If he couldn't do it, who will?
Obama was -- and still is -- the Democrats' (and by extension all Americans) best hope to combat the corrosive Right Wing agenda of decimating the middle class and privatizing, well, everything.
But as disappointment grows from the Left at what it sees to be an utter lack of gumption (either that or some conspiracy theory about his complicity -- forced or otherwise -- with the corporate overlords who really run things) there has not emerged a viable progressive alternative to the fatally hamstrung president, a candidate who will be able to get across the nation-healing agenda that the Left is so desperate to enact.
But is Obama, once the world's bright light of hope and change, now really a capon?
After a moment's ponderation, something that is in itself considered a quaint throwback to the days of test patterns and telegrams, any perceived disappointment is revealed to be yet another insidious trope contrived by Republican word-doctors and strategists.
Here's a president who (yes, it still needs to be said) was handed the worst set of economic circumstances from which to divine a recovery, on whose watch Osama bin Laden was eliminated and the Arab Spring sprung, who repealed DADT, provided the Department of Veterans Affairs $1.4 billion to improve services to veterans, signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, repealed Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, championed and pushed through Health Care Reform, increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act, increased funding for national parks and forests, cut prescription costs for Medicare patients by 50%, created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during the entire Bush term, signed a new START Treaty, provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB, etc., etc., etc. And the work is by no means complete.
And all this while a full-throttled hate machine bent on preventing him from governing at all churns out propaganda, lies and obstruction, is funded by Right Wing billionaire zealots who have little compunction about rubbing elbows with religious extremists and fringe lunatics, create and promote sociopolitical and cultural mayhem and who care fuck-all for the public in whose name they claim to be working. And the Left, in a Standard-Operating-Procedure show of shooting off its toes while shooting off its mouth, is ready to repeal support of Obama if he doesn't blah-blah-blah. By harnessing the exasperated rolling of eyeballs at this imminently avoidable (but certain to occur) blunder, our nation's energy needs would be well seen to.
Well, then, fine. So who will it be?
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheStevenWeber
You're an actor. Here is a short scene. Try it out.
MAN
What is he fighting for?
2ND MAN
I don't know, but he must really think it's important so I'll support him.
That's some people's opinion. But quite a few of us are waiting to see Obama even attempt to combat the right wing - before he finishes decimating the middle class himself. With a friend like Obama, we don't need Republican enemies.
It's correct that we can't vote for a Republican. But saying that we must continue with Obama is like George Washington saying, "Where's Benedict Arnold? Get that man back on the battlefield! He's not as bad as the Brits themselves."
Not me, Mr. Weber. I won't vote for a traitor to his people, his class (the one he came from, not the one he aspires to), his party, and most of all, his own alleged beliefs.
Fact is, I don't think he believes in anything, and that makes him more dangerous (as we have seen) than a Republican true believer from whom we know exactly what to expect.
Thanks for making that clear for those with a short memory.
Is there someone who has put their name out there, or suggested that they would run, that you think would do a better job?
The WHOLE POINT, which it seems you and countless others who post here seem to have missed, is WHO is there that would better represent you, better address your concerns, and who is a VIABLE candidate?
I'm NOT an "Obama Supporter", but if you can't even offer up a name for someone that would present a legitimate challenge, either to the President, or to the Republican candidates, then you really aren't offering ANYTHING to the discussion.
bin Laden was a terrorist, not a foreign leader!
Now, with peace of mind, I can resume enjoying my universal healthcareÂ, bask in the booming peacetime economy, taunt the Wall Streeters and Bush cronies who are rotting in jail for their crimes, and breathe in that refreshingÂ, smog-free air.
I'm not one of them.
I've read many of your comments on this thread, your rebuttal of virtually any name suggested because they do not meet your definition of "Progressive", your demeaning attitude toward anyone who suggests that having such a rigid and ideologically pure expectation for elected officials (who are often voted in by people who expect that they will represent ALL their constituents) is unrealistic, your denigration of those who suggest that supporting the "best Candidate" is more practical than refusing support until we get a "prefect Candidate", and I can't help but be struck by the similarity, in your tone and temperament, to those on the extreme right.
Are you really suggesting that we on the Left, should impose a "purity test" on our Candidates? That it makes more sense for us to refuse to vote, rather than vote for someone who does not "fall in line" with our personal ideology? That seems a "winning strategy" to you?
In the last election (2010), less than 1/3 of the eligible voters, voted.
How is that working out for you and the "Progressive" agenda?
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/ns03312004a.cfm
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3426211/Bush+Signs+Tech+Tax+Break.htm
Sometimes we DO tend to forget important facts.
Otherwise, you are just throwing a tantrum.
Grayson
Kucinich
Dean
Richardson
there are any number of Democrat leaders who would bring an array of experience and tested leadership skills to the Presidency - skills and experience that Obama sorely lacks and is obviously unable to function without.
We can all be cynical and just let the whole thing be decided by campaign finance or we can support an actual leader.
We need to face reality. regardless of how much money Obama dumps into the election it will not wash away the bitter taste of his ineffectual incompentetn leadership and he will not be serving a second term. This does not mean that it is too late to replace him with a competent democrat leader, top oppsoe him in a primary and get somebody in the whitehouse with the chops to actually do the job well.
Do you know something different?
Sanders is the lone progressive in the US Congress today and he's an independent who self identifies as socialist. THAT'S why you should be voting third party. Because even one victory can change the game entirely.