Entity: The Obama Administration

[krs]

I think a lot of this notion that his hands are tied is overstated. It's not that he is being prevented from moving progressive causes forward, he is not accomplishing anything progressive because he is not a particularly progressive leader

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a particularly progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

[projectMalamute]

I think a lot of this notion that his hands are tied is overstated. It's not that he is being prevented from moving progressive causes forward, he is not accomplishing anything progressive because he is not a particularly progressive leader

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a particularly progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

Sure, but our country has swung so far to the batshit insane right that I don't understand how an educated person who is not a sociopath can call ever-so-slightly left of center anything but crap.

[krs]

I voted Crap.

[projectMalamute]

Half the people here didn't though.

I thank that is insane.

[righthanded]

I think a lot of this notion that his hands are tied is overstated. It's not that he is being prevented from moving progressive causes forward, he is not accomplishing anything progressive because he is not a particularly progressive leader

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

yet you think progressives are immature for voting against him...

[projectMalamute]

I think a lot of this notion that his hands are tied is overstated. It's not that he is being prevented from moving progressive causes forward, he is not accomplishing anything progressive because he is not a particularly progressive leader

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

yet you think progressives are immature for voting against him...

That's a different question though.

If the situation is Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama is going to be the next president, and you are in a swing state, a case can be made that a reasonable person might vote Obama.

[mazacultura]

Interesting column in the LA Times on the weird legal grey zone insanity of the drone strikes.

Money quote from an ex-CIA director:

"Right now, there isn't a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel," Hayden told me recently.

As an example of the problem, he cites the example of Anwar Awlaki, the New Mexico-born member of Al Qaeda who was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen last September. "We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him," Hayden notes, "but we didn't need a court order to kill him. Isn't that something?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 903.column

[krs]

I think a lot of this notion that his hands are tied is overstated. It's not that he is being prevented from moving progressive causes forward, he is not accomplishing anything progressive because he is not a particularly progressive leader

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

yet you think progressives are immature for voting against him...

Did I use the word immature somewhere? Reactionary. Not very well though-out, maybe. I don't think I said they are immature.

I don't know who these people would vote for, anyway. I just saw that Rosanne Barr and someone named Jill Stein are in the running for Green Party candidacy. Ron Paul will not win a Republican nomination and is smart enough to know that third parties don't win elections in the U.S. I don't know.

[BClark]

Realism meets Idealism.

Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. You know that.

EDIT: I hope you know that.

If the best thing you can say about Obama is "Hey, he's no George W. Bush," that's hardly encouraging. Oh, so he's not quite as bad as Bush, or he has a better sense of PR (framing wars as "humanitarian" interventions and so on) than Bush... well congratulations, it sounds like you've found us the best possible leader of the free world. Or, as you put it, the most "realistic" choice.

Go back and read what I wrote on the previous page. You are jumping into the middle of a conversion you haven't been listening to.

i'm well aware of what you said on the previous page -- again, there your chief excuse for obama is that at least he's not saying "let's bomb iran!" like bush. i suppose you're right -- he's doing everything possible to antagonize iran except openly inciting the american public into a war against them the way bush did. evidently this is a crucial distinction for you, but again i hardly find it an encouraging one.

also you see his drone strikes (and their massive civilian death toll) as a significant step up from bush. in other words, a president kills X women and children, it's appalling, but 0.7*X would be ok... another distinction you see as crucial, and again one that hardly inspires the same sigh of relief in me as it does for you.

in any case my reply was applicable to both posts of yours. you're relieved to have obama because at least he's not bush. believe me, we get it.

[krs]

Realism meets Idealism.

Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. You know that.

EDIT: I hope you know that.

If the best thing you can say about Obama is "Hey, he's no George W. Bush," that's hardly encouraging. Oh, so he's not quite as bad as Bush, or he has a better sense of PR (framing wars as "humanitarian" interventions and so on) than Bush... well congratulations, it sounds like you've found us the best possible leader of the free world. Or, as you put it, the most "realistic" choice.

Go back and read what I wrote on the previous page. You are jumping into the middle of a conversion you haven't been listening to.

i'm well aware of what you said on the previous page -- again, there your chief excuse for obama is that at least he's not saying "let's bomb iran!" like bush. i suppose you're right -- he's doing everything possible to antagonize iran except openly inciting the american public into a war against them the way bush did. evidently this is a crucial distinction for you, but again i hardly find it an encouraging one.

Go back and read what I wrote again. You didn't understand it.

You will see that I was talking about the election of 2008. The choice in that election was between Barack Obama and John McCain. John McCain was taped in a video joking that he might like to Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran.

What I said, was given the choice of drone strikes or all out war, I chose drone strikes (although we didn't know what "stepped-up" tactics in Afghanistan meant at the time). They are both terrible options, but in a representative democracy system that only allows two choices, we always must choose the option that is less bad. This is the reality of our system. You will never have a 'great' president. They will all be tragically flawed and beholden to interests beyond that of the public they are supposed to serve. Insert another party in place of either of the two current parties, and we will devolve once again. It is the system of election that needs to change. The players are relatively meaningless in the long-term.

Given that we only had two valid choices for president, the U.S. made the correct decision in choosing drone strikes in Afghanistan (Barack Obama) over all-out war with Iran (John McCain).

[infidel]

This is about the NDAA? You're talking out your ass and full of shit, infidel.

Blaming Obama for something congress passed with veto-proof majorities is like blaming him for shitty supreme court decisions. You can make the argument that he should have jabber-jawed congress into submission, but in the end they are their own branch of government. Despite the way they rolled over for Bush, but that has more to do with half of them being in the pockets of moneyed interests.

When he was elected, he had a modest platform, but considering the state of the nation at the time, that was all that could really be hoped for. I certainly didn't expect some liberal messiah, and my limited understanding of how corrupt our government is and how it works tempered my expectations. And that was before the economy went straight down the shitter months before he took office. Even with the last part he's gotten most of his agenda through, albeit watered down at times.

When he was elected, democrats won a majority in the Senate, yes. Popular opinion was backing them and wanted bold action. Republicans, however, decided to block everything they possibly could within their power and forced most things to get through with a super majority. This swung the balance of power in the Senate to conservative democrats, moderate republicans, and Lieberman, who forced every piece of progressive legislation that was passed through the house to be watered down and more industry friendly. Obama could veto everything as not good enough, but the result would have been even less being accomplished.

The only time the Senate had enough democrats to overcome Republican obstruction was the months between Al Franken finally getting approved, and Ted Kennedy's death. That was it. The republicans strategy was to block as much as possible, and hobble the government from improving the economy to hurt the democrats reelection chances (which worked in 2010).

This was not fertile ground for anything too progressive, especially beyond what little Obama promised, and it was unrealistic to expect Obama to grandstand his way into getting anything more. Anyone to the left of Obama would face the same obstacles.

[numberthirty]

This is about the NDAA? You're talking out your ass and full of shit, infidel.

Blaming Obama for something congress passed with veto-proof majorities is like blaming him for shitty supreme court decisions. You can make the argument that he should have jabber-jawed congress into submission, but in the end they are their own branch of government. Despite the way they rolled over for Bush, but that has more to do with half of them being in the pockets of moneyed interests.

What he promised/how progressive his platform was has nothing to do with this. This is about messing with a citizen's rights. If congress us taking steps to attack a citizen's rights, it is the president's duty to veto whatever hits his desk. The fact that they may have the votes to get around a veto should not stop a president from using a veto.

[righthanded]

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

yet you think progressives are immature for voting against him...

Did I use the word immature somewhere? Reactionary. Not very well though-out, maybe. I don't think I said they are immature.

I didn't accuse you of using the word immature.

I am no fan of President Obama, but adults have to deal with reality. Facts, numbers, history. These matter. The inevitable reality is, a third party on ether side is a spoiler with no chance of winning. It's childish foot-stomping to vote for these people.

what does that mean? that people that vote 3rd party candidates aren't immature? mature childish foot-stomping?

[krs]

I don't understand why people are expecting him to be a progressive. He didn't run as one. He wasn't elected on a progressive platform. Early on, I heard it said that the Obama election was a national Rorschach test. I think it's a very apt description.

yet you think progressives are immature for voting against him...

Did I use the word immature somewhere? Reactionary. Not very well though-out, maybe. I don't think I said they are immature.

I didn't accuse you of using the word immature.

I am no fan of President Obama, but adults have to deal with reality. Facts, numbers, history. These matter. The inevitable reality is, a third party on ether side is a spoiler with no chance of winning. It's childish foot-stomping to vote for these people.

what does that mean? that people that vote 3rd party candidates aren't immature? mature childish foot-stomping?

These people probably aren't very well educated, politically. I guess I would call them immature in a political sense. Not very well developed or knowledgeable in history. I am not sure what a person thinks they are doing to change things by voting for a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning. If that person is voting to try and advance the party (get federal funding for the candidate or something), cool. I do that at the local level all the time. I also live in a very blue state, so I rarely have to worry about a Republican being elected to governor. At the national level, it's is absolutely not going to happen in 2012. Zero chance of a Green getting anymore than a few percent. The candidate will be Roseanne Barr or some woman few people have ever heard of. This election is going to polarized AS HELL. 2012 is not the year a third party will advance. It should be extremely obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

There is a workable strategy that exists for getting new parties in the mix, but it does not begin with the Presidency. Vote third party in your local elections. Vote third party at the state level. Maybe in the house or Senate if it makes sense. It will not happen in the race for President.

[numberthirty]

These people probably aren't very well educated, politically. I guess I would call them immature in a political sense. Not very well developed or knowledgeable in history. I am not sure what a person thinks they are doing to change things by voting for a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning. If that person is voting to try and advance the party (get federal funding for the candidate or something), cool. I do that at the local level all the time. I also live in a very blue state, so I rarely have to worry about a Republican being elected to governor. At the national level, it's is absolutely not going to happen in 2012. Zero chance of a Green getting anymore than a few percent. The candidate will be Roseanne Barr or some woman few people have ever heard of. This election is going to polarized AS HELL. 2012 is not the year a third party will advance. It should be extremely obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

There is a workable strategy that exists for getting new parties in the mix, but it does not begin with the Presidency. Vote third party in your local elections. Vote third party at the state level. Maybe in the house or Senate if it makes sense. It will not happen in the race for President.

If choosing not to vote for an out of touch rich guy or a sellout is not mature, please hand me my binky.

[krs]

Abstaning from the vote at least shows an understanding of reality. I can respect that.

[numberthirty]

Abstaning from the vote at least shows an understanding of reality. I can respect that.

I said I wouldn't vote for them. I never said I won't be voting for someone else.

[krs]

May your scream at the wall be very stress-releiving.

[Andrew.]

[Andrew.]

Jeremy Scahill returns from Yemen, where Obama has been propping up an autocratic regime and blowing up Bedouin families in their villages, to the entirely unpredictable effect of stoking "terrorism."

Washington's War in Yemen Backfires

The October drone strike that killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a US citizen, and his teenage cousin shocked and enraged Yemenis of all political stripes. “I firmly believe that the [military] operations implemented by the US performed a great service for Al Qaeda, because those operations gave Al Qaeda unprecedented local sympathy,” says Jamal, the Yemeni journalist. The strikes “have recruited thousands.” Yemeni tribesmen, he says, share one common goal with Al Qaeda, “which is revenge against the Americans, because those who were killed are the sons of the tribesmen, and the tribesmen never, ever give up on revenge.” Even senior officials of the Saleh regime recognize the damage the strikes have caused. “People certainly resent these [US] interventions,” Qirbi, the foreign minister and a close Saleh ally, concedes.

[...]

I ask him if he ever meets with top AQAP leaders. “Fahd al Quso is from my tribe,” he replies with a smile, referring to one of the most wanted suspects from the Cole bombing. He also says he met Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged “underwear bomber” charged with attempting to blow up a passenger flight over Detroit in December 2009. “I saw [Said] al-Shihri and [Nasir] al-Wuhayshi five days ago in Shebwa,” he casually adds, referring to the two senior AQAP leaders, both of them US-designated terrorists. “We were walking, and they said, ‘Peace be upon you.’ I replied, ‘Peace be upon you too.’ We have nothing against them. In the past, it was unthinkable to run into them. They were hiding in the mountains and caves, but now they are walking in the streets and going to restaurants.” Why is that? I ask. “The regime, the ministers and officials are squandering the money allocated to fight Al Qaeda, while Al Qaeda expands,” he says. The United States “funds the Political Security and the National Security [forces], which spend money traveling here and there, in Sanaa or in the US, with their family. All the tribes get is airstrikes against us.” He adds that counterterrorism “has become like an investment” for the US-backed units. “If they fight seriously, the funds will stop. They prolonged the conflict with Al Qaeda to receive more funds” from the United States.