they are attempts to split the difference between the opposition's demands & the policies that others have proposed to Obama, notwithstanding his own core principles (whatever they are apart from "bipartisanship" & "passing" anything so he can say he "passed" something)*

& that's only after Obama has preemptively handed over large amounts of inventory from the store

case in point: the "public option," whatever that was supposed to be

Obama didn't mind if the ACA ultimately included a "public option"

then again, he doesn't mind that the ACA does not include a "public option"

i'm on the fence about whether his impassivity regarding the "public option" exemplifies Obama's cynicism, an excessive pliability deriving from his inexperience, or both

not sure how many arguments that would destroy . . .

If he wins the election he wins the election.  That doesn't vindicate his policies anymore than GWB having 2 terms means anything necessarily (about the virtue of his policies, that is).  

I'm not going to make any predictions about 2015.  I'm pretty sure "history" is not going to think being President during a 6-7 year slump/recession is awesome, but I could be wrong.

Jeffinalabama, another highly experienced and qualified educator, having been unable to find work in his field here, is also considering a job out of the country.

But, you just go ahead and chuckle, giggle, and cackle away, christine, from the comfort of your place in life.

And in between fits of hysterical laughter, perhaps you should consider this:

The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities.

Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. "special rapporteur" for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.

"I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order," he said Thursday. "But on the other hand I also believe that the state -- in this case the federal state -- has an obligation to protect and promote human rights."

"If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights," he continued.

In my opinion, the US is losing, if not already lost, its right to throw stones at other countries, now that it's clear our house is made of glass.

i consider marriage equality an issue of civil rights

so in that respect, Obama's public position doesn't even rise to the "cautious and moderate" standard to which observed refers

Those aren't the only choices.  His most extreme critics on the left just end up taking one of those two paths.

It is always interesting to me when people claim that Obama lied to everyone and then almost instantly talk about how silly his focus on bipartisanship during the campaign and primary was.

It's crazy that the guy trying to fix the problem he inherited is accused of creating the problem because he did not employ the solution you preferred.

Are you really asking him to assume positions that, while they might be equitable and fair, while they might be intelligent, while they might be what downtrodden Americans want to hear, are politically to the left of Reagan?

Please.

We must have a winner.
And that winner must be Obama.
It would be just awful to have draconian policies enacted by Republicans when we can have them enacted by Democrats.

IMHO, if you hate Obama because he's not liberal enough and hate Obama for not telling the truth when  he makes overly liberal promises, you want it all ways.

My preference is that Obama tell the left "look, I hear what you are saying and I am going to push back harder but I am not going to give you your wish list and you need to support me at times even though I am pushing proposals that aren't exactly what you want".

That's what I want out of the guy.  Some here want him to campaign on stuff that he can't deliver and make liberals feel like they are the priority, win somehow even though much of that stuff isn't supported by the majority and then blame him when he can't make the miracle happen.

I ask the question to force the conversation towards a very simple discussion:

What can Obama realistically promise and commit to do that is possible and that won't kill his chance to get re-elected?

We don't need a pie in the sky, blow up campaign finance by business, re-qork every mortgage in the country, type dream lists.

We need a "here is what you could do, sell to the public, win and ultimately enact" list.

Between the Obama extollery
and the endless poll-citing @ssholery,
it's not hard to see
what drives ABG.
In the end, it all comes down to trollery.

If you told a democratic voter in 2007 that the next democratic president would eliminate pre-existing conditions and put set up a plan to give 20-35 million more people healthcare, draw down all combat troops in Iraq, repeal DADT, stop defending DOMA, usher in democratic revolutions in Libya and Egypt without setting boots on the ground, and nominate two fairly progressive female supreme court justices, they'd have said "done".  Sign me up. No need to even promise anything else.  Those would be enough.

Then if you told them that as an extra bonus, the democratic president would kill Osama within 2 years when Bush couldn't do it in 8, they'd stop listening because surely you were making up some kind of democratic wet dream.

If you think Obama's list of kept promises and accomplishments is weak, you are delusional.  There really is no other way to say it.

if that candidate turns out to be Obama, that's great - i'm thrilled

i don't even care if he's doing it because OWS has struck the fear of electoral defeat into him - that is what he is supposed to do: respond to pressure from the people who might conceivably vote for him