home

Monday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Bob Dylan Finally Gets To Vietnam | Can States Make You Eat Broccoli? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Krugman (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:17:58 AM EST
    What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn't seem to stand for anything in particular?

    I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there's not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn't even using that -- or, rather, he's using it to reinforce his enemies' narrative.
    ...
    But if you ask me, I'd say that the nation wants -- and more important, the nation needs -- a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that's not what we're seeing.link  



    He never was that person (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    He was the person that voted present. He was the person who said he pushed the wrong button when he voted so he could change his vote. The person that sounded like Lieberman before he transformed himself into the "anti-war" candidate.

    Parent
    Read that this morning, and I think (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    Krugman still has not caught up to where we are on this, namely that what's "wrong" with Obama isn't a matter of timidity or lack of courage or even incompetence, but of him being unwilling to oppose policies he has more of an affinity for than what most people ever expected from a Democratic president.  Well, those who weren't paying attention, anyway; the signs were all there, as you know.

    Yes, the nation needs a president who believes in something, but the sad truth is that I think he does - and it isn't anything most of us can support.  Does Krugman think a president who didn't believe in conservative economic policies would be out crowing and grinning about the historic spending cuts?  Does he think a president who was opposed to the harsh economic policies of austerity would be fairly licking his chops at the prospect of doing more?  In my opinion, Obama's been reinforcing his opponents' narrative because that's the one he identifies more with.

    But, golly - how difficult must it be when his own party expects him to be opposed to this craziness, and he really isn't?  How do you give the appearance of opposing something while actually working to achieve it?

    Guess we can just look to pretty much every major piece of legislation during his term for the answer to that question.


    Parent

    Obama, like many conservative (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    Republicans, seems completely innumerate in his approach to policy questions.
    The answer to every problem comes from the "free market" and reducing taxes on the wealthy.
    This is so "obvious", there's no need to even check the data.
    Listening to him describe how he came up with the amount for the stimulus package is scary too---the idea that there might actually be a correct amount, and a correct way to deliver that amount didn't seem to occur to him. It was all about process, and getting along with R's.


    Parent
    Taibbi blog -- The stinky nads of Paul Ryan (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    You caused a mini-panic... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    Dadler...people thought you bailed on us, but I knew better:)

    Parent
    kdog, you'll love this. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    I'm applying for a job in Weed, California.

    Parent
    College of the Siskiyous? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    I like this place already! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    and no, I don't smoke... I have enough paranoia issues;)!

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:27:36 AM EST
    What a coinky-dink...I apply for jobs for weed, you apply for jobs in Weed.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    Weed....

    Good luck on the job....

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    I was pretty down about my inability to properly communicate what mindbody/psychosomatic medicine is, and how it affects my views on pain clinics and that issue, but I was never gonna leave this place.

    You still thinking about coming to the Bay Area in the future?  Come during next college hoops season and I'll treat you to a USF game at War Memorial.

    Parent

    It's looking dead... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    I'm afraid...my travel buddy knows he can't swing it, and its probably wishful thinking that I could swing it.  Mulling a little 5 day replacement jaunt to Curacao Dutch Antilles instead...less days to take off and much cheaper.

    By next College Hoops season could be in play...I'll head west eventually.

    BTW, you weren't that unclear...don't get frustrated with what is often a difficult way to communicate.  And now you know how much you are loved and appreciated, if you didn't already.

    Parent

    Thanks, my friend (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    I'll say a little atheist prayer that somehow USF gets St. Johns to come west with you for a game.

    Parent
    yeah, read it last week (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:31:50 AM EST
    ole Matt, get's better with age.

    But, it just goes to show you that there are  people out there that can frame the issues so that even us simple folk can understand them.

    Unfortunately, they're not in the democratic party

    Parent

    Certainly does nail it, doesn't he? (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    Thanks for sharing this link! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    I LMFAO through the entire read.

    Parent
    And still he panders: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    Only 34% of independent voters in Florida approve of Obama's job performance, and that either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee would beat the president in Florida if the election were held today.

    When will Obama and the Democrats wake up and realize they need to focus on Democrats and Democratic Party values.

    The only reason he got any support from moderate Republican and Independants was their total disgust with the Bush administration.

    By trying to appeal to everyone, Democrats and Obama are finding they don't appeal to anyone.

    If anyone had told me that Obama and the Democrats could squander everything that had been gained in 2010 in less than 18 months, I wouldn't have believed them.

    I'm wondering (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    if it's not going to be a Romney/Huckabee ticket. If Obama is doing that poorly in FL he's not in good shape for 2012.

    Parent
    Legislating good policies that actually (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    work and benefit the lower 98% could IMO have gone a long way in maintaining the Dem majorities. Instead the Dems chose and continue to choose to recycle failed Republicans policies.

    Florida BLS unemployment rate is 11.5% vs 8.9% nationwide. Heaven only knows what is the real unemployment rate in that state. Florida is also one of the states where homes prices tanked even more than the national average.

     

    Parent

    Why is that so hard to understand? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    Politicians used to know how to pander to the masses a lot better. Or maybe they just had to. As Taibbi says, our overlords have managed to convince the masses that what is good for the overlords is good for the masses, so all the pols have to do now is keep the overlords happy.

    Parent
    I Don't See (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    why anyone should be surprised.

    I swear you'd have to be blind and deaf to have how people missed it.

    What in hell did people think he meant when he talked about 'changing the tone in Washington.'

    There are only two things 'changing the tone' can mean.  Either he'd abandon progressive resistance/legislation or he'd acquiesce to the Conservative agenda.  Getting Conservatives to shut up or accept a progressive center wasn't going to happen.

    If nothing else the level of conceit that statement reveals is sickening.

    Nominating Obama was like buying a pig in a poke.

    I think that Obama often told people (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    where he coming from and how he would legislate. People just chose not to believe him. More often than not, they played WORM with his statements and parsed them into whatever they wanted to believe rather than listen to what he actually said.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    I felt that was when I listened to The Audacity of Hope on audiobooks.  A very good book, but all the way through it I had a hard time understanding progressives love for this guy.  First, I thought I was listening to a blue dog democrat laying out his philosophies and vision. Second, as he described everything, he was always looking for the middle and trying to find areas where he agreed with Republicans.  For example, on welfare reform he would something like "I believe we need a social safety net and concern ourselves with inequality...blah blah blah."  But then he would follow up with something like "but Repulicans were right when they said it needs to be centered around work and that states had an incentive to increase the amount of government dependency based on free money from the Feds...blah blah blah."

    What we are seeing now is what we were always going to get with Obama - a blue dog always looking for a middle ground with republicans.  It always puzzles me when progressives feel betrayed or expected something different.

    Parent

    Yep. He did not really hide his leanings. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    It was all out there to be heard and read, and it sold a bajillion copies. How was he to reach any other conclusion but that the party agreed with him? And in fact, they do. We are the outliers.

    Parent
    Folks, only a small % (none / 0) (#137)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    of the public actually reads books (the old fashioned way or with audio books).  And probably most who would have bothered to buy and read his (2d) memoir would have been the type who'd tend to read and analyze selectively with a strong pro-O bias.

    Also to consider:  libs and Dems have long had their love affair with lofty soft, kumbaya ideals of the type Obama in 2004 and 2008 famously espoused in several major speeches, such as One America, extending the olive branch, and compromise -- meeting the other side half-way -- as an integral part of politics.  

    It's just that most didn't expect a President Obama to be so willing to move that half-way point so far that it amounted to merely the beginning or first step in a process of constantly moving half-way to the other side in a process the other side would be allowed to control.  

    Parent

    But this is the problem (none / 0) (#165)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    It's just that most didn't expect a President Obama to be so willing to move that half-way point so far that it amounted to merely the beginning or first step in a process of constantly moving half-way to the other side in a process the other side would be allowed to control.  

    People should not be surprised to see this.  Obama is a conserva-dem always looking for middle ground.  Repubs do not believe in middle ground.  You either do everything they want or you are a socialist, America-hating, sellout.  

    Parent

    Add my yup (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    I feel that pols always tell us what they'll do.  The trouble starts when people begin injecting their own wishful thinking into the mix.

    Obama was a classic example.

    Some of the What Obama Really Meant stuff were feats that a master contortionist would envy.


    Parent

    Cal 1942 (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    your post reminded me of the other thing candidate Obama said that really ticked me off (besides the urge to bipartisanship) when he dissed the confrontational politics of the 60s and 70s. How the hell else were the battles for civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, stopping the Vietnam war, how the hell else were these battles won? By putting our asses on the line!By fighting for them! Pull your shorts up Dems!

    (aaarrrggghhh!!!)

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    In the 19th century we compromised and compromised and compromised some more.  Then, because nothing was actually resolved in all those years of compromise, we had a war that killed 625,000 people.

    What Obama claimed he won concessions in the DEAL.  Actually what he claimed to gain in the bill would have been won by confrontation.  No need to cave.


    Parent

    You have to admit that Obama really (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    did deliver a "new kind of politics" to DC.

    Americablog is posting articles by an anonymous Dem bigwig saying that Obama needs to be primaried. The first post in the series is "Whoever primaries Obama will be the next Democratic President".
    It's time to ditch Obama, and risk four years of GOP rule. Sticking with Obama could destroy the Dem brand for decades.

    After Wednesday's speech, and after Obama signs the Ryan plan into law in a few weeks, maybe some Polyanna's will finally get a clue.
    Even ABG has been unhappy. If that's not a dead canary, I don't know what is.


    I Hate to Agree (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    But I have mentioned it numerous times, we have to get a someone in the primaries.  Not that they actually have a chance, but I want Obama to explain himself to Democrats w/o all the political slipperiness of the actual election.

    The guy is killing everything I stand for, he's missed immigration and abortion, but at this rate, all the republican fiscal and National Defense goals are being met, once they get power again, they will have the time to go after social issues with force.  

    Obama has made the Ryan Republican wet dream into a real possibility and it scares the S out of me.  I'd rather have a republican doing it than my own fricken party.  Where am I suppose to go ?  I no longer fit into this Democratic Party.

    Where has ABG been, I miss his daily cheer leading.  I love the bit about the canary, classic.

    Parent

    "I'd rather have a republican doing (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    it than my own fricken party."  It would be much much much better to have a republican doing it.  If Obama "finds a middle ground" on Ryan's roapmap to poverty, he will be signing up for the elimination of FDR's/LBJ's government.  It is one thing for a republican administration to drive this with big majorities on a partisan vote.  Democrates can then oppose and stop it.  If not, it could be reversed with enough angry voters.  But if a democratic administration agrees to "compromised" version of Ryan/Simpson Bowles/etc., and then celebrates the "victory" for austerity and conservative government, then America will no longer have a party defending/promoting the blue social model.  Both parties will have essentially the same vision, destroying the FDR government.  The disagreement will be over how to dismantle it and how fast, not whether or not it should be dismantled.

    And it will be gone for good.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    then America will no longer have a party defending/promoting the blue social model.

    There is no reason for the Democratic Party to exist if they join the Republicans dismantling "New Deal" policies.  

    Parent

    Democrats have no long game. (none / 0) (#18)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    Clinton held back the tide of Republican gains, but only barely. Obama doesn't even consider himself a Democrat---as Cal1942 noted, he stopped that after the primaries.
    How does reelecting Obama help Dem chances in 2016 or beyond?

    Parent
    When the Triagulator (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    is viewed as a steady wall against the wave of conservativism, there is a perception issue.

     

    Parent

    If you think (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:05:24 AM EST
    that about Clinton how can you sit around and constantly excuse Obama enacting massive conservative policies. Clinton is to the left of Obama on almost every issue.

    Parent
    To the left? (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:36:24 AM EST
    Hmmm...not on economics, or social welfare, or war, or drug war.

    What does that leave Clinton to lean left on?  Gun control?

    Parent

    taxes . . . ? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    Gun control (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Economics, he wasn't a supply side apostle like Obama. Health care. Women's rights just to name a few. Drug war? Yeah, I'll give you that they are the same on that one. Yeah, even social welfare because he didn't cut like Obama has.

    Parent
    He was a corporate Wall St... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    fellator, same as Obama.

    Taxes I gotta give 'em...good call Stray.  He did charge higher vigs.
    Women's Health issues too...point take MO.

    Parent

    Naw (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    because Clinton usually gave something to the middle class. Obama gives nothing to the middle class.

    Parent
    "Gave something to the middle class..." (none / 0) (#195)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    Besides handcuffs?

    Parent
    Come on, man. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by dk on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    Bill raised taxes on the rich and lowered them for the working poor.  BTD keeps making that point over and over.

    I totally understand that it doesn't mean you have to like him, but by that objective measure his administration is to the left of Obama's on economics so far.

    Parent

    You c'mon... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    yes, he charged higher vigs...with little to show.  Also went to war on welfare, pro Death Penalty.

    Brand D isn't a left brand...it's a center/right brand.  Bill moved the brand there, Obama continues the work.  

    Parent

    And don't forget NAFTA... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    there is more to economic policy than taxes.

    Parent
    NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    is a red herring. The trade problems are with China not Mexico or Canada.

    Parent
    NAFTA isn't a red herring (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    if your livelihood came from manufacturing that has since moved off-shore.

    Parent
    NAFTA (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    dealt strictly with Mexico and Canada. Most of the off shoring has been to China and India which had nothing to do with NAFTA. That's the point I'm making.

    The problem has to do with free trade moreso than any agreement. Corporations operate on the cheap labor model and they are going to go where the cheap labor is. Now there are things that we could do like tariffs and such but just talking about NAFTA and thinking if we undid it would solve our problems is just not true.

    Parent

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    we took a lot of our pollution down south.

    Parent
    & created hellholes like Ciudad Juarez (none / 0) (#136)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    I said economics. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by dk on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    Not sure what a vig is, but he raised taxes on the rich and lowered them for the working poor, and that had more than a little impact on the budget and on peoples' lives.  And, the current guy hasn't raised taxes on the rich and lowered them on the working poor.  That's all I was tryin' to say.

    Parent
    A vig... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    is what the mafia charges for protection racket services...the US government is a protection racket for the uber-wealthy.

    And I grant you Bill charged a higher rate to protect the top 1%'s wealth...I don't know if that makes him left or just a better businessman.  When that money is used in part to drastically increase marijuana prohibition, enforcement I fail to see the true "good" in it.

    Parent

    Well, taxes go to (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dk on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    some good stuff too.

    Parent
    Not nearly enough... (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    The president is in a unique position with final signature on where it goes...Bill made sure it didn't go to welfare checks.  But he remembered to drop some bombs on Iraq.

    Parent
    Clinton is to the left of Obama on everything (none / 0) (#174)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    except

    DADT
    DOMA
    Cuban Policy
    Financial Regulation
    Etc, etc.

    And a dozen or so other key issues that Clinton passed and Obama is trying to reverse.

    Look, I am not bashing Clinton.  Love that guy.  

    I am bashing the idea that Obama is some crazy republican, while Clinton completely caved on Welfare and a bunch of other issues for the greater good himself.

     just want what Obama is doing kept in the right perspective.  I am not defending this latest move. I am defending the overreach in criticizing it.

    It sucks, but the dude caved on the fiscal budget for less than a year.

    Keep your pants people.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    If you could think of a "dozen or so other key issues" that Obama was to the left of Clinton, you would list them.

    More importantly Obama isn't even to the left of Clinton on those issues.

    DADT - Clinton made full repeal of the ban a priority early in his first term when everyone else (DOD, Congress,, the public) was against repeal.  Twenty years later, Obama sat back and waited for Congress to act when everyone supported repeal of the ban.

    Financial Regulation - what policies has Obama advanced that are to the left of Clinton - try to be specific, 'cause this should be fun.

    DOMA - arguable.  Depends on when you ask them.  Clinton favored DOMA in '95, but doesn't now.  Obama favored DOMA when he was touring SC with Donnie McClurkin in '07, but doesn't now.

    Cuba - no idea - but that's the best you can come up with?

    Seriously funny.

    Parent

    He is not (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    to the left on financial regulation. DOMA remains to be seen and DADT hasn't been implemented yet.

    Obama is not trying to reverse anything. That should be patently obvious to you. Well, maybe not to you but to almost everybody else.

    You're applying beliefs to Obama that he has not shown he has.

    Remember the statement about "if someone might agree with you only 20% of the time and someone else might agree with you in theory but the person who agrees with you 100% isn't willing to fight for those beliefs and the other person who you only agree with 20% is, then voters will go with the 20% every time."

    Clinton DID NOT cave on Welfare. It's not "caving" when you campaign on reforming Welfare. Caving is what Obama is doing with taxes and spending. It's not what he campaigned on.

    Parent

    Regarding a challenger (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    My only question is who.

    I'll support a primary challenger that's an honest to god Democrat, but, the question remains, who.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    I expect we're stuck with O as he is.  But I still think he should be primaried.  

    Parent
    I am not happy (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    but the idea of primary Obama is silly, counter productive and not the thinking of pundits thinking pragmatically.

    The overreaction (he's a republican, primary him, etc.) is just unserious, reflexive and illogical.

    But i get it. Vent the anger.  I am doing a bit of that myself.  

    But anyone who suggests that Obama should be primaried or that electing him is no different than electing Romney can't be taken seriously.

    In my humble opinion of course.

    Parent

    Why shouldn't he be primaried? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    If he isn't primaried, then he has no need to react to anyone to the left of Paul Ryan, and that's a bad thing.
    I say he should be primaried for a couple of  reasons, at least.
    First of all, he's not at all a lock to win in 2012, if you consider how his decisions will likely impact the economy. Republicans are very savvy about this: GOP Presidents do whatever it takes to juice the economy in an election year. Obama is taking actions which will make the economy sag.

    Next, as I already mentioned, he needs pressure from the left to influence his policies.

    Also, the fact he is a Reagan Republican with  a D after his name is very confusing to voters.
    The old Truman quip comes to mind.


    Parent

    A Primary (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    increases the chances of a GOP president significantly because, as we have learned, the supporters of the losing challengers often hold grudges.

    I care about defeating Mitt Romney than I do teaching Obama a lesson.  

    Simple.

    Parent

    Losers only hold grudges (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:41:05 AM EST
    when the winner has used dirty tactics to win.

    Just sayin'.

    And we've seen over and over and over again that good primary fights on the issues actually help the eventual nominee, not hurt him. (word chosen intentionally)


    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#175)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    Because sore losers always claim that they weren't beat fairly and squarely.

    And so the circle of finger pointing is complete.

    Parent

    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    but the Obama fanclub are about the sorest winners I've ever seen.

    Parent
    T/F (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    1. Obama has a better chance to win re-election than any challenger has to win against th republican?

    T

    2. Obama's reelection chances will be hurt if finances and resources are spent defending himself in a nasty primary battle with a challenger likely to highlight a lot of bad things about him.

    T

    If 1 and 2 are true (and they are) it makes no logical sense to primary him.  It makes no logical sense for an incumbent party to challenge an incumbent. Which is why it rarely happens.

    We're here in large part because a bunch of "smarter than though" types gave Kennedy the bright idea that dog gone it, Jimmy Carter needed to be shown what real democratic leadership was about, consequences be d*mned.

    We got 8 years of Reagan and the creations of the mess we're in today.

    No.  I think this time we need to put thought of primarying the incumbent in the idiot bin and not even give the concept credence.

    Can't let temper tantrums and anger trump strategy and logic this time around. Nope.


    Parent

    We got 8 years of Reagan because (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    Kennedy was a bad candidate, not because he primaried Carter. Oh, let's not forget that Reagan cheated in debates, and his team committed treason by making a deal with Iran to hold on to the hostages.

    The point you continue to elide is what is the future of the Democratic party with a leader who governs as if the New Deal was a bad mistake.

    Parent

    Whenever I get to thinking that the (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    people on the Left are kinda like me because I agree with some of their hot buttons....

    I read something like this.

    a deal with Iran to hold on to the hostages.

    You guys know how to keep people voting Repub.

    Parent

    Oh, please ... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    If that was truly the reason people chose to vote Dem or Repub, we'd have Democrats in every office in the country.  You really wanna compare left conspiracy theories to right conspiracy theories?

    Parent
    Then (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    you're not really about issues anymore than the Obots are.

    Parent
    What is it? You don't like to be reminded (none / 0) (#120)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    of your party's history?
    How about 1968? I know you were around then.
    Kissinger sabotaged the Paris peace talks to hurt HHH's chances and help his own.
    The cost of THAT interference easily goes into the millions of lives.


    Parent
    Cheating (none / 0) (#176)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    "Oh, let's not forget that Reagan cheated in debates"

    See what I mean about how the victors are viewed?

    Parent

    "temper tantrums"? (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:01:21 AM EST
    Another truth (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    We've seen more Democratic programs cut back under Obama than we saw with GWB.

    So other than the Supreme Court, what has his election gained us?

    At least as a minority Democrats fought to preserve what little principles they have left.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:02:46 AM EST
    after Obama's record in office, I think he actually has less a chance to win than a challenger. He is going to have to defend his sorry record to the general public.

    At this point, I don't think either Obama or a challenger could win against someone like Romney.

    Parent

    Romney can't win the nomination (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    Well who (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    do you think will? If it's one of the crazies Obama is a shoe in simply because the other side is so odious.

    Parent
    Too early to tell who (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    but Romney won't.

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    Because the GOP has a religious litmus test? Pawlenty just fades away into the background and the rest are just plain crazy. I've always said that if Romney is going to win, he's going to have to do it without the south and the south is what has been killing the GOP.

    Parent
    Well, I'm sure the Repubs are (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    anxious to nominate whoever the Demos want.

    Actually I don't think it makes much difference. The economy is drifting into a second rescission in three years.

    Obama is a one termer and the Demos are in worse shape for a replacement than the Repubs.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    thanks for reminding us that GOP policy is horrible. That's why we've been on Obama's case. He's instating failed GOP policy and is going to get the blame for hte sorry policy.

    That being said, the country does not like what the GOP is offering either. As sorry as Obama has been, the GOP is just offering more of the same failed solutions.

    I think another crazy GOP president will finally do the GOP in for a generation.

    I see Obama as in the same position as Nixon. Nobody likes him but the GOP fundamentalism is just too much like Iran for most people's tastes. I don't really know what the GOP stands for other than radical religious fundamentalism and corporate welfare.

    Parent

    nobody likes obama? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    What planet are you on? Even the gop ers that I work with say he is a very decent guy and all he has to do to have a successful presidency is keep a distance from pelosi. Maybe things are different in your rural corner in the south, however consult some polls before spewing garbage.

    Parent
    You know you keep on saying that (2.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    but the economy was much better under Bush until the Demos took over 2/2007. By mid July 2008 oil was at a record high, unemployment climbing and the market tanking.

    And Obama was elected to fix it.

    And he hasn't. In fact, it's tanking again, as I wrote.

    As for "fundamentalism" you should remember that only 20% of the American people self identify as a liberal.

    Obama was elected because he promised change. For the first two years he had control of Congress.

    November showed us what the public thinks of his stewardship.

    Parent

    Obama does not care if the lower 98% (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    are able to keep the very basics of survival.  Don't much care if he can survive financially in the 2012 election.

    So please continue to logically support the dismantling of all safety net programs, the poor doing without food or heat and all tax cuts to the wealthy by continuing to vote for the president who signing these measures into law.

    I will not vote for a president who continues to rob the poor to give more to his savvy friends so that they will add to his finances now and after he leaves office.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't care about (none / 0) (#177)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    anyone but the rich people.  Yes. That's clearly what maintaining tax cuts for the 98% and concessions in a one week budget extension tell us.

    Parent
    Tell people who do without food (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    and heat because of Obama's cuts to domestic programs how much he cares about them. Tell the people with incomes under $20,000 who saw their taxes increase when Obama's increased the tax breaks for the rich how much he cares about them.  

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    We're here in large part because a bunch of "smarter than though" types gave Kennedy the bright idea that dog gone it, Jimmy Carter needed to be shown what real democratic leadership was about, consequences be d*mned.

    is just wrong.  Actually most of the TK inner circle were against his run in 1980.  It was mostly Ted himself who wanted it -- for personal reasons (re the way JC had disrespected him in private) primarily I suspect.

    1968 was a more positive example of primarying an incumbent who went off doing crazy things in a distant unimportant little country and who wasn't listening to the base.  It was the right and necessary thing to do (re McC and RFK both), but alas some unfortunate events ensued.

    So, mixed record on primarying the incumbent for our side.  And I can't say it's entirely an insane idea wrt Obama -- one or two more major caves on the budget, hitting Medicare/Medicaid and maybe SS, and who knows what could happen.

    Parent

    I can't even believe one of your reasons (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    why a primary would be bad is that it would highlight a lot of bad things about Obama.  

    As if the Republicans aren't going to highlight a lot of bad things about him if he gets the nomination?

    That's a good one.

    I'm sure you think you are staying above the fray by casting those who disagree with you as angry, silly children having tamper tantrums, but all you're doing is avoiding the reality that people have reason to be angry - and that they are looking for ways to channel that anger to effect the kind of change that was promised, but never delivered.

    I think you're more afraid than you let on.

    Parent

    Teddy's challenge (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    didn't sink Carter, it only sank Teddy.  Carter was going down no matter what.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    I guess a lot of people aren't old enough to remember.

    Parent
    ABG (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    Come on, do you know what a circular reference is ?

    You say this is true, "Obama has a better chance to win re-election than any challenger has to win against th republican?"

    But how do we know that if he runs un-opposed in the primary ?  Of course he will have the best chance if he has no competition, but the reality is he would be the only chance, not the same.  Best implies a population greater than one.

    That's the circular reference, in order to know who has the best chance to beat the R's, we need a primary, then we decide who has the best chance.  We know you have already decided, but I haven't and your assumption is beyond a stretch.  A stretch very similar to the one HRC made in 2008.

    Without a primary, McCain or Hillary would be President because no one gave Obama any sort of chance, Hillary was the candidate pre-Iowa.  But then the primaries gave Obama an opportunity for us to decide who we wanted, and for some it boiled down to 'best chance' but for others, we simply liked what he had to say.  

    The primary is like a sporting event, normally the power house wins, but from time to time the underdog pulls one out.  Like they say, "It's why the game is played".

    Without the primary, he is the only chance, which doesn't necessarily make him the best chance.  So please stop saying we shouldn't do X, because Y is true, knowing damn well for Y to be true, X has to be done.  

    It's called a circular reference error.

    Parent

    We know that (none / 0) (#178)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    Because we have historical evidence.

    We have polls: Link

    And we have a guy who is, at the end of the day, sitting on a sh*t ton of cash with the power to generate a ridiculous amount more in the future.

    He's also the incumbent with a bully pulpit.

    But other than that, I am sure a candidate you can't even name right now could clearly come out of nowhere and do better than Obama.

    Excuse the snark but c'mon man. Obama has evry advantage of an incumbent plus $$$$.  I get that you don't like what he's done but let's keep this all in a realistic frame.

    Do you REALLY think the african american vote is going to sit at home after what the Gop will do in the next few months. Do we really think that Obama isn't going to do some things to make his base happy in the coming months.  Do we really think he won't be able to say that he's brought the troops home (substantially) after the Iraq 2011 deadline?

    I don't even have my Obamabot hat on today.  I am defending realistic expectations.

    Parent

    He is the incumbent who uses (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    his bully pulpit to reinforce the Republicans narrative. No thanks.

    Parent
    You are negotiating against yourself, (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    to a degree that is just mind-boggling.

    I don't know what the size of Obama's campaign chest has to do with anything; the candidate with the most money is not always the best candidate, and if that's your metric, well...ugh.  Guess is hasn't occurred to you to ask who's giving Obama all this money, and what they want - and have so far gotten - for it, but some of us have been paying attention to that.  And yes, we pay attention to it even when it isn't Obama - we looked to see who was giving money to Hillary, to McCain, and we will be looking at it come 2012.

    What has Obama done with his bully pulpit?  Where are the stirring speeches about protecting the middle class and defending the social safety net?  Where is the arm-twisting for jobs programs?  Where is the unqualified defense of women's health rights?  Where is Obama working to undo the FISA legislation he voted for?  Where is the commitment to protecting people's privacy rights?  Where is the constitutional lawyer on the rule of law?  Did you know that some 250 noted legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, who once called Obama the best student he ever had, have signed a letter denouncing the detention of Bradley Manning and Obama's responsibility for it?

    From the letter:

    President Obama was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency. He should not merely assert that Manning's confinement is "appropriate and meet[s] our basic standards," as he did recently. He should require the Pentagon publicly to document the grounds for its extraordinary actions--and immediately end those that cannot withstand the light of day.

    And here's a complete list of signatories.

    The difference between you, and a lot of the commenters here, is that you're just all about the "W" and we're about the rest of it, about the substance, about what he's done, what it looks like he wants to do, and how he has, over and over again, ignored, derided and dismissed us as if we just didn't matter.

    I get that you don't like what he's done but let's keep this all in a realistic frame.

    You think it's realistic to ignore what he has and hasn't done?  That makes sense to you?  To more or less send the message that even though we hate his policy, we're going to vote for him anyway?  If that's your idea of reality, you need more help than we can give you here.

    Yes, the GOP sure has their crazier members, but ever wonder if the reason you're seeing more of The Donald and Sarah Palin's getting a lot of media attention is so they can run someone who looks sane?

    The deeper Obama travels into the depths of conservative economic policy, the harder it's going to be to minimize his affinity for those policies - and since a large portion of the public got fooled once buying into Obama-is-a-liberal, I wouldn't count on them buying into that again.  

    In my mind, anyone - white, black, Latino, male, female, straight, gay, young, old - who votes against his or her interests, and chooses to ignore what this president has done, is doing and will do if re-elected, had better do so with their eyes wide open, and be prepared for what it may mean to them.

    It's just offensive beyond belief to keep reading this crap about closing our eyes, holding our noses, and giving a terrible president who has failed us in innumerable ways the opportunity to keep doing it.

    Parent

    He Has Everything, but (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    ... the left.

    I am not going to pretend what black people or Hispanics of Asians or white people are going to do.  Neither should you, I don't even know what my friends are going to do, or myself for that matter, yet you make claim after claim, all dependent on what you can't possibly know.

    I do know his base is disintegrating by the day.
    ___________

    More importantly.

    You missed my entire point, which is your assumptions, if applied in 2007 would have Obama still in Illinois.  He was out-gunned at every level, the difference is has the bully pit now, but back then, having Bill as a husband was damn near equally beneficial, or at least that was the claim.

    I am positive there were Hillary-bots making the exact same arguement you are making 18+ months before the election.  For you to argue against the very system that got your candidate into the White House is bizarrely weak.

    You are under this huge assumption that a lot of people are going to vote for him because the alternative will be far worse.  What if your assumption is wrong and they stay home ?  What if there is a candidate out there who during the primaries, you decide is better, do you really not want to know ?  Are you so locked into Obama, that the possibility of someone better existing is an impossibility ?

    It's not, that I can assure you.

    Parent

    Obama's (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    word is no good. He's made lots of promises and reneged on a ton of them. Why would anyone vote for him?

    And nobody has suffered worse than African Americans under Obama sad to say. I know that many African Americans have set a low bar for Obama, at least according to Glenn Ford, but how much worse are things going to get for the African American community? No, i don't think they are going to vote for the GOP but there is such a thing as sitting home. Obama can scream and call the GOP names but no one longer cares after he's spent all this time talking about how wonderful the GOP is. He's his own worst enemy.


    Parent

    He may not need to be primaried (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    If he guts Medicare, he may as well not seek reelection in 2012. Seniors are still the major voting block.

    Everyone wants less taxes and spending as long as they aren't the one's cut. Even though the Republicans may have boxed him in, Obama and the Democrats will own the blame.

    You may see poll numbers drop to the point where he decides not to seek reelection rather than face a disasterous reelection bid.

    Parent

    I've mentioned this before, but (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    have people considered what quid pro quo would be involved in ending Medicare?
    How much money is that worth to Obama, or to Ryan? It's got to be 10's of millions.
    I'm sure they know this, and they also know how to get the payoff, when they leave office.


    Parent
    "Silly"? Oh, would that the idea (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    of holding Obama accountable to Democrats by giving him a primary challenger was a silly one, but it's not even close to silly.  What it is is a reflection of how unhappy people are with how Obama has governed, how he has failed to represent Democratic ideas and philosophy (and here I am referring to the old Democratic party, where people believed in lifting people up instead of economically choking them to death), and set us on a path to the right that shows no signs of being slowed down by Obama's plans for the next two years.

    What would a primary challenge be counter-productive to?  Hearing from someone who has more liberal ideas, who actually wants to talk about things like single-payer and jobs programs and spending to increase demand?  Getting to stroll to the nomination on a red carpet?  What?

    No, ABG, you really don't get it.  You haven't gotten it since the day you showed up here with your pom-poms and your accusations of racist overtones, your refusal to do any homework or have some support for your blanket statements, or your use of buzzwords and names you think are enough to make people think you're the liberal you claim to be.

    No one's overreacting here, ABG; the accumulation of conservative policy at the hands of a Democratic president and many in the Democratic caucus has brought us to this point - where we are staring into a future headed for austerity, with - as Obama has already promised - more to come.  

    When will our reaction and opinion ever be considered appropriate to you?  When Obama helps Paul Ryan dismantle Medicare and Medicaid?  When Social Security is cut?  When we just forget about the rule of law altogether?  When?

    The complacency that attends a primary-free election, in the face of bad governance, only guarantees more of the same; it lends credibility to the nominee's performance and actions, and that's why there is a growing belief that Obama should be primaried.

    Dismiss it as silly and unserious if you like, but understand that those of us who care about more than Obama's political fortune do not share your opinion.


    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    It's just silly.

    You can't even explain a rational, beneficial and logical objective to it.   Here is why it is silly:

    1.  The challenger won't win
    2.  Second term Obama is not going to govern the way he deems best in a second term regardless of the primary challenger

    Your argument only makes sense in the world where a conservative POTUS is less damaging and that is a very stupid world.

    IMHO.

    Parent

    Oh, but that's where you're wrong, ABG... (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    I have explained why Obama needs to be challenged - because we need to be having a conversation about what Democrats actually want and expect from a Democratic president.  You will tell me that the majority of the party is just fine with Obama, but let's see where that stands a year from now, when the economy is in free-fall and Obama's solution has been to do nothing but slash the social safety net to shreds.

    I don't care if a challenger can't win - that's not how I decide whether something is worth doing; I'm not all about the personality and adoration, about sacrificing my own interests and my own economic future so Obama can win - I'm about policy, and Obama's just sucks.  It sucks.  It's hurting people every day, and that's not acceptable to me.

    News flash: we HAVE a conservative president, ABG - that's the problem; we're getting failed Republican policies up and down the line, and we're getting them from a Democratic president who thinks they're good ideas.

    You can't scare me with the possibility of A GOP president, ABG, and I'm willing to bet that it's not going to work on nearly as many people in 2012 as it has in the past.


    Parent

    Obama needs to be primaried (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    Obama deserves to be primaried.

    Parent
    I am not against a primary (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    But would like more details. Who will be the challenger?
    Suppose someone like kuchinich or dean challenges bho but gets mocked by the media and loses by 85-15 percent? What next? Won't it give more ammunition to the president and his advisors to proclaim that their policies are mainstream and the left needs to get out of its pyjamas more often?

    Parent
    As long as I'm doing "see also"s (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    See also comment 133

    Parent
    Military Tracy (none / 0) (#101)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    In your dog world, have you had to deal with lupus? One of my poor bassets has developed lupus on her nose that has resulted in nose bleeds that were so bad that we almost lost her from blood loss.

    She's on steroids and antibotics now, but my research on line hasn't done much to reassure me that the illness can be treated effectively.

    Parent

    Are they sure it's lupus? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    I haven't heard of a case but doesn't mean that it isn't something dogs can't have to battle.  Bassets have long noses. Long nose dogs can get aspergillosis which can cause heavy bleeding from their nose and really deal their immune systems a blow because they just can't get on top of it.  Some of the teaching hospitals have a treatment, if drugs don't work, where they inject anti fungicides under high pressure into the sinuses.  I haven't heard much about lupus but I will hit the message boards with it right now and see if someone else has dealth with it.

    Parent
    Have they taken skin biopsies (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    from the nose and confirmed it that way?  Does your dogs nose have depigmentation?

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    Yes we had all the tests! I've spent more on her healthcare in the last two months than I've spent on my own for life.

    So far the medication has stopped anymore bleeding. She gets 6 pills a day and an ointment twice a day. I was just hoping that there's light at the end of the tunnel!

    I really don't want to go through another episode like the last. I woke up at 4:00 AM and the entire house was a blood bath. It looked like Dillinger had be shot there.

    Parent

    This I know about auto immune illnesses (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    We worry a lot about treating people with steriods because of our lifespans and the horrible things longterm steriod use will do to us years down the road.  Dogs don't have the lifespan problem though and if prednisone is able to keep something chronic in check for them we just run with it.  Dogs are still getting a lot of steriod benefits that people have had to give up on because they have shorter lifespans and won't have to hobble around for 20 years while their spine collapses.

    If they get to where they are able to control it on prednisone I would go with that and I wouldn't look back.  We are all giving our dogs probiotics now too.  Like us they just seem to do better.  I give my dogs some raw chicken about once a week because the bacteria that is bad for us is good for them and their gut.  They are set up to digest things the rest of us were not.  I also slip my dogs the same stuff I take a couple of times a week in a treat :)  So I would certainly find a probiotic that I liked.  I've been very fortunate to not have to deal with this but I found out that many of the GSD people have in the past.  Everybody wets our dry kibble now and lets it absorb the water before we feed it.  Some new studies on "bloat" seem to indicate that this makes the food a lot better to digest.  Good luck to you guys getting this under control.

    Parent

    Once this is under control too (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    And your dog is taking a maintainence dose of prednisone, your cost should be DRAMATICALLY less.  Your little bottle of pills (prednisone), if it does bring this under control, should be dirt cheap or you are being overcharged.

    Parent
    tacrolimus ointment (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    This ointment was $150 for the little tube! I've gone on line and found it in Canada for a lot less. At the time I needed it imediately so what are you to do. Now I can control the costs much better because I'm prepared.

    I'm just hoping that she is OK. She's 8 and I would take a bullet for her! Plus her sister would be totally lost without her. They've been a team from the get go.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    who's going to primary him?  Another not so faintly ridiculous Kucinich run would only discredit the entire left critique, IMO.

    Parent
    No One (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    Obama's fund raising ability is what won him the love of the party leaders. Until the cash flow stops, the love will continue.

    Parent
    Yup. And that billion $ figure (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    was put out for more than one reason, imo . . .

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    scare tactic WILL NOT work. Obama has constantly talked about how the GOP operates in "good faith" when they DO NOT. He really can't sell the fact that the GOP is so horrible when he's willing to cut a deal and enact their own policy for them.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    the Republican Boogie Man just doesn't scare me anymore.  I'm much more concerned about the Democratic Boogie Man.

    Parent
    Primary (none / 0) (#130)
    by star on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    Obama needs to be challenged - else the dem party as we know it will loose its moral footing. Party standing once damaged or followers once disheartened beyond repair, will take a long time to come back into fold. Sometimes a generation is lost. as it happened after carter. That is why real democrates need to stand up NOW and work for the REAL D party and its values.  

    Parent
    Can you post this portion of your comment (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    in all related threads? So worthwhile that it needs to be repeated as often as possible. Especially the part about the policies hurting people every day.

    I don't care if a challenger can't win - that's not how I decide whether something is worth doing; I'm not all about the personality and adoration, about sacrificing my own interests and my own economic future so Obama can win - I'm about policy, and Obama's just sucks.  It sucks.  It's hurting people every day, and that's not acceptable to me.


    Parent
    I get that you don't share my (none / 0) (#180)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    opinion.  No issue there. I am sure you don't share mine.

    But at the end of the day, Obama won't face a serious primary threat, the GOP is going to produce a bunch of crazy quotes during their primary that will remind the country that that Obama guy IS actually pretty reasonable, and then we'll all be working like mad to keep a tea party fueled conservative out of office.

    I'd like to minimize the"Obama is a republican!!" phase of our process and skip ahead to the part where we all remember that he isn't as bad as we thought.

    Parent

    Can't skip to the part where I remember (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    that he isn't as bad as I thought because he is much worse than I though he would be and I never had many expectations.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    He's been worse than I thought and my expectations were rock bottom for him from the start.

    Parent
    Ah yes ABG, you are a very serious person (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    ...Very Serious People think it's very shrill and impolite to point out that government policies have consequences. One thing which confuses me is the number of political junkies who seem to care deeply about policy in some abstract sense, but who are unconcerned with and oblivious to the actual consequences of those policies....link

    You as a Very Serious Person are very pragmatic. You are so pragmatic that you are willing to support someone who has already cut or taken away many programs that poor people need to survive and who has stated that he is willing to enact even more cuts to safety net programs. You state that these sacrifices by those the least able to afford them are regrettable but necessary for Obama's reelection.

    Venting?

    Many people who wants someone who represents their interests and their beliefs to primary Obama are not venting. That is what they really want. While many people who are dissatisfied with Obama's policies will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, many people who say that they will not vote for Obama in 2012, will not.  

    Parent

    "shrill"? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    If you are referring to me, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    I am proud to be "shrill" and plan to continue to point out that the conservative policies that Obama pursues and brags about have real world consequences for the people of this country.

    By the time Obama and the pols up in D.C. are through, the robber barons will look like humanitarians.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    I thought that was an ABG quote (link didn't work for me)?

    Parent
    Sorry about the link (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    Atrios

    My interpretation of that quote was that "Very Serious People" label anyone who points out that government policies have consequence as shrill and impolite (i.e. if you reduce or eliminate the funds for emergency heating assistance, some poor people will do without heat and possibly freeze in the winter).

    Very serious people like ABG use words like silly, venting, not pragmatic, temper tantrums and implied lack of logic in the same way to discount the opinions of people who point out the consequences or Obama's policies and strongly opposed them.  

    Parent

    I'm sure one of the reasons for the (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    emphasis on emotion is that he knows, or suspects, that many of us here are women, that many supported Hillary Clinton, and heaven knows, that buys us a 24/7 ticket on the hormonal, emotional rollercoaster...

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    =Reagan is about as shrill as you can get.

    And I used to like Atrios before I realized that he's the polar equivalent of a reasonable far right conservative.  Very intelligent, logical and completely incapable of acknowledging that his preferred policies are a waist of breath in an environment where they are impossible to implement.

    He's like a flat tax-er but the left version.

    Good and smart guy but not someone anyone should listen to when formulating real world strategy and policies.  Especially easy to do his sort of thing because he maxes out at 3 sentences a post and the situation is a bit more complicated than that.

    Parent

    Obamanomics will look an awful lot like Reaganomic (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson, Jr. must also be the polar equivalent of a reasonable far right conservative and shrill about Obamanomics.

    Parent
    Call me whatever you'd like (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    I am talking reality. I am not talking temper tantrums, which some on the left seem to be throwing over this.

    I disagree with Obama.  I said that from the moment this thing was signed. But all freaking perspective has been lost.  He's Reagan? Really?

    Please.

    If you want someone who represents your interests, it's confusing that you advocate a position that would elect Pawlenty or Newt to represent you.

    Let me say that again: you can't claim to want a representative who is aligned with your interest and take a course of action (through vote or non-vote) that bring a person to power who is even less representative of your interests.

    Period. It cannot be logically supported.  Anyone who says that they hate conservative ideals but just won't vote for Obama because he's disappointed them isn't using their head (understatement).  They are making a decision based on emotion

    Not voting in 2012 is the same as voting for the conservative.  There is no logical way to support the concept of not voting because you are disappointed in Obama when you know that the alternative is even worse.

    None. Zip. Nada. Zero.  I don't care what you have to call it to make yourself feel better. Hold your nose. Curse Obama's name. Do whatever you have to.

    But if you aren't voting for democrats or you don't vote at all, any credibility you have is lost IMHO.

    Parent

    see also: (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    "nowhere else to go"

    Parent
    Pffffftttt ... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    But if you aren't voting for democrats or you don't vote at all, any credibility you have is lost IMHO.

    Like listening to Rush wax philosophical about the importance of family values ...

    Parent

    Oh, great, the voting police are here... (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    If you want someone who represents your interests, it's confusing that you advocate a position that would elect Pawlenty or Newt to represent you.

    So, I should vote for one candidate - Obama - who doesn't represent my interests because if I don't, the other candidate who doesn't represent my interests might win?  No.  I'm not voting for any candidate who doesn't represent my interests; I've held my nose and voted for candidates that way for too long, and I won't do it anymore.  It's my vote, and it has to mean something, and voting against my interests is a betrayal of that vote.

    Let me say that again: you can't claim to want a representative who is aligned with your interest and take a course of action (through vote or non-vote) that bring a person to power who is even less representative of your interests.

    And I will say again that voting for one candidate who doesn't represent my interests to prevent another candidate who doesn't represent my interests from winning is what makes no sense.

    Period. It cannot be logically supported.  Anyone who says that they hate conservative ideals but just won't vote for Obama because he's disappointed them isn't using their head (understatement).  They are making a decision based on emotion

    I don't know where you get the balls to come to this blog, which is awash in people who are educated about the issues, the history behind those issues, who know the facts or do the work needed to find them, who understand and continue to educate themselves on the economy, on foreign policy, on the Constitution and the law, and reduce the considered, credible and coherent arguments of the commenters here to "emotion," but you could not be more wrong.  

    Not voting in 2012 is the same as voting for the conservative.  There is no logical way to support the concept of not voting because you are disappointed in Obama when you know that the alternative is even worse.

    Not voting is the same as not voting.  The vote I don't cast does not get given to anyone else - why don't you know that?  And one other thing: don't tell me what I should or should not do with my vote.  It's mine, it's personal to me, and - make a note of this - it's none of your business.  None.

    This isn't about being "disappointed," ABG; this is about - for some of us - choosing not to legitimize or make credible the damaging and regressive policies this president has supported and advocated.

    None. Zip. Nada. Zero.  I don't care what you have to call it to make yourself feel better. Hold your nose. Curse Obama's name. Do whatever you have to.

    But if you aren't voting for democrats or you don't vote at all, any credibility you have is lost IMHO.

    Heck of a winning campaign strategy you've got there - you might want to call Plouffe and Axelrod to see if there are some nifty bumper stickers or t-shirts you can come up with using that strategy.  

    Do you find it al all ironic that that's pretty much all you've got?  

    My decision not to vote for Obama has as much credibility as the decisions anyone else makes to vote or not to vote, or who to vote for.  And I don't give a flying monkey what you think.


    Parent

    No Anne (none / 0) (#183)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    It does not.  It is not a smart decision and one that could ultimately lead to every evil you claim to stand against.  You can stand in the corner and have a fit or you can make the best decisions you can for the greater good.  One is an adult way to handle frustration and one is the way that a kid handles it.  

    IMHO of course.

    And Anne I am on this blog.  Just deal with it. If you can't take someone coming right back at you, perhaps you should leave. I am handling myself just fine.  If it gets too much for poor me, I'll leave the blog.  Until then, I'm cool.

    And Anne I have much more than that. You know I do.

    Parent

    Sometime you have to break a few eggs (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    I understand your logic. For over forty years I have supported and voted a straight Democratic ticket.

    Things are very different now. The lines have been blurred to a point where today's Democrat would have been considered a right wing Republican 30 years ago. The party has lost it's direction and all sense of humanity and the common good for the country.

    Maybe a few crushing defeats will make them realize this.  I figure if me and the country could survive GWB, we're sturdy stock and can survive anything. There's nothing the tea baggers can do, that can't be undone. But nothing will ever change if Democrats aren't made to realize who elects them and why.

    Parent

    You are talking your version of reality (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    I'm not talking temper tantrums either. I am talking about a complete disagreement with 98% of the policies that Obama has signed into law. You may want to continue to vote for someone who takes money from the poor to give to the rich. You may want to vote for someone who will cut Medicare and SS and use the additional funds for more tax cuts to corporations and the rich. I do not and will not.

    I'm sure that you will pat yourself on the back and decide when all the safety net programs are gone, the poverty rate could have been worse. Obama's policies made sure that the poverty rate on reached 49% instead of 51%.

    Parent

    Well that makes us almost even (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    You have never had any credibility with me.

    While I voted, I never regretted not voting for Obama or McCain in 2008 and I will feel just fine not voting for Obama or the Republican candidate in 2012.

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#185)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    That's cool.  On th off chance that Obama loses, I'll have someone to direct my anger at when Romney and his people show you what a conservative really looks like.

    I hope that you are nonchalant about sitting out when it happens to be consistent.  I expect no complaints from you on it.

    Parent

    You can have all the expections that (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    you want. They will be unfulfilled but what the heck.

    I plan to write and work against the same issues that I do now. Not sure how much more damage will be done in the next two years by Obama but I sure there will be much more regardless if Obama wins or the Republican candidate does.

    We are getting a first hand look at what  conservative policies really look like right now as Obama meets or exceeds all conservative policy demands and signs them into law.

    Parent

    fixing your comment (none / 0) (#200)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    "On th off chance that Obama loses, I'll have someone to misdirect my anger at when Romney and his people ..."

    There.  

    Parent

    Comparisons to Reagan not that rare (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) criticized Obama's plan to extend all tax rates for two years as following in the vein of "Reaganomics," the free market-oriented policies sought by the GOP president when he was in office in the 1980s.

    "If we recklessly cut taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent, then Obamanomics will look an awful lot like Reaganomics," Jackson said in a statement.
    ...
    "I'm worried that the deal President Obama cut with Republicans sets us up for a Reagan-style set of bad choices," Jackson said, worrying that new tax cuts would empower a GOP-held House next year to pursue cuts to social programs.

    "That was President Reagan's strategy: a 'starve the beast' plan of lowered taxes and increased military spending that would force Congress to make deep cuts in programs for the most vulnerable," the Chicago Democrat added. link



    Parent
    It's Not That He's No Different... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:47:47 AM EST
    ... than republicans, it's that if someone is going to enact bad policy, I don't want my my party affiliation attached to it.  This budget 'deal' will be signed by a D, not an R.  

    If I am to be abused, rather have the idiot across the street do it than my own family.  Sure he's going to be rougher, but he's isn't a member of my own family.

    Not that good of analogy, but it's painful to know that I actually voted and worked for the guy who is enacting bad policy, through and through.  In a sense, I enabled this disaster, and I know in the end it doesn't matter, but for me mentally, it was a lot easier to swallow when Bush was pulling this C.  Plus it's not just Obama, it's the entire Democratic Party structure.  I am feeling abandoned and lost, there is no one who represents me, who represents the downtrodden, the people who need support the most have no one, and that hurts my soul.

    It's why I loved Edwards.  He was a fighter for the people with no power, no means, he was a champion of the poor.  Same with Clinton, he scrapped for people that were nothing like him, he empathized with people who no one else cared about, the throwaways if you will.

    It's easy to fight for the rich and powerful, it takes real courage to actually fight them.

    So sure, Mittens will do worse, but how much worse, and right now the lesser of to evils isn't even a possibility because the evils are very similar, certainly not differentiated enough for me to support the 'lesser' one.

    Parent

    How much worse (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    Would Romney be than Obama?

    Geezus? Really?

    Obama Derangement Syndrome is real people.

    Parent

    It's not ODS (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    it's called issues something that you really don't care about so I know you can't see it.

    Would Romney have signed Stupak? Yeah, he would have. Would Romeny have done the ACA? Maybe. Would Romney have extended tax cuts for the rich and made the middle class and the poor take the brunt of the cuts? You betcha.

    Parent

    would Mitt Romney (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by CST on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    have extended unemployment benefits?

    No.  In fact, his plan for unemployment was to get workers to put their own money into a savings account, so that in the event they get laid off they can pay their own benefits.

    This is Mitt Romney's economic world view.

    That's really all you need to know about him.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    then the people in this country would have kicked his butt like they Bush Sr. when he said he wouldn't extend unemployment benefits.

    A lot of people got left behind with Obama too. Both of them seem to think that the "little people" should be working on the plantation. Now everybody in the country can see what plantation economics are all about.

    Parent

    I'm just saying (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    the idea that Mitt Romney is somehow the moderate/centrist answer to Obama around here is laughable to me.

    He is everything that people hate about Obama.  Only more so.

    If I only have one goal this election season it's to dispell the "Mitt Romney is a viable alternative" myth.

    And in case anyone was wondering, this is not about saving Obama's @ss.  I just really really don't like Mitt Romney.

    Parent

    I understand (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    I have to do the same thing with Gingrich. There are people who think that Gingrich is a "formidable opponent" and I continuously dispel that myth on a regular basis and it's not meant as a defense of Obama either.

    Parent
    Here's the (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    thing that Romney has going for him: he was a Republican in MA so he appears "moderate" to people not like Gingrich who is from GA and a conservative from GA is seen to be off the spectrum.

    Parent
    Bull ca ca (none / 0) (#188)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    I care about every single issue that everyone here is upset about.  It's not a mutually exclusive position.  You can disagree with Obama AND believe that we'd all be idiots not to support him.

    It's funny to me that my position is "ignorant" or whatever and i shouldn't post to this blog when Jeralyn makes basically the same fundamental point on this issue that I do:

    Obama's bad but let's not get it confused, the republicans are way worse.

    But who knows.  Maybe Jeralyn is not TalkLeft material or something.

    Geezus we're in the twilight zone right now.

    Parent

    You can (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    disagree with him dislike his policies and still support him? If that's the case, why wouldn't I vote for the GOP because I dislike their polices too using your reasoning.

    I'm sick of voting against the GOP only to get their policies.

    Parent

    OMG, I think Romney would be (2.00 / 0) (#105)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47:42 AM EST
    better than Obama, for sure.
    Having Obama as President is about equivalent to having Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey as President, except for "some social issues" as POTUS puts it---and even there, he's waffling.


    Parent
    N.B.: Romney has no chance (none / 0) (#107)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    of winning, IMO. If there were actually a choice between Romney and Obama, I would seriously consider voting for Romney, if he could convince me he was the less conservative candidate (as I think he may be).

    Parent
    If you think Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CST on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    an empty suit - let me tell you, he ain't got nothing on Mitt Romney.

    Mitt Romney will be whatever he thinks you want him to be, right up until you vote for him.

    But I guarantee on economic issues he is the biggest corporate sell out of them all.  And on social issues - he doesn't give a $hit, but he will pander to the right because that's who he thinks he needs.

    Parent

    He's (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    just what I always thought he was: the GOP version of Obama.

    Parent
    Isn't Mittens going to have to bend further (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    right if he runs? So wouldn't it be possible if he won, he ended up going back to the center, which would be left for him?

    Parent
    It is (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    not counter productive if you think long term. If you care about issues what's going to be worse: four more years of Obama giving cover to the GOP or the GOP having to face the wrath of the voters for their crap like they have in WI?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    It is not.

    8 years of both Reagan and Bush and the damage wrought says otherwise.

    This is just a silly argument to even be having.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    wants to be Reagan so you're really not making a good argument. If you were against Reagan and Bush's policies, then you should be against Obama too because he is enacting policies that even Reagan wouldn't do. in his speech, he is going to talking about cuts to social security and Medicare.

    Parent
    Obama wants to be Reagan (none / 0) (#189)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    I don't think people really understood his quote.

    It's also funny to me that no one remembers him saying he wanted to be like JFK too:

    "I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren't working."

    Just skip that part because it doesn't help the Obama=Reagan narrative I guess.

    Parent

    2012 will be tough (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    Obama may also find that the avid support from young Democrats has dwindled. My neighbor's daughter volunteered to work throughout the midwest during his campaign. Not only her, but her fellow workers are totally disallusioned. I think a lot of the young voters will sit out the next election.

    His support of expanding nuclear energy and off shore drilling, along with his tepid support for woman's rights are going to come back to bite him with a lot of groups.

    He has a lot of fences to mend but instead he continues to focus on appealing to a group of voters that wouldn't vote for him if he was the only one running.

    This could all be true (none / 0) (#191)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    No doubt about that.

    But what will it say to those here if it is not.  Either we are using 2012 of a reality check on how evil Obama actually is or we are not.

    If he turns out the votes and wins big, that should mean something.

    It won't I don't think here, but it should.

    Parent

    Time will tell (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    The "New Democratic Party" that he built is crumbling. I don't think there's any question of that. Every poll I read shows that the  independants that he attracted have left. The youth have become disenchanted. The environmentalists are definitely not happy.

    You can't continue to peel off support and not expect a backlash. He's losing supporters and I'm not convinced that his policies are gaining him enough new ones to offset the loss.

    His winning will have more to do with who the Republicans put up rather than his record to date.

    Parent

    Feinstein (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by dandelion on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    When even someone as cautious and centrist as Dianne Feinstein is complaining aloud and to the press about Obama's lack of leadership, then I think Obama has, basically, lost the party.  I think Obama's made it pretty clear to Congressional Democrats that he will sacrifice them in order to win re-election for himself.

    I'm sure there's a great deal of consternation in leadership circles right now.  Though I'm not sure what that will mean for 2012.  

    heh (none / 0) (#158)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    doesn't DiFi have to run in 2012?

    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#164)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    Obama kind of has the party held hostage right now, imo, if even cautious centrists like Feinstein are complaining

    they're afraid to primary Obama, but they also know that a second Obama term w/b the end of Dem presidencies for some time

    the GOP really doesn't even have to worry about nominating a viable candidate in 2012 - Obama is doing the GOP's work of fluffing the plutocratic .001 percent

    & in 2016 the GOP can blame all the country's predictable ills on the Dems and take the WH for another 8 years w/some rightwing POTUS whose policies will by then seem "mainstream"

    Parent

    Hey... are the Illuminati taking applications? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    I never checked... might be time for that super star deal!

    What if Hillary Clinton, (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    concluding she could do a better job, entered the Iowa caucuses?  

    I Would Be All In (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:52:09 AM EST
    Not just her, anyone who isn't Obama get's my vote so long as they aren't bat A crazy.

    Parent
    I'd fold... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    and play the third party hand.

    I hear you guys on primary challenges, but what is it gonna get us really?  More campaign promises to be broken is my best guess...my only guess.  Unless Kuchinich can beat 'em, then we maybe get something besides hot air.

    Parent

    Kucinich (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    has no principles.

    Parent
    Al Gore seems like the obvious (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    choice to primary Obama. He alone has the gravitas. If he declared, then others would enter, and we might have a shot at getting a decent candidate.

    Parent
    C'mon people -- (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    Hillary, Gore, these are Party Establishment types who are very unlikely to do something as radical as primarying the party incumbent in the WH.  Especially someone who's an important player in that incumbent administration.  

    And Gore, speaking of finding a "decent candidate" with gravitas -- perhaps gravitas on climate change, but not so much gravitas as a candidate for the presidency.

    Both also are firmly in the They Once Had Their Chances But Blew It category.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    I don't know. Gore certainly is not coming back but we'll see in a few years whether Hillary is going to come back or not.

    Parent
    She's not coming back (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    but she might be out there supporting in 2016.

    Parent
    We'll (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    see. I think a lot of it depends on what happens in '12 and what happens after that.

    Parent
    Yes indeed... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    loyal party members...not to mention all just as crooked.

    Parent
    I would say that depends on what (none / 0) (#111)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    if anything Obama does on global warming.
    Or is the OFB so caught up in cheerleading the demolition of the New Deal that they have forgotten other, equally pressing issues?

    Parent
    O has already announced (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    he's fine with more offshore drilling, "clean" coal (cough cough), and nukular being an integral part of our "energy mix".  Iow, he's been a moderate Republican at best on energy, and people like Gore haven't made a major deal about it to date.

    Parent
    Make your case Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    She's been pretty hawkish in some matters.  Only her initial position on Egypt disturbed me greatly though, but she more hawkish than just about anyone wanting real change wants.  Her past friends in the financial industry are essentially the same friends that Obama has in our economic mess.  Would she do anything different in that are?  The area that is tearing our social structure apart?  I have no evidence at this time she would.  I should probably duck right now saying this, but I'm not sure Hillary is the primary challenger I'm looking for at this time.  Will she fight like hell?  Will she fight for what we really need?  That's what I'm looking for.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    I'm willing to bet that she would have fought for an HOLC. I don't think she would've extended the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy. She does realize what a threat the GOP is to the nation and has no delusions about them "negotiating in good faith" but past that who really knows?

    Parent
    Just to note, I believe Obama is asking (none / 0) (#77)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    for a raise in taxes on people making over 250,000. I doubt it will go anywhere but at least he's doing that.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    pathetic. All he had to was do NOTHING back in December and he could have negotiated on something like that but saying it now is just laughable.

    Parent
    asking vs action . . . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    we shall see . . . .

    Parent
    I'm not sure she is either (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    but she would try and do more for the middle class and the poor I believe. And I do think she would fight. I really don't see her gutting TND or embracing Ryan.

    Parent
    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    Yeah, as a fan of Clinton, I'm not (none / 0) (#75)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    sure she has what people who want a primary challenge are looking for.

    Parent
    She's. Not. Going. To. Do. It. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    Period, end of story, full stop.  Not.

    Parent
    She'd get smashed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    Correct (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    She'd be embarrassed.

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    really afraid of her aren't you?

    Actually with the white working class voters behind her I would be scared too if I were you.

    Parent

    The "white working class" voters (none / 0) (#194)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    Are mostly republicans.  You know that right?

    Parent
    Hillary doesn't want the presidency anymore (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    in case you haven't been paying attention. Looks like your CDS is at an all-time high, eh?

    Wow. I can only imagine how much seething anger you must have for Tavis Smiley. After all, he was a Hillary supporter early on.

    Parent

    Kind of (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    a moot point unless Obama steps down.

    Parent
    Right on cue (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    I was waiting for that.

    Parent
    Who knew . . . (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    I was reminded again over the weekend (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    that my ultimate goal in life is to be a Chinese intellectual of times past.
    My god, they sure knew how to live!
    I was looking at a book on famous Chinese gardens.
    If I could look out a garden like that every day, imagine the thoughts I could have! Well, who knows, but the vistas are calming and so human, like nothing else I have seen.
    I believe my favorite art/museum exhibit ever was a collection of Chinese furniture at the Met a few years ago. I don't live in NYC, so for all I know this is  part of the regular collection.
    The pieces were so beautiful, but they also seemed to speak of such a wonderful quality of life.
    Oh yes, and the calligraphy. I don't know any Chinese, but I wish I did, just so I could fully appreciate chinese calligraphy.

    By the way, I have a fan with calligraphy done by Kobayashi Koichi, one of the top go players of Japan in the last 35 years. It was a very nice parting gift from a Japanese go player I knew in Hawaii.


    Feng shui (none / 0) (#160)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    would be my guess.  Somehow someone came up with the idea of feng shui or living in harmony with the subtle forces of nature.  Or someone from outside introduced the notion.

    Agree about the beauty of the ancient pieces and gardens.

    Would that they had developed their governing system along the same gentle and pleasing lines ...

    Parent

    Bani Sadr offered to testify (none / 0) (#121)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    to Congress about the deal, in 1992. He was turned down.


    To those who responded to me last night (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    Thank you for sharing that, Dadler... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    what a great view!

    Apologies if I overreacted - just glad you're sticking around.

    Parent

    I always believe what people (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    promoting their book claim. (That's sarcasm)

    If you believe Sick please don't talk about the birthers or truthers.

    ;-)

    ridiculous (none / 0) (#169)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    to compare Gary Sick with birthers & truthers

    Parent
    news of the future from 1969 (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:13:48 PM EST