Skip to main content

You won.

If this election demonstrated anything, it's that a President no longer has to keep the employment-population ratio up in order to win an election, and that there really is nothing to the left of Barack Obama in government anymore.

In 2008 Barack Obama won the Presidential race, by a sizable margin, over John McCain.  To arrange such a victory, Obama made a number of once-significant promises.  No insurance mandate, a public option, and so on.  Obama no longer needs to make such promises in order to win elections.  Perhaps the Democrats will generally no longer have to make such promises in order to win elections.  We shall see.

To be truthful, a number of people expressed disappointment with the Obama administration during his first term in office.  What this re-election proved is that these people are no longer important to the political process.  The great mass of Obama supporters, then, did not qualify their votes for him, did not set conditions upon their willingness to vote for him, and did not withdraw their votes even if they had objections to the way the Obama administration acted.  The most popular third-party "left" candidate in the Presidential race this year, Jill Stein, earned less than half a percent of the vote, which reveals more than anything how very few "liberals" took seriously the threats to vote for someone else.  And Obama showed Tuesday that he now has a core of unqualified supporters, and no longer has to pander to those whose support for him is qualified -- at least not from those who self-identify as "liberals" or "progressives."

Here we must note that clearly the Obama campaign had re-election help from the Republicans, who ran a campaign of unprecedented obtuseness.  But the closeness of the popular vote in this election helped the Democrats to close ranks while Obama's lead in the electoral system provided a significant margin of victory.

The situation is now such that "left" objections to the President's policies are completely futile.  The people at Firedoglake talk about "putting pressure upon the President," but this is nonsense.  The President is immune from any pressure mere voters might have upon him.  He can do what he wants.  To be sure, there might be a Republican Congress standing in the way.  But this shouldn't be a problem for Obama, who is smart enough to maneuver around those people.  The Republican agenda has become completely pointless -- as Matt Stoller has pointed out, the Republican Party no longer wants to win very seriously; its main role today is to provide the requirement of an "opposition" so that America can continue to have a "two party system."  So what is left standing, in this political moment, is Obama's agenda.

Thus the real beneficiaries of this election are the unqualifying supporters of Obama, the people who will support what he does regardless of what it is.  Congratulations, again.  You won.

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

  •  There, there (17+ / 0-)

    I'm sure any feelings of utter irrelevance will pass...

    Moving forward, consider the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Deal for All as a solution to the lame-duck budget and sequestration crisis. Democrats won, now use that!

    by tytalus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:10:33 AM PST

    •  Why feel irrelevant? (4+ / 0-)

      That's no fun.

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:24:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so why do you? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, tytalus, blueyedace2, sviscusi
        To be truthful, a number of people expressed disappointment with the Obama administration during his first term in office.  What this re-election proved is that these people are no longer important to the political process.  

        ...And Obama showed Tuesday that he now has a core of unqualified supporters, and no longer has to pander to those whose support for him is qualified -- at least not from those who self-identify as "liberals" or "progressives."

        ...The situation is now such that "left" objections to the President's policies are completely futile.  The people at Firedoglake talk about "putting pressure upon the President," but this is nonsense.  The President is immune from any pressure mere voters might have upon him.  

        or did someone else put that in your diary?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:42:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Jill Stein (26+ / 0-)
    The most popular third-party "left" candidate in the Presidential race this year, Jill Stein, earned less than half a percent of the vote, which reveals more than anything how very few "liberals" took seriously the threats to vote for someone else.
    Umm, no.  How about: we remember what happened when a lot of liberals voted for Ralph Nader.  We're still dealing with the after-effects of that debacle.

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

    by Brian A on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:11:47 AM PST

    •  After Nader used his Supreme Court seat (9+ / 0-)

      to get Bush elected...  what a disaster...

      No, wait...

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:25:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Blame the Gore campaign while you're at it (10+ / 0-)

      why always blame the voter but protect half-assed Dem campaigns?

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:33:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  because more often than not (8+ / 0-)

        support for nader in 2000 was premised on their being no difference between gore and bush.

        voters who fell for that codswallop most certainly are to blame.

        gore isn't an entertainer.  not all presidents are telegenic like obama.  fewer still are as brilliantly charismatic as clinton.  but he was running for the job of president, not late night teevee host.  

        and faulting him for his campaign when the media wouldn't give him a break? puhleeze!

        if people couldn't see the vast differences between gore and bush, then i just don't know what to say.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:45:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't even bother (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A, Cedwyn, raina, TFinSF, sviscusi

          with people who think that they're fighting for progressive values by picking petty fights on the internet.  

        •  If Gore and the Dems had done a better job (5+ / 0-)

          they would have won, Nader or no, Supreme Court or no.

          Somehow this is too painful for people around here to accept.

          I believe our job here is to make the Democratic Party good enough so that it can win elections like that.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:50:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            So Gore should have known that every comment would be stretched and distorted into a way to ridicule and diminish him.  

            Yeah, he should have talked about the environment and other things that really animate him.

            There is no doubt that a media feeding frenzy took the Gore campaign by surprise.  Similar to Obama in the first debate, they didn't realize the paradigm had changed to such a degree that running against someone based on reality was naive and a sure way to crash and burn.

            Lieberman didn't help, but people didn't look at him at the time as anything but a democrat with strong credentials.

            There is a lot of blame to go around.  

            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

            by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:53:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you can always blame the media, Nader, the voters (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus, priceman, triv33

              but that doesn't win.

              And it takes the focus off the campaign, the one thing the party really has responsibility for. It comes off as finger-pointing by insiders.

              If the Gore campaign really didn't realize that running against someone based on reality alone was a losing strategy in the US media environment of the time, then they made a gigantic mistake. Serious political malfeasance. And let's don't get into Obama. If they still thought that way now, in 2012 ... words fail. (I don't believe they did, btw - my impression is Obama didn't feel well during the first debate, and every excuse offered later was merely to obscure that.)

              I do believe a better run party and more focused campaigns can win despite the lousy media, despite inattentive voters, and despite Mr. Nader. And that's what we should focus on here.

              An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

              by mightymouse on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:18:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't mention Nader (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn

                in my comment.  

                Gore was pretty much the first democrat to run for president against Karl Rove.  He was completely blindsided and the media was joyfully complicit (manipulated).

                Gore picked Lieberman - bad move.

                I don't care that he seemed stiff, blah blah, although as I said, if he'd been discussing climate he would have been quite animated.

                The campaign made mistakes.  Plenty of blame to go around.  Nowhere in my comment did I mention Nader.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:56:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Campaign's job is to reach the voters (6+ / 0-)

          as they actually are.

          You can whine about people not seeing the difference betw Bush and Gore. Maybe a lot of the voters are dumb. But the Democrats still have to win them over.

          Going on about Nader is an excuse to avoid doing what really needs to be done.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:52:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Be careful what you wish for... (5+ / 0-)

          since President Gore might've led in the fullness of time to President Lieberman, war with Iran, and the end of the world as we know it.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:56:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  So never withhold your vote for Democrats. (4+ / 0-)

      And don't demand anything of them except that they be themselves.

      Good to know.

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:12:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention this a Democratic site (0+ / 0-)

      Not a site to promote the Green Party. Organize and promote the Greens elsewhere.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 11:57:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Election's Over. Time to Organize Independntly (8+ / 0-)

    and work on creating better Democrats and issues.

    There wasn't anything we could do to replace Obama this past year except to give the nation Romney. Nobody was going to accept that. But with the contest over, the options now aren't limited to cheering or criticizing. This is the point in the cycle to choose door #3.

    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 Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:13:05 AM PST

  •  Thank you! We appreciate your congratulations. (21+ / 0-)

    I have found that taking sardonically offered praise and congratulations literally, as praise and congratulations, is the best policy all around.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:14:43 AM PST

  •  HAHAHAHHAHAHA! (27+ / 0-)

    thanks for the morning laugh. and thanks for the congrats! I actually AM thrilled that we won rather than tossing my vote in to the abyss only to watch a "president elect romney" give an acceptance speech tuesday night.

    thanks for the congrats. I feel great.

    For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

    by mdmslle on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:15:11 AM PST

  •  What a petty diary. (19+ / 0-)

    Shame on you.

    I can't say that I'm sorry that your disappointment is so strong that it seeps through all over the place in this diary.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:15:11 AM PST

  •  Sure, we could have voted for (26+ / 0-)

    Jill Stein.

    How does "President Romney" sound to you?

    How would that have furthered a progressive agenda?

    I woke up this morning, and my coffee smells just fine.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:16:08 AM PST

  •  Maybe you haven't considered that (17+ / 0-)

    supporters of the President don't like to be called "unqualifying supporters" any more than the 47% Mitt Romney denigrated don't like being referred to as lazy leaches.  

  •  Have a tissue. (13+ / 0-)

    And I'm sure somebody will kiss the boo-boo away, too.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:17:59 AM PST

  •  You should be congratulating Ralph Nader. eom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TFinSF, Cedwyn, Deep Texan

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:21:25 AM PST

  •  1. Matt Stoller is an idiot. (7+ / 0-)

    Pro tip: voting against the most liberal President since FDR is not "progressive".

    2. Most self-identified liberals or progressives are Obama supporters, so this...

    And Obama showed Tuesday that he now has a core of unqualified supporters, and no longer has to pander to those whose support for him is qualified -- at least not from those who self-identify as "liberals" or "progressives."
    is silly -- Obama will and has listened to liberals, who make up a good chunk of his base.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:21:39 AM PST

    •  you are kidding... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Deep Texan, TFinSF, TheLizardKing

      of course, I've got a friend who's still riding the rusting remnants of the PUMA train, so I know people like this exist.I was really hoping the strong choice stance this year would sway her, but she doesn't like changing her mind.
      If you can't see electing Elizabeth Warren as progressive step, I feel sad for you. As the saying goes, we built that.
      We're in the unions that kept Sherrod Brown in the Senate.
      Why is it more important to focus on the folks that can't get elected.(But, okay, I feel worse for Carmona then Jill Stein, who will probably get a show on Current any second now, if there still is a Current. She knew going in that everything was against her.)

      "I'm six-four...it takes a lot to get over my top." --Alan Grayson

      by chicating on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:37:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's just suppose for a moment that in some (13+ / 0-)

    alternate reality, Jill Stein could have won.

    Do you think she could somehow get Republicans to stop their obstruction? What on earth do you think she could have gotten passed?

    If you want a Green Party candidate to ever win the WH, you first need to organize and elect Green Party legislators. Without a credible chance of winning any races, it is unproductive to help elect Republicans.

    But you are welcome. I appreciate your thanks.

    FWIW, I voted for the Green Party candidate for Senator in TN. Even with a fake Democrat running against Corker, Martin Pleasant only got 1.6% of the vote.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:25:21 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't say they were unqualifying supporters (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, TFinSF, Deep Texan

    The CRA passed under Bill Clinton made them all qualifying supporters, according to conservative talk radio.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:28:45 AM PST

  •  Do the Obama detractors on this site... (11+ / 0-)

    not realize that every comment and diary such as this one makes us President Obama supporters gleeful?

    My unsolicited advice to the anti-Obama crowd on this site? Stop talking in such a petty, sour-grapes tone, unless your goal is for the rest of us to keep on laughing at you.

    When Rachel Maddow at 11:15 Tuesday night announced Ohio went for Obama, the scene at my house was utter joy and pandemonium.

    In fact, my son remarked to my wife yesterday that he had never seen me jump so high.

    I'm still feeling pretty high, and these nasty, pointless diaries and comments I've been seeing since yesterday aren't dimming my joy one bit.

    Please proceed, bashers. But make no doubt: We're laughing.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:33:41 AM PST

    •  I congratulated you, didn't I? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, blue earth

      So it's good you're feeling pretty high.

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:23:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My unsolicited advice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus, priceman

      islook around it's not hard to find unless you aren't looking

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:32:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The issue you bring up is a serious one... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, sviscusi

        and one worthy of intelligent debate.

        My criticism is of the petty nonsense that's still going on post-election.

        The election is now over. Let's discuss serious matters in a way that elevates the discourse and doesn't devolve into immaturity.

        Drones have undoubtedly saved the lives of American military personnel. On the other hand, drones have undoubtedly killed innocent civilian life, though to a lesser degree than conventional bombing would.

        Of course, there's no way to quantify human life, and any innocent life lost is irreplaceable and heartbreaking.

        My feeling of the Obama administration is that the good outweighs the bad a thousandfold, but of course it isn't perfect.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:56:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My question being (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, Cassiodorus

          is bombing in North Africa actually legal. Is killing people like the so called "Mafia" by naming names and targeting a specific person actually legal if it's done outside the border and if so why is it legal for "our" government to do so and not others?

          Just a start

          There are no sacred cows.

          by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:38:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You raise good questions. (0+ / 0-)

            The fact is, none of us here, as far as I know, is privy to intelligence information concerning such matters.

            Also, I will admit, being a highly partisan Democrat, that I trust the Obama administration more in such matters than I did the previous administration, which seemed incapable of running a lemonade stand effectively.

            And I also believe that had Mr. Romney gotten into office, he would have maintained, maybe even expanded, the use of drones and kept in place all the other things a lot of us aren't so crazy about in the Obama adminstration. Plus, he would have brought back all the things we hate about the GOP.

            I feel sometimes, though, that there are some folks here who didn't like Obama from the get-go and went looking for reasons to criticize him, unfairly or not, and some of these folks are simply incapable of seeing the good. And the good is substantial.

            Am I thrilled that Obama won? Hell, yes. But no administration, even the ones I genuinely like, is beyond reproach.

            Constant vigilance is a byproduct of a strong democracy.

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:53:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A few points (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman, poligirl, Cassiodorus
              that I trust the Obama administration more in such matters than I did the previous administration, which seemed incapable of running a lemonade stand effectively

              The Obama admin has far acceded the efforts of Cheney in expanding the secret wars and drone strike. I can retrieve links but I'm sure you know the facts already.

              I feel sometimes, though, that there are some folks here who didn't like Obama from the get-go and went looking for reasons to criticize him, unfairly or not, and some of these folks are simply incapable of seeing the good.
              That my friend is the cop-out that has been used since the man took office. First it was he's only been there x amount of days and you never liked him anyway, then it was the obstructionists won't let him be what he really wants to be and you never really liked him anyway, then it was see you guys didn't show up and you really didn't like him anyway, then it was wait till after he is re-elected because you don't really like him anyway and just as predicted that now on this day it is you can't complain becase,,, wait for it,,, you never liked him anyway.

              Fuck that 365 24/7 that is when any of these fuckers deserve my wrath.

              There are no sacred cows.

              by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:22:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Can't edit (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poligirl, priceman

                but you get the gist

                There are no sacred cows.

                by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:31:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm actually fuming here (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                priceman, poligirl, Nada Lemming

                I have the exact same issues that I did in '06 when we worked to provide a mandate for what I considered "us". They ignored what we all told them and got their asses kicked in '10 except it was the blue dog/rightwingfucks that lost and they only lost because the kids that found politics because of a personality stayed home.

                Guess what! We are still at war which seems to have no end and not only that we are killing people in countries that we are not at war with, another thing is nobody has been punished for illegal wars. The financial industry has laughed all the way to the bank< while being coddled and we are on the hook for their theft of the people.

                Yeah I'm pissed and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "you never liked him" it has everything to do with we had our shot and increments have made no difference. WooHoo I get to buy insurance let's all party, guess what I couldn't afford it before and can't now, amazing that universal lie isn't it.

                There are no sacred cows.

                by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:47:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  bad news, i'm afraid (9+ / 0-)

    unemployment just went down again.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    sorry to givz you a sad.

    : (

    Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:47:01 AM PST

  •  Wow (8+ / 0-)

    I don't know about you but I have found that one sure way not to get people to take  one seriously is to scold them for being practical, and recognizing that throwing their votes away is really lousy way to make the Democratic Party more to one's liking.

    Just as the Nader people had eight years to build a progressive movement, and somehow didn't even try...I mean the Greens did nothing to organize beyond demonstrations during the war.   Large movements seem beyond their grasp, even against the patriot act....and the abuses of the Bush administration.

    But put in a Democratic President who has to deal with obstructionists and Teabaggers on the right, and an Occupy movement which hasn't gone beyond ad hoc action, and what have you got?

    But what is the strategy of the Greens?  Act as spoilers, passively elect Republicans...and then do nothing to build a relevant leftie movement.

    I am a social Democrat, and I am the kind of person who would normally be open to moving the Dems to the left, but I have been nothing but turned off by the failure of the Greens build a successful counter to the center right policies of the Dems.   Not that they have tried.

  •  So, we should have let Mitt Romney win? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Cedwyn, blueyedace2

    Somehow that would advance progressivism?

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:00:48 AM PST

  •  any idea that politicians (0+ / 0-)

    are beholden to any of us is an obtuse one.

    if they were, then we wouldn't be here.  QED

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:03:14 AM PST

  •  Thursday already? Wow. Time flies. (5+ / 0-)

    Oh, yeah, get over yourself.

    Although, I gotta admit, you kinda remind me of the Left's version of this lady:

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:30:09 AM PST

  •  And congratulations to you as well... (5+ / 0-)

    Dear hand-wringing, couch-fainting self-described liberal. If it weren't for President Obama's re-election win on Tuesday night you would not have been able to whine, err register your objections with the president's agenda.

    Your last paragraph was so enlightening that I thought I would riff on it.

    Thus the real beneficiaries of this election are the unqualifying gripers of Obama, the people who will whine about what he does regardless of what it is.  Congratulations, again.  You won too.
    Oh, and I'm not trying to shout down your opinion or prevent you from stating it. I am, however, ridiculing you because, hey I can register my opinion too. Cheerio.

    The most dangerous... programs, from a movement conservative's point of view, are the ones that work the best and thereby legitimize the welfare state. Krugman

    by BasharH on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:31:40 AM PST

    •  Am I a liberal? (0+ / 0-)

      oh, and:

      If it weren't for President Obama's re-election win on Tuesday night you would not have been able to whine, err register your objections with the president's agenda.
      That's right, because all freedom would have been lost with President Romney because... because he's the reincarnation of Hitler, I tell ya, HITLER!!!!!

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:31:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You tell me... (0+ / 0-)

        Ha ha ha, and the first one to invoke Hitler is... yes, you are the winner. Thanks for playing. I look forward to more whining in the future because griping should have an opportunity to go "Forward" as well (you can imagine the little Obama icon for the "o" there).

        The most dangerous... programs, from a movement conservative's point of view, are the ones that work the best and thereby legitimize the welfare state. Krugman

        by BasharH on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:59:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is This Snark? (6+ / 0-)
    The situation is now such that "left" objections to the President's policies are completely futile.  The people at Firedoglake talk about "putting pressure upon the President," but this is nonsense.  The President is immune from any pressure mere voters might have upon him.
    In my heart of hearts, I thought even among the frothiest fo the firebaggers they didn't actually mean "Hand the Republicans the keys to the country" when they talked about "putting pressure on Obama."

    Though, on the whole I agree with your premise that the things people at FDL talk about are nonsense.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:36:54 AM PST

    •  If you can't threaten to withhold your vote -- (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue earth, Nada Lemming, priceman

      where do your politicians stand with respect to you?

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:08:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're Rich People (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, TFinSF, blueyedace2, sviscusi

        They were rich people before they were elected, and they are rich people when they lose elections. If 100% of us had withheld our votes from Obama, we wouldn't have hurt him one iota.  He and his family would retire to some great big house in Illinois or Hawaii or whatever and he'd make twenty million dollars a year giving speeches and probably start his own community organizing mega-charity or something.

        WE--on the other hand--the residents of Romney Nation, would have been completely fucked.

        I communicate regularly with the elected officials who represent me, and I volunteer my time and money to the ones I most strongly agree with.

        But the idea that I should punch MYSELF in the face every day for four years and somehow that's punishing THEM... that's lunacy.

        Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

        by TooFolkGR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:04:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, let's try again: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue earth, Nada Lemming, priceman
          If 100% of us had withheld our votes from Obama, we wouldn't have hurt him one iota.
          The point of withholding your vote is to try to get your government to be responsive to your needs.  If your vote is going to them no matter what, why should they do anything differently?  So it "wouldn't have hurt (Obama) at all."  So what?  That isn't the point.
          WE--on the other hand--the residents of Romney Nation, would have been completely fucked.
          Do the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Grand Bargain look better when they are promoted by a President with a (D) next to his name?  Is Dick Cheney's War on the World more virtuous when a (D) is commanding drone assassinations?
          But the idea that I should punch MYSELF in the face every day for four years and somehow that's punishing THEM... that's lunacy.
          How does this argument hold up when it's put next to the "we must vote for the lesser of two evils" argument?  

          Are you sure you're not punching yourself in the face already?

          "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

          by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:21:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm Still Not Seeing This (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, blueyedace2, Cedwyn
            The point of withholding your vote is to try to get your government to be responsive to your needs.  If your vote is going to them no matter what, why should they do anything differently?  So it "wouldn't have hurt (Obama) at all."  So what?  That isn't the point.
            If the point of withholding your vote is to make government more responsive to your needs, connect some dots for me.  How is a Romney Government (which is what we get if liberals withhold their vote) more responsive to liberal needs?

            Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

            by TooFolkGR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:35:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  When you withhold your vote -- (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue earth, Nada Lemming, priceman

              you put YOUR SIDE on notice that they need to be responsive to YOU if they are to merit your vote.

              If you reward a child for behaving badly, why should that child believe that a different behavior is necessary?  Politicians work the same way.

              What's actually going to happen is something else.  The Democrats are going to line up behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Grand Bargain, the privatization of the public schools, the continuation of Dick Cheney's war on the world, and a number of other things, and their rank-and-file will continue to vote for them because "Romney (or whichever bogeyman appears in 2016) would be worse."

              Maybe the politicians should just legalize theft.  It would line their pockets quickly enough.  If you're going to vote for them no matter what, why should they do anything except as they please?

              "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

              by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:49:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Doug Henwood says it's good for Obama to win (7+ / 0-)

    with a Republican in power people think "if only the Dems win they would be on our side."

    but when Dems win the true scope of the problem becomes more obvious.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:39:50 AM PST

  •  Depressive passive-aggressive true progressive (9+ / 0-)

    is unimpressive.  

  •  Wow, I am privileged (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, Lawrence

    to meet someone who has seen an "unqualified success".

    I am sure that Jill Stein and other folks "left" enough for your taste would never disappoint you by having to cooperate with an oppo party House to any degree, or by not immediately rectifying everything that has been done to this country by greedy self-serving politicians and special interests.

    I've said before - third parties seem to think they are entitled to the White House without building any sort of downticket party structure.  Then they are shocked that they don't have a place at the table with Democrats and Republicans who have people who started on school boards and in assembly offices.

    And one final comment:  I voted for the guy I wanted in the White House.  I am not blind to the fact that he has been leading from the center - but he has moved decidedly to the left (DADT, gay marriage, climate change - which shouldn't be left-right but it is, single payer salvo in the ACA) and has learned some hard lessons about trying to play nice with House republicans.

    Frankly I believe it's naive and "unqualified" (by your definition) to actually believe a hard-left candidate would (a) get elected given the lack of party apparatus and (b) be able to accomplish what to you are the "true" measures of a president who deserves your vote.  

    Yes, a green party candidate would immediately change DC and enact every.single.promise made during a presidential run.

    Here is how I qualify my vote:

    President Obama represents my interests (health care, consumer protection, e.g.)

    There has been distinct leftward progress under this President

    The President has won some major victories despite opposition

    He ended a war

    He takes responsibility for what goes on in his adminstration

    His administration been virtually scandal-free
    He bucks the system and his own advisors to do what he thinks is right

    He walked into a shitstorm and began cleaning it up.  I'm under no illusion that he should be done cleaning by now.

    This President just mentioned climate change in his acceptance speech.  If this doesn't seem major to you, you've been hiding under a rock.

    Did he cut the deficit in half?  No.  He made a lot of promises before Mitch McConnel promised to stymie every attempt to fix things.

    So while you think we should all be disappointed but we are just ignoring it - that's just insulting.  I am informed and aware and don't have my head in the sand.  I voted the the man I wanted for President.  

    I can only hope we have a democrat of his caliber to vote for in 2016.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

    by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:46:40 AM PST

    •  I don't really see -- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue earth, Nada Lemming

      why you should let real-world conditions govern your moods.

      After all, both Black and Chicano wealth in this country has taken a big, big hit in the economic downturn and Obama's response has been to bail out the banksters while letting everyone else fend for themselves.  Believing in Obama means taking a vow of poverty, for surely the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Grand Bargain will make us even poorer.  Why not just accept it?

      And I'm sure he's "learned some hard lessons about trying to play nice with House republicans" -- and if you want those lessons to be "continue to use bipartisanship as a cover for doing what you wanted to do from the outset," then it's all good!

      And of course there's also plenty to celebrate:

      Obama followed through (while trying hard not to do so) on the status of forces agreement signed by Bush in Iraq.

      Since nobody really takes an interest in Obama's abrogation of Constitutional guarantees (see e.g. the "kill list," or NSA spying on ordinary Americans) there has been no scandal about his Administration.

      He mentioned climate change in a recent speech while continuing to be solidly behind the fossil fuel corporations, especially as regards those controversial Keystone XL and Deepwater Horizon installations.

      I can only hope we have a democrat of his caliber to vote for in 2016.
      We'd be so much worse off if we actually had to use our critical faculties.  Think of how bad the world would appear then!

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:14:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can stop (3+ / 0-)

      at any point.

      Just a thought, how about we work toward democratic principles and ensure that the rest of America realizes that those are exactly what they supported before they listened to the propaganda.

      Just a thought

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:02:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What strange responses to my comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        The diary is pretty much a slam on anyone who voted for Obama, that we have all abandoned any standards of qualification for someone we'd vote for.

        I only indicate that I did not abandon all standards of qualification, and that I actually happen to think Obama is has been a good president, here are the reasons.

        I have no problem working toward democratic principles; this diary is about us being fools, and has no positive message.

        I have no problem with using my "critical faculties"; this diary is about us being fools who have used NO critical faculties.

        No president is perfect.  No person is perfect.  I'll wager Jill Stein is not perfect.  It's likely that her policy statements would morph quite a bit once she was in the WH and she'd disappoint like anyone else.

        Why suddenly am I the target for people who think it's a good idea to vote third party no matter which republican horror that vote ushers in?

        Just because I have thoughtful reasons for supporting THIS president doesn't mean I have no faculty for seeing the ways he has disappointed me, the mistakes he makes and the choices that raise my ire and my concern, or the things I wish he would do that he has not done.

        NONE of that makes me an "unqualified voter" who has no objections to Obama's policies.

        What I am is a voter who puts this qualification on a third party candidate (aside from their "thirdness" being completely insufficient to convince me to vote for them) is this:

        Voting for him or her will not mean a republican will take office.
        Go back and read the other comments and go after them.  At least I didn't just ridicule the diarist, but gave some reasons for my position.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:50:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  BTW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        I don't even understand your comment.  Nothing I wrote meant I didn't want to work toward democratic principles.  The rest of what you said is a bit unclear.

        Maybe clarify a little.  

        Just a thought.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:52:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Allow me to clarify (2+ / 0-)

          Bombings in countries that we are not at war with, putting "on the table" discussions of SS, medicare and medicaid or threats toward Iran, forcing people to pay an insurance company so they are allowed to deny "coverage" under cover of law falls nowhere near the principles with which I was raised.

          And let's not even discuss the fact that the words just read were viewed to determine whether or not they were a threat to the welfare of this sovereign nation. I can't exactly put my finger on the moment but I do know that some people here have accepted the status quo, actually embrace it and I'm not cool with it, it just disappoints that others are.

          There are no sacred cows.

          by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 12:51:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

            but don't presume we haven't see the same exact facts and dealt with them a different way.  No need to be insulting.

            See I agree.  And yet I know that voting hopelessly out of protest isn't the answer for me.

            Withholding my vote out of protest isn't the answer for me.

            Ushering in the republicans to "teach people a lesson" (like Nader said he wanted to do) to push people left isn't the answer for me.

            My choices:

            Choice #1:  A President that I disagree with on many issues.

            Choice #2:  An ex-governor who I would sooner see plastered to the moon than anywhere near the WH - a frightening cypher holding untold horrors to be unleashed in January and for years to come

            Choice #3:  A Green Party candidate who, although seeming to be competent, intelligent, liberal, shares values, has never held elected office and has absolutely no chance in hell of winning (see:  all other 3rd party candidates; and also see Choice #2)

            Choice #4:  No vote (see Choice #2)

            I have not abandoned the way I was brought up or my core, heartfelt beliefs.  

            I was true to them the best way I know how.  I voted for the man I wanted in the WH, he's not perfect but at least certainly wanted him in the WH more than I wanted those other Choices (See Choice #2).

            I made an informed choice.  I thought good and hard, did research, paid attention here and other places where folks are more critical of the President.

            And I voted for him.  See Choices 1-4 above.

            This diary is insulting to me, because it assumes that I don't care about those things you mention, or other things that I dislike or disagree with that you didn't mention.  

            I do care.  I voted to keep us moving forward.  Whatever comes will not be worse than it would be if we'd all voted into the wind and elected Romney.

            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

            by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:51:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus, blue earth
      I am sure that Jill Stein and other folks "left" enough for your taste would never disappoint you by having to cooperate with an oppo party House to any degree, or by not immediately rectifying everything that has been done to this country by greedy self-serving politicians and special interests.
      Right now we're awaiting a decision on ASA v. DEA.  Basically in a nutshell, the DEA has been allowed to both write and enforce the laws in its wheelhouse.  It claims its hands are tied because the Department of Health and Human Services still considers marijuana a Schedule 1 drug.  That classification is a farce, albeit one that destroys lives.

      Those two federal agencies flip the buck back and forth, and the prison industrial complex and Mexican cartels belch.

      So how is it that the big bad Republicans are stopping POTUS from telling both of the agencies under his direct control to knock it off?  It couldn't be that he's another bought and paid for right of center stooge, could it?

      I guess we'll find out soon enough, now that both Washington and Colorado have rejected the War on Marijuana.  Will Obama continue to send the DEA in to raid places that are operating within state law?  If so, how is that about Republicans?

      •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

        So your point is that Jill Stein would fix this?

        Or that Obama's failure to fix . . . . everything means the diarist is correct about all of us being "unqualified voters"?

        Really?

        I'm not a one-issue voter and frankly I think it's naive to be.

        I think marijuana should be legalized.  Do I think Obama should do it, should have done it?  YES.  

        Do I think that voting for him happily will make it happen?  NO.  I think it's my job to push for legalization instead of waiting for the president to focus on it.

        Do I think that voting for Jill Stein will make it happen?  NO.  Because she would NOT WIN and you can bet your ass Romney would not make it happen.

        I mean what is this?  I was happy to vote for this president, so you have to point out everywhere he is wrong?

        I was happy to vote for the president so therefore I don't care about the areas where I don't agree with him?

        I should not be happy to have voted for the president because he is not perfect?

        I should vote for an untested 3rd party candidate over one particular issue even if s/he would be chewed up in about 2 seconds in DC?  

        I was happy to vote for the president so I'm a target for derision?

        WTF?

        Since I know I'm the ONLY one on this site who was happy to vote for the president (snark) please feel free to heap all of your scorn for people were happy to vote for him directly on me.

        Oh, and don't forget your entire list of outrage against Obama, because there is definitely someone out there RIGHT NOW, who will fix it all, if I'd only vote for that person.

        Because that really makes sense.  

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:33:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Putting all else aside, from a meta point of view, (5+ / 0-)

    I'm glad the President won, because it highlights these very real divisions. The unity we felt under Bush was clearly illusory. Our differences are real and substantive, and the only way they come out is when Democrats have a chance to reveal the corporatist mindset of our entire political class.

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:58:42 AM PST

  •  Delicious S-fraude continues. It's so fun (0+ / 0-)

    that I'm going to give you a poke. I actually saw Obama strangling hobos at the rail yard.  But I support him unconditionally. You are So Right.  

    "Binder? I just met her!"

    by Inland on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:28:11 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site