"As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama."

[Mycroft]

Title says it all really. I'm no Democrat and no liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with him too and this article spells out pretty well why.

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama | Jeff Jarvis | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Just think, if all these disillusioned Democrats, liberals and progressives had been a bit more discerning, informed and thoughtful back in 2008, we might not be in the dire straits we are in right now.

But, hey...better late than never, eh?

 

[Andalublue]

Just think, if all these disillusioned Democrats, liberals and progressives had been a bit more discerning, informed and thoughtful back in 2008, we might not be in the dire straits we are in right now.

But, hey...better late than never, eh?

Ha ha! I was waiting for someone to make this point. Hands up any of those disillusioned Dems who thinks McCain or Romney would have been preferable? No, thought not.

There are many things Obama's done wrong, but in comparison with the previous bunch he's been a resounding success. Most of the disillusion stems from the great things Obama could have done and hasn't, rather than about all the terrible things he's done but shouldn't have. Let's take a little comfort from the fact that he hasn't declared war on Iran. I've no doubt that Romney would have done that by now.

 

[justabubba]

Title says it all really. I'm no Democrat and no liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with him too and this article spells out pretty well why.

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama | Jeff Jarvis | Comment is free | theguardian.com

as a survivor of 9/11 the author faults the intelligence agencies for not preventing that attack
yet his article is rife with resentment about the ways intelligence is being collected to avoid another such terrorist attack
he seems to wants it both ways: free from terror and free from intelligence gathering
it appears his expectations are beyond unrealistic


there are a variety of Obama administration shortcomings that could be cited, which were omitted
two immediately come to mind:
failure to prosecute the members of the prior administration for war crimes
failure to prosecute those those perpetrated the great recession

but criticizing the president for keeping us safe. hell no. that is his primary duty

 

[Fiddytree]

There are many things Obama's done wrong, but in comparison with the previous bunch he's been a resounding success. Most of the disillusion stems from the great things Obama could have done and hasn't, rather than about all the terrible things he's done but shouldn't have.

I'm more of the thought that although he no doubt could have done more so far, much of the time this is a reality check for true believers. The shame is that they instead grumble that more wasn't done, and still search on for something that won't exist.

 

[iliveonramen]

I think a lot of Democrats that voted for him in 2008 would change their mind in hindsight. Clinton was the person with the experience in dealing with conservatives and you knew what you were getting...a centrist with socially liberal leaning.

Obama promised a lot of lofty stuff...a change from the Clinton style Democratic party. Instead he's Clinton era politics but I don't think he's as competent/seasoned as Hillary is dealing with a Republican House and Washington DC in general.

 

[Fenton]

Just think, if all these disillusioned Democrats, liberals and progressives
had been a bit more discerning, informed and thoughtful back in 2008, we might not be in the dire straits we are in right now.

But, hey...better late than never, eh?

They're complaining he isn't Liberal enough though.

 

[Fenton]

Ha
ha! I was waiting for someone to make this point. Hands up any of those disillusioned Dems who thinks McCain or Romney would have been preferable? No, thought not.

There are many things Obama's done wrong, but in comparison with the previous bunch he's been a resounding success. Most of the disillusion stems from the great things Obama could have done and hasn't, rather than about all the terrible things he's done but shouldn't have. Let's take a little comfort from the fact that he hasn't declared war on Iran. I've no doubt that Romney would have done that by now.

Lol...like what ? What did he "do better" than the last administration and what are his "successes"?

 

[lolabird]

Lol!

If you say so. The man behaved like a petulant child during all of the presidential debates in '12, and basically threw a public temper tantrum after his ludicrous gun control measures got shot down earlier this year.

A generalized sense of "respect" is simply not something that our current president can easily command. He's honestly little more than an arrogant and overly idealistic dreamer, and it clearly shows in his policies and public demeanor.



Ohhhh... Off the top of my head, gun control, Obamacare, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Snowden, Assange, etca.

Need I go on?

No. Your harangue has served YOU well.

 

[iliveonramen]

Just think, if all these disillusioned Democrats, liberals and progressives had been a bit more discerning, informed and thoughtful back in 2008, we might not be in the dire straits we are in right now.

But, hey...better late than never, eh?

Haha! Yeah...good ol McCain and Palin would of whipped this country into shape.

 

[justabubba]

Haha! Yeah...good ol McCain and Palin would of whipped this country into shape.

thank you for that
read the post and could only respond with WTF?!
as if mKKKain and caribou barbie would have been able to accomplish any good

 

[Moot]

I don't think that Obama is a disappointment

At least, not for those of us who recognized him for what he is from the very beginning.

Don't you find it kind of frustrating when you're defending him and then he comes out and undermines what you're defending him for?


For instance, I defended him on staying out of the Syria and Egypt conflict. Then he drew a line in the sand on Syria and the line has been crossed several times until now there is no doubt that Assad is using chemical weapons and yet he is virtually silent and does nothing.....how do you defend him on that?

He doesn't defend Planned Parenthood and now women's rights are being eroded away. I was glad that he appointed women to his inner advisory circle....but he has appointed only men his second term. If he doesn't appoint Janet Yellen, instead of Larry Summers to chair the Federal Reserve, I'm afraid that will be the last straw for me.

He didn't defend ACORN and he should have. Then he comments on Trayvon Martin and gets the black community all excited and then he says nothing about the verdict. Is he now going to wait until black male teens go on a rampage all across America before he finally responds?

I like him....but I dunno.....he makes it very difficult to defend him.

 

[Andalublue]

For instance, I defended him on staying out of the Syria and Egypt conflict. Then he drew a line in the sand on Syria and the line has been crossed several times until now there is no doubt that Assad is using chemical weapons and yet he is virtually silent and does nothing.....how do you defend him on that?

It is by no means proven that the latest chemical weapon attack was carried out by the government side. Both sides possess chemical weapons and there's as much evidence of the rebels using them previously as there is of the government. The rush to judgement is being made in order to isolate the government's allies, Russia and China. It would be a very foolish to act until the proof is in, and even then, it would be essential to ensure that ALL chemical weapons were taken out of the game, not just the government's.

Syria threatens overall regional and global stability in a way that no other ME crisis has done so far, especially given the terrible state of US-Russian relations at present. Unilateral Western action is out of the question.

 

[Andalublue]

but criticizing the president for keeping us safe. hell no. that is his primary duty

You know full well that that is not what he is being criticised for from the left. I read a great quote from John LeCarré today:

"In order to win back our security we have given up many of our freedoms. Now we have to ask what we are prepared to sacrifice in order to win back those freedoms."

I don't see anyone, left or right, giving any thought to how to achieve that and, in the context of this thread, especially not the President. He seems to be more fixed on ceding further freedoms, especially those of privacy and freedom of expression.

 

[justabubba]

You know full well that that is not what he is being criticised for from the left. I read a great quote from John LeCarré today:

"In order to win back our security we have given up many of our freedoms. Now we have to ask what we are prepared to sacrifice in order to win back those freedoms."

I don't see anyone, left or right, giving any thought to how to achieve that and, in the context of this thread, especially not the President. He seems to be more fixed on ceding further freedoms, especially those of privacy and freedom of expression.

that is exactly what the author's rant is about
he complained that the 9/11 strike, which he survived, could have been averted with better intelligence
and then goes on to complain about the methods used to assemble better intelligence

 

[Slyfox696]

Basically, it seems this can be summed up as:

"As a person, I'm disappointed in the President because he doesn't do things the way I'd do them."

 

[Andalublue]

that is exactly what the author's rant is about
he complained that the 9/11 strike, which he survived, could have been averted with better intelligence
and then goes on to complain about the methods used to assemble better intelligence

At the expense of democracy, liberty and free expression. Not everyone is happy to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of security. Doing all you can to prevent terrorism does not include adopting the methods of those you are fighting.Doing so means they won. Are we accepting that they did? Why fight against tyranny if you use tyranny to do it? Extra-judicial killings, bombing civilians, ending free expression, relying on the total surveillance of your own population, funneling unlimited resources into the gaping maw of the arms industry and trampling on basic rights is a pretty big price to pay, one that the hard right is always willing to have others pay, but not what you'd expect from a supposed liberal.

 

[StillBallin75]

Title says it all really. I'm no Democrat and no liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with him too and this article spells out pretty well why.

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama | Jeff Jarvis | Comment is free | theguardian.com

I don't have a huge problem with President Obama but that may be because I'm completely jaded and disgusted by the political process. I personally believe that in the vast majority of cases, the actions of Democratic and Republican Presidencies don't matter all that much. Every four years we go through a political drama in which the candidates tend to engage in what Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences" where they try to elucidate why they're different. Yet largely when they get into office their policies don't differ all that much. Bush II's foreign policy wasn't all that different from that of his father or of Clinton despite claims to the contrary during campaign season. I don't believe McCain or Romney's foreign policies would be largely different from Obama's if they had been elected. Keep in mind that a lot of the NSA surveilliance bureaucracy was implemented under Bush. Same when it comes to domestic policy.

 

[Andalublue]

I don't have a huge problem with President Obama but that may be because I'm completely jaded and disgusted by the political process. I personally believe that in the vast majority of cases, the actions of Democratic and Republican Presidencies don't matter all that much. Every four years we go through a political drama in which the candidates tend to engage in what Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences" where they try to elucidate why they're different. Yet largely when they get into office their policies don't differ all that much. Bush II's foreign policy wasn't all that different from that of his father or of Clinton despite claims to the contrary during campaign season. I don't believe McCain or Romney's foreign policies would be largely different from Obama's if they had been elected. Keep in mind that a lot of the NSA surveilliance bureaucracy was implemented under Bush. Same when it comes to domestic policy.

All true. Makes 'Hope and Change' ring a bit hollow though, doesn't it? I'm not saying he's worse than predecessors, he's just not better, and that's got to be a disappointment, hasn't it?

 

[Fiddytree]

I don't have a huge problem with President Obama but that may be because I'm completely jaded and disgusted by the political process. I personally believe that in the vast majority of cases, the actions of Democratic and Republican Presidencies don't matter all that much. Every four years we go through a political drama in which the candidates tend to engage in what Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences" where they try to elucidate why they're different. Yet largely when they get into office their policies don't differ all that much. Bush II's foreign policy wasn't all that different from that of his father or of Clinton despite claims to the contrary during campaign season. I don't believe McCain or Romney's foreign policies would be largely different from Obama's if they had been elected. Keep in mind that a lot of the NSA surveilliance bureaucracy was implemented under Bush. Same when it comes to domestic policy.

The next step for me was acceptance of those smaller changes and then weighing my preferences accordingly.

I found out a lot of people get annoyed with politics once the initial hype seems different from reality, but my reaction ended up becoming more optimistic as a result of dreams being crushed.

 

[StillBallin75]

All true. Makes 'Hope and Change' ring a bit hollow though, doesn't it? I'm not saying he's worse than predecessors, he's just not better, and that's got to be a disappointment, hasn't it?

I don't think disappointment is the right way to phrase my feelings. More like I became more aware of reality. The reality that ultimately the President is more a figurehead than most of us would like to admit, and even the most idealistic President can be subsumed by political realities once he attains the office. Even Woodrow Wilson could only do so much.

 

[StillBallin75]

The next step for me was acceptance of those smaller changes and then weighing my preferences accordingly.

I found out a lot of people get annoyed with politics once the initial hype seems different from reality, but my reaction ended up becoming more optimistic as a result of dreams being crushed.

I just became more apathetic.

 

[Fiddytree]

I just became more apathetic.

Bah, it's good for you!

 

[cpwill]

as a survivor of 9/11 the author faults the intelligence agencies for not preventing that attack
yet his article is rife with resentment about the ways intelligence is being collected to avoid another such terrorist attack
he seems to wants it both ways: free from terror and free from intelligence gathering
it appears his expectations are beyond unrealistic

Here you are precisely correct

there are a variety of Obama administration shortcomings that could be cited, which were omitted
two immediately come to mind:
failure to prosecute the members of the prior administration for war crimes

That would have been a massive politicization of national defense which would have resulted in an uproar that would have made Obamacare look tame, and would certainly have led to intentions by Republicans to put his administration on trial as soon as they were out of office. It is difficult for me to imagine something that would have more swiftly destroyed any kind of national trust or ability to deal between the parties than the use of the judiciary to punish ones' political opponents - that is the kind of thing that happens in bannana republics.

failure to prosecute those those perpetrated the great recession

Tricky to do. How do you put "homebuyers" on trial? Not a courtroom big enough to hold everyone who bought a house they couldn't afford, or who lent them the money to do so.

but criticizing the president for keeping us safe. hell no. that is his primary duty

:shrug: so you may say - others may have said the same about George Bush. Tell you what - don't advocate for throwing the Bush administration in jail for how they did it, and we won't advocate for throwing the Obama administration in jail for how they do it.

 

[Dooble]

I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that no will EVER vote for him for president again.

I disagree. There's always a bid for kingship. Waddya say, Cap? You in?

 

[beerftw]

Title says it all really. I'm no Democrat and no liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with him too and this article spells out pretty well why.

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama | Jeff Jarvis | Comment is free | theguardian.com

not surprised,those who are democrats who support the ideology over party loyalty hated bush,but hate obama just as much or even more.

its the fact that obama has continued nearly everything bush did or expanded it,yet democras support it and opposed bush fordoing it,thus showing how many party loyalists there are.a democrat who is loyal to the liberal ideology over the party would oppose both bush and obama.


he is simply speaking the truth any true conseravitve or liberal would support,rather than the blind party loyalty that drowns airwaves tv stations and forums.