When the President sets the tone and decides to adopt Bush "anti-terror" policies he precludes a reasonable and rational debate on what needs to be done. Similarly when he takes single payer off the table prior to one word being uttered about health care reform he is a huge part of the problem. He sets the agenda and when he does that in a way that truncates the debate and shifts it rightward, it's really not legitimate to say the problem is in the Congress. If he were decidedly to the left or at least feigning to be a liberal on most issues that would pull the center back toward the actual middle again and we would end up with a more centrist policy. As it is, when the liberal positions are precluded that biases all that follows to be much further to the right and that is against the interests of the common people also sometimes known as the core of the Democratic Party whether liberal or not.

Really well said. Truly.

Okay I was overwrought. Nothing personal, just exasperation. I appreciate your comments in measured-tone, and I try to reciprocate below. You say:

"The record thus far:

Bank Bailout: Obama continues Bush policy with slight modifications, but basically it's a blank check and lots of free money for a bunch of crooks and little or nothing for the people who got bilked and are losing their jobs and homes as a result.

I THINK EVERYONE AGREES IT'S INFURIATING, BUT I DON'T SEE AN ALTERNATIVE. BUSH DIDN'T EITHER AND HIS PARTY HATES HIM FOR IT. THE FACT THAT ONE GUY WAS FORCED TO DO IT AND OBAMA WAS TOO DON'T MAKE FOR THE LATTER A BAD RECORD, I DON'T THINK.

There most certainly were and ARE alternatives, but Obama's advisers are essentially Republicans and so they chose to sustain the Bush policy of handing out free money to crooks who have no intention of repaying. Meanwhile, the common Americans continue losing their jobs and homes. To say he had no choice is simply untrue. One need look no further than people like Krugman or Simon Johnson and many others to know that there were alternatives and, in the opinion of many, there were other alternatives that would have actually done something to revive the economy. The Bush/Obama approach has had almost no effect. Mortage foreclosures continue at 10,000 daily.

"National Security: with a couple of notable exceptions, Obama continues most everything Bush had in place with some minor modifications.

FIRST PHONE CALL OBAMA MADE TO AN OVERSEAS LEADER WAS TO MAHMOUD ABBAS, PALESTINIAN LEADER. THAT'S DIFFERENT, OLEEB. BUSH WAS DICKING AROUND WITH MEXICO BECAUSE HE HAPPENS TO KNOW WHERE IT IS BEING A SEMI-TEXAN, BEFORE HE SOON HAD ARIEL SHARON IN THE WHITE HOUSE CALLING THE LATTER A MAN OF PEACE TO GENERAL STUPEFICATION. National Security above was in reference to the mythical war on terror, not the situation in Israel. The issues there would be rule of law, transparency, open government, illegal spying, use of the state secrets act, illegal detention, war crimes, etc...

"Iraq: Announces a phased withdrawal of most troops but will leave a small army of 50,000 in country for an indefinite period. This is not much different than what Bush had in mind, but slightly modified to accelerate the downsizing of the force a bit faster, this policy could change at any time depending upon circumstances which means don't be surprised if the timetable gets stretched out or eliminated.

I AGREE. IF I WERE PRESIDENT, I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS INEXPLICABLE BUSH-INFLICTED NIGHTMARE, WOULD YOU? IT MAY REALLY HURT OBAMA IN THE LONG TERM AND I HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION, BUT WHAT IS ONE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH BUSH'S PANDORA'S BOX? POWELL TRIED TO WARN BUSH: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT. IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT? BUSH WOULDN'T WANT TO SHOW HESITATION, BUT HE MAY HAVE LATER CHECKED WITH CHEENEY. CHEENEY TOLD HIM, "FUCK YEAH, MR. PRESIDENT." SO NOW WE'RE SURROUNDED BY RATTLESNAKES AND THE EXIT IS BOOBY-TRAPPED. I'M SERIOUS, I'M NOT BEING DEFENSIVE, I LITERALLY WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. Well, as a matter of fact, I do think I would know what I would do and I think Obama knows what he should do, but he's not doing it and that is to actually end the war. Leaving 50,000 troops on the ground is not ending the war, it is prolonging it. We need to get the hell out of Iraq. The sooner we do the better for everyone including and especially us.

"Afghanistan: Here, Obama continues the same strategy Bush had determined with Patraeus and Gates but has escalated the conflict. There is no end in sight.

VERY TRUE. WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN AFGHANISTAN IS OBVIOUS AT LEAST IN HINDSIGHT: VERY QUIETLY FIND AND KILL OBAMA, MAYBE GIVE HIM A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY FIRST LIKE WE THINK MAYBE SYRIA DID IT. KILL ALL HIS PALS, TOO. MAYBE KILL MULLAH OMAR IF POSS. TEAR OUT THE SUPPORT NETWORKS, MAKE THE SAUDIS SEE THE SERIOUSNESS, AND REVIEW THE MY-ISRAEL-RIGHT-OR-WRONG POLICY. *DON'T* PUT TROOPS ON THE GROUND. NOW IT'S ANOTHER BUSH MASTERPIECE. I DO THINK THIS MAY BE ONE THEATER, THOUGH, WHERE WE COULD GET AWAY WITH LESS, *MAYBE*. Well, this one was about Afghanistan and I think escalating the conflict is the opposite of what we should be doing. We should begin winding the war down and redoubling our economic development and social development efforts there which are far more likely to bring peace than continued killing. We also need to open negotiations with the Taliban who, as you may recall, only became our enemy when they wouldn't fork over Bin Laden.

"As for Obama "saving" the economy I don't think anybody really knows at this point but he did bend over backwards to satisfy Republican demands for tax cuts in the big stimulus bill which would have been much more productive if handled differently.

AND HERE I'LL TAKE ISSUE. THE BUSH APPROACH WAS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. OBAMA ALWAYS WAS THE OPPOSITE -- INCLUSIVENESS. NO RED OR BLUE STATES, ONLY UNITED STATES. TOTAL OPPOSITE FROM BUSH. WERE THE TAX BREAKS A GREAT IDEA? YOU AND I KNOW THEY SURE WEREN'T. BUT YOU CAN'T SAY HE WAS BEING LIKE BUSH BY INCLUDING THE OTHER SIDE. No, your point above was that he is saving the economy and what I'm saying is we don't know. I think that's accurate.

"I saw today that while slightly smaller we still saw another 600,000+ file for unemployment in the last month and foreclosures are still coming in at 10,000 per day.

WE WERE ON EVE OF DESTRUCTION, MY FRIEND. ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION. HOUSING PRICES HAVE STABILIZED, TICKING UP IN SOME PLACES, SOME COUNTRIES. THERE ARE NO FOOD RIOTS. NO NEWLY FAILED STATES (COUNTRIES). STEPS ARE BEING PUT IN PLACE TO SEE THAT THE BUSH ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE DOESN'T RECUR. HEAD OF GM IS FIRED. NEW CREDIT CARD LAWS ARE BEING PUT IN PLACE, AND LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT:

BIDEN WAS LONG KNOWN AS "THE SENATOR FROM MASTER CARD." BIDEN WOULD *NEVER* AGREE TO CLIP THOSE USURERS' WINGS WERE HE STILL IN THE SENATE. I LOVE THE GUY, BUT MAYBE THAT'S ONE REASON HE'S GOT A NEW POSITION. AND IF HE STILL HOLDS THE SAME VIEWS, THEN OBAMA ISN'T LISTENING TO HIS VEEP ON THIS ISSUE, *TO PUT IT MILDLY*. COMPARE THAT WITH BUSH-CHENEY.

We may disagree but I think you underestimate the destruction that has been occuring in the economy while the President has been dumping undeserved bailout money into the pockets of Wall Streets fat cats. Housing prices have not stabilized. Where did you hear that? That's simply untrue. Job losses continue at a frightening pace. The collapse of the auto industry is only beginning to be felt but will bring the permanent closure of tens of thousands of businesses small and large nationwide. We have only begun the slide. It is not nearly over and it is going to get much, much worse. While it is a nice gesture, the credit card bill has no real teeth. All it does is require notification of obscene interest rate increases, it does not even put a ceilling on the rates they can charge. So the choice you will have is to accept the obscene interest rate or close your account. What an improvement! This is not entirely Obama's fault but he could have insisted on a ceiling for interest rates and chose not to lift a finger to have that provision included.

"Nobody I've seen or heard is saying that Bush and Obama are exactly the same in all respects, far from it, but in some very key areas Obama has adopted the Bush program nearly in tact.

HE WOULD HAVE TO IN SOME CASES. BRODER HAS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE BTW ABOUT BECOMING CDR.-IN-CHIEF. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003029.html FOOD FOR THOUGHT, THERE, ABOUT HOW NON-MILITARY OBAMA HAS TURNED IT ALL OVER TO THE TECHNOCRATS AND UNIFORMED DUDES -- I GUESS THAT KEEPS THE YOU-ARE-A-SISSY CRITICS AT BAY. INTERESTING POINT IN THERE, THOUGH, THAT INDEED IT IS DANGEROUS FOR A DEM. PRES. TO LOSE SUPPORT OF THE LEFT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THAT IN A SERIOUS WAY, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY HAPPENING IN PART OR WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THIS. I think it is happening to a much greater extent than is currently visible. I think most liberals don't want to openly criticize Obama but are quietly giving up on him when it comes to anything outside of the Congressional budget. In that arena alone, he has restored Democratic priorities in the domestic spending portion though the military budget remains totally obscene and unjustified.

"That is simply a factual observation that is pretty widely recognized. For those who wanted to see a truly different set of policies and priorities in those areas the President's actions have been disappointing to say the least. You can hardly expect people not to express that disappointment.

THERE'S PLENTY OF CHANGE, COME ON. NEED TO BE REALISTIC, ALSO. WE VOTED FOR A PRESIDENT, NOT A TIBETAN PACIFIST MONK (MUCH THOUGH I LOVE THEM, TOO). YOU WOULDN'T SAY THIS IN ANY WAY, BUT IF YOU TAKE ALL THIS FAR ENOUGH, YOU CAN LAMENT, "How could he take the lives of those poor pirates?! Underpriviliged wretches! That kind of violence is not the change I voted for!" WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL POINT: AGAIN, HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE *OUR* PRESIDENT, NOT JUST TPM'S, BUT JOE-THE-PLUMBER'S AS WELL. PRESIDENT FOR THE GOOD FOLK OF CRAWFORD TEXAS. IF HE GOES TOO FAR LEFT, WE'RE LOOKING IN 2012 AT NEWT MAYBE AS PRESIDENT. OR EVEN THEIR EXCITING NEW LEADER, CHEENEY HIMSELF.
When people advise me to be "realistic" I simply say that is used as a euphemism for don't expect any real progress and to me that is no longer acceptable. I'm too old for that crap frankly. Every time a Repulican is in office we the people get bent over and reamed with the full bore REpblican agenda. When the Democrats are elected we get more of the same and when we complain we are told to be "realistic." Now that's just bullshit. The problem is Democrats, including the President, are far more interested in serving the very same wealthy and powerful interests the Republicans serve than they are in serving the people who funded their campaigns and got them elected with their votes. It is plain as day. Democrats lack the courage of their convictions over and over and over, but that isn't because of pragmatism or realism vs idealism or absolutism. It is because the Democratic elected officials of Washington DC are just as deeply corrupt as those in the Republican Party, but just not as horrifically so. When a candidate running as the outside who hasn't been corrupted as the others are says he is going to bring change and change the way Washington works, then I expect at least a little something when it comes to the most outrageous and blatant crimes that have taken place during the Bush regime and we get nothing on that but more of the same. To me, this is plainly and simply unacceptable and a lot of it is flatly immoral in my opinion. We must hold the President's feet to the fire and let him no unequivocally that simply not repeating the worst excesses and crimes of the Bush years is not enough. Real change involves more than that and we expect you to lead on these issues even if it is politically difficult.

HAVEN'T WE HAD ENOUGH OF THAT CRAP BY NOW, OLEEB? No, I don't buy for even a second the defeatist, pusillanimous cry of DLC Democrats who say "if we go too far left then we'll be defeated next time around!" Upon what basis other than repetition of this big lie do you or anyone else make such a statement. It's absurd and supported by no evidence since we haven't had anything like a liberal emphasis by Democrats since LBJ! It is high time we did.

BEST, AND JAIL CHEENEY,
O.T.
You and I agree on jailing Cheney, but just remember, our President does not agree with us. That's not right.

Speak for yourself Einstein. That would be Zbig by the way. Not Zig.

Your signature contradicts your post. That simple. I suggest you re-read it for your own edification.

"What's this about our imperial agenda? The election, as you recall, was for President of the *United States*, not, for example, Papua New Guinea."

This is disingenuous. A cursory look at our military bases, position in the United Nations, the dollar as reserve currency, arms deals, and head of all major trade organizations should suffice to show that we are an empire. Be serious.

"Which candidate did you support that was not behind our heinous agenda?"

My hope was the Obama would dial down the empire because the empire is failing...

"As to getting the economy back on track, you are an ingrate, plain and simple. Did your candidate want to make the "Bush tax cuts" permanent as a remedy?"

I'm sorry, did I mention the economy here? I voted for the candidate that would roll back the tax cuts on those who earn an income in excess of 250k. What I have gotten is someone that is maintaining the Bush tax brackets because we are in a recession.

Comparing me to a McCain voter doesn't do a damn thing for you. You can be as snide as you wish. I think you are being a fool by calling a group of unnamed people onto the carpet.