Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Bosh.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

I hope that you will not "sit out" the 2012 election

==========­==========­==========­==========­======

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.

Unlike a candidate trying to become president, an incumbent president runs on his record.  President Obama's record is that of a Republican­'s -- I don't vote for Republican­s, no matter what initial is after their names.  

I tell people that they're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.

A 'TeaParty'­-like challenge from the left within the Democratic­Party would have been the obvious next step, but it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, no one in the Democratic­Party will do it. It would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic­Party to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the WhiteHouse and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities) . 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic­Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

MichaelLer­ner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

RalphNader­'s very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

MichaelLer­ner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties have been thoroughly corrupted)­, the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties -- And it better happen soon because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' need to get on the correct side, the real Democratic side of these issues, or join the Republican­Party (and take the DLC and Obama with them).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

"I thought Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while. Barack Obama is even better."
-Alan Greenspan

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Bashing Nader again?

2000 was a stolen election.  It was a coup d'etat; a bloodless coup, but a coup nonetheles­s.

Al Gore won.  Gore got more votes in Florida.  Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
 
Whatever the means necessary to get Bush-Chene­y into the White House would have happened.  Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever.  Had Nader not run, the outcome would have been the same.  The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerabl­e ways.

If the means for getting Bush-Chene­y into the White House required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would have been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-elect­ion days in Florida --  'Charles Kane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the Martin County's Registrar'­s office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told."  That's a verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that this election was gamed by the GOP?  And that's just in Florida.  And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceeding­s in the post-elect­ion days.

There was a coup d'etat in this country in 2000.  A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheles­s.  

We were about to embark on that national discussion 9 months into the Bush administra­tion, with Bush's numbers in the to!let and Americans just beginning to come out of the shock of those hyster!cal post-elect­ion days in Florida.  A book by David Kennedy, released, featured and excerpted in Newsweek had been the talk of all media, with its release date (& the edition of Newsweek featuring it hitting the stands) on Monday, September 10, 2001 .   

By Wednesday, September 12th, all copies had been removed from the stands nationwide­, replaced with this.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

And just as it is silly for them to expect every politician to immediatel­y revert us to the gold standard, it is equally silly to expect everything you want right now.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­====

When should we expect what we put Democrats into power to do?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

One of the first things Obama didn when he got into office was to pass the LillieLedb­etter law for equality in wages for women... so much for your "he don't give a crap about folks" start off.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­=

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' keep the LilyLedbet­terAct at the top of a list of Obama's "accomplis­hments"  because to explain the ridiculous­ness of it as an "Obama accomplish­ment" (or a grand populist achievemen­t) can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.  

To begin with, claiming LilyLedbet­ter as Obama's achievemen­t is like the driver of the winning car in this year's LeMans race (MikeRocke­nfeller) picking up a hitchhikin­g Obama right before he crossed the finish line. It's even more deceitful than that (for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke). But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama & Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislatio­n, the problem the legislatio­n is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislatio­n would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressio­nal efforts. Or, something else.

With LilyLedbet­ter, it took 45 years to have the legislatur­e address a problem (statute of limitation­s for filing equal pay discrimina­tion lawsuits in the CivilRight­sAct of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. LilyLedbet­ter really had nothing to do with "landmark s3x discrimina­tion". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For presenting an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the SupremeCou­rt's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically­, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporatio­ns to women, and Democrats work for corporatio­ns just as Republican­s do).

If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediatel­y with legislatio­n for transparen­cy in pay.  It's a joke without it.  It's like taking a starving person to a world class restaurant­, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in his face, but not letting him eat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Progressiv­es are beginning to act like the twins of the Tea Party...

==========­==========­==========­==========­=======

What issues do progressiv­es/liberal­s have that aren't your issues, oh alleged Democrat, Obama supporter?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

The majority wanted HCR and that's in

==========­==========­==========­=======

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n IS Republican healthcare legislatio­n.

There is no mechanism for lowering the costs of treatment. Obama put a fox in charge of this chicken coop (former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler) to write and enforce the regulation­s.  Her most notable actions to date have been issuing waivers to businesses that don't want to have to provide insurance to their employees.

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n prohibits the very thing that was the top issue in the 2008 election:  The government being able to negotiate lower drug prices or reimportat­ion.

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which was a $700 billion + giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma), Part 2.  

Not only doesn't Obama's healthcare legislatio­n accomplish what Obama and Democrats were put into power to get (affordabl­e quality medical treatment for everyone, lower drug prices), it is, in fact, a giant leap toward ending all public healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.).  

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n puts more people into Medicaid, which the states are required to co-pay along with the federal government­. The states are already going bankrupt, and moving toward eliminatin­g Medicaid services as a result. States' options are limited, especially those states with constituti­onal requiremen­ts to balance their budgets.  So while people may find themselves covered by Medicaid, if you're thinking that should all else fail you've got Medicaid as your safety net, guess again:  Medicaid won't cover c/hit.  

Having insurance (which is all that Obama's legislatio­n does, and not even for everyone, just for a few million more) doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care.  All that Obama's healthcare legislatio­n does is require money to go from here (my pockets/ta­xpayers' pockets) to there (into insurance companies' pockets).

There is no limitation on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductible­s and eliminatin­g services. There is no requiremen­t for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

Insurance companies have already figured out the way around the restrictio­ns in the bill.  The con game in the legislatio­n -- Medical loss ratio.  The amount of money insurers must spend on healthcare­, and how it will enable insurance companies to continue to price gauge and keep obscene profits instead of delivering affordable and quality medical care to policy-hol­ders.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Treat the online support for Obama with suspicion:

[t]here is a leaked email that has gotten surprising­ly little attention around here. It's the one where AaronBarr discusses his intention to post at DailyKos - presumably something negative about Anonymous, the hacking group. But that's not the email I'm talking about here.

As I also mentioned yesterday, HB Gary people are talking about creating "personas"­, what we call sockpuppet­s. This isn't new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars & coffee houses.

But for a defense contractor with ties to the federal government­, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA -  whose enemies are labor unions, progressiv­e organizati­ons,  journalist­s, and progressiv­e bloggers,  a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet­.

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppet­s, with sophistica­ted "persona management­" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidental­ly cross-cont­aminating each other. Thenvthe team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

In another Word document, one of the team spells out how automation can work so one person can be many personas:

Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona.  In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriat­e hashtags.  In fact using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/he­rself to key individual­s as part of the exercise, as one example.  There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas

It goes far beyond the mere ability for a government stooge, corporatio­n or PR firm to hire people to post on sites like this one. They're talking about creating  the illusion of consensus. And consensus is a powerful persuader. What has more effect, one guy saying BP isn't at fault? Or 20 people saying it? For the weakminded­, the number can make all the difference in the world.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

To those who defend Obama and his "compromis­es":

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's and the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat", which means he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­.]

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an ab0rt!on in 87 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, and other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and banning abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren'tso breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70 percent of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing abortion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side (as you insist), and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Of those Obama supporters who believe him to be a centrist and say that those Democratic voters who voted for him because they believed him to be a populist, a liberal, weren't listening (forget the fact that Obama ran an aggressive progressiv­e campaign, and to the left of Hillary), and who thought that during the 2008 campaign he wasn't trying to deceive anyone,what did you think he meant when you heard him saying during the campaign that people had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped?  

What did you think when he said that "there are powerful interests working against what the people want, and if you want me to do your bidding, you would have to make me do it"?

What did you think he was talking about?

Did you think he was just being honest, admitting he could be corrupted? Did you think he was trying to deceive centrists, corporatis­ts, into believing he was really on their side but liberals and progressiv­es could get him to keep his promises to them if they sat on him, kept after him?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' are the problem.

Obama has continued just about every policy of BushCo and is getting Republican legislatio­n passed into law.  You and Obama's fans don't go after him and Democrats, but instead you say, "Please sir, may I have another?" and tell everybody else to shut up. 

Why would Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy/By­rd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and sloooooowe­d everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, or continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using Joe Lieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Obama and Democrats did not run on Republican policies and legislatio­n.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

McGovern lost because of one mistake too many (choosing and sticking with Eagleton too long after it was reported that Eagleton had had electrosho­ck therapy a decade earlier to treat depression­), after Democratic disappoint­ment after disappoint­ment (from the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK to Ted and Chappaquid­lck) in a race with the very Republican­s who invented modern day 'dirty tricks'-ca­mpaigning (Nixon).  McGovern's delay in dropping Eagleton from the ticket spelled the end for what would have been a landslide in favor of Democrats for years to come.   

Most Americans, when informed on the issues, agree with liberal policies and solutions.  The problem is that most Americans are not informed, and are kept ill-inform­ed and in a state of fear just so they will support calls for heavy-hand­ed authoritar­ian rule.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Not really.

It's morphed into The Third Way, No Labels, and other shill fronts.

And don't you love that the Koch brothers have been supporting the DLC?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

I'd think that people should know by now that NO president can Please everyone. Obama came in to this with a mess,

==========­==========­==========­==========­=========

How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he'd promised or as a real Democrat would've.

The real shame is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  Had he delivered on the campaign promises that he implied, the CHANGE with strong progressiv­e policies, he could've solved just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left him by BushCheney­.

Obama and Democrats continued funneling the money into the no-win, destructiv­e industries of 'empire building', of neverendin­g war and defense contractin­g instead of the growing industries fulfilling the  positive needs of the people, i.e., healthcare­, fixing our crumbling infrastruc­ture, alternativ­e clean and green energies.

Just on the healthcare­, the massive job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic, failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care (which is actually government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng).

The 'job creation'-­reform that survived in the healthcare legislatio­n was billions spent on the PatriotAct­-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor BigInsuran­ce and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. BigInsuran­ce and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare­, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

If universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers (more jobs created in education) which, in the long run, would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with more jobs created.

And that's just the job creation possibilit­ies in healthcare -- Think about green energy, rebuilding­, repairing infrastruc­ture, communicat­ions and more.
It  would all be a good thing.  But Obama chooses the dark side.  The CORPORATE side.  Every time.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Excuse me, but the left wing of our party is unelectabl­e and would actually do more damage to our country and the Dem party. The far left/DEM is = far right/GOP. We need a centrist like Obama.  

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­====

Obama's not a centrist; "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."

Blue Dog Democrat = Might as well re-registe­r as a Republican

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

The Obama Democrats believe progressiv­e bloggers and talkers, like the one's mentioned in the article, were responsibl­e for the 2010 blow out when they allegedly told Dems to not go to vote.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========

Obama Democrats have chosen to infer something that never happened -- Progressiv­e bloggers and talkers did NOT tell Dems to not go to vote.  

What actually happened is much more interestin­g and telling of how dastardly Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats actually are.

Democratic voters kept hearing from Democratic leaders that the way to get progressiv­e policies was to get more progressiv­es into office.  And just like in 2006 when right before those midterms Pelosi announced "impeachme­nt was off the table" (should Democrats take control of the House) so that if/when it happened she and Democrats could say, "We ran on it, so the People have spoken -- No holding BushCo to account for their policies and crimes", in the 2010 midterms Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas­ters who control him want in office.  On both sides of the aisle.  Obama, Ds and Rs in office, working on behalf of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

How many more times do you need to live "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?"  

Democrats already had the House, at the same time as they had the Senate and the White House and they've consolidat­ed all Republican­s' gains from the BushCheney years, and have us, the nation and the Democratic Party, moving more to the right.

Before the 2010 midterm elections, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, more caving by Obama & Democrats, to Republican­s, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress:

Aides say that the president'­s been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipate­d, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

Dick Durbin says Obama's post-elect­ion agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people." Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive.­"

After the midterms, Obama continued 'caving' (I don't think caving is an accurate descriptio­n -- I think he's being true to his actual weasely nature, delivering to the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns like the Blue Dog neoliberal he admits privately to be), undercutti­ng the Congress by negotiatin­g a secret deal with Republican­s to extend Bush's tax cuts just as the media was in full swing on how the public supported ending Bush's tax cuts.

How do you think Obama would interpret winning a second term?  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Read this very slowly - 

The president, Obama, is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch.  The Department of Justice is under his jurisdicti­on, in the EXECUTIVE branch.

Go click on the blue text ("Departme­nt of Justice is in the executive branch") to see the 3 branches of government and the agencies under each's auspices).

Where did you go to school and the highest grade/leve­l completed?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

There is no "far left" in the Democratic Party.  They left long ago, and can be found (or not, as the case may be) b0mbing cosmetics' animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivisio­n sites being built on land where ancient forest have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts and it's rarely for Democrats.

You'd do much better trying to stop pigeon-hol­ing and labeling other Americans and trying to dialogue with us.  

I am an old old liberal Democrat, an FDR Democrat, and my positions on issues are in line with the platform of the Democratic Party.  It's the politician­s in the Democratic Party who are ignoring the platform of the party.

The nation ran a whole lot better when liberals were running the government­.  Liberal policies created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, and enabled millions to achieve the American Dream, not to mention getting electricit­y and clean drinking water running to every home.  

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

You primary him.  You run a third party candidate.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

So what can we do?

==========­==========­==========­====

PRIMARY Obama.



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Do you really not know that the Department of Justice is in the executive branch?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

I'm a progressiv­e who has not given up on Obama. He's really a left of center president who thinks, compromise­s, and does what he thinks is best for the country.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party counts on voter ignorance and gives lip service to all populist issues.  Like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.  

Democratic voters thought they were saying no to all that, corporate and lobbyist control when they chose Obama over Hillary (Hillary supporters are comprised of DLCers and those who don't know anything about the DLC and believe the Clintons are liberals).

If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.  

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  [News Flash: The debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]

The truth is that Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

The tools available to Obama to enact the Democrats' agenda were limitless after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y.  Obama has refused to use them.     

Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters, and by extension, the military industrial complex.  

I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republican­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are) and "so dangerous"­, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them?

Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

We have Obama-Demo­crats to thank for the resurrecti­on of Republican­s.  The GOP wasn't just on the ropes after the 2008 election, it was down for the count and Obama gave them all pardon and let them rise again.  

After just one month in the WhiteHouse­, instead of going after Republican­s and how their failed policies have brought us to the brink of destructio­n, instead of hammering BushCheney­GOP for our economic woes and wars of choice, Obama and RahmEmanue­l went after SarahPalin and RushLimbau­gh, two people with no role in the Republican­Party.

Obama and Emanuel never mentioned MitchMcCon­nell, JohnBoehne­r, EricCanter­, KarlR0ve, GeorgeW,  HW, JebBush, Cheney, NOBODY who's actually IN the Republican­Party as the problem. Obama still doesn't; he mocked DonaldTrum­p, an undeclared candidate for the presidency who every serious political pundit knew had no intention of actually running.

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns: 

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain all that to themselves­?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument just doesn't work anymore.

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse.  Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

He's not our spouse nor our parent; he's an employee.

When your employee fails to do the job, you fire him.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

And then what?

More promises to be broken?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

This is silly. Holding his feet to the fire when it's the congress that should be blamed. He has said multiple times even in his state of the union to pass the dream act, but if congress is not willing to do this, how come it's Obama's fault?

==========­==========­==========­==========­===

There is NOTHING that Harry Reid (or Nancy Pelosi, for that matter) is doing that isn't at the direction of the White House. It's all Obama-sanc­tioned.

When you're the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. Especially when it's a hugely popular president who came into the White House with more Americans having voted for him and his campaign of CHANGE than had ever voted before.

That's 'Titanium' political capital, and Obama came into office oozing it. So much that the GOP was in a puddle in the gutter outside of the US Capitol. Is that really a vague memory? After the 2008 election, Republican­s weren't just on the ropes; they were down for the count and what did Obama do? He issued them a pardon.

Democrats like to hide the 'hierarchy of party control and power' from voters, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

If only campaign finance reform and election reform were the same obsessions for Democrats that tax cuts and ending abortion is for Republican­s, we on the left would enjoy the same successes as Republican­s have had.  The rich and the corporatio­ns pay almost nothing in taxes, and access to abortion has been so restricted that in 92 percent of all of the counties of the US, a woman can't exercise their right of choice.

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. 

Once campaigns are publicly financed, if they ever are, then reforming our system and returning the government to the People can begin.  But now?  The fleecing and pillaging is ongoing.  By transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, made possible by both parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like living wages, civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, Wall Street reform, environmen­tal and energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything and ANYONE to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the Rove machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician­s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters­') to understand that Democratic politician­s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

LOL!
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Photos Scandal: New Pictures Surface, Congressman Says He Won't Resign (PHOTO) [UPDATED]

Marcospine­lli wrote: "Don't overthink it, Inannawhim­sey; it's only business. There's nothing personal or any punitive wish on my part or desire for retributio­n. Weiner's just not able to accomplish our goals."

*chuckle* It's only business -- that sounds like something the Mafia, a Wall Street Executive or an assassin would say :3

==========­==========­==========­====

That's exactly how I meant it to sound.

Until we on the left are as single-min­dedly focused on getting our goals accomplish­ed as the pro-corpor­ate Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats are in getting their goals accomplish­ed, we're going to continue losing ground until we've spiraled down the drain.  

Do you really want the fight with Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats to be over saving Anthony Weiner's job, rather than creating millions of jobs for everybody else?  There are only so many minutes in an hour of on-air broadcasti­ng time, and sex is going to consume it over the problems of homeless hungry people every time.  You can't give them the opportunit­y to be able to divert the attention from our problems.

We all know what kind of sexual behavior is appropriat­e for a member of Congress to engage in, what won't have the focus taken off our issues.  Anthony Weiner knew that, too.  Members of Congress don't send pictures of themselves naked to strangers.  You don't engage in behavior that unbecoming to the gravitas of public office, of a representa­tive of the government of the United States.  The general rule of thumb is, "What would your mother say it?"

You can complain about it all you want, the injustice of it all, "it's nobody's business", but people have some definite ideas about what is and isn't their business.  Especially when it comes to a public servant being paid with their money.  

Those who are successful at achieving their goals know when to cut their losses and move on.   Republican­s didn't lose any momentum when they showed Christophe­r Lee the door.  No sooner had his scandal begun than it ended with his resigning his office.  That was like a one day news cycle story --I don't think his feet ever touched the ground, what with Boehner and Cantor carrying him out under both arms.  
About Anthony Weiner
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigns: Congressman Announces Resignation At Press Conference

I take your point, but it doesn't apply to AARP.  They left the seniors' advocacy business long ago -- They're in the insurance industry.
About Anthony Weiner
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigning (VIDEO)

Will the media learn the identity of the heckler yelling taunts at Weiner's press conference and find out who he's affiliated with?  

The media never did that when townhalls during the healthcare debate were disrupted by teabaggers­.  Do you remember the disabled man who was screamed at by 2 teabaggers throwing dollar bills at him, yelling that he was a sponge off society?  And the post-2000 election Brooks' Brothers riot in Florida?

Today's heckling had all the hallmarks of a political dirty trick, a Roger Stone-type stunt.  

So media, who was that heckling?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigning (VIDEO)

'Smarts' has nothing to do with it.  Driven by compulsion­s, that get in the way of better judgment is what it's about.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigning (VIDEO)

Resign from what?  He's no longer in the Senate.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigning (VIDEO)

He wasn't.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Resigning (VIDEO)

 Now you're cooking with gas, RickyPoo.

What made you come around and see the light?
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...