« Costs Won't Come Down While Drug Company Profits Are Considered Wealth | Kali Star's Blog | Study: The Importance of a Public Option »

You Voted For Obama: How Do You Feel About a War in Afghanistan, Banker Bailouts, No Public Option and No Single Payer?


You voted for Obama. So far:
(1) Another war at 10 billion a month
(2) Bailouts for bankers and stockbrokers
(3) No help for people losing their houses
(4) No public option
(5) No single payer

(6) Drug companies and insurance companies still in control

How fulfilled do you feel?

55 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I feel like backing an all Vermont Howard and Bernie ticket in 2012.

user-pic

I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you, Kali, by saying that I think Obama is doing an excellent job in the face of enormous obstacles. The U.S./NATO goals in Afghanistan are realistic and attainable; they are not based on a desire to win a war but to stabilize a nation and permit elections next month, while helping Afghanistan itself develop effective security. I don't believe there was any other viable option.

The bailouts appear to have prevented a total collapse of the financial system. I know of few if any expert economists who believe we could have avoided them.

Help for homeowners is a work in progress. Some progress has been achieved, but much remains to be done. Fortunately, home sales now appear to be rising again, after bottoming out.

It now appears reasonably likely (although hardly a certainty) that America will witness a transformation of our health care system that is truly remarkable, and which will include some type of public, or at least publicly supervised non-profit entity to keep costs down. That won't solve the entire problem, which also includes inordinate waste and duplication within health care itself, and unrelated to the insurance industry (i.e., hospitals, clinics, physician payment systems). That will take years to fix, but at least we will see a start. Single payer was never a possibility, nor is it a necessity. All other major industrialized democracies do better than we do in providing care for more citiizens at lower cost and with better health outcomes. They all include some type of strong public component, but only a minority are single payer. The single payer nations do neither better nor worse than the others.

user-pic

He has not explained any of this convincingly to Americans. They feel confused and exploited. A great leader would seize this moment, lay down specifics and details, and not just throw down generalities about the process. Way too much style and not enough hard-nosed leadership.

Obviously, I want to be proved wrong on these issues. But I don't think that blind acceptance is the way to help.

user-pic



Gee ... how myopic ...

I personally know hundreds of individuals on single-payer health care systems. If you told them there wasn't a necessity they'd look at you as if you were from Mars. I enjoy lunch with many of them two and sometimes three days a week.

I have family members who are also on a single-payer health care system. Not only do they feel it's a necessity, they truly appreciate it for what it is.

It may not seem like a necessity in your eyes, but you are only you.

~OGD~

user-pic

Single payer is commendable. The reason it's not a necessity is that other systems with a very strong public component have shown themselves to perform equally well in providing universal coverage at affordable costs, and with health outcomes superior to ours.

user-pic



Oh? I guess if you say so . . .

Thanks for the response.

But it would help if you had hard data with links to support your position. Or is this simply another broad general opinion from anecdotal observation?

Just wondering . . .

~OGD~

user-pic

If you review the healthcare performance of nations such as Germany, France, Switzerland, and many others, you will find that they achieve outcomes similar to single payer nations such as the UK or Canada as judged by the standard WHO criteria of life expectancy and infant mortality.

None of the former are true single payer systems, but each includes a very strong public component that relieves the public of extensive reliance on private insurers. The mechanisms are different in each case, demonstrating that a dominant role of the public sector in providing insurance availability, and/or regulating rates and coverage, is more important than the exclusion of private insurance as a significant alternative.

All of these nations surpass the U.S. in terms of coverage, affordability, and health outcomes. Here, for most of the population below Medicare age, there is no alternative to private insurance (well, almost none, because if you become poor enough, there's always Medicaid).

user-pic

So. If a bill comes to Obama without a public option, would want him to sign it?

user-pic

Kali - If the question is whether I would want him to sign it, the answer is no. If the question is not what it is I want, but what is the best choice among those available, then the answer would depend on the alternatives. At present, there is a possibility that we will get some kind of watered down public option, or a co-op that does some of the same things. If those are tbe choices beyond doing nothing, I would prefer that he sign rather than not sign.

I hope no-one confuses that answer with what I want. Until we have to choose, I believe we should all strive as vigorously as we can to pressure our legislators to enact the most comprehensive and robust healthcare reform program possible.

user-pic



So it's basically what I originally said . . .


Your opinion is based on your anecdotal observations of other systems in other countries totally unrelated to the system of Medicare here in the good ol' U.S..

Well ... As you no doubt already know, the push for private involvement to compete and help contain costs with an already strong public component (Medicare Parts A and B) began with the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which brought us Medicare Part C: Medicare Advantage plans. Then in 2003 the Medicare+Choice plan was rammed through.

According to a look-back at the 2006 GAO Report found under "Results in Brief" pg3 of GAO-09-132R Medicare Advantage Expenses  (pdf) those particular plans had profits of 6.6%, overhead of (sales, marketing etc) of 10.1%, with 83.3% of revenue dollars providing medical benefits to the consumer, above that of the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and 1.3% above that projected which translated the difference between actual and projected profits increase from $1.1 billion in 2005 to $1.3 billion in 2006. So much for cost containment with the involvement of the private sector.

Now, since four years have passed, here from the Executive Summary. June 2009 from Health & Human Services is a general synopsis and overview  of the competing private entities (Part C) versus the public (Parts A and B).

Evaluating MA Payment and Participation: Overarching Policy Issues

The current MA program has grown rapidly in recent years, but at a significant cost to the overall Medicare program.  Thus, evaluating MA and considering payment changes has become an important and controversial policy issue.  Views on the specific issues related to the current MA structure for paying plans, and options for modifying it, are often consistent with competing visions for the Medicare program.  Indeed, the current debate over MA payment takes place and is perhaps best understood within the context of a larger historical debate over the role of private plans in the Medicare program.  In the following sections we describe these issues.

Medicare is one of the largest and most popular social programs in the United States. It has provided a stable source of health insurance coverage for aged and disabled individuals for over forty years, and now covers 45 million beneficiaries (as of November 2008).  Along with Social Security, Medicare’s coverage assures some financial security for the elderly and disabled.  In addition, Medicare has also provided public health benefits by arguably supporting health care infrastructure and innovation through its timely and consistent payments to health care providers; and helping to assure an adequate supply of physicians through its support of medical education programs.

Nonetheless, the fiscal challenges Medicare faces in the 21st century are formidable.  The rapidly rising costs of providing health care to the Medicare population will result in difficult choices for policymakers in terms of assuring the program’s long run sustainability.  Under current law projections, outlays from the Part A trust fund began to exceed income in 2008 and the fund will be exhausted in 2019.  Moreover, under a provision of the MMA, prescribed policy responses are “triggered” when general tax revenue funding is projected to exceed 45 percent of Medicare’s total spending.  According to the latest projections, the 45 percent threshold will be breached in 2014 and the percent of spending accounted for by general revenues will grow steadily afterwards – meaning that the size of the spending reductions needed to address the “trigger” will grow rapidly.  Moreover, the program’s future impact on the Federal budget and the aggregate economy is significant.  Medicare overall is projected to grow to nearly 6 percent of the gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030 (2008 Medicare Trustees Report).

In addition to the fiscal issues, the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries, as in the health system as a whole is considered disappointing (Gold, 2008).  Thus, the value of health care provided to beneficiaries – the outcomes per dollar spent – is considered to be suboptimal.  Another indicator of these problems is the considerable variation in Medicare spending per beneficiary among geographic areas.  These variations cannot be explained by local price differences or beneficiary characteristics, and higher spending areas are not associated with better quality of care (CBO, 2007a).

I hope this wasn't too much info for anyone to absorb...

I just tend to steer clear of making general comparisons between what other countries have been doing and key into what we need to do with what we are working with here in the good ol U.S..

Your mileage may vary ... and no doubt it does.

~OGD~


user-pic

Odds are that if you voted for Obama you weren't expecting Single Payer, as he didn't promise to deliver it.

You cite "another war," but that war isn't new. It was going on at the time Obama took office. So it's the same war we had.

The public option in a health care plan is simply not known at this time, and news reports today signal that there will be a public option, though weakened.

As for the bailouts, economists said they were necessary.

As for helping people losing their houses, aid has been provided: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/news/economy/guidelines/index.htm

user-pic

I agree with Fred.

Further, Kali and Bluebell are little more than chronic complainers who will not be satisfied with anything Obama does, and do not understand that a society this size, with a Congressional system that encourages a legalized form of bribery called "campaign contributions", is not entirely under Obama's control. And as someone who, like the rest of us, lived through eight years of an aspiring dictator, I have no desire to see that sort of unitary executive power vested in anyone other than my own self. Because I alone can be trusted with the well-being of the body politic. Now, get down to the Treasury and bring me more gold!

Even if they got everything they wanted, I suspect they'd find more to grouse about.

They (and a few others) remind me of nothing quite so much as spurned high school girlfriends, who ceaselessly serve up disparaging chatter behind the backs of others. (I mean no disrespect, by the way, to high school girls, some of which show considerably more stability and judgment than these two.)

We're six months into the Presidency of someone who has to undo the catastrophic messes of the last eight years. And has to deal with them all at once. I'd love to see a serious, realistic proposal or two from these two kvetchers, though I am certainly not about to hold my breath while I wait.

user-pic

argue the issues, not the character of the posters, please.....

user-pic

If you had any character...

user-pic

I'm with Kali. Let's be good debaters sticking to the topics being discussed and the issues raised in them.

user-pic

Further:

1) I agreed with Fred on the issues. Did you bother to read my first sentence, or does your "character" preclude such things?

2) You and bluebell are both well-established, chronic malcontents. Nothing satisfies you. Thus, to me, you are part of the "issues" at hand.

3) It was you who kept up that ludicrous death speculation nonsense earlier on. You show a rather pointed disregard for facts when you post your opinions. Therefore, as in (2) above, you are part of the issue - playing fast and loose with facts helps nothing.

4) Your post showing either near-total disregard for how our (admittedly quite flawed) political system operates, or a frightening ignorance of the topic, blames Obama for things that are in the hands of the Congress. I called you out on that. Is that an "issue" in your eyes? It sure as hell is in mine.

user-pic

Thank you on one account. I'll need to update the death count from lack of health insurance, numbers supported in detail here:

http://motherearthhealth.blogspot.com/2009/02/estimating-numbers-of-americans-who-die.html

user-pic

I don't expect many at TPM will criticize Obama. But if you think that these complaints aren't widespread among many of his supporters, think again. You can run the reasons why he can't do things. What happened to "yes we can?"

user-pic

What I object to from malcontents like yourself is that you seem to think Obama has the ability to bend Congress to his will, and pass legislation by fiat. It's obvious that the problem right now is with the Blue Dog-types and the media (who are taking barely-disguised glee at the prospect of delivering universal health care's eulogy), not Obama.

He provides an easy target, because he's just one person and he's the most high-profile politician in the world. But, in our system, if Congress chooses to oppose him (even though they claim they are his political allies), he can rendered almost completely ineffectual.

That Democrats only start asserting policy prerogatives when they hamstring a Democratic president is not Obama's fault. As other have noted, these "conservative" Democrats represent the monied interests that bankroll their campaigns, not ordinary Americans. Criticism like yours, continuing to heap all of the blame on Obama for a thoroughly corrupt and dysfunctional goverment, is simpleminded and counterproductive.

And I want to second truthseeker's comment about the unprecednted mess he's inherited contibuting to progressives' frustration as well.

user-pic

You suggest single-payer and they tell you it is "unrealistic" and then they blame you for never suggesting alternatives which of course is exactly what you did. They don't want alternatives. They want status quo, establishment, the way we've always done it, go home and shut up.

It's pathetic how they've become Republicans in their tactics. You suggest something specific like single-payer and they say you are a chronic complainer.

They refuse to acknowledge that the issues are specific, major and long-standing.

user-pic

I considered Obama weak on healthcare during the primaries, but was convinced by his seemingly powerful ability to mobilize people. He sure has slipped quite easily into the Washington insider mode, hasn't he?

The lack of specifics when he talks really gets to me. Hey. Pick one thing like public option, go on the television and explain this one thing. Put your foot down. Here are the words: "I won't sign a bill that doesn't have a public option."

Be specific and focused. I voted for a LEADER not a negotiation specialist, not a compromiser. Obama's WHOLE CAMPAIGN was based on a "new" kind of politics. Where are those new politics ?

user-pic

I feel just fine, thank you very much for asking.

user-pic

It's totally amazing that anyone would expect Obama or anyone else to undo in a few months what it took 8 years of Republican rule to do......If you are not careful the smear and fear tactics of the right wingers and the Republican Party will gain traction and put the Republicans back in control......Where were you when Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the Republican criminal corporate cabal were robbing the country blind...

user-pic

Where was I? Working for Obama and giving ever dollar I could coax from my credit card, which has now HAD IT'S INTEREST RATE BOOSTED, NEW RESTRICIONS, NEW FEES from a friggin bank that was bailed out. That's where I was.

user-pic

I didn't expect any different from Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

user-pic

Smart. I expected more. Not as smart as you were.

user-pic

For my part, more than anything else, I am grateful that Sarah Palin is not living at the 1 Naval Observatory Way, or the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave..

I knew he was a right-center Democrat, with a predilection for capitalism, when I voted for him in the primaries. I tend more these days toward pragmatism than idealism - back then I used to not vote at all over disgust with the system and its results. And some of his early work in the Senate made me think he might actually be a grown-up - Nunn-Lugar was very important, if unsexy, and he stepped up to help renew the effort.
I didn't foresee any other type of Democratic candidate winning the nomination, and didn't see any other type as having a chance at beating the Republican nominee, whomever that happened to be.

I decided I'd rather have half a sh!t sandwich crammed down my throat than a whole one, or more than one.
Am I thrilled? Not so much. I'm not displeased with everything his administration has done thus far. Quite an improvement over the beginning of the century, actually.

user-pic

I feel that we, the people, need to participate in our government and reclaim it. I feel that no president and in fact few people in DC altogether are going to do what is right for the people of this country. We must learn how to engage and demonstrate to fight for things worth fighting for.

user-pic

You only need to examine the major contributors to political campaigns to know which way the wind blows.

One crucial thing really jumps out about the numbers. Total camapign donations from the 2004 cycle to the 2008 cycle doubled. This doubling also occurred from the 2000 campaign to the 2004 campaign. In each of these elections the party / individual who got the most donations also won the election. And the lions share of donations comes from organized groups of donors representing major business sectors.

All the numbers are here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php


End of story.

user-pic

1. It's the same war - didn't like it then, don't like it now. he didn't start it, made no promises on ending it anytime soon. Ask me again if we should get into a war with N. Korea.

2. He voted for bailouts before he got elected. If anyone voted for him despite his decision, why throw him under the bus now?

3. There is a program in place to help those losing their homes. You can complain that it's not helping everyone, but you can't say he did not try. And there is a program being discussed that would help homeowners stay in their homes by allowing them to rent it.

4. No public option? That has yet to be determined. The House liberals are fighting to keep a robust public option. Obama says he wants one. I am doing my best not to panic over every single development or set back in these negotiations.

5. He never promised single payer before the election and he didn't promise one after. He took it off the table, gave his explanation and I simply cannot understand why people claim they were deceived on this. Right or wrong, he never promised it.

6. Money still rules? No kidding. What exactly did people expect from one man in 6 months? Obama has repeatedly stated that power does not concede easily.

I am still very proud to call Obama my president. But he is still just a man. He will win some and lose some, but I trust that he is doing the best he can. I will not join the chorus of people saying he is not doing enough or those that call him a wimp. The primaries and the general election proved to me that Obama is a fighter, a better man than his critics and no one's door mat. He beat the establishment at their own game to win this election and for that he earns my utmost respect, always. I will do my part to help his agenda like calling, writing, faxing or whatever it takes. But don't expect me to throw him under the bus.

user-pic



Great points . . .

And it's good you kept it simple with those 6 points for those who truly need it most.

~OGD~

user-pic

Ok answering your question. So far probably not as good as I hoped for,( this is not a surprise) but far far better than the alternative.

The war, can't bitch about what was already going on and Obama doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Single payer - never expected it and was never promised it. Public option. Here's my real disappointment. I think Obama made a tactical error here. He needed to be the lead on this fight and not congress. He seems to be picking the slack lately though. Let's hope it's not to late.

Wall Street - as much a many like to scream and moan about the Wall Street bailout. My guess is you would be screaming louder had there not been one and the economy truly tanked. Next given also the fact that to date the Treasury has received $8.4 billion back. So far a decent return in just 9 months.

Help for folks loosing there homes. As others have said there is a program in place. Is it perfect? No, but it's getting better.

So all in all given the disaster created by eight years of Bush I'm feeling pretty good about my vote.

However I also get that he could walk on water and some would still not be happy. They didn't like him in the primaries, didn't like him in the general and don't like him now and I doubt they ever will.

user-pic

Thanks for the well thought out response. I don't expect that he can walk on water. I think he's not a strong leader as yet. He seems rather unfocused. He speaks in generalities, not specifics. I get that he likes to delegate. Maybe he likes it a bit too much.

user-pic

Hmm, interesting take. There is a fine balance between delegating and leadership. All leaders must and need to delegate for no one person can be all places and on top of all things at once. To do so would truly lead to failure. A leaders greatest function is to set the agenda and task other to achieve the goals stepping in when necessary to push the troops forward.

The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.
Theodore Roosevelt

Now we can certainly have a subjective argument as to whether the best men and women have been picked.

user-pic

He's losing ground on health care. He's given the Right a huge opening that they didn't have several months ago. When he talks, he includes too much. He's not clear. He uses the same few examples peppered in his responses.

It all seems very unfocused. Many Americans sense that Obama is unsure about a plan. They need more from him. Not the same few points he's been making. They need it spelled out -not in one speech but one aspect at a time.

We know that he was waiting for Congress. We get how hard it is. But what will move the American people now will be strong statements from Obama. Not generalities. It's time to draw a few lines in the sand. Here's one: "I will not sign a bill that doesn't include a public option."

I didn't expect a single payer option. That was part of a compromise I made with myself, weighed against other positive
aspects he offered. So it seems reasonable to include that compromise in the "how do you feel" question.

Delegating authority to someone like Timothy Geithner? That really helped the confidence factor. The economy was near collapse and an important figure picked by Obama (or was that choicce delegated to others too?) looking like a deer in the headlights. No one here has mentioned the arrogant bonuses that bailed out bankers and investors are taking. Obama mentioned it once. He should be on those people with hard stuff. That's what Americans want. At some point, hard positions that bring focus to the process. That's leadership. Enough compromising and waiting.

I'd be interested in your assessment of all the figures Obama has chosen.


user-pic

Obama's tactical error - and it will undermine EVERY progressive change he promised - was selecting Rahm Emmanuel (among others). If he had put in place a team that was legitimately pushing for his stated goals, he wouldn't need to spend so much personal effort.

On almost every issue Kali highlights, Obama placed someone systemically opposed to progressive change in a key position to undermine it.

user-pic

voting for him was not the problem. I think the Republican tide had to be stopped and I am glad he won. But I did give some money to his campaign...I will never do that again. I cannot believe my own stupidity.

user-pic

It's telling that no one here who excuses or supports Afghanistan mentions the cost. I would encourage those posters to post on the details.

(1) cost
(2) time table
(3) support from NATO partners (how many troops, how much money)

user-pic

Consider me a hard-core Obama supporter since I first became involved in signing an on-line petition to encourage him to enter the race in the fall of 2006 and I haven't looked back. I donated money monthly from the primary forward and worked 60-70 hour weeks as a volunteer.

(1) Another war? What are you babbling about here? We were in two wars under Bush and only one had validity. That one--with Afghanistan--was short-changed and still represented a danger. The cost can be laid at the feet of the GOP leaders who were stupid about the whole thing--as well as a few Senatorial Democrats who voted for the Iraq mess. We have to back out carefully and not a wholesale scramble out as you apparently support. Obama certainly never supported such nonsense.

Bailouts for bankers and stockbrokers? Uh-huh. You apparently don't have money or anything to lose or you would understand just how tangled up our retirement money and savings are. Since you apparently have a credit card, then perhaps you need to revisit Budgeting 101 which dicates that you only spend every month what you can afford and NOT CHARGE IT. Once you start charging stuff on credit, then you are under the control of the money-lenders. This isn't a new thing.

No help for people losing their houses? Again, there are programs in place. And there is little protection for folks who don't understand Budgeting 101. See above.

No public option? Uh-huh. Since the negotiations continue, you seem to be using your own crystal ball to look into the future. Go to Congress if the current state of their negotiations are upsetting to you.

No single payer? Obama never promised this.

I'm fine with my vote and my support of Obama. The years from Reagan forward until January 20, 2009 have been a series of disappointments. But the American public has been changing and now we are facing a new dirction. But it takes a lot to turn things--and I speak as someone who worked very hard to turn us away from Vietnam...and that took fires and bloodshed and years.

We're going in the right direction and it will not satisfy those of you who have sat down and written out the "best" plan for some aspect of our lives. In that best plan are the roots of tyranny since only one person came up with it and only one person gets to enforce it. I prefer our system. And I take responsibility for my piece of coming up with the plan. What about you?

user-pic

Why do you automatically attack the character of the poster?

"You apparently don't have money or anything to lose or you would understand just how tangled up ......"

"..you should visit Budgeting 101 which dictates that you only spend every month what you can afford and NOT CHARGE IT."


The only time I've ever streched that credit card was to give a hundred dollars a month to Obama. You can make your point without personal attacks.

user-pic

Let me take on your writing and the false sympathy you apparently are attempting to invoke to make your points.

The "I charged my credit card only for this candidate" so I can apparently feel so much sympathy for what you did. And I don't feel any sympathy at all. Stop charging.

Then the "Now see how he has disappointed me". You went from one extreme to another to make a point.

Oh, the pathos....and "don't pick on me". Yeah, right. Whine much?

user-pic

You just can't stop making this a personal attack. That tells me (and some other posters I suspect) that my post has more than a bit of truth in it. You'd rather ridicule me than deal only about the issues. Rudeness makes a poster look weak and silly.

user-pic

(1) Not sure what I think about Afghanistan. Certainly skeptical of Obama policy, but it's what he said he'd do. Hopefully he'll adjust appropriately, if not, bad.
(2) Again, no surprise, he supported during campaign. Again, we'll see about ultimate net effects.
(3) Don't know enough to say. People losing their houses are not necessarily the most needy people in the country, who I think of first, anyway. And again, not aware of any particular conflict with what he said in the campaign.
(4) This is false. Neither the policy nor Obama's ultimate position has been determined yet.
(5) I support single-payer, but I hope I don't need to tell you that Obama was as clear as mud that he wasn't going to pursue it.
(6) They're obviously powerful, but the outcome on health care is still up in the air (see (4)).

So I'm reasonably positive on Obama so far, while quite prepared that he will turn out not to be what I wanted and/or simply not successful, partly because he screwed up, partly because the job of making progressive reforms in the U.S. is really hard. As for my vote, I'm not aware that any of the alternatives would have been better.

If we don't get a good health care bill (which I define as covering most people adequately, don't much care how for now -- a whole other discussion), I would for the first time in my life seriously advocate for a progressive "third" party. No such party could succeed without the support of a large number of current high level Democratic elected officials, and I hope Obama would join it.

user-pic

"So I'm reasonably positive on Obama so far, while quite prepared that he will turn out not to be what I wanted and/or simply not successful, partly because he screwed up, partly because the job of making progressive reforms in the U.S. is really hard. As for my vote, I'm not aware that any of the alternatives would have been better."

Except for "reasonably positive on Obama" this is somewhat close to my position. I'm just presenting the issues in strong terms which are meant to be provocative. I know many, many people who feel the same as I do. Are we all stupid? Are we all naive? No one thought of us that way when we were organizing for Obama and giving our last dollars.

There was a time when Obama stopped talking about health care. Perhaps it was the open pressure from his supporters that got him back on track. He responds to pressure. Let's keep going.

user-pic

I amend that statement. Actually, many Democrats called us naive and blind about Obama's capabilities.

user-pic

"Actually, many Democrats called us naive and blind about Obama's capabilities."

And, when pressed, those "Democrats" either supported John Edwards (dodged a bullet there, didn't we?), Dennis Kucinich (who, in a fair world, I could support) or Hillary Clinton (even more co-opted by big money and more hawkish in foreign policy than Obama).

I still think he has the makings of a great president. And I'm not willing to write him off after six months. But I hoped (that word again) that Democrats would have learned the value of party unity after staring into the abyss just four short years ago, and I was wrong about that.

user-pic

But the problem is really the party and Obama just isn't better than the party. He's not really the change agent we need but I have no illusions Hillary would have been better. Party unity is 100% impossible. The party is made up of people with very different values and very different priorities. It's easier to pretend not to see the difference in core values when the party is out of power.

user-pic

It goes deeper than that, though. I presume Democrats of all stripes want to stay in power. I believe it could be done by passing effective legislation that benefits average Americans in an immediate and lasting way. DINOs seem to think that it's more important to keep the rivers of corporate cash flowing.

What I can't fathom is how, when they've got a party leader running on "CHANGE," an opposition party as weak and as disorganized as I've ever seen, and a clear electoral mandate, they keep acting as if it's 1992. It's not ,and the fact that these people aren't even willing to give "change" a fighting chance just drives me nuts.

BTW, Obama really has disappointed me on the civil liberties front. He could let a lot of the more egregious Bush abuses die in the courts, with little political backlash. But he's chosen instead to fight for those prerogatives.

But on the domestic side, he's still got my almost total support. He is not the problem, and people should stop ascribing blame for problems that are way bigger than him or the office.

user-pic

You forgot to mention Obama and Holder becoming willing accomplises in the cover up of war crimes during the Bush years and their illegal refusal obey the law and investigate all credible reports of such crimes.

And you forgot to mention the wholesale adoption of all the illegal and unconcstitutional police state tactics of the Bush years and then some!

I think it is all a crying shame frankly. Yes, Obama is better than Bush, but in any number of critically important areas he isn't much better and in some cases his posititions are even worse! I am disappointed because though I never trusted Obama, I did think he had some integrity despite being tainted with the stink of Washington and the Potomoc Fever that has driven his political career. But I was wrong. Obama doesn't have much integrity at all as he has so amply demonstrated in his weak performance on health care and his complete betrayal of those who supported him when it comes to the war crimes and other other criminal conduct of the Bush regime.

user-pic
Yes, Obama is better than Bush
Sad that's the bar by which many democrats measure their own leaders now, eh? I'd even say he's better than McCain, although I think McCain really would have stopped letting the military torture people - where Obama seems piss-scared to actually take the role as CIC and stand up to the generals.

But hey, he gives one hell of a speech.

user-pic

McCain didn't stop torture. He backed down, remember?

user-pic



Hey now . . .

Don't stop here:

Yes, Obama is better than Bush, but in any number of critically important areas he isn't much better and in some cases his posititions are even worse!

Just what are these "cases" where his positions are even worse?

I can't wait to hear this.

~OGD~

user-pic

This post is nothing better than sockpuppet astroturf. It displays a shocking lack of awareness about our government, our nation's history, and a host of other problems peculiar to our culture and our times.

If you want to play humbug, go find Corrente or a PUMA blog. If you actually want a discussion, give up the rhetorical chicanery and come back.

user-pic

"leaders vomit on lotus leaves......?"

user-pic

I feel that he is living down to my expectations, actually.

Leave a comment

Kali Star

user-pic

Following: 14
Followers: 18

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address