No reporter has ever asked him as far as I know. I don't know if any will ask this time around. What did you mean by "Change" anyway? He ran a whole campaign on it and does anyone really know what Barack Obama meant he was going to change?
I'm in the camp that he hasn't changed a damn thing. People will counter with Lilly Ledbetter. It's a lovely law, but does anyone really believe that's what was meant by the grandiose statement "Change"?
Of course I use Lilly Ledbetter as a symbol. President Obama obviously has more accomplishments than that. He really did change the laws and many people's perceptions on gay rights for example. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is history. The government is no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act. And the President of the United States is finally for gay marriage. But did people really think Senator Obama meant he would change gay rights legislation? Is that what the 2008 election was about?
A little bit of financial reform (which so far has proven to be as ineffectual as progressive critics predicted) certainly doesn't qualify as "Change." Thirty million more Americans insured -- maybe, hopefully, by 2014 -- is a good thing. Is it transformational? Has Washington changed as we know it? Have we gotten "Change"?
Here is the common sense interpretation of what "Change" is -- changing the way Washington works. In fact, this is exactly what was promised, specifically by Barack Obama. He even made a campaign ad about it:
That's an example of the same old game playing in Washington. I don't want to learn how to play the game better; I want to put an end to the game playing.
And by God, what have you done to that effect? I would venture to say, almost without refutation, absolutely nothing. Even the most ardent Obama supporter can't in good conscience or sound mental state argue that President Obama has changed the way Washington works. He's just played the game a little better, if you're being charitable on how you keep score on that count.
But here's what should really burn you up -- he hasn't even tried. Not even close. Has there been a single piece of legislation backed by the White House that would stop the way lobbyists or big corporate interests or any special interest groups buy our politicians? In 93% of the cases, the person with more money wins their Congressional race. Democrat or Republican. Obviously the controlling factor is not ideology, party or even votes. It's money. And it's obvious.
And the president has done what to "Change" that?
Nonetheless, I'm insanely optimistic and naïve. So, I say we give him one more chance. But there is no way you should just trust him and hope for the best. He has to actually do something this time instead of just hanging a campaign placard up.
Congressman John Yarmuth of Kentucky has introduced a bipartisan bill that would amend the constitution to say that money cannot control our elections. Will the president make this one of his top priorities? Will he campaign on it? Will he do everything in his power to pass it if he is re-elected?
If he does, then we should let bygones be bygones. The slate is wiped clean and God bless second terms and the concept of redemption. If the president makes a real effort on the campaign trail to emphasize this as one of his core issues, then progressives should turn out to do everything they can to get him elected, whether it's voting, donating or volunteering. We're not asking for much in return -- just deliver on your original promise.
On the other hand, if he can't even do this, then it's obvious that the Democrats will never, ever help us. It will be painfully clear that they are part of the same corrupt system and have no interest in ever changing it. In fact, they love that system because it is what keeps them in office.
But this is not a decision for me to make. It is for the president. Which way will he go? Will he continue to play small-bore politics? Will he continue his rhetorical games and hope we don't realize that he is being too clever by half? Will he play the same old Washington games and hope to play them just a little better? Or will he actually lead and bring us real change?
Despite all the broken promises and all the cute political tricks, I still have the audacity of hope. I'm just waiting for President Obama to put it out one last time, so we can really go to war against Washington -- all of it. Democrats and Republicans alike. The public has a pox ready for both of their houses and only one man has the antidote. Let's see what he does.
Watch The Young Turks Here and Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
Geoffrey R. Stone: Same-Sex Marriage and Judicial Responsibility
Lyle Denniston: Constitution Check: If DOMA Falls, Must States Opposing Gay Marriages Accept Them?
The Crimson White: A Conservative Case for Marriage Equality
Andrew Pyle: It's Time to Revisit (and Replace) Some of Those Insurance Policies
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Appointing Bush's Robert Gates ( Defense) ,Ben Bernake(The Fed),Roy Lahood (R) ( transportation) McCains Jim Jones ( national Security advisor) and Monsanto VP, Michael Taylor as as head of the FDA. Lets don't forget his appointing Bush's Alan Simpson to lead the charge on"reforming "SS GOP style by executive order yet.
This doesn't even begin to to address the tired and corrupt Clinton retreads he recycled or the dozens of Wall St Fraudsters he placed in the WH, people immediately responsible for the economic crisis we are now in and whose only solution is to rob Main ST yet againto provide even bigger bonuses to the top dogs.
Cenk's belief that a president ,who had a JP Morgan chair as Chief of Staff and who appointed Jeffrey Immelting, GE jobs offshorer supreme as Jobs Czar will change is absolutely delusional.
Obama did not just lie to us ,he's thumbing his nose and laughing
Count me in as well.
"He really did change the laws and many people's perceptions on gay rights for example. "
He only recently changed his mind on that. For much of his presidency, he was officially anti gay marriage.
"But here's what should really burn you up -- he hasn't even tried. Not even close."
Exactly!
Maybe the GOP stay on point because their candidates work for them , not the opposition
Wealth disparity is a symptom. The disparity in economic opportunity, and political influence that come with wealth disparity are the actual poison that is taking down our country. Democrats participate in that process, but it is the Republican's who enthusiastically fund it, advocate it, and enable it. It is infused in their politics, and it sweats out of their policies to stain and rot the fabric that binds us together as a people.
The purchase of advertising equalling votes is the real root of many problems attributed to campaign financing. That can only stop when voters open their eyes and vote their conscience and/or personal interest - either of which is more valid than who threw their name out there the most times.
What Obama told us wanted to change, was a problem that WASN'T REAL. Obama thought the Democratic Party created polarization by rejecting Republican concerns outright, which caused Republicans to respond in kind. This is what 'ending the battles of the sixties' meant. It was the theme of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." It was his overwhelming style the first three years. It was the reason he'd compromise with Republicans but blast us on the Left.
But Obama was wrong on this. It wasn't true that Democrats caused the polarization due to their strident, idealistic, demands for instant change. It was from the beginning a conscious decision of the GOP as the new way to do politics, under the leadership and direction of Newt Gingrich in the 90s. Meanwhile at the same time in the 90s the Democratic Party fell into lockstep behind Clinton who created the whole practice of "Triangulation," which simply means adopting Republican policies.
So Obama's desired change WASN'T REALLY CHANGE TO BEGIN WITH! He did try it, but it wasn't a change from the previous 15 years and it didn't work any more than it did then.
However, after he was elected "Obama" the 2010 election cycle broke more "change" thus the party of no! hell no! tea bag gers.et al.
In other words, all hell broke loose..now, what I find interesting is that good people with very high IQ'a forgot these things and got mad, when the POTUS could not by himself "lift" every progressive agenda up with his very will, his bare hands if you will.
If you want to know why progressives fail, look at John Edwards..yes a cad..but campaign finance after citizens united?
We flayed him alive, meanwhile Newt was running for POTUS..same profile as Edwards,,Dems simply became to afraid to act as Dems and men. Dems "run" away from everything and everybody with back bone and spine.
so here we are now the "modern" party? triangle politics in full swing , God help us all..seriously.
"I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."-- Will Rogers
But don't tell that to him and his followers. To them, he's the best thing since sliced bread. They were all against all the policies Obama now espouses when they were being executed by George Bush. Now that Obama is implementing them, it's somehow OK.
I think mental examinations of these folks will be a good idea. Obama hasn't done anything to deserve another 4 years, frankly.