Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Honestly, when Obama voted for FISA, I was angry, but I thought about the greater good and voted for him in good conscience. When he hinted that he wouldn't be pursuing charges against the Bush administration for war crimes, because it would be considered too "partisan" to hold these men and women responsible for their hideous actions, I was furious, but considered that, with all the economic turmoil we are suffering at the moment, perhaps, prosecuting the neo-Cons for crimes against humanity would not necessarily be the best first action Obama could make at the moment. When Obama nominated Larry Summer as the head of the Economic Council, I was perplexed, not because of Summers' clueless remarks about female aptitude for the sciences, but rather because Summer has a history of being intolerant to dissenting viewpoints and bullying his ideological opponents into silence....exactly the LAST kind of person we need in any kind of position of authority during this economic crisis and exactly the opposite of what Obama claimed he needed as a consensus builder, but yet again, I kept silent and considered Obama may know something I did not.
However, when I read in this morning's New York Times that Obama is considering letting Bush's tax cuts "lapse" in 2011 rather than rescinding them as he promised during the campaign, I can no longer stomach anyone else telling me to have "faith" in Obama or trust his instincts without question. I think it's time we all removed the scales from our eyes. It was lovely that we all voted in the first black biracial President, but if we voted in yet another slick Democratic pathological liar who, this time, happens to be of African descent, I fail to see why I or anyone else should be prevented from pointing out the emperor has no clothes before he even ascends the freaking throne.
For the last six months I have been wondering if people, including many of your readers, were listening to what Obama said. Krugman did and so did Greenwald. But so many people seemed swept away in some sort of emotional reponse, projecting their wants on Obama. He never said he was a far left liberal. He kept talking about compromise, reaching across the isle, practical responses to our problems, etc. That is why I didn't vote for him in the primary. Compromise means moving to the middle. Furthermore, there was nothing very "left" about his health care plan. Clinton's was more comprehensive. And this is the man who agreed with the Supreme Court on capital punishment and voted for FISA and telecom immunity. So, as far as I am concerned, he is doing exactly what he said he would all during the primaries. Back then I couldn't understand the infatuation of the far left with this man who was going to compromise and I am bemused, but not surprised, by the response when he is doing exactly what he said he would.
Socialist. Liberal. Progressive. Left of Center but not quite Progressive. Centrist. Right of center but not quite conservative. Conservative. Neo-Con. Satan. Bushie. Give it a rest. These labels are meaningless, except Bushie. (Rhymes with Tushie.) It's what people actually do that matters, not what we choose to call them. I have noticed that Republicans have nasty names for everything they don't like, which is just about everything. They have tried to good words into bad words. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh for ten seconds. The one thing they have not done is anything. My list of Republicans I trust is longer than Bush's list of accomplishments. (My list includes Abraham Lincoln.) Obama should choose people with expertise. You know, people who have real credentials, real knowledge, and real ability. How about looking at people's actual qualifications and actual records, not their ideological name tags.
I agree with Mr. Madden that it's difficult to find Democrats qualified to work in the White House who didn't work in the Clinton Administration. I don't believe, however, that Obama has much cause for concern from the left if he continues to appoint them. It's not as if he's likely to face a serious primary challenge next election season, as long as he does a good job. And as long as he keeps appointing centrists, Republicans can't keep claiming that he's an extremist.
On the other hand, his statement that he'd appoint a "team of rivals" in the style of Lincoln so far holds no water. Nearly every appointee had endorsed him in the primaries, the most notable exception being Hillary Clinton. The names of Republicans who are being floated for positions is also dominated by those few who endorsed him this last season. Where are his so-called rivals?
I will admit that right from the start. I thought that, if the Democrats were ever going to stop dissmissing progessives it would have to be after eight years of Dubya. So, I guess they never will.
I voted for Obama in the General. But, I have been increasingly confused as to what it was that actually drew progessives to Obama. I see posts here that say, "well , after FISA, and the Wall St Bailout, after he decided against single payer health care"--"but still"...
??? What, specificaly, was it that made liberals think he was progressive? He did not say , directly , that he would "stop the war". He never backed off on the "war on terror". He was hawkish at AIPAC, FISA, yeah, as well as Wall st bailout, with no conditions, nor even votes on Amendments by Sanders, Kucinich, etc.
Born-again type christinity (anti-gay--it was all there)Faith base initiatives. on and on....proposing market and tax based health care "reform". (Dont ever say , as a capitalist, that we cannot afford anything again, unless it costs more than $850 billion!)
So, why did I vote for him? (not in the Primary)People I love. I am registerd as a Socialist (and never more proudly than lately!)Alot of people were terrified of a continuation of Dubya.I did not see it happening, but, I only have one vote. I had friends and family crying (!) begging me to vote for Obama , here in a swing state. It turns out, it wasnt even close, and, I shouldve voted for Brian Moore. But, I am not in the electoral college or anything..
Will you guys stop it now??lol
Other than historical significance, what drew you, liberals? I woud really like to know.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
