Skip to main content

many kossacks have been towards President Obama recently. I sometimes wonder if President Clinton faced less harsh criticism/nastiness. What do you think?

Here is a sample of some of the nastiness in this link, courtesy of our respected fellow kossack weatherdude.

Why is there a certain wing of this blog that sees the bad in EVERYTHING President Obama may or may not be doing? Why does that wing NEVER acknowledge/legitimize the views of those who take a "giving the benefit of the doubt" side or positive side of situations? It would be appreciated if they showed some respect towards their fellow kossacks who disagree. Also, why do they base some of their arguments and diaries on speculations/rumors and hate it when they get their mistakes pointed out?

President Obama has acknowledged he made mistakes in his first term in terms of governing and messaging. There is no sugarcoating he should have done some things better. Also, we absolutely need to push and expect the BEST from him. I have no doubts or disagreement about that.

However, what I do not comprehend is why the constant one-sided nastiness/hatred of President Obama and disrespect of those who do not hold those views are so prevalent in this blog?

For example, this deal is NOTHING like past deals. Ed Schultz endorsed the deal. Also, Bernie Sanders voted for it (in years past he voted no in almost every deal that came up).

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid made it unscathed. Many bloggers deeply feared Social Security was going to be axed in this particular lame duck session. That did not happen and they were thus wrong. Yet, these bloggers are still really trashing President Obama as if it did happen.

I wonder if President Bill Clinton faced any of this progressive nastiness, even though he did a lot more nasty things for progressives and society than did President Obama.

It is also interesting to me that President Obama's approval ratings among liberals and Democrats are 85-90% in polls consistently. You would think they would be lower but they are not.

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

  •  Frankly, I don't care how nasty they have (27+ / 0-)

    been towards president Obama.

    What appalls me is how nasty certain kossacks, from both sides of the divide, have been toward each other.

    That, I think, is much more depressing.

  •  Bill Clinton signed DADT and DOMA. (12+ / 0-)
    I sometimes wonder if President Clinton faced less harsh criticism/nastiness. What do you think?
    Clinton had some pretty harsh and nasty criticism.

    As anybody who knew me back then can tell you.

    Trust me on this one!


  •  yes, there was (16+ / 0-)

    clinton brought: welfare "reform," DADT, signed DOMA into law, deregulated the banks, championed global corporatism and "free trade," etc., etc.

    were you not around for his administration or something? he was reviled by many progressives. and still is. in my opinion he has been getting off way too easy over the past several years, in fact. the only difference between attacks on obama from the left and attacks on clinton from the left is that the modern internet did not exist at the time of the clinton presidency.

  •  I do not hate or disrespect the President (8+ / 0-)

    But this deal regardless of the white house spin was not a great deal or even a good deal. It was an ok deal that you would be happy to get if you were working from a position of weakness.

    He screwed the pooch on this negotiation.


    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." - President Merkin Muffley

    by Farkletoo on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:57:21 PM PST

    •  I'm not totally sure it was negotiation at fault (9+ / 0-)

      The deal is being spun as a huge victory.  I don't think it is so.  It's good for some, bad for others.  Politically it's a big victory but I don't care about that so much.  What I care about is whether our economy can right itself.

      I place all the blame on the GOP.  Not Obama.  Not negotiation skills.  Not the Democratic party.  The only answer is to continue to work to get the GOP out of office so the country can keep moving left.  It's been too far right for too long.

    •  Farkletoo (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Linda1961, CA wildwoman, JohnB47

      You don't make any sense. It's a good deal if you understand the concept of  'negotiations'. The weakness is here among the haters on this site.  You screwed the pooch. You did it in 2010 and you are revving up to do it again in 2014.

      •  have you read what is in it, because sure sounds (0+ / 0-)

        like you havent'

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

        by cherie clark on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:44:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  much like you didn't 'read' Melanctha's comment (0+ / 0-)

          The idealism on this site is parroting the unmovable obstruction of the right cc, and that is a formula that has a real history. The right wing media loves it that we are not focussed on going forward, but instead are willing to assassinate each other.
          I don't know what you know about the negotiations, but I know that nothing gets done in congress without compromise, especially so if your idea is liberal.
          And, we ( that's WE as in the leaders of progressive ideas) need to protect our leaders and provide clear remedies to the problems of the nation, rather than be distracted and divided by our own bickering.

          •  My response was to Farkeltoo not sure why it (0+ / 0-)

            posted where it did. You are right and I totally agree we need to focus on moving forward .

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

            by cherie clark on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:33:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  you haven't been around long (7+ / 0-)

    this is par for the course

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:00:17 PM PST

  •  Well. It really does go both ways... (3+ / 0-)

    This is the same fundamental pie fight that happens every so often.

    There are very few that make it their primary goal in posting here to find fault in Obama 100% of the time, not counting RW trolls, of course. One comes to mind, but he was banned awhile ago.

    It's the policies/positions, not the person, though I'm sure there are some exceptions.

    People can be pissed if they want to. Who cares? Shit gets out of control real quick when you're in an argument with someone, too.

    The pie fight will pass, like all the others. And a new one will come to take its place someday. Rinse. Repeat.

    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:03:43 PM PST

    •  never in the history of this country (6+ / 0-)

      has the tone of political discourse been anything less than frenzied and hyperbolic, no matter who is being argued for or against. and this is for one simple reason: its much easier to be impassioned than it is to be well-informed.

      that being said, it is difficult to overlook the fact that modern american democrats are to the right of true left wing parties in almost every other major country in the world. even the president himself fancies selling himself as a latter-day bob dole. at the same time, he is a man who has, time and again, asked that his supporters keep him honest, and push him toward where they want him to go. with that in mind, i see nothing wrong with the way he has been treated by the true progressive left (which he is simply not a member of).

  •  they are tribalists just like conservatives (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CocoaLove, Bush Bites, FiredUpInCA, koNko

    it's us vs them and you are either with them or against them

    they hate their enemies.  obama is their enemy and they hate him.  and they hate everyone here on daily kos who doesn't hate obama too.  

    sometimes they are so full of rage that i think they are fantasizing about committing violence against the people they hate.  sometimes it bubbles out of them and they say things that hint at it.  kind of like racists who get worked up and say something subtly racist.  

    •  Except their tribe is so small ... (0+ / 0-)

      .... that they hang out here.

      You'd think that would tell them something.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:16:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  hahaha (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      misterwade, jabney, kurt, helfenburg

      and are you really, without an ounce of irony, calling progressive critics of obama "tribalists" with a black and white view of the world while simultaneously taking a completely black and white stance on progressive critics of obama AND comparing them to racists?

      glad you're not putting forth an us-v-them scenario and gratuitously fanning the flames of internecine democratic conflict just to make a point here!

      •  are nasty comments progressive criticism? (6+ / 0-)

        because that's what the diarist is talking about.  not criticism, but nastiness.  

        people can criticize without any nastiness at all.  they just say what they don't like or approve of.  simple as that.  they can be passionate and even smart ass about it.  but it's still just a criticism.

        and then there are the people who just hate the people they are criticizing.  it oozes out of every word they speak.  you have to be completely daft to read or hear what they say and think it's just plain old criticism.  cause it's not.  

        note the difference between these two statements:

        The President is terrible at negotiation.  I swear to god, he either needs a fucking class in negotiation or he needs to get someone else to do it for him!  He's dropping the ball here!  Whatever he does, he better not fucking bargain up the age of getting SS or Medicare!  I will be fucking pissed!
        The President is fucking us over because that's what he's always wanted to do.  
        see how one is passionate and even smart ass, but it's still just a criticism of the job Obama is doing.  as opposed to the other which in one single sentence claims that the President is the enemy.

        there IS a difference between criticism and declaring someone your enemy

    •  I think one took the bait. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wait, which side are we talking about again? (0+ / 0-)

      Replace the word "hate" with "love" in certain locations within your comment, and it might appear equally plausible to some here.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:27:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To HR or not to HR (0+ / 0-)

      that is the question.  


      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:49:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah, it's just a nasty comment. (nt) (0+ / 0-)
        •  Like the forum handle (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bhut jolokia

          I grew 2 bhut jolokia pepper plants 2 years ago.  Got about 50 peppers...still haven't gone through all those hot bastards!  I dried and powdered some and kept the powder in my freezer to flavor chilis, etc.  Handled some of that powder just yesterday and accidentally got a puff in my nose when sprinkling it.....YOW!  Paid for that one for like an hour.  

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:42:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I grew about ten bhut jolokia plants... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mark Mywurtz

            ...last summer.

            I got a few per plant on the first crop, but the second crop would have been absolutely amazing, with anywhere between a dozen and a couple dozen per plant.

            Unfortnately, the first frost came, and the plants froze before the second crop matured.

            What a dissapointment! Had some nice weather after that, too.

            I was really looking forward to having dozens and dozens and dozens of bhut jolokias.

            •  Rec'd but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bhut jolokia

              what in the world would you do with that many?  Wicked pranks?  Chemical warfare?  Trust me, I love hot, but bjs are hot.  You have to use them as an ingredient, because just eating one in a burrito or something is like eating an electrified nuclear hornet nest.  Last time I tried, I wanted to bite my fingers off to forget how my tongue felt for a second.  

              Iron gut.  

              Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

              by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:25:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that is human nature (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA wildwoman

      We are tribal animals. Full stop.

      Most of my blogging is divided between political/news sites and tech sites (I work in the IT industry).

      Guess which sites tend to have more tribal warfare?

      At worst, I have got maybe 5 HRs in the few flame wars I've got caught in here. On some tech lists I've had fairly neutral and politely stated comments that were down-rated to oblivion because Tribe X disagreed, with maybe 20 or more HRs from sites with probably less than a quarter of the traffic of DailyKos.  You don't want to make simple errors on serious tech blogs, the ridicule that follows is intense and ruins your credibility for months. I'm convinced some of those guys never get laid and take it out on the internet.

      And then there are pirate gangs on sina, 168 and other CN blogz. Brutal.

      That's why I never HR anyone here. It's counter-productive to reasonable, serious debate, and besides, nothing I read here actually qualifies as trollish on the same scale.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:56:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i agree, it's human nature to be tribal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CA wildwoman, koNko

        i might be wrong, but i don't think we are the only primates with tribes

        •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

          Higher apes including gorillas. In fact, some apes have complex role-based social structures quite similar to humans.

          It's the social outliers of human society with no sense of (tribal) group obligation that we tend to classify as sociopaths. The rest of us ultimately have an innate sense of group identity and obligation, which I think is quite logically a natural instinct that evolves as you go up the food-chain to social animals with life-long social dependancies.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:25:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Web was pretty new under Clinton. (4+ / 0-)

    I heard they ripped him on the Compuserv bulletin board, though.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:11:12 PM PST

  •  And if I repeated here what I said at the time... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, KibbutzAmiad

    ...about Clinton and Ricky Ray Rector, I'd be banned from Daily Kos in an instant.

    So I guess I won't, as tempting as it is thinking back on it now.

  •  Because he isn't a good dog nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ignore them. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, CA wildwoman

    They're empty failures just looking for attention.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:14:35 PM PST

  •  Ed Schultz isn't an honest broker to quote. (0+ / 0-)
    Ed Schultz endorsed the deal.
    He also said point blank on his radio show before the election that he is the biggest water carrier for the Dems in response to a caller accusing him of not doing enough for the Dems.
  •  I am appalled at how simple it (4+ / 0-)

    is to divide people who all seek a more just and equitable society. Wonder why that is,cui bono?

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:18:50 PM PST

    •  The problem is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, worldlotus

      everybodies idea of fair and equitable is different. Some people have things that just plain break the deal for them.

       I understand that, I despise Bill Clinton to this day for things he did while in office that devistated the entire 3 county area where I grew up.

      We also tend to view things from different angles. We fight about everything because we each come from a unique set of experiences that shape our beliefs, opinions and what we see as fact.

      To some extent this is a good thing. I get to think alot about my ideas and refine them even more.

      However I do not like to be called names. But then I have come to realie progressive does not necessarily go hand in hand with open minded.

      It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

      by PSWaterspirit on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:33:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because I've seen what Obama has done.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...with my own damned eyes. I don't need sycophants telling me it's raining when I'm getting pissed on.

    Get used to it because Obama is going to sell us out in two months.

    Did he offer Social Security cuts or not? Yes or no? Does Social Security contribute to the deficit? Yes or no? The answers to those questions are the clues you need.

  •  I don't hate/disrespect PBO. He is what he is: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaym, misterwade, badger, kbman, kurt

    the equivalent, as he recently said himself,  of a corporatist moderate-to-liberal Republican of the 1960's - 1980's (Jacob Javitz, Edward Brooke?) whose primary point of view has little real room for Progressive values or priorities.  

        There are some things PBO has done that I've admired him for -- e.g., opposition to the Iraq invasion, coming out for marriage equality, his initial stimulus, even if obviously at the time too small.  But I think his approach to dealing with the Republicans is beyond incompetent and that his apparent economic beliefs are extremely poorly informed and do not really place the welfare of the poor & middle class above the interests of the rich and his fellow Villagers, which is not surprising with Geithner as his principal economic advisor.  

        So I don't waste my time getting upset with PBO for being what he's always pretty obviously been.  What really busts my balls are the Dems and real liberals who try to pretend to themselves that PBO is really some kind of Progressive and get all pissy when we point out all the evidence that he's nothing of the kind.  

    P.S.  Where I think PBO really has been execrable is in his drone-war atrocities and his continuation of so many of The Shrub's systematic violations of Americans' civil liberties.  Hoe any liberal cannot be appaled by that part of his record is beyond me.  

    •  careful (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      there were non-tribalist, completely reasonable, non-divisive obama acolytes threatening to have me banned back in october for bringing up these same exact points, in the same relatively dispassionate tone.

      •  Obama said he was a New Democrat (6+ / 0-)

        but that was largely because he believed in bringing people together too. At the same time, he can be pushed left. Elizabeth Warren has NEVER said Obama betrayed her.

        Obama was pushed on LGBT rights and DREAM deportations. He was pushed by occupy for some time. If occupy has lasted longer, things would have really moved left.

        •  "New Democrat" = old moderate Republican and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, CA wildwoman

          "bringing people together" means taking economic & social welfare positions well to the right of the old Democratic consensus: e.g., Clinton's "welfare reform" and the promotion by his administration of deregulation of the financials markets, both of which have had perfectly predictable (and previously predicted) disastrous results.  Just as PBO's apparent obsession with premature deficit reduction is likely to have disastrous economic and political consequences.  But that's what you get when you listen to corporate tools like Geithner instead of objrctive experts like Krugman or even Stiglitz, who was a prominent Clinton ecenomic advisor.  

          •  Obama campaigned on bringing people (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CA wildwoman, Wee Mama

            together. that is what he did as a community organizer to improve communities.

            Obama was endorsed by Ted kennedy and Caroline kennedy endorsed Obama twice.

            you think caroline kennedy should have not endorsed him?

            Obama is far from progressive but he is more progressive than bill clinton will ever be and he is responsive to left pressure as I said in examples in my prior comment.

    •  Bill Clinton had the opportunity to do that. (3+ / 0-)
      coming out for marriage equality
      It would have been a historic announcement, the first time that a sitting President openly came out in favor of gay marrage.

      Instead he signed DOMA, which was also historic in its own way.

      And he still lied about DOMA many years after he had served his two terms in office.

    •  what about president clinton? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, koNko, Wee Mama

      do you like bill clinton (who was more conservative) better?

      Obama's approval rating is very high among liberals in polls btw. It is a fact.

      •  I never liked The Clintons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in the first place, agreeing with Jimmy Carter's assessment, "They're there when they need you." I've made my peace with Hillary since June 2008, but Bill, no. If he weren't a Democrat, folks here would have sliced and diced him like a Ginsu-fest, instead of protecting one of their own. As for gays, he couldn't give a shite. That posturing about the military back then was his leftover baggage from the 60's, not a sincere desire to integrate the military at all. Hell, in '04 he was even telling John Kerry to endorse state mini-DOMA's to win!

        •  You should get over it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Free Jazz at High Noon

          Bill Clinton was awesome in speaking to the 2012 Convention and campaigning afterward, effectively re-framing some issues.

          Sure, he's a shameless opportunist and loved the attention but it was a pretty impressive demonstration of party loyalty, and I think very helpful in explaining some issues in plain English in a way that Obama is incapable of.

          His convention speech was remarkable and will be studied for years, some of the best parts totally off the cuff but right on the mark.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:39:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ezra Klein said that about PBO not the President (3+ / 0-)

      himself. Get your facts straight! This place for being reality based supposedly is more and more fact challenged every day. OPINION is not fact.

      The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

      by cherie clark on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:54:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  our culture seems to have equated disapproval (5+ / 0-)

      with hate at some point during the past decade.  It is a very interesting phenomena.  "Hate" gets tossed around so easily and so frequently anymore that it is losing its meaning.

      Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:47:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a line... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Between running around like a headless chicken spouting frantic, baseless and extreme "predictions" for which you have already indicted the person you're cursing out and voicing legitimate, well-informed, level-headed and well-thought-out criticism while listening to all sides. It's a concept that seems to have been lost too.

    •  Please, more pressure on civil liberties (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      at all levels.

      I keep writing to my Congresspersons but not enough is happening and the issue is not high enough on the public radar.

  •  how many layers of finger pointing will satisfy?? (0+ / 0-)

    how thick does the shit have to pile before it's enough?

    I've had enough of both flavors, thanks.


    issues, or it didn't happen.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:26:18 PM PST

  •  You mean people have strong opinions (5+ / 0-)

    on a political website?

    Well, knock me over with a feather.

  •  I don't know about Bill.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CA wildwoman

    ...but I sure remember how horrible people were about Hillary.

    Probably many of the same people who are now being nasty about Obama.

    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

    by SingularExistence on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:48:46 PM PST

    •  I wasn't on the Intertubes (or it's closest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA wildwoman

      analogue) back during the Clinton presidency, but people from the left were still nasty to him, in many of the conversations I had.

      The big difference was, as I recall, they gave Clinton about 3 weeks after his inauguration before they started up the *outrage. With Obama, it was near-instantaneous.

      Season's Greetings from me: New Year's sale! 20%off everything at my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

      by jan4insight on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:05:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been going on for years (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, jan4insight

    And years. And years.

    I think it's allowed to continue because it helps site hits. Or something. It's also kind of the nature of the intertubes.

    At least there isn't a FB page organizing opposition (that I know of) at this time, or someone trying to dig up people's real names and addresses so they can call their bosses (that I know of), etc.

    It's ongoing. It won't ever go away. I would call it a problem, but I think TPTB like it going on because it ensures lots of site hits. And it's one reason why I tend to be absent from here for weeks at a time.

  •  The good, the bad and the ugly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Wildthumb

    I hate meta-conversations about how people speak. Instead, lemme sum up what I think was the good, the bad and the ugly in the first round of fiscal debates:

    The good - we got tax revenue, extended unemployment insurance, tax credits for education, amt permanent fix.

    The bad - we didn't get enough revenue.  We gave too much ground on the estate tax.

    The ugly - we offered up cuts to social security ala chained CPI.  This is what generated most f the negative posts about the president.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:12:43 PM PST

  •  A lot of progressives tend to be strident (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, CA wildwoman, Ahianne

    I think it's a way of being -- that is, some folks ALWAYS see the glass as half empty. I'm grateful we have this president. He's not perfect by any stretch but he's better than the alternative, and I don't think a more progressive/liberal candidate could get elected in this country, at this time. So we've got Obama. We can waste a lot of hot air being angry, or figure out how to press him and other Dems on issues when we most need to -- with petitions, phone calls, emails, tweets, DKos posts, etc.

    When you feel most disappointed in BHO, look at a picture of Mitt Romney and think a little!  Social Security would have been eviscerated under him or any other Repub.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:19:10 PM PST

    •  Because he's better than the alternative hardly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      means he's either a liberal or a good President from a liberal point of view; and I get tired of being told that he is by the self-appointed priests of the cult of personality.  It never helps to identify someone as something he is not.  

  •  A choice was made by Senators and the President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CA wildwoman

    Not to repeal the Bush tax cuts then another choice was made not to let them expire.

    Two times democrats had a chance to roll back those tax cuts and two times they decided to us them to negotiate with Republicans.

    These negotiations, important as they may be, are crucial to everything.

    If you say the tax cuts are bad, but vote twice to extend them, what does that say about you?

  •  The thought, the word, the deed (0+ / 0-)

    The difference between complaining and hating is that complaining points toward constructive action.

  •  The difference with Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    was that, by and large, you knew where he stood.  When he stated a position, he stuck with it, fought for it, and, then, when he'd gone as far as he could go, that's whehn the compromise position would appear.  Generally.  There were exceptions.

    Obama stakes out a position and abandons it at the first opportunity.  Then he compromises some more.  Then some more.  Meanwhile, Rethugs stick to their position until the very last--until they've gotten a deal that far exceeds their actual power in the equation.  So far, I've seen no exceptions to this pattern.

    Now, it is certainly within the rhelm of discussion that these are stylistic differences only--that both Clinton and Obama are aware of what the best possible package will look like and use their differing styles to bring it home.  As I say, that's a argument that can be reasonably made.  I don't happen to buy into it, but let's, for a second, say that the premise is true...that it's merely a stylistic difference.  The fact is, its a pretty damn important stylistic difference.  With Clinton, you knew where he stood and, most of the time, you knew he was going to fight for what he said he would fight for.  That "style" (if you will) inspires your troops to believe they can count on you; they have your back and you have theirs.  Since Obama erases any lines in the sand early and often, its hard to believe HE believes in what his stated position is and impossible to believe he'd ever have your back, though he sure expects you to have his.

    Now, having said all that, the liberals I knew when Clinton was President did not view Clinton as any sort of liberal or progressive and they dispised Clinton and his policies with far, far more vitriol than anything you've seen from the left regarding Obama.

    And, having said THAT, the fact is that Clinton's era was legitimately far more conservative--the country at large was much more homogeniously right of center--than the nation Obama leads today.  Today, we are a center-left nation (and polls on virtually any issue reflect that sea change very obviously to any one who pays the slightest attention.

    So it seems to some of us, who are much more wedded to policy principles than to party politics, that Obama (to large extent) behaves as though its still a conservative country and consistently shoots for, asks for and settles for far less than he could get if he actually held progressive principles and fought for them.  And Obama's style does not exactly instill trust and confidence in those who DO hold progressive principles.  We can see how focused and powerful --how strong he CAN bring the fight--in a campaign.  Yet, when he puts on his President suit, he's suddenly shooting for, asking for, setting for center right positions and then compromising his way down from there.

    If you're asking the question, I'm guessing you don't well remember the Clinton era.  But, if that's true, then you likely don't know what a liberal President actually looks like since, in truth, we haven't had one of those since FDR.  The closest we've had since FDR was Jimmy Carter.  But both LBJ and Carter had conservative leanings on some very key issues even if, on balance, they were much farther left of center than Clinton or Obama.  I'd take a Carter Democrat today, or an LBJ Democrat.  Clinton was a third way Democrat (i.e. pro business, with conservative fiscal policies--trust the banks, deregulate, free trade).  Let's assume, for a second, that Obama is the same.  You want to say Obama's left-of-center, fine.  I'll assume that, for the moment.  The fact is that the country was largely to the right of Clinton and it is now largely to the left of Obama.

    I think Obama's a Reagan Republican.  You seem to think that makes me a hater.  I don't hate him.  I just believe that we could do better than Obama--I think it is absolutely possible to elect a truly left of center President--and I sure as hell think Obama could do better IF he really wanted to.  We're unlikely to get a true progressive in 2016, basically because history says the country gets "party fatigue" after 8 years.  And Presidential elections are rarely won or lost on the ideology--the larger trends tend to prevail.  But, in 2020 and 2024, I expect the party to nominate progressives for President.  I'm sure they won't, and that right there is the source of my becoming increasingly less likely to vote for Democrats.  That's if there's still a Democratic party at all, after Social Security gets cut.

    Just a few comments up is the old cannard that no liberal or progressive could ever be elected President.  And that simply isn't true.  The nation, as a whole, is a lot closer to 1966 than it is to 1986.  And ideology really has very little to do with presidential elections.  Look at Allan Lichtman's "13 keys"; not a one of them has to do with ideology.  And they've always acurately predicted presidential election outcomes more than a year out.  Really, pretty much after the ACA was signed into law, Obama became the favorite in 2012; when we got Bin Ladden, Obama became a prohibitive favorite.  That the Goopers were so far right had, for all intents and purposes, no impact on the presidential race (on lower races, certainly it did).  Obama was going to win (to over simplify a tad) because of imcumbancy, a major policy victory and a military victory.  For 2016, "party fatigue" looms large, there will be no incument, and a lot will hinge on the economy at that time or if Obama falls into a legimate scandal or there is civil unrest.  But, starting off, the smart money is on the Rethugs in 2016, regardless of how far right they are.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

    by costello7 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:41:57 PM PST

  •  It Will Be Such A Happy Day When The Obamas.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CA wildwoman

    are free to leave DC & all the haters behind as they go on w/ their lives.

    It's easy to comment from the comfort of a coffee shop or your kitchen table....much harder to be in Obama's shoes.  It's a real curiosity....why are the bloggers here not occupying the WH as we speak?  Why aren't they the President of the United States.

    So curious.....almost an oddity.  

    •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      It's a real curiosity....why are the bloggers here not occupying the WH as we speak? Why aren't they the President of the United States.

      So curious.....almost an oddity.

      I guess you're right. Because everybody isn't president, nobody should bother saying anything.

      Nobody would seriously contend that the president has an easy job. Does that mean no one should question anything he ever does?

      I would agree that alot of people fly off the handle way too quick. It happens from all sides of this debate.

      Alot of people genuinely like the president and want him to succeed. Their anger is based more on "Come on man, don't you see what this might do?" type of thing, because they think they're seeing something he's not, and in their eyes, he's doing himself damage.

      People can't just not say anything if they feel something is a bad decision. It's human nature and our duty as citizens.

      Someone being an asshole about it, however, I do not endorse.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:07:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site