More Barry BS

[enzfan]

Wasn't it Obama who was critcal of Bush about extending tours of duty for deployed soldiers yet he just did it himself in Afghanistan. Also where is the outrage from the war protesters? Haven't heard as much as peep out of them since the election.

[eight6]

You guys are in a war?

[SallyLightfoot]

People on the left [i]are[/i] angry at Obama about Afghanistan, if you do any actual reading of liberal blogs (see Salon's <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/03/afghanistan/index.html" target="_new">Glenn Greenwald</a>, who gives Obama no quarter for his shitty moderate policies). It's not likely that you'll see many Afghan war protesters in the media (you really didn't see it in the media for Iraq either), because Afghanistan is a legitimate war with regard to international law, and y'know, they were actually somewhat connected to 9-11.

Obama can't do anything right here-- on the one hand, if he deploys more troops in this futile effort, he pisses off liberals. If he doesn't deploy more troops, the right-wing media goes into a hissy-fit, accusing Obama of cutting & running, ignoring the generals, etc. So far, most of the right-wingers and folks in NNNW should be delighted by the realization that Obama is clearly more comfortable f***ing his liberal base than pissing off right-wingers.

[ghosty]

There's a difference between Democrats and Republicans? [;)]

[enzfan]

Yeah I love it that he has to try and walk the tightrope of pandering to his liberal base and getting his dem buds ousted in the upcomming elections, considering that self professed liberals are the minority in this country.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>There's a difference between Democrats and Republicans? [;)]
[/quote]Only when they're on the campaign trail!

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>Yeah I love it that he has to try and walk the tightrope of pandering to his liberal base and getting his dem buds ousted in the upcomming elections, considering that self professed liberals are the minority in this country.
[/quote]The usefulness of the terms liberal and conservative are pretty limited. If anything, I think most people don't think about politics at all and self-identify as either independent or non-party moderate. You have plenty of people across the spectrum who were against the Iraq war, who believe that health-care needs to be reformed, who are against torture and warrantless surveillance, etc. Setting aside the labels, there is enough broad support for him to get stuff done if he can exert pressure on blue-dog dems and rally public opinion (the one main thing he's good at).

I do think that at this rate, Obama is going to get a lot of dems ousted in Congress at midterms. In the spirit of bipartisanship (like Clinton when he was in office), he has reneged on significant campaign promises, he has naively mismanaged the health care debate, and he's being outflanked by GOP congress-critters and blue dog (corporate owned) democrats who are willing to block all initiatives for political gain. If Obama can't get shit done, even with an easy majority in the House and a thin one in the Senate, then we have a broken Congress and legislative process. The public support is there, but corporate money and a hostile and/or incompetent media is stacking the deck against the agenda. It's Obama's game to lose.

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]


I do think that at this rate, Obama is going to get a lot of dems ousted in Congress at midterms. In the spirit of bipartisanship (like Clinton when he was in office), he has reneged on significant campaign promises, he has naively mismanaged the health care debate, and he's being outflanked by GOP congress-critters and blue dog (corporate owned) democrats who are willing to block all initiatives for political gain.

[/quote]

[i]Naively[/i]...that's funny. Bush was an idiot, no doubt: but Obama is merely naive? I think Barry's problem is a simple one: the hype is gone, and the goods that were to be delivered are nowhere in sight. Even worse, there is no sign of them ever being delivered.

Tell me that the Obama machine didn't know this would be the course that they would have to navigate [b]before[/b] he committed to making everyone's life pure nirvana.

[SallyLightfoot]

Yeah, I think Obama is [i]naive[/i]-- his inexperience is showing through. Again and again he's made concessions and watered-down legislation to get bipartisan support (e.g. the stimulus), when it's clear that Republican legislators will not vote for the bills regardless.

Bush was also naive, and an idiot, not to mention his god-awful policies. But he surrounded himself with administrators and advisors who knew how to keep the party caucus controlled. Bill after bill the GOP congress lined up in near-perfect unison to get the agenda passed, whereas roughly half of dems had the balls and principles to oppose. Most dems figured, "Well it's gonna pass anyway, I might as well line up at the trough and cut a deal to get my earmarks in."

Obama knew what his course would be, but he picked an administration of leftovers from the Clinton administration. Those folks were all moderates, pragmatists who were content to compromise while ensuring that corporate interests continue to pull the strings. This is why I believe Obama is naive-- he has surrounded himself with people who are incompatible with delivering his campaign promises. He was nominated President to undo the course set by Bush, and so far he has resorted to watered-down half-measures-- and he seems surprised that he's villified by both sides of the aisle.

[eight6]

If you're naive enough, the line between it and stupidity becomes blurred. He was elected on his "strength of character" and ability to affect change: neither of which I've seen so far. Maybe Hillary was right when she said Obama was merely hoping for change instead of having what it takes to see it though.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]
<br>If you're naive enough, the line between it and stupidity becomes blurred. He was elected on his "strength of character" and ability to affect change: neither of which I've seen so far. Maybe Hillary was right when she said Obama was merely hoping for change instead of having what it takes to see it though.[/quote]I don't think there's any way you could watch or listen to Obama and conclude that he's stupid. The guy is highly articulate, his reasoning is clear and precise, his academic credentials are stellar. I think he gets average to below-average grades on his early progress report, but, at just 8 months into his term, I'm not ready to count him out yet, and I haven't seen [i]any[/i] reason to start considering voting republican (GOP agenda = no health-care reform, no economic stimulus, attack Iran, antagonize North Korea, reignite cold war with Russia, privatize social security, expand executive power, torture, wiretapping-- gee, I'm sure I'm leaving out some good ones. Update: oh yeah-- tax cuts for the wealthy during a recession, fellate financial co's' and banks instead of intesifying regulation, bend-over for corporate polluters and carbon emissions!)

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]
<br>If you're naive enough, the line between it and stupidity becomes blurred. He was elected on his "strength of character" and ability to affect change: neither of which I've seen so far. Maybe Hillary was right when she said Obama was merely hoping for change instead of having what it takes to see it though.[/quote]I don't think there's any way you could watch or listen to Obama and conclude that he's stupid. The guy is highly articulate, his reasoning is clear and precise, his academic credentials are stellar. I think he gets average to below-average grades on his early progress report, but, at just 8 months into his term, I'm not ready to count him out yet, and I haven't seen [i]any[/i] reason to start considering voting republican (GOP agenda = no health-care reform, no economic stimulus, attack Iran, antagonize North Korea, reignite cold war with Russia, privatize social security, expand executive power, torture, wiretapping-- gee, I'm sure I'm leaving out some good ones)
[/quote]

I never drew that conclusion, I'm just stating a possible outcome of his repeated episodes of naïveté. I will say that the guy has single handedly drained the U.S. reserves of "Uh", so I'd hardly describe him as articulate. When I think articulate, I see somebody like a Tony Blair.

Clear reasoning...I wouldn't jump all over that yet...he's pulled some major boners in that area. (the Leno thing, Gates)

He may be intelligent, but miscast in the role of President.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]<br>If you're naive enough, the line between it and stupidity becomes blurred. He was elected on his "strength of character" and ability to affect change: neither of which I've seen so far. Maybe Hillary was right when she said Obama was merely hoping for change instead of having what it takes to see it though.[/quote]I don't think there's any way you could watch or listen to Obama and conclude that he's stupid. The guy is highly articulate, his reasoning is clear and precise, his academic credentials are stellar. I think he gets average to below-average grades on his early progress report, but, at just 8 months into his term, I'm not ready to count him out yet, and I haven't seen [i]any[/i] reason to start considering voting republican (GOP agenda = no health-care reform, no economic stimulus, attack Iran, antagonize North Korea, reignite cold war with Russia, privatize social security, expand executive power, torture, wiretapping-- gee, I'm sure I'm leaving out some good ones)
[/quote]I never drew that conclusion, I'm just stating a possible outcome of his repeated episodes of naïveté. I will say that the guy has single handedly drained the U.S. reserves of "Uh", so I'd hardly describe him as articulate. When I think articulate, I see somebody like a Tony Blair.

Clear reasoning...I wouldn't jump all over that yet...he's pulled some major boners in that area. (the Leno thing, Gates)

He may be intelligent, but miscast in the role of President.
[/quote]99% of all speakers of the English language use crutch phrases like "uh"-- this does not make a person inarticulate. Blair is nicely articulate, but it's his actions that matter, and they condemn him as an obsequious toady of Bush, and that overshadows everything else, in my opinion. I agree that Obama has revealed a disappointingly flippant side, but at this early point I think it only shows human imperfection rather than a serious character flaw. I'm definitely nowhere near ready to call him "miscast" as President. Who knows, though, I'm not incapable of admitting error, and in some months I may return to this thread and concede defeat.

[i_like_lectric_motors]

He's articulate for a person of his color. That and the overwhelming stupidity of the American public are the ONLY reasons he got where he is.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by i_like_lectric_motors[/i]
<br>He's articulate for a person of his color.[/quote]What troll bait that is. Disappointing to hear you make a racial statement like that. As I've requested before: Please reflect more of your Larry Flynt side, and less of the Patrick "Hitler was misunderstood" Buchanan.