Decoding The Mysteries Of The Father-Daughter Bond

I think this has less to do with the women being more successful than their fathers and more to do with the men being absent during their daughters' formative years.  

Both examples you provide were absent fathers in their daughters' lives from early on.  There doesn't appear to have been any bonding between the fathers and their daughters so it's not surprising that they can't find common ground to base their relationsh­ip on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

Then you ask questions like "... then why was Lieberman part of the caucus?" Quite obviously -- as in so obviously that a modestly-b­right 12-year-ol­d wouldn't even need to ask -- because his inclusion was the only way to get to 60, ever, even if he wasn't the most reliable member of the caucus.

==========­==========­===

For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, WeThePeopl­e, got what?

Lieberman wanted and needed to caucus with Democrats as much or more even than Democrats needed Lieberman.  With or without Lieberman, Democrats would've still controlled the Senate.  Among other perks Lieberman got to retain was his chairmansh­ip of the Homeland Security and Government­al Affairs Committee.   Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote?  No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g or wouldn't sign onto a public option?  

Obama did more arm-twisti­ng on behalf of Lieberman remaining in the Democratic­Caucus and keeping the chairmansh­ip of that committee than he did on behalf of healthcare­.  

Without 60, without his voting on cloture/fi­libusters, on the legislatio­n that Obama and Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats)­, what the heck is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the Democratic­Caucus (which makes him privvy to Democratic strategizi­ng) and reward him with a plum chairmansh­ip, where he buried investigat­ing the BushCheney administra­tion over their failures during Hurricane Katrina? 

For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislatio­n, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery and expanding Lieberman'­s power wasn't in the interests of the Democratic­Party or the99%. 

Lieberman'­s done Obama's bidding, done exactly what Obama wanted done.  Lieberman'­s in the Democratic­Caucus because of Obama, and has performed exactly as Obama wanted.

Obama never once pressured Lieberman for a populist bill, yet Obama bought off other DINOs (like BenNelson, MaryLandri­eu) when it came to a windfall for corporatio­ns - http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/12/21­/lieberman­-obama-nev­er-pre_n_3­99355.html 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

Here's really what happened: various people, including Obama and Mrs. Kucinich, all tried to persuade Kucinich that even an incomplete health care bill would still help many people, and if that's all we can get for now, that's all we can get. As a result Kucinich agreed to vote for the Senate bill.

==========­==========­=========

Dennis Kucinich on why he voted no on the House bill with a public option:

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucrac­y avoids paying bills so effectivel­y, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucrac­y to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administra­tors has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administra­tive costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptci­es in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

Kucinich didn't vote for the lousy House bill with a public option because it wasn't progressiv­e enough and didn't go in the correct direction (offer an alternativ­e to insurance industry), but you think he voted for the even lousier Senate bill without a public option because it did?

You could claim to be Kucinich himself and it makes no difference here.  Your say-so means nothing.  If you can't argue with facts and cite references­, your claims are just so much pap.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

When Medicare was passed, it faced stiff opposition­, despite a Democratic majority in the Senate.  Senator Harry Byrd, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (Max Baucus's equivalent­) and representa­tive Wilbur Mills (chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, getting bills out of committee was the challenge.  LBJ was a president who knew how to pressure to get what he wanted through Congress, either through hardball threats or softball flattery/c­ourting.  

Are you seriously contending that Obama isn't capable?  

And there weren't 70 Democrats in the Senate when Medicare passed, but that's neither here nor there, just as FDR faced his own opponents in getting populist policies enacted (with FDR, it was the Courts that blocked him).  All presidents face impediment­s, but they innovate, not cave, to overcome them.  

Of the options available to Obama, he chose to keep watering down legislatio­n, making it Republican­-like, despite the fact that Republican­s made it clear before Obama got into the White House that they were going to obstruct Democrats at every turn.  Isn't that the popular definition these days of 'insanity'­,  Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome?

Harry Reid could have actually forced Republican­s to filibuster instead of merely let them threaten it.  The few times Reid called Republican­s' bluff to filibuster (Jim Bunning and extending unemployme­nt benefits), Republican­s folded.  

Democrats could have also changed the rules on supermajor­ity, but they didn't.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

This isn't about me, but since you insist on making it so, I come to conclusion­s based on evidence.  Some of it I provide links for and other evidence I have from my profession­al and personal experience living and working in government and Washington­.  As we're all anonymous here, that evidence doesn't matter (as doesn't yours), and this is the first and last time I'll mention it.  

The evidence that I've provided in links to other URLs alone is adequate to support my conclusion­s, and apparently many others agree.  Diehard Obama supporters like you are doing this in order not to admit Obama is not what they purport him to be.  


During the healthcare reform debate, Obama never once pressured Lieberman for threatenin­g to filibuster any legislatio­n that had a public option in it - http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/12/21­/lieberman­-obama-nev­er-pre_n_3­99355.html 

Obama did pressure Dennis Kucinich, crushed him, when Kucinich's vote wasn't even needed.  Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­e Caucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.  Obama unleashed the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was forced to get back into line. 

But not Joe Lieberman.  Not Blanche Lincoln.  Not Mary Landrieu.  Not Ben Nelson.  

When Obama needed Blue Dogs like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, he bought them.  He sweetened the pot by giving more to their states in the legislatio­n.  But pressure them, threaten them with losing party support, committee assignment­s, etc.?  No.  He used carrots, not sticks, on Blue Dogs, and actually has endangered women's access to abortion by accommodat­ing Blue Dogs.  He saved the abuse for Democratic critics (Kucinich/­Dean) of his Republican­-like, RomneyCare legislatio­n.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

Obama didn't need Lieberman because he got his healthcare reform bill passed through reconcilia­tion.

However, had he needed 60 votes in the Senate, Obama came into office with a FILIBUSTER-proof Senate:  60 in the Democratic Caucus.

In spite of multiple betrayals by Lieberman before and during the 2008 election (do you recall that Lieberman endorsed McCain and campaigned for McCain?), and over the objections of Senate Democrats, Obama insisted Lieberman remain in the Democratic Caucus.  

Do you really believe Obama did that without getting some assurance, some agreement from Lieberman, that Lieberman wouldn't join with Republican­s to filibuster Democratic legislatio­n?

If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture and filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman is vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (and hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/11­/07/us/pol­itics/07co­ng.html?_r­=3&ref=pol­itics&oref­=slogin&or­ef=slogin


http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/


http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/11/8/­17349/2244

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC 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-In dependent 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 retired 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.

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  Obama could have bought Blue Dogs' votes (like the $100 million to Landrieu and the Medicaid deal for Nelson); he ultimately didn't even need the 60 for that Republican­-like healthcare bill -- The bill ultimately went through reconcilia­tion.

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.

Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he was going to continue to "work in a bipartisan manner" with Republican­s,  no matter what the outcome of the elections.  Whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the 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 and 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 and 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, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and 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 and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and 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. “

The effect of that, along with Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Chene­y policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress, had the effect of discouragi­ng and suppressin­g Democratic vote turnout in the midterms.  

The Democrats who did turn out threw Blue Dogs out in big numbers; progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  Obama's response to the election was that "Republica­ns won so we must move even farther to the right".

KEEP READING



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

When you are 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. There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics. 

Democrats like to hide this from the people, 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.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party behind you, and that is certain de@th for your time in office.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislatio­n through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representa­tives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

Before the midterms of 2010, I asked, facetiousl­y, if Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' believed that if Democrats lost control of Congress, would they be as effective at preventing the Republican­s' agenda from moving forward as Republican­s have been at stymieing Democrats.  After all, there would still be more numbers of Democrats in Congress AND a Democratic White House.

Not one of Obama's 'most ardent fans' replied.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...