's-a-center-right-nation".

          The idea that the tea party would even know how to pretend to advocate for something resembling socialism....

          My other car is a pair of boots.

          by FutureNow on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:13:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know what your subject means (4+ / 0-)

            But it sounds disgusting.

            If you think espousing the idea that Obama is a Republican that secretly ran as a Democrat in order to infiltrate the White House and push through his corporatist agenda is legitimate dissent that should be "debated," you're kinda too far gone to even talk to. Seriously, that's a conspiracy theory that Rush Limbaugh would say "Well, that sounds a little bit farfetched" to. And yet, it's one over half the posters here have clung to, and is rocketing up the reclist.

            And by tea party trolls, I meant the other side coming in and pretending to be "concerned progressives" who think Obama is just not good enough and should be primaried -- we don't care if this will completely ruin our chances of getting any progressive legislation or judicial rulings for the next 10 years, we just have to, cause Obama is a Blue Dog Republican Corporatist! Not at all suspicious that that would be just what the tea party and Republicans are praying for.

            Proud supporter of nuclear power!

            by zegota on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:27:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  ballon juice (6+ / 0-)

          for starters. In fact other places are legion. Like David said above, I'm just here for the nuts, now. There is a sordid pleasure in watching these fuckwits go into to convulsions. But they really are nothing new. Greens and Naderites used as dupes by the GOP to foil elections and a smattering of the sort of folks who show up at demonstrations, smash a Starbucks window, and fuck the entire purpose of the demonstration for everyone involved--would be revolutionaries who don't have the actual courage to take it to the next level of violence that they like to subtly hint at in their discourse. And then there is also a smattering of those who really wished for a left-wing dictator in the election of Obama and are shocked and crushed that he is, in fact, every bit the man he described himself as in the books he wrote before he ran for President.

          Kos is gone. When I first started reading this blog he posted through out the day, and I used to really enjoy his style of writing, but he rarely does much here anymore. He's made a mint and probably could really care less about this blog other than the counting the coin at the end of the day. Good for him, I suppose. There are occasional gems of writing though that still poke through the ooze. But the level of depressive outlooks and bleak mindsets has really gotten high. If I was as forlorn as some of these people, there is no way I'd be spending time posting on a political discussion forum. If the whole system is fucked beyond belief, then why not just drop out? Smoke weed, drink beers, get laid, you know, fuck it. I don't get it. But then again I haven't been diagnosed with clinical depression like some of these posters have, at moments of clarity, admitted to in the past.

          this to shall pass, I suppose.

        •  Yes, there are, as I'm finding the last couple (0+ / 0-)

          of days, numerous sane intelligent coherent DEMOCRATIC sites.  Really.  Actually a good starting point is just go to Bwd's new site and in the right hand column is a nice list of links to sound voices.

          But you know - after reading this a m a z i n g  diary, I'm actually inclined to stick around for the comedy value.. I mean this is some funny shit.

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165 Barack Obama, DailyKos 2005

          by sherijr on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I just found BWD's site as well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4Freedom, sherijr

            It might be smaller than this site, but at least I can expect some positivity.

            The sad thing is I don't mind a debate. I don't mind people saying when Obama is wrong. But attacking him personally (and anyone who supports him) just does the right's work for them.

            At least there's this diary up http://www.dailykos.com/...

            and others like it that are at least getting the word out.

            •  Couldn't agree more. Mindless criticism without (0+ / 0-)

              thoughtful solutions goes nowhere, except to vent some anger.

              If we want substantial change, we will need to alter the way campaigns are financed and work on de-consolidating media. Money and editorial bias, as well as our dumbed-down educational system and trashed economy, have put our democracy on a collision course with destruction.

              Remodeling the American version of democracy is going to take some hard work.

              See our holiday goodies in the Kool Kos Katalogue

              by 4Freedom on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:56:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  That's depressing. I hope you are wrong about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, NotGeorgeWill

    that.

  •  This is Trollery 3.0 (9+ / 0-)

    The American political system has been corrupt, as are all others, for over 200 years. Why pretend that it is a shocking new discovery?
    This diary does not convince me that I should have voted for McCain, nor that I was naive about Obama.

  •  with respect to the end of the Democratic Party (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies, boofdah, Badabing

    wait for December and what happens with the Catfood Commission report and in the lame duck session in general.

    If the Democratic leadership cuts SS, VA, etc., cuts taxes only for the wealthy, does not cut back on the wars that are literally bankrupting America, Nancy Pelosi isn't going to have a Democratic Party to be Minority Leader of in January, elected Democrats are going to become independents en masse, fleeing from a newly-radioactive brand. And from "not our" President Obama who signed the resulting legislative package into law.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:30:33 PM PST

    •  Can we at least wait until it happens (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, David PA, katesmom

      before we make a commitment to abandon the party in 2012?

      Can we at least wait until that happens before we start smearing Obama as a horrible republican anti-american Wall Street hack?

      I mean honestly, you're attacking Obama because you THINK he MIGHT sign an as-yet nonexistent bill into law.

      Honestly, this is why Republicans kick our asses again, and again, and again.

      •  I suggest you read the analyses of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, pkbarbiedoll, Badabing

        the financial reform legislation on Naked Capitalism, Baseline Scenario, and ZeroHedge before deciding we need to wait for the results of the Catfood Commission report to know where Obama's loyalties lie. Or for that matter, check out the political record of Obama's own appointees to the Catfood Commission, it might give you a clue as to why it is universally called the Catfood Commission.

        What I was talking about was the fate of the Democratic Party, not the same thing as the future of President Obama's political career.

        Other than that ... something I'm sure you'll enjoy.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:17:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks angela and alizard, we wait at our own (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard

          peril.  The handwriting is on the wall and it has been for a very long time.

          I appreciate your sense of urgency..and honesty.

          Ms. B.

          •  there's another reason why (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Badabing

            many progressives who read the sites I recommended tend to treat with contempt the people who try to marginalize them because they don't present 'happy news'.

            Lots of people who use those sites to tell us what's really going on have made a fair amount of money from knowing a reasonable approximation of the truth.

            Zerohedge has its problems, of course.  

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Thu Nov 25, 2010 at 02:35:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Stand around and wait and watch (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing
        but do and say nothing while SS, VV, Medicare, and taxes to the wealthy are cut, then try to decide what to do after the barn door is closed? You can't be serious.
  •  This site has officially gone of the deep end (19+ / 0-)

    The netroots has pretty much conceded 2012 with rhetoric like this being recc'd under the guise of "having a debate". Welcome to at least 4 years of total Republican control over the executive, judicial and legislative branches. Welcome to President Palin.

    Proud supporter of nuclear power!

    by zegota on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:34:44 PM PST

  •  I support this President (11+ / 0-)

    and will vote for him 2012 barring any significant changes. So far, I have seen no one who I believe will do a better job of governing this country.

  •  President Obama made a brilliant speech today at (18+ / 0-)

    Kokomo, Indiana Crysler Plant #2 today. I wish I could write a diary about how encourging he was to the workers, but I know such a diary would be laughed off KOS' site.  One would have to be crazy to writs a diary with anyting positive about the President in this atmosphere.  This makes mw wonder how any traction to turing around a dialogue to something that could help elect the next Democratic candidate might be possible.

    If a tree  falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is any sound made?

  •  Just watched David Corn (12+ / 0-)

    on KO talking about how Barack Obama saved the economy.

    Wow, David Corn is drinking the kool-aid!

    Seriously, and I mean this in the best possible way, some people really need to shut off their tv's and quit reading the doomsday blogs. You are working yourself into an alternate reality.

    It's an easy thing to do.

    This is...nuts.

    •  Baloney (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Tom, pkbarbiedoll, Badabing

      They won't be able to peddle that line to voters in 2012.  They're not fooled.  

      •  In other words (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NotGeorgeWill, Larsstephens

        You don't care about what Obama's accomplished in the past 2 years, you're not voting for him in 2012.

        That's good to know. You're doing what on a blog that is supposed to be supporting Dems exactly?

        Oh wait, the mission is now to piss on Obama no matter what he does. Never mind, you're doing a great job!

      •  Oh yeah, let all the Banks/Wall St pretend they (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cynndara, No one gets out alive

        are all solvent, (when they are not and haven't been forever....but hell, let's not cause a panic or a run on the Banks, as the continue to steal from everyone, and destroy every bit of equity in our homes, and above all,) let's put out 20 bucks (lol) to keep the GM's going while their Unions just bit the bullet, and how the major 'guy' got a Nine billion dollar bonus from TARP.

        Same old bullshit, same old game: the real game was this:

        The Great Heist of 2008 was about this: it was not just about Hank Paulson/Bush as they were leaving the White House to at first pretend that the $700 billion that Hank Paulson held a gun to the head of Congress, and stated that: If you don't give it to us, there will be Martial Law and American will blow up, it was much more than this:  It was a lie to begin with, and everyone on all the decent financial blogs have been saying since this happened, but more than that, these same blogs created a time line, with proof as to how it happened and why it happened.  

        So know after all the blackmail and looting, what are we facing?  Another new steal and deal: another $700 billion continued Bush extension of the tax cuts for the top 1 percent, who already got the fuck paid off.  That is the fucking brutal truth of it all, and if anyone thinks GM was really saved, that is the biggest bullshit of all.  The Unions are again being nicked to death.  It is all the same part of the same scheme......Pay off the crooks, lairs and thieves, and then throw a few bones to what is left of the Unions and make them think, we are all giving them, a wonderful new deal of the century, when we raid their pension funds and cut their benefits and salaries..

        Oh...............such a deal.

        You got it Betty, and I always knew you did.  It's all bullshit, and I cannot believe that our own Democrats do not see what is really going on..

        BTW, I wish and bless you and your family a great Holiday Season...I mean that,....I love your comments, you are one that is 'in the know' and for that I appreciate that most....

        Ms. B

      •  Then voters will get what they deserve (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        and it won't be a MORE progressive/liberal President - it will be Huckabee or Palin or Romney.

        Put today in context.

        I remember when cities in the US were burning with race riots.

        I remember when the national guard was shooting kids on college campuses.

        I heard stories from my parents of long breads lines and utter destitution with no real safety net at all.

        My Mom's in a nursing home - the government is paying for it.

        When all you read are the hyperbolic doomsayers, you will put yourself into a state of cynicism and despair, and really, what's the point?

        Krugman's a smart guy, I agree, and he's warning about potential trouble ahead, but he's not the only smart guy.

        When you've come to think that the whole world is against you, you've put yourself into a miserable state - and a counter-productive one regarding your future prospects.

        When you've come to a point where you're quietly hoping for it all to fall down in some warped expectation that you'll do better coming out of the ashes, you're moving into psychological trouble.

        I'm not trying to fight with you or Bababing - I'm so sick of that.  There's nothing to be gained.  We live in alternate universes.  

    •  Clearly, Obama's stimulous helped (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, Badabing

      But if the regulations aren't resurrected, the problem isn't even close to being fixed, and this thing ain't over yet, with the foreclosure crisis going through the roof. If we get out of this thing by the skin of our teeth, it will be due largely to sheer luck, not altogether due to Obama's weak stimulus package, although it was better than a purely republican solution.

      As usual, that lack of seeing the bigger picture, Salvatore.

      "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -- Albert Camus

      by ZhenRen on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:44:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words, the diarist isn't at all "nuts" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard

        Just to be clear.

        "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -- Albert Camus

        by ZhenRen on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:13:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In other words, who was saved Zhen? (6+ / 0-)

          A few weeks ago, during a blizzard that deposited several feet of snow on Washington, I met Geithner in his office. Dressed casually in bluejeans and snow boots, he seemed to have largely given up hope of convincing the public that the financial-rescue plan was well calibrated, but he insisted that it had been necessary. "My basic view is that we did a pretty successful job of putting out a severe financial crisis and avoiding a Great Depression or Great Deflation type of thing," he said. "We saved the economy, but we kind of lost the public country doing it."

          Read more http://www.newyorker.com/...

          I mean who the hell was saved?

          We are in a deep state of chaos and a new Depression, when Wall St/the Banks got paid off for ruining our entire nation, and still, we are talking like we 'some how got saved'...