More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michelle Kraus

Michelle Kraus

Posted: July 25, 2010 12:28 PM

A Love Affair Gone Wrong: Liberals Abandon Their Beloved Obama

What's Your Reaction:

This is the saga of a love affair gone awry between the liberals and their true love, President Obama. One only has to gaze at the furor in Obama's eyes on television to glimpse the depth of emotions, while listening to the liberals wail. Liberals wanted him to be their perfect spouse, and forgot that good relationships take hard work from all parties (no pun intended). As the honeymoon crashed and burned, liberals began abandoning their beloved. There is no forgiveness in their hearts, or room for mistakes. Patience has vanished.

Oh woe is me; it's bad enough that Obama is getting battered from the right, but now his latte friends that loved and cherished him are turning away. He has ceased to be the "cool" kid that shoots hoops; rather he is the clumsy nerd that no one picks or wants for their team. It's like watching rats dive overboard, and leaving no life vest for their best buddy. And so it goes according to plan from the opposition that is wreaking havoc, distrust and suspicion. They knew this would happen because we liberals are so predictable. When the going gets tough, we don't want marriage counseling. Ick! We pick up our toys in a huff and expel a harrumph. Yes, it's a harrumph because we're having a tantrum. Is this any way to treat your beloved? Obama told us it would take a partnership, and we've forgotten. We're mad and watched him skin his knees. No lollipops for these folks. Sadly, the traps were so predictable that Carl and Frank must be dancing a jig together right now.

Just look at the result of the duplicity of bombastic right wing blogger, Andrew Breitbart. He tinkered with a video of Shirley Sherrod, and drove it into the liberals' weak spot -- racism. Breitbart admittedly isn't the brightest bulb, but he had expert coaching and the fallout is a bad dream. Duh, that was a no-brainer. It was like dangling a young, zaftig thing in front of former President Clinton, and waiting for him to take the bait. We (liberals) should be mad as hell at the opposition, not Obama or his administration that fell over one another. As Ari Shapiro on NPR's "All Things Considered" finds, "there has been a pattern of conservative activists blurring the line between journalism and advocacy, and doing it with striking success." I'd go further, and call it what it is: pathetic, hate mongering journalism, libel, slander and all those bad things. Shirley should sue Breitbart, and if she wants to -- go back to work (please). We should stop tripping over ourselves, stop over analyzing and get over it. Anderson Cooper, we all embrace you, but enough is enough. Move on, there's so much work to be done in rebuilding this relationship between the Obama and the liberals.

And you know what? The opposition plan just keeps giving us indigestion that is constipating the Congress' ability to get things done. This is the right graphic word to describe the impasse and filibusters that are filling those grand halls. Yep, and we all know that these folks in Congress are not exactly rabble-rousers. But now Harry has kicked climate legislation to the curb because he cannot gather the votes to pass it. We keep fighting among ourselves. And it took four weeks just to get unemployment benefits extended to millions of out of work Americans during a Recession. It's like pushing a rock uphill. Dave Johnson has got it correct in his piece "Republican Plan Working So Far" -- "Block everything Congress does, then run against Democrats as ineffective."

Surprisingly, the opposition seems to understand the 24/7 news cycle, and social media that we invented much better than we do. They use Sarah Palinesque techniques (Breitbart), and opportunistic surrogates. Then they make a good batter by mixing in race, unemployment, environmental disaster, chicanery by the right wing bloggers -- and we have a formula for success which is unprecedented in this country. Our message machine must get much more sophisticated with rapid responses. We goofed on the Sherrod fiasco and now are buried in the avalanche. We know that these are difficult times, and we need to figure out how to weather the storm while the opposition continues to manipulate our greatest hopes, wishes and dreams. I say save this love affair. Relationships are a lot of work -- particularly when there is constant, insidious interference from nasty in-laws. Just remember the picture of Hillary standing by Bill through it all. It takes guts. No one promised a rose garden.

Note, references for this article are listed below in my pearltree.

Shirley Sherrod Debacle


 

Follow Michelle Kraus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michellekraus

 
 
  • Comments
  • 424
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
05:13 PM on 09/22/2010
No offense, but if Obama listened to many on the hard left he'd be called a dictator and impeached months ago. He's the President, not the Messiah and not a King. He can't force Congress to vote one way or another. He can't completely dismantle implemented systems without destroying more things than he fixes. And he can't magically fixed problems that are bigger than one man in mere months.

Also, where were these lefty crybabies when you have Tea Party nuts threatening Congressmen and screaming about 'Death Panel'? Where were they when political pressure came down like a jackhammer when Obama administration first attempted to close Gitmo?

There same place we are right now. We ...sat.. on.. their ...asses. We write stupid blogs and twitter screeds on Common Dreams about Obama 'sold us out'. We call the man a failure when he's gotten more done than few other presidents in such little time.

Has Obama screwed things up? Yes. But the left has fell asleep, expecting this one guy to do everything without we as citizens lifting a finger, just as we bungled and failed in the Bush years.

Obama's "failure" are as much the base's fault as it is the administration.
04:15 PM on 08/03/2010
Obama could make life alot easier on himself by standing up for something once in a while instead of being an endless wafflemachine.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jackbutler5555
04:47 PM on 07/27/2010
The Obama Administration would be a lot more friendly to progressives, if the progressives could demonstrate they have done the work that would guarantee grass roots support. I would think that would be obvious.
05:42 PM on 07/27/2010
The majority of people wanted the public option.

The majority of people want the end of DADT.

We didn't get the public option. The DOJ is defending DADT against a--wait for it--REPUBLICAN gay group.

The DNC, DSCC, and DCCC generate the majority of their money from progressives, yet give the majority of the funding to the bluedogs

And, unless I am mistaken, the progressive caucus is the largest.

What does it take?

I am sick of hearing about how progressives have abandoned this administration. This administration abandoned progressives.

And we're about to see the implosion of Rahm's lurch to the right, get-and-gut, "f-ing retards" political strategy. And the administration, Michelle Kraus, and the rest of the obamabots and apologists will blame progressives.

(And as a gay man I also need to add that I love it when everyone tells me in one breath that the LGBT community is too small to matter; and in the next breath that it will be our fault if the republicans win.)
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jackbutler5555
07:39 PM on 07/27/2010
If the majority wanted the public option, etc, then the Congress isn't representative of the majority of the people.

I wish you addressed the point made in the comment you are addressing here:

"The Obama Administration would be a lot more friendly to progressives, if the progressives could demonstrate they have done the work that would guarantee grass roots support."

The Tea Party and the Religious Right has been out there gathering support. They know all about grass roots.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jackbutler5555
07:50 PM on 07/28/2010
"Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR So--FDR and LBJ weren't progressive?ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR So--FDR and LBJ weren't progressive? What do you call The New Deal and The Great Society? So--FDR and LBJ weren't progressive?

Here are results of the last 15 -- 15 -- Presidential elections:

2008 -- Obama (helped by the Great Recession) Not progressive
2004 -- Bush
2000 -- Bush
1996 -- Clinton (helped by Perot) Not a progressive
1992 -- Clinton (helped by Perot) Not a progressive
1988 -- Bush 1
1984 -- Reagan
1980 -- Reagan
1976 -- Carter (helped by Watergate) Not a progressive then
1972 -- Nixon
1968 -- Nixon
1964 -- LBJ (helped by Goldwater) Not a progressive
1960 -- JFK (a very close election, helped by mayor Daley) Not a progressive
1956 -- Ike
1952 -- Ike

Would LBJ be considered a progressive by your progressive friends, despite The Great Society? The old timers in your camp might remember chanting, "Hey, Hey LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?"

Let me know what other Democrat you would argue was a progressive and which of your frustrations over Obama would not apply to them.
02:46 PM on 07/27/2010
Tell me--do you think battered spouses are also to blame?
09:32 PM on 07/26/2010
Amen!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MidwestMomma
Just a Pilgrim on the Mayflower of Life!
03:44 PM on 07/26/2010
I now understand why a liberal, progressive agenda is so hard to implement. We are all so focused on scoring our personal goals we've forgotten to be a team.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MCWAY
04:12 PM on 07/26/2010
I understand why a liberal, progressive agenda is so hard to implement, too: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT.
09:36 PM on 07/26/2010
The American people want a revolution to make 2 % of themselves pay their taxes like they used to before the Reagan VooDoo economics spell was cast upon us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:24 AM on 07/27/2010
No. It is because a significant percentage of Americans are stuck in a different century and believe this country should be a theocracy or a gun superstore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
11:41 AM on 07/26/2010
We've been dumped after we gave it our all- and this administration has made clear in no uncertaiin terms what they think of us - effin ret ards, ,while having hundeds of secrets rendevous with medical industry insiders. His FISA reversal was the first clue the guy was not an honest player.... its been downhill ever since.

To stick with Obama would be the utmost of living in denial. He's just not that into us.
Its time to move on and support a candidate that will at least respect us , even if at times he/she must do what is politically expedient.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 PM on 07/26/2010
You hit the nail on the head, for me.

Whereas I am disappointed in Obama for a number of reasons, one issue is especially meaningful to me.

Mr. Obama has referred to himself as "a fierce advocate for gay people."

This is an insult to gay people's intelligence.

Yes, Obama has done more to advance gay rights than have past presidents, but that's not the point

The point is that this man often compromises our dignity, and it's done to appease those who would marginalize us.

First there was Donnie McClurkin, then there was Rick Warren, then there was this outrageous statement, nationally televised from West Point:

"The United States is a great nation because it respects the dignity of all people."

Really, Mr. President? Really?

(to be continued...)
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MCWAY
09:59 AM on 07/27/2010
Donnie McClurkin? Hmmmmm......Obama had a gospelfest. Curse him for inviting arguably THE BIGGEST NAME IN GOSPEL MUSIC to that festival. How dare he!!

I forgot! He ain't cool with homosexuality (something with which he once struggled, due to his being molested by an uncle). Then again, neither is the lion's share of that gospel audience. Then again, neither are most of Obama's supporters, which is why the President has to tight-rope this issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:45 PM on 07/26/2010
(continued from above)

Some people are "put out," for lack of a better term, that gay people are angry with Mr. Obama, but the president has appallingly called himself our "fierce advocate" and has then addressed the nation saying we are all granted our dignity in this country, which is a slap in the face because it is absolutely false.

That is an offensive statement, considering that DADT, government-sanctioned SHAMING of gay people, is still in place, that gay Americans have repeatedly endured the profound humiliation of seeing our rights put to a popular vote, and that gay Americans, in many states can be fired simply because they are gay.

Again, Mr. Obama is pandering to the right, at our expense. It is outrageously disrespectful to make such statements and expect gay people to swallow that bitter pill.

The survey recently given to our troops has been yet another degradation that not only attacks our dignity but insults the maturity and intelligence of our heterosexual troops.

To a fault Mr. Obama panders to the right, and in this case, specifically to bigots.

(to be continued...)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blueken
Finger Picking blues man
11:20 AM on 07/26/2010
Do me one little favor, and we can start dateing again, appoint Warren to CPA. That's all I ask. It will make you the popular kid again and show your school spirit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blueken
Finger Picking blues man
11:19 AM on 07/26/2010
When you rent a tux and a limo, buy the corsage and your date spends the whole night makeing eyes and dancing with someone else, your date can find her own ride home. Enough with the makeing googoo eyes at the Republicans, they hate you, you can't win them over. Time to play hard ball, if it's not too late.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
Don't settle for less evil, demand good
11:40 AM on 07/26/2010
Yes it is too late. It wasn't that he's not into us, it turns out he's gay for the corporations, he's not into our type at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
12:34 PM on 07/26/2010
I think this describes our situation well Freda Payne - Band of Gold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65LLafsa9g
02:56 PM on 07/27/2010
Actually--it seems he's "gay for pay".

Ever notice the ONLY times the WH moves on a gay issue is when the blogosphere starts shutting down the GayTM?

Like the DNC fundraiser. Gays boycott, and suddenly the WH is announcing gay benefits for state department employees.

Gay for Pay
10:45 AM on 07/26/2010
The comparison to a couple who refuses to accept their differences seems pretty facile to me. I think a better comparison would be that while in bed on their honeymoon, the wife (progressives) discovers that her husband (Obama), is wearing a toupee, has false teeth, and can't get it up (all of the many promises Obama made on the campaign trail). It's not so much that Obama hasn't gotten things done. It's that he so often doesn't even look like he wants to get those things done (e.g. healthcare reform and the public option, an end to DADT, and real financial reform) and when they do get done, they are less than advertised, and more importantly, less than they could have been if he had acted quickly and decisively from day one. Why he has so often seemed to be dithering is a question I would love to hear an answer for.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jackbutler5555
08:21 PM on 07/26/2010
Your question assumes that the combination of Republicans and Blue Dogs in Congress could somehow be overcome. What was the trick he didn't use? How could he have overcome the math? And, please don't answer by saying he should have asserted his leadership. I gather you wouldn't dither. So, specifically what would you do? Specifically.
03:21 PM on 07/27/2010
If I am building a house, I choose the site, define my requirements (number of rooms, etc.), hire the architect, review the zoning and plan for it, and ultimately hire a contractor.

I don't hire the contractor, walk him to the site, wave my arms and say "I want a house" and then walk away. I don't ignore the landscape or zoning. I don't let my architect, in back room deals, change the requirements.

If I'm working on health care, for example, I define my goals, review the political landscape, quickly realize I'm not going to get 60 votes (dem, republican, or combo), and move to reconcilliation fast. I don't tell congress "I want reform" and walk away. I don't let my COS meet with the health care industry in closed door meetings. I don't let the other side dictate the debate. I don't give up my requirements and claim that the results (An outhouse and a hose instead of 2 1/2 bathrooms) is what I wanted in the first place.

That's what I'd do--specifically.

And, when you run around the opposition a couple of times, they'll begin to figure out that, if they want any imput at all, they better start playing your game.

That would be pragmatic.
10:45 AM on 07/26/2010
Too funny
10:40 AM on 07/26/2010
Why should we continue to support an administration that appeases its enemies and abuses its friends?
09:41 PM on 07/26/2010
Exactly, and bribes its conservative Democrats as though they are Afghan Warlords, like it did Senator Ben Nelson, among others, during the HCR debate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:55 PM on 07/27/2010
Thank you.
10:40 AM on 07/26/2010
Great article. Few things have been more disheartening and frustrating than seeing our own on the left falsely malign and unfairly blame the President for things either well beyond his control, or for some imagined "abandonment", simply because some people aren't getting exactly what they want.

Afghanistan? Obama campaigned on prosecuting the war with vigor. If you're surprised by the added troops or continued fighting, you weren't paying attention during the campaign. Health Care? Yeah, a public option wouldn't have been just nifty... but thanks to Obama, 30 million people will now have access to health care, and many millions more won't go into bankruptcy because of dubious "pre-existing conditions" that allow companies to drop them whenever they want. Financial reform? Again, we hear nothing but whining FROM OUR OWN RANKS because the legislation didn't break up the big banks, or exile everyone who wears a tie to Pluto, or whatever it was our fellow libs seem to want.

I for one remain behind the President. He is no more perfect than any other man in office before him, but on balance he's a brilliant, compassionate leader. He's a lot better than many we've had, and he's light years better than his immediate predessessor... and, it's important to say, far FAR better than any of the GOP whackaloons waiting in the wings to take over should we decide he didn't live up to our own disparate, fickle standards.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
outsidethemainstream
12:10 PM on 07/26/2010
F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
12:32 PM on 07/26/2010
So hundreds of meetings with medical insurers secretly , was "beyond his control'?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjean
Consultant
10:32 AM on 07/26/2010
people have SHORT term memory. They want a a quick fix t oeverything. They act s if President Obama would fix everything with no one opposing him forgetting that there are 2 parties. I can;t understand that they allow Reagan and bush to destroy our country but want to give this poor guy a year to fix this terrible mess.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Caroli
Give peace a chance
10:25 AM on 07/26/2010
Obama needs to sweep out his administration and bring in people that are more concerned with and focused on do what is right for this country rather than pandering to beltway talking heads and lobbyists. It also shows that his supposed slow, thoughtful and deliberate thinking was clearly missing from this episode of knee jerking and is probably missing elsewhere, like on Afghanistan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
11:44 AM on 07/26/2010
He has picked the people that mirror his philosophy and whose decisionmaking feels comfortable with .
Its quite clear he has absolutely no problem throwing people under the bus who no longer serve his purpose.