whynot_31 said:
I think Obama not being a progressive is a big part of the reason he stands a chance at being re-elected.
Funny, I think a big reason he's not MORE popular is b/c he's not progressive enough.
I think a big reason Obama got elected in the first place is b/c people hoped he was a progressive.
He'll win re-election b/c the Republicans have terrible candidates, not b/c Obama is a centrist.
Obama got elected because people thought he would be "different" and a "change"; I don't know if wanting someone "different" is the same as wanting someone who is "progressive".
On this note, I hear today is the day we get to find out who the Republican nominee will be!
...remember, the Republicans of the country think that Obama is an even worse choice than the losers they have to choose from.
Everyone hold their nose!
I have mixed feeling about the Prez. I'm glad he won the first time out and though I don't agree with about half of what he's done his one saving grace is that he seems to be trying to bring some sanity to hashing out the problems of the world as well as the U.S. at a time when so many extreme beliefs make everyone else seem insane.
whynot_31 said:
Obama got elected because people thought he would be "different" and a "change"; I don't know if wanting someone "different" is the same as wanting someone who is "progressive".On this note, I hear today is the day we get to find out who the Republican nominee will be!
...remember, the Republicans of the country think that Obama is an even worse choice than the losers they have to choose from.
Everyone hold their nose!
Oh come now.
"change" and "hope"
and you think all that meant was people hoping for another Clintononian Democrat, just one that wasn't actually named Clinton?
No.
A lot of people thought Obama was progressive.
They thought he'd pass single payer.
They thought he'd rein in wall street.
They thought he'd bring marriage equality.
They thought he'd reduce defense spending.
They thought he'd reduce war mongering.
They thought he'd rein in domestic spying.
Or extrajudicial drone killings in AfPak.
They thought wrong.
Obama is a Clinton democrat with a different background. And a Clinton democrat is not what Obama wanted you to think when he said Hope & Change.
PragmaticGuy said:
I have mixed feeling about the Prez. I'm glad he won the first time out and though I don't agree with about half of what he's done his one saving grace is that he seems to be trying to bring some sanity to hashing out the problems of the world as well as the U.S. at a time when so many extreme beliefs make everyone else seem insane.
Careful.
One side is demonstrably crazier than the other.
Progressives: mad we didn't get single payer or even a public option
Tea partiers: angry that we have a socialist kenyan president
See how that's not equal?
PragmaticGuy said:
I have mixed feeling about the Prez. I'm glad he won the first time out and though I don't agree with about half of what he's done his one saving grace is that he seems to be trying to bring some sanity to hashing out the problems of the world as well as the U.S. at a time when so many extreme beliefs make everyone else seem insane.
yup.
BG » A lot of people thought Obama was progressive.They thought he'd pass single payer.
They thought he'd rein in wall street.
They thought he'd bring marriage equality.
They thought he'd reduce defense spending.
They thought he'd reduce war mongering.
They thought he'd rein in domestic spying.
Or extrajudicial drone killings in AfPak.
They thought wrong.
Um, maybe in your circles they thought this. My circles just didn't want McCain and Palin. Some even flipped a coin and voted for Obama. My circles think that being President is a lot like other jobs: You do what you can to make things better, but you mostly you spend your time and energy doing what you gotta do so you and your boss look good.
BG » Obama is a Clinton democrat with a different background. And a Clinton democrat is not what Obama wanted you to think when he said Hope & Change.
If you are right, Obama failed at making me think what he wanted.
After Bush, I merely wanted Clinton back. With the exception of sex with the intern, I have received my wish.
My wishes are reasonable.
The WSJ and other outlets are reporting that Super Tuesday did not result in a clear front runner for the Republican Nomination. Meaning, it is the Republican's turn to act like the Democrats:
All of the (Republican) candidates will form a firing line which is actually in the shape of a circle.
Meanwhile, the incumbent (Democratic) president tries not to laugh out loud at their self destruction.
source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204276304577265650949565634.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Tonight I learned that Romney is the Republican answer to Dukakis. It makes sense, unfortunately for the repubs.
I'm sure Ron Paul is the Republican version of Ralph Nader
....different variety of nuts love each!
For hours, CNN has been trying to make this into a drama. Up next: who will win ALASKA??
This silliness may continue until the Republican convention.
What city hosts it (ie. will be accused of police brutality, and surpression of free speech)?
whynot_31 said:
Um, maybe in your circles they thought this. My circles just didn't want McCain and Palin. Some even flipped a coin and voted for Obama.
Perhaps you missed where I said, "a lot of people", not "all people".
Despite very convincing experience of your friends:
- In 2008 there was a sizable contingent of Democratic voters who thought Obama was more progressive.
- Leading up to the 2008 election, the Obama team most certainly intended "hope" and "change" to imply significantly more than "a new centrist Democrat!", which seems to be what you're arguing. Poorly.
If you are right, Obama failed at making me think what he wanted.
ah yes, the use of a personal anecdotal piece of "evidence".
always good for navel-gazing political analysis.
I just wanted to point out that not everyone thought Obama would change world, and those same people think he is doing a pretty good job.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are considering some pretty electable candidates of their own.
Yes, I suspect many people would elect someone named "Rmoney" given their hatred of Obama.
In many areas of the country, it really doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, he will get their electoral votes.
....It's kinda like living in Brooklyn: Once the Democrats figure out who they are going to nominate for a given position, that's who represents us in Washington/Albany.
In many areas of the country, it really doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, he will get their electoral votes.
That's why I find Republican and commentariat hand-wringing so amusing.
You're talking about an electorate (Republican voters) where:
- 48% do not believe in evolution (link)
- 31% think Obama is Muslim (link)
- 63% believe our bailout-supporting President with a cabinet full of Goldman Sachs alumni is a SOCIALIST (link)
And yet some observers think a sizable percentage of these brilliant voters won't support whoever has an "R" next to the name?
Please.
In further Rmoney news, here is how he supports his own tax plan: 'um, it can't be evaluated'
While you may not hold Republican voters or their candidates in high regard, nationwide, they may turn out in greater numbers than people who vote Democrat.
Sadly, this race won't get interesting until the Republicans choose a nominee.
Then, I can imagine that live in a swing state and that my vote counts.
I have to resort to such imagination because even if the entire borough of Brooklyn kept its desire to vote Republican secret until they actually voted for Rmoney, it would have no impact. We might as well live in republican North Dakota.
they may turn out in greater numbers than people who vote Democrat.
irrelevant to my point.
wait - I think it might actually prove my point.
A lot of people thought Obama was progressive.They thought he'd pass single payer.
They thought he'd rein in wall street.
They thought he'd bring marriage equality.
They thought he'd reduce defense spending.
They thought he'd reduce war mongering.
They thought he'd rein in domestic spying.
Or extrajudicial drone killings in AfPak.
They thought wrong.
Yes, but given the opportunity for a second term (without concern over re-election), he just might!
AP-
In order to more successful in his second term than his first, he'd need a democrat congress and senate.
Do we think either party will manage to control all three?
...if they did, who could they blame for the nation's problems?
Having a majority in the houses may help Obama to be more successful in passing legislation that the Dems want but it's not necessarily the right legislation. As for the GOP, I think they're heading off a cliff. Reagan and Clinton were effective because they cajoled members of both parties to get things done. Whether it was good or bad stuff got passed. What we need is a president who can promote bipartisanship better than Obama or we need Obama to step up and use the personality he used to win over the voters to do the same to Congress.
Obama got lucky, he has horrible opponents.
too bad democrats can't challenge their own president :p. I would love to see someone else.
PG-
I don't think all of the flowery language in the world by Obama will ever "win over" his opponents in the legislature.
Such language so far has only worked on people on the far left.
I have a classmate in 3rd grade who ran for class president on the platform that we would have less homework. She was elected, and was among those that voted for her.
However, I only voted for her because I thought she was cute, and perceived that everyone else was going to vote for her. I also enjoy voting for the candidate who I think is going to win anyway; it gives me a sense of achievement.
Meanwhile, have the sense that a lot of my classmates voted for her because they genuinely believed she could fulfill her promises. I believe this because they were greatly disappointed when she was unable to make their dreams come true.
I wasn't disappointed. After she was elected, I even told her I voted for her because I thought she was cute, and it felt great.
AW-
While the current pool of Republicans is sorta nutty, I'm kinda sad that they don't yet appear as nutty an unintelligent as McCain and Palin. They were sooo nutty, and she was soooo dumb, that the country was willing to elect a senator with little to no experience, who spoke in long winded platitudes about things many people knew could not be achieved.
I do wonder if Hilary Clinton would have been better, but I suspect that she couldn't have gotten out the progressive dreamer vote like Obama managed to.
Maybe a republican candidate will be successful in getting out the nation's large pool of conservative dreamers, and win the election.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!
now : haiticulturalexchange, faithful
most recent : haiticulturalexchange, faithful, nothinlikeabklyngirl, notsayin, tsarina, julien, stewart, mishaps, the invisible lines, crownheightster, dac545, threecee, amighty, terekete, pragmaticguy, naturegurl, yuppie_scum, housebroken, oscarin0, epiclylaterd, limestonekid, bkchickie, reader, newguy88, opossumqueen, brooklynmuskateer, judy giordano banjany, bkjones, kc7179, vick5y, patsy miele kirk, admin, god, dannydih, eastbloc, ronjohnjunior, artistkaren, joshb, brownie, the collection next door
Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
