For those disappointed in Obama what it is he could do now that would make you happy?

Maybe it's the elections today and the crappy commentary on TV about it, maybe it's the glut of articles (Maher's and Huffington's today) maybe it's the year anniversary but it seems there is this general discontent seeming to set in with many people on here with Obama.
I guess I'm a Pollyana and I'm still believing things important to me (healthcare reform, Guat.closing, etc) are still coming. Are they coming fast enough to thrill me? No, but truly I blame Congress for this Health care fiasco they are currently engaged in.

What is it Obama could do today, not at the mercy of Congress that would restore your faith in him?
What is it he hasn't done fast enough?

I'm not being judgemental, I am trying to understand the expectations versus reality and the disappointment that I am seeing.

or even disappointed. I knew what he was when I voted for him. However, if I could ask for one thing....
STOP the BIPARTISAN BULLSHIT! Why should Dems be the ones who are bipartisan? The Repubs never are.
I want Obama to play hardass.

Politically it is part of Obama's magic that he is seen as bi-partisan and trying to reach out to the other side. While it would make us the hardcore left happy if he said fuck you to the Reps I think there is still a portion of the middle that wants him to play nice and try and reach out.

...still seem to decide elections.

i would be surprised if any president came out of the shoot acting like an asshole to the other side.

Code word for "We serve our Masters by pretending to appease the other side's base."

If a wide receiver had the ball at his team's three yard line, then stopped and asked the other team where he should go and what he should do, we would all see that action for what it is - the game is being bought and paid for, so that the Big Bosses can cash in their winning chips.

This has not been any different.

There is one party the money party, and although it is more pleasant to have the kinder gentler face of Corporatism in office, it is still a form of oligarchy.

how you doing? :hi:

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

and I'm making that point.

My wife and I went on a double date recently with her gay classmate and his significant other. One of my childhood friends just came out recently after he had left a repressive religion and come to grips with the facts of who he is. I was one of the few who supported him and had him and his significant other spend time with us when they came to Portland.

So your crap is duly noted.

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

to GLBT persons?

and when called on it, would not apologize but admitted it was homophobic and "inappropriate."

You're just not so subtly dog-whistling (does it count if everyone can hear it?). Your continued existence on DU is a testament to the wide leeway and tolerance given to homophobic scum.

are mad because they didn't get a pony. I don't think there's anything wrong with using that terminology precisely because so many gay people I party with, etc. are so flamboyant and wouldn't take issue with it.

It's just some really humorless bores on this site who are freaking out over a rather innocuous phrase.

Skinner disagrees (although the same cannot be said about his mods, apparently):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913#5525309

Q: How will replies of "poutrage" or "you didn't get your pony!" be met by Mods and Admins?

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-24-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
87. I consider those to be personal attacks.
In case there is any confusion, I'll tell the moderators to delete them.



So how about just cutting it out and communicating on a grown up level?

thanks for sharing. But then again, Skinner did seem to think those comments are often invited when Obama is called a "homophobe" here on DU.

I doubt you have a single gay friend. Seriously.

I'm not being funny but sincerely asking. Would it be homopobhic regardless the color?

Glad I didnt say it.

"Fabulous, pink pony" is meant to mock all gays stereotyping them all as mincing, effeminate queens. Apparently, PretzelWarrior has a very limited (and highly bigoted) view of gay people.

I thought it was just the use of colour in regards to the pony. Interestingly enough my favorite color is the rainbow----so I was a bit worried that something I would say would be misconstrued. However, what you say makes sense. Thanks.

and judging from what you said, it was well deserved.

:rofl:

The worst bigot is the one who doesn't realize he's a bigot.

:eyes:

Wow.

:D

That *would* be fabulous.

And I don't mean on DU.

that's what I mean. You're being vicious and militant on this issue.

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

and I'm starting to feel dirty.

Jesus Christ.

or is it recognized civil unions you are concerned about with all the rights legally accorded to traditionally married people?

Or don't you agree?

but you didn't answer my question. if you throw out the definitions used and just look at legal consequences. if all privileges assigned to married couples were accorded to gay couples who enter a civil union (contract) and all disadvantages are also accorded (not easy to just leave each other....there would need to be a revokation of contract) then who cares if it's called marriage or not?

Maybe the states could refer to all unions recognized by the state as some other word than marriage. It would still then be up to churches to say yes or no in recognizing marriages according to their definitions.

If both schools were identical and quality of education the same, what difference would it make if black kids were segregated from whites?

Why set up a completely new system to encompass those that we see as different?

call it marriage, you are saying the government must continually operate under a religious framework.

I got married in a clerks office in Vegas. No god in sight.

Marriage as religion is a cop out and crutch for bigots.

we're talking semantics here.

you're building up strawmen to make me one.

You missed a spot.

No?

Is he lying?

gay people shouldn't marry. Its like taking a positive angle on a negative. Like calling the anti-abortion peeps pro-life.

I'm totally driving the carpool to the revolution. :raised fist holding organic soy mocha:

to champion! :puke:

I swear, some of these people's mentality scares me more than that of the freepers. At least those douches, crazy as they are, are consistent in their own way.

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

any person with their pet issue will brook no dissent.

You are one patronizing little shit, aren't you?

yeah. obviously I don't measure every word to see if it will pass the litmus test of the language police who are NOT trying to understand intent but are playing word games to prove I am some kind of hateful homophobic moron.

What I meant was core issue that rises above all else such that even if 90% progress was made on all other issues they would still feel hateful because their core issue was only dealt with partially. Whatever PC term you want to use for that.

I feel like I should give a lesson for the anti-gay DUers. Most of them are clever enough to spread these talking points out over several threads during a period of weeks. You don't put them all in one thread. That just makes you obvious. Bigots should be subtle.

Well, maybe not. None of them are ever really banned.

But, in theory, bigots should be subtle. In a fantasy bizarro world where liberals don't tolerate this stuff.

:banghead:

A HUGE portion of DU these days are straight-up bigots. What. The. Fuck?

It's THE issue.

:puke:

Welcome to the new, improved Democratic Party. :puke:

Here, have a beer and a copy of Fred Phelps's Greatest Hits.

I've seen many posters that constantly deride Rahm and other supposed DLC'ers express questionable attitudes and make bigoted statements about gays.

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

:D

Someone is in love with the sound of his own personality.

months ago in a discussion about gay rights, your protestations that it is not homophobic is laughable.

He could suspend DADT discharges with the stroke of a pen.
He could use the bully pulpit of his office to push congress to overturn DOMA.
He could reverse certain * era policies having to do with secrecy.
He could push to prosecute war crimes committed by agents of this country.
and more...

Not this watered down trigger opt-out opt-in shit we're hearing about every day.

No good public option? VETO.

which would mean those who ordered torture and rendition would be sent to trial and hopefully to jail.

have the courage to do those things anyway. I guess I'm still believing he will do them. Maybe not fast enough but I think he'll get it done.

Political toxicity is just a fancy excuse for cowardice.

I sincerely hope that Obama decides that some things are more important than playing politics.

The helpless Obama tied down by Lilliputian congress-creatures is obviously not what Obama was running as. He was running as someone who would lead and accomplish.

Maybe that was an impossible promise, but it's a stretch to say people are wrong to be disappointed that Obama is not able to get Congress to pass good bills for him to sign.

Convincing/persuading/leading congress has always been one of the top 2 or 3 things one needs in a President.

He's effing President!

I didn't think "executive experience," as the Palin people claimed she had, mattered. But it does help if you don't think of yourself as either 1) a Senator, who is on-par with 99 peers or 2) a community organizer, who gets people to speak up for themselves. That's his work experience. But that's not his job anymore!

a robust EFCA, with card check. We need strong unions, more unions, to get the economy back in balance.

..... today the MSM is just enabling the whining minority. ;)

I believe he could do each with a stroke of a pen.

the constitution doesn't protect companies.

for violations of federal law over the past 8 years... those which they haven't let off through statutes of limitations that is.

The way it stands is a disgrace- and will only embolden the whole lot of them next go around.

All his economic advisers, especially Larry Summers. Geithner has already told boldfaced lies to Congress, and that is an impeachable offense, so he should have lost his post by now.

And although he can keep Rahm's number, he should have someone who pays attention to We The People, and not the consultants for the health insurers as his Chief of Staff.

seriously. It probably is because it's election day and I just got back from voting-for Corzine- and I'm thinking that the only thing I'm disappointed about is that we're still involved in wars in two countries.

I love DU but I'm the first to admit that I'm not as politically well versed as most here, so my question to you is, is there a plan to end these wars?

Thanks again for the timely question.

sign any any health-care reform bill into law that does not provide real reform and give all people access to medical care, just for starters. Then prosecute all the blatant lawbreaker who brought about the financial meltdown. :P

public option. Given his gifted speaking skills, I truly believe that if he'd done that from the beginning (and it's not too late now even though it is late), support for a public option would be at least 70 to 75% instead of 55 to 60% and would be high enough to force the blue dogs to support it. When the truth is on your side, people can't hide from it. Unfortunately, President Obama is hiding the truth from the public. More generally, whether it's gays' rights, military involvement, or health care, just do what you believe is right not what is the result of a complex political calculation. Whenever I've had a leadership position, I've always preferred to lose knowing I followed my principles than to maintain power by abandoning my principles. What good does the latter do?

:thumbsup:

Really!

with no trigger, I would feel he was pretty damned close to perfect. He so far has done neither and, looking back over his career and from what I read in his books, I doubt he will. Oh, and if he'd de-politicize the Justice Dept., so they could prosecute war criminals and war profiteers, and forbid contracts with those convicted, I'd be very happy. Would doing all this jeopardize him politically? Probably, and that's what would make him a truly great man. As it stands, I know there's a lot about Obama to like and appreciate, so I am generally, tho not 100%, on board.

.

him because of that and are now sorely disappointed, you have only yourself to blame for that.

He never broached universal health care and never avowed he'd try for it. NEVER.

open mind about it.

I know that's not what he ever said he'd do, and that's why I've always been lukewarm to him.

Who said anything about blame?

The people disappointed in Obama has been "disappointed" in him from the jump. Check their history.

As for Maher and Arianna, they've been bitching from day one. Its their shtick. Neither of them are serious people.

he or his administration could do. Some have been dead-set against him from the go.

When some of the biggest things DO pass, I fully expect a chorus of "But it wasn't done soon enough," "But it's not good enough," "He didn't really do anything but put his signature on it," and so on and so on and so on.

Pathetic, aren't they?

Just kidding. I'm not disappointed in Obama, I think he's dealing with a bunch of frightened little fools.

Obama has a lot of potential to really lead the nation towards liberal/progressive advancement.

I would like him to come out and clearly defend principles like fair trade over free trade. Fight for a real public option, and push Congress on that.

He had (or at least had) the respect of enough of the country to really chart a course. I would like to see him use that.

However he is acting like the Democrat centrists who are either afraid or unwilling to hew to a clear set of principles.

There is a subtext of fatalism and defeatism underlying much of what he is doing.

I am mildly disappointed in Obama. But I am hard to please.

I am mildly disappointed in Obama. But I am hard to please.

He could lead. He could take clear, unambiguous positions on issues. He leaves far too much up to others and seems more intent on keeping his fingerprints off things rather than on them. He leaves too much open for negotiations.

Yes We Can now needs to be Just Do It.

My own issue is health care, but there are other issues where he has failed to be the clarion voice calling the country and the Congress to follow.

War

Gay issues

The debacle that is the economy and the horrible Goldman Sachsing of the Treasury.

Privacy/wiretapping

Gitmo

The list is long.






He was seen as the Antibush. he has yet to live up to that.



For me, it is his ambiguity.




edit to change "gloing" to "going" in the title

:thumbsup:

It's called LEADERSHIP, something he is not willing to do on too many issues. :mad:

He is the fucking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He has the biggest bully pulpit on the damned PLANET.

ACT LIKE IT.

There are times and issues that require a thoughtful, measured approach. And there are times and issues that require LEADERSHIP.

I believe the heathcare debacle we are facing is primarily because O did not clearly tell Congress exactly what he was looking for in a bill. He should have asked for the moon and then settled for the stars.

We elected him to lead us as a country, and right now he is not doing his job nearly well enough.

turning peacekeeping efforts over to some of the more liberal Islamic nations, thus defusing the argument that America is on a crusade against Islam.

2. Tell Congress that he will not sign any health care reform bill unless it includes a true non-profit competitively priced public option that is open to anyone and/or lowers the age of eligibility for Medicare

Sono toori.

Obama's main problems are mostly strategic rather than based on principle. If I buy the notion that he is interested in the progressive values he championed on the stump (and none of us REALLY know that answer), then the main source of disappointment I have in him is ceding way too much ground to people who have no interest in any progress whatsoever.

He has brought in way too many Democrats who frankly are more interested in power and padding the pockets of Democratic contributors than truly helping the American people. He has compounded this mistake by refusing to remove many entrenched members of the previous administration at a time when such removals are considered normal and even expected (Bush's crooked US attorneys, the Pentagon, the CIA, etc.). In doing this, he has sewn the seeds of his own failure. None of these people are truly on board with progressive policy nor are they going to allow accountability for the corruption that clearly has caused the problems we see today.

By surrounding himself with these people, and only these people (very few true progressives are part of this admin, and of the ones who are there, none are close), Obama is getting stellar political advice from party insiders that led to nothing but 30 years of capitulation to the right. The advice of these goobers is written all over certain strategic mistakes we have seen:

1. Starting out the healthcare debate with a massive compromise and shutting out the most ardent advocates for change has led to this frankenstein of a bill we see today.
2. Failing to press for a hard stance on Leiberman just in time for him to stab the entire Democratic party in the back at a crucial time.
3. Failure to remind the Justice Department that the previous administration's many crimes should be pursued for prosecution. This allows Dick Cheney and his daughter to run around freely trying to derail Obama's foreign policy.
4. Failure to reconsider McCrystal's leadership in Afghanistan, especially in light of his actions in the Pat Tillman cover-up. This failure has already led to McCrystal rewarding Obama's generosity with betrayal.
5. Failure to keep the excitement of his base, which has led to Republican astroturf successes. This is actually the easiest thing for him to do, and it baffles me why he either can not or will not do it.

...there are more examples, but you get the gist. Too much being nice is not only keeping important issues on the back-burner, but they are actually resulting in a loss of face and a loss of ground in the political battles. This is all too typical of beltway thinking, and has led to exactly no progress in the last 30 years.

So what can Obama do? For starters, he needs to find out which of his advisers he can depart with and then make a show of giving him the door. Replace that close adviser with a true progressive (replacing Rahm or Summers would be my choice). Not to follow this person's every whim, but to put some kind of bold thinking into Obama's inner circle. Without that progressive voice, I am afraid that beltway thinking is going to not only result in policy failures, but also in electoral losses.

In my experience watching the Democratic party, their strategy sucks most of the time, and I am afraid that this administration is not very different. I do not believe that is Obama's lack of vision....I think it is because there are just too many beltway outsiders shouting the same losing strategy at him...the lack of understanding or communication with his base has "Democratic insider" written all over it.

In the end, I support Obama, but man it is hard to watch him make the same mistakes Democrats always make when they run away from the left and strain really hard to embrace the ideas of people who hate them.

I never thought I'd say anything along these lines, but I'd rather have no reform at all than that festering tripe that Nancy Pelosi is trying to shove down our throats. Obama should denounce this shit, stop with the "it's this year or never" bullshit, and direct House Dems to come up with something that doesn't stink like a Republican rest room.

... in support of http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/seasia/en/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty.pdf">this treaty.