As a fellow refugee from family Southern nut conservatism - my grandfather led the movement that (with HOW SHALL WE THEN LIVE by Francis Schaeffer as one of its texts...) split the Southern Presbyterian Church in two in the late '60s/early 70s - I am so appreciative of your work, Mr. Schaeffer. I long ago left the church and Christianity; but I feel that religion doesn't have to be bad. We've all seen many examples of religious belief helping turn a sad life around. I hope those who need the love and hope offered by a faith can always get it here in a nation that promises religious freedom.

There are ever-growing numbers of us in the South, I think - folks who hate that the church that preached love and fairness in our youth now seems to emphasize hate and money. We all suffer the uncomfortable feeling of being preached at, prayed for and dismissed at family gatherings. We try to appreciate that they grew up in this, but, for whatever reason, never had the need to question such a lifestyle. It's easier to believe and follow than to think for oneself for many of them. My family (daughters and wife) doesn't want to be with other family members due to the situation. They live in another world - a world of their own arts, schools, newscasts and persecuted worldview - each reinforcing the other. Some (many? most?) of such people aren't true believers but merely folks trying to make an easier buck by playing within the system. Perhaps they recognize, like right wing pols, that merely displaying a right-wing fool’s faith can be very good for the bottom line, as the gullible true believers are only too happy to part with their money if it involves dealing with anything claiming the faith.

I think my need to save the world came from my Mississippi Presbyterian youth; the need to do "the Lawd's work;" only I want to save the world now by having free and fair elections everywhere.

Go 'head, Mr. Schaeffer!
Have a blessed day!

:-0

shw

Frank, I must be very dense since I fail to see how the sending of 30,000 additional troops into the quagmire of Afghanistan is the best of several bad choices. In my ignorant way of thining, Obama's decision to continue the senseless spilling of blood in a pointless and unwinnable war raises questions about his mental competence.

I find it ironic that some dude who admits to being a "former religious Rightwing agitator" has the audacity to lecture me on how I should bow at the feet of Obama, his new savior.

Has Schaeffer substituted one authority figure for another? Dr. Altemeyer, University of Manitoba, describes this type of thinking in his (free online) ebook "The Authoritarians". His studies influenced John Dean for his book "Conservatives Without Conscience".

Perhaps Schaeffer should refrain from shouting "STFU" at those who never subscribed to right wing thinking in the first place.

Frank, Brad, Sibel: You, and the work you do, are why I make a monthly Paypal donation to this website. I am more moderate than you on many particular issues, mostly about tone. But this website breaks new ground and takes real risks on core issues that others are too timid, or just too conformist, to take on.

You make me think. You rekindle the passion for this democracy that periodically cools in the face of unrelenting attacks from the cynical, selfish and callous people who only see government service as a personal opportunity. I am now old enough to eschew easy victories and moments of supreme triumph. We do not live in the movies.

Obama still seems, to me, too good to be true. Let us not put all of the burden on him. We worked very hard to get him where he is. He will fail, if we fail. It is not his country alone to put on the right path again. It is our path, if we have the guts and stamina to travel it.

I very much appreciate this essay. It is timely to assess, realistically, this past year. I have children and grandchildren. We have a president again. We have hope. But we have work to do.

Thank you Frank! I have been deeply disheartened by the talk of how "disappointed" people are in President Obama to the point of actually being sick at heart. Sure I would have like all his pledges to be immediately fulfilled but I know realistically they take time. Perhaps most of the American people do not deserve a quality guy like Obama but deserved or not we have him. To that I say Harah!

Thank you, Mr Schaeffer. for writing what I have
been feeling for a long time. Give the guy a
chance. Bush was on vacation most of his terms.
I remember the first few months we hardly heard
from him at all. It took Sept 11th to wake him
up.

OBAMA WILL WIN?

Well then, we are all losers.

Frateretto calls me; and tells me
Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness.
Pray, innocent, and beware the foul fiend.

Mr. Schaeffer, you may like to look at the rosier side of everything the president has done. I do not disagree that some of what you say is true but you also have to look at his shortcomings and not dismiss them outright. Here are some of his shortcomings:
Yes, Obama said he ceased torture, yet there have been reports that secret sites and renditions have continued.
Obama was a Constitutional Law professor yet he has defended the alterations to the trends and precedents established by the Bush administrations that are unconstitutional, like Patriot Act wiretapping, and holding people with no charges and no chance of court hearings (except when they know they can win the case).
The Bradblog continues to report on the administration's defense of former governor Siegelman's conviction and allowed a huckster like former Senator Stevens to go free on technicalities.
Obama did not deserve the peace prize yet. There were other people/organizations who have been actively involved in peace activities for decades or centuries. Image is not peace.
Drawing down soldiers does not mean withdrawl, does not mean peace and definitely does not mean numbers will not be increased again.
George Bush was not thoughtful and made decisive and very wrong decisions. Fighting a drawn out conflict/war in Afghanistan is a no win situation. In Afghanistan Obama may have been thoughful but just as wrong as Bush.
As Obama's image in the US goes down so will his image abroad as they realize he is not that much different than previous presidents.
Yes in healthcare insurance companies can not deny people for preexisting conditions, but what will happen to the person making $100K/yr who has a preexisting condition and whose rates skyrocket so that they can not be afforded (no price caps allowed in the Senate bill). This person will fall through the cracks. (Makes too much to be helped by the government but not too much that this person could afford 30% or more of income going to health care.
You may call it stopping the job losses. I would call it continuing the Reagan era idea of trickledown economics. If the rich are protected and doing well they will allow some of their money to trickle down to the rest of us. We propped up the rich, and they have not reciprocated. We should have propped up the poor and those being evicted, which would have balanced the bad books of the banks and avoided massive homelessness and displacement of thousands or millions of citizens.
There are many reasons to be highly skeptical of Obama and his administration. I would like him to succeed but putting too much faith in politicians is a recipe for disappointment. His poll numbers are changing because a number of people on the left are disppointed in the presidents actions or inactions of issues that are important to us.

What sophistry.

I'm a 56 year old voter, registered Democrat since I could vote. I actually do vote every election and am do the boring work of a precinct committee person (get out the vote, distribute leaflets, etc.) and I know false arguments when I see them. I wonder why you are trying so hard.

You start out by insulting everyone, and creating a false equivalence (the hate-filled Right and the easily distracted Left) and then create straw man arguments which you easily burn down.

Just one example, of many:
"since all gay rights battles had not been fully won within virtually minutes ... they'd been betrayed!"

All of the gays I know are not concerned with what Obama has not done. They are concerned with what he has done. Your exaggeration of their position is completely fake. Here's what Obama has actually done in this first year for gays:

1) On day one, to perform the invocation of his hope and change administration, he invited a right-wing Christian minister who had actively been engaged in public gay hate speech and felt perfectly comfortable lying about it on television. Obama could have chosen any number of ministers, Christian or otherwise, but he chose one of the biggest dicks in the anti gay movement.

2) Changed his public commitment on "don't ask, don't tell" from the campaign and post-inauguration promise of 'repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy' to 'supports changing "Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces'. This was a clear walking back from a firm campaign promise. He also allowed executive branch spokespeople to go out and publicly announce that there wouldn't be any action on this in the near future.

3) He had made a campaign promise to eliminate the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Instead of acting on that promise, he first eliminated the promise from his website. (This is how it starts.) His justice department then went on to defend DOMA in court saying first that it would preserve scarce government resources to be able to deny equal benefits to same sex partners and surviving spouses of same-sex marriages. In the brief they even go so far as to use the laws against incest and child marriage laws to justify the constitutionality of DOMA.

He didn't have to defend the law in court. Other presidents have filed briefs opposing current laws when they felt they were unconstitutional. This was a deliberate act.

4) And this month the Obama administration refused to follow a federal judge's order to provide insurance benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee in San Francisco. They are actually defying a federal judge in order to enforce their strict interpretation of the law which the judge says is invalid in order to deny benefits to the same sex spouse of a legally married court employee.

They don't have to defy a judge to continue to enforce DOMA. They could do what most law abiding people do when a judge tells them to do something.

Is it any wonder that gay activists are organizing a contribution boycott of Obama and the Democratic leadership. It has nothing to do with what they *haven't* done. It's about actions, not words. (With Obama, the words are eloquent, but they are still cheap.)

This story could be repeated for issues involving torture, the civil and privacy rights of citizens, the explicit double cross about the importation of drugs (They said the were for it, then they actively blocked it in Congress, then they said they were still for it. Their talk really is cheap.) and more.

Obama's actions have been so far to the right of center that many people (yourself included) can't believe what they are seeing.

My 2 cents Frank....

It seems that you're considerably to the right politcally than most of us here at Bradblog...that's fine. I think your political views (center-right) make Obama's decisions fine with you...again fine.

But your judgements of our disappointments with Obama is very unfair...Obama's seemingly clever or cynically creating a expectation for progressives that he had NO INTENTION of delivering on makes me feel had...

Your judgements about our criticisms of Obama makes me wonder...when is it fair to call bullshit, bullshit ?

We better be holding Obama's ass to the fire...it's what all democratically elected officials should endure.

In my opinion Obama has folded on, sold out and pussy footed those that elected him...Obama seems to be a corporate lapdog.

Damn right we'll call him out on that.

I didn't BEGIN to be disappointed in Obama after he got in office - I was disappointed that he was even elected in the first place. You seem to have replaced your love for God with your love for Obama - shame on you.

You state that his critics are not appreciative of his successes - I ask what successes?
- Continued the draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq
We will NEVER leave Iraq - not even Obama will draw down the troops there - I will at least give him credit to know that once we have started that war, we must finish it.
- Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan
You feel that waiting 3 months to make the decision was good enough? I'm not sure we should be in Iraq OR Afghanistan, but for God's sake - if our men and women are there, we should support them! NO - he was not successful in dealing with the Afgan war.

- Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights
I really have no input on this issue - it would seem though, the gay's are not happy with his delayed and half-hearted speech.

- Restored America's image around the globe
Are you referring to the mocking and testing of US limits that nations around the globe are now engaging in? We've not seen this type of aggressive behavior from nations in a very long time.

- Banned torture of American prisoners
I guess you've not heard of rendition - a practice that both Bush and now OBAMA CONTINUES to engage in.

- Stopped the free fall of the American economy
Really? How so? Are you referring to the way we are monetizing our own debt - printing money day and night - and the continued fall of the US dollar?

- Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community
Oh, you mean the way he alienates allies like Israel, Britain, and France, yet embraces Islamic and African nations?

- Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming
oh yeah, that meeting at Copenhagen went SO well - NOT.

- Stood up for educational reform
I must have missed this one entirely. Perhaps he did that when he placed his daughters in PRIVATE school, rather than in public school.

- Won a Nobel peace prize
For doing what exactly? Perhaps the Nobel committee knew he was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan - yeah, that's it!

- Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances
Yes, so the terrorists can make a mockery of our judicial system and KSM can walk out of the courtroom a free man with knowledge of many foreign secrets obtained through discovery. This is exactly what New York needed in the way of added financial burden on a state already going bankrupt.

- Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin
Oh, are you talking about the corrupt backroom deals being made to buy the needed votes for bills are are written in the dead of night behind closed doors that the Senators themselves, let alone the American public have no clue what they contain? I have no problem with health care reform, I have a problem with continued corruption and passing a bill (any bill) in order to be able to claim victory, no matter what the cost to the American people or what the legislation says.

- Responded to hatred from the Right and Left with measured good humor and patience
Oh, are you referring to wanting to shut down Fox, talk radio, and the Internet because that's where his dissenter's are coming from? Or perhaps you are referring to the many lies that keep spewing from his lips in good humored response to all that opposition.

- Stopped the free fall of job losses
Yes, yes, yes! The way he promised that if we were to HURRIEDLY pass that Stimulus bill, unemployment would not exceed 8%! Yeah, I noticed it was over 10%, but I guess you are not counting that? Or maybe you are referring to the fact that each one of those jobs he created with that pork ridden stimulus bill costs well over $100K EACH!

- Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far Right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty"...
Last time I checked, this was a free country - are you suggesting that it shouldn't be? Are you suggesting that we should not be free to show up in protest at public meetings? Are you also suggesting that ONLY the far right showed up? You are wrong - moderates as well a far left showed up armed in protest.

- Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly
I must have missed that brilliant explanation. Of course, every time I try and watch his ping-pong speeches, I'm lulled to sleep from the boring sound of his droning voice. He has YET to explain Health Care - simply because I don't even think HE knows what is in those bills! He has yet to give a good reason why it took him 3 months to make a decision with such few options.

I think you are picking and choosing the good that you see Obama doing and not focusing on his actions as a whole.

I can deal with most of the policy changes, I can deal with governing from the left, but I sense and feel a growing divide and uneasy feeling with foreign affairs - never have we had so many nations testing and pushing the limits as we have now. Never have we had so many outspoken rulers mocking and chiding our president until now. Obama's inability to deal effectively with foreign nations and rogue rulers makes me quite uneasy and fearful of what the future could possibly bring due to his lack of experience and ability to make quick and informed decisions.

Thank you Frank Schaeffer. I will agree that President Obama deserves much more credit than he as received from the Left. The outright vitriolic cowardice from the Right is beyond comprehension as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Schaeffer, I Crazy for God and liked it and respect you for it all. But I must respond to your list of so-called accomplishments. And I'm only scratching the surface here, others have written far better than I (see Drew Weston in today HuffPo for example)

Continued the draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq

--Not true.

Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan

-- Sure - and escalated into Pakistan. Possibly Yemen soon.

Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights

-- Guy talks a good game for sure. Yet DOJ has further litigated against gay rights (I think Brad blogged on this)

Restored America's image around the globe

-- Really? The world thinks he's full of crap after his bullshit appearance and hissy demands in Copenhagen. And for receiving Nobel while escalating American Imperialism even further than Bush, if possible.

Banned torture of American prisoners

-- Talks a good game. Still black sites torturing & CIA torturing. Has not repealed policy.

Stopped the free fall of the American economy

-- Yup, no more free fall for banker boys!!!

Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community

-- Huh? Too much for one sentence.

Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming

-- See above re Copenhagen. Listen to Democracy Now! this morning. Not so much.

Stood up for educational reform

-- Huh? Hired Arne Duncan who wants to privatize education and also have military schools and is funding these schools for lower grades even as we speak. Even Obama wouldn't send his kids to public school in Chicago.

Won a Nobel peace prize

-- See above. An embarassment.

Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances

-- OK. For 2 or 3. The rest are military commissions and stuck in jail. Oh and he also has initiated "preventive detention."

Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin

-- the biggest corporate giveaway to the Medical Industrial Complex and private corporations ever (well, except for the recent bank bailouts). Will break the American people who cannot afford forced overpriced payments to private insurers while still having to pay for most of their own health care needs due to high co-pays, deductibles, even further lossening of regulations. Oh, and women lose even more abortion rights. Nice touch. Oh, and let Joe Lieberman look like it was his fault there's no public option and extended Medicare, when in fact it's exactly the bill White House wanted from the beginning. Lied to American people. Big time.

Responded to hatred from the Right and Left with measured good humor and patience

-- that's a good thing? The Right and the Left are not equal. He should call out the crazy people. The so-called "left" who want single payer/public option??? They're the majority of Americans. The so-called "left" who want us out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?? They're the majority of Americans. Everyone should take the "left/right" name-calling and shove it, it's bullshit.

Stopped the free fall of job losses

NOT. Not even close. Numbers are not falling as fast right now BECAUSE IT'S CHRISTMAS WORK. Will plunge drastically in January. The only time Americans will stop losing jobs is when minimum wage in China and Mexico rises to $6 an hour and when all wages in U.S. fall to $6.

Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far Right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty"...

????

Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly

Guys a good speaker. And a liar.

I've got my own differences with Frank's position, but I'll raise them on air next week when I'm guest hosting the Mike Malloy Show (from Dallas!) and Frank will be one of my guests.

For now then, I can't help but respond to a few of Sally Hill's ridiculous comments to Frank's piece. She said:

You feel that waiting 3 months to make the decision was good enough? I'm not sure we should be in Iraq OR Afghanistan, but for God's sake - if our men and women are there, we should support them!

Sorry, gotta call bullshit wingnut-ism here. Fact is, whether you like the decision Obama eventually made, he took an appropriate amount of time in an appropriately deliberative process. Gen. McChrystal made his private recommendations, and asked for action to be taken in 2010. Obama is doing exactly that.

Criticize Obama's eventual decision all you like, but please spare us the "we should support [the troops]!" bullshit. Obama has, so far, been FAR more supportive of the troops than Bush ever was, in more ways than there are pixels here to enumerate. And I have skin this game in Afghanistan. The troops are not anymore yours to use as political chess pieces than they were for Bush or they would be for Obama now.

NO - he was not successful in dealing with the Afgan war.

Frank never asserted that he was. Argue his point, if you wish, but you are not welcome to make one up out of whole clothe. Obama's success or failure in Afghanistan hasn't even begun to reveal itself either way, as I suspect you know. Or would be, if your partisanship hadn't otherwise blinded you so.

- Restored America's image around the globe
Are you referring to the mocking and testing of US limits that nations around the globe are now engaging in? We've not seen this type of aggressive behavior from nations in a very long time.

Just how delusional are you? If there was any question of that, your comment above should clarify it to those who are still in touch w/ reality.

- Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming
oh yeah, that meeting at Copenhagen went SO well - NOT.

Believe it didn't? You may be right. Believe it would have gone better without Obama's last minute intervention? If so, you have no clue what happened in Copenhagen.

- Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances
Yes, so the terrorists can make a mockery of our judicial system and KSM can walk out of the courtroom a free man with knowledge of many foreign secrets obtained through discovery. This is exactly what New York needed in the way of added financial burden on a state already going bankrupt.

Your concern for NY's economy is moving. That said, did I miss your objections when Bush tried terrorists in the U.S. courts? Or when Clinton tried them in NY? Or when Guilliani lauded both of them for having done so? (See above ref to your sad, blind partisanship.)

As to "walk[ing] out of the courtroom a free man", Obama's already said that's not going to happen, which is, I should add, to his shame. If you want to criticize Obama here, it's for the rigged system of justice that he's agreed to continue from the Bush Administration, though, to be fair, that administration didn't leave him with many choices, having committed so many war crimes we are left with almost no other options beyond using a rigged judicial system of "justice" or letting all of those held and tortured illegally (like KSM) walk free.

- Responded to hatred from the Right and Left with measured good humor and patience
Oh, are you referring to wanting to shut down Fox, talk radio, and the Internet because that's where his dissenter's are coming from?

If you believe he "want[ed] to shut down Fox, talk radio, and the Internet", you are either pathetic misinformed, or deranged with tea baggery. I'll welcome you to share your evidence of any attempt by Obama to "shut down Fox, talk radio, and the Internet". You have none, other than horseshit you've been fed by Fox "News" who count on suckers like you believing their bullshit.

- Stopped the free fall of job losses
Yes, yes, yes! The way he promised that if we were to HURRIEDLY pass that Stimulus bill, unemployment would not exceed 8%! Yeah, I noticed it was over 10%, but I guess you are not counting that?

Uh, feel free to share with us his "promise" to that end. I'll look forward to your quote. (Though I'll be waiting a life time for it, of course.)

Last time I checked, this was a free country - are you suggesting that it shouldn't be? Are you suggesting that we should not be free to show up in protest at public meetings?

Your "patriotism" and "love of country" is impressive! But, um, where was vitriol when Bush was arresting folks for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to rallies? Or even for wearing anti-Iraq t-shirts to State of the Union Speeches? Or did you only become "patriotic" recently? Feel free to point me to your outraged comments attacking Bush when he did that, and I"ll be free to apologize.

I can deal with most of the policy changes, I can deal with governing from the left

Me too. Wish he would. Lemme know when that happens.

but I sense and feel a growing divide and uneasy feeling with foreign affairs

Then join the rest of us in the real world, by watching something other than Fox "News".

never have we had so many nations testing and pushing the limits as we have now.

See above. Seriously, Glenn Beck won't take it personally.

Never have we had so many outspoken rulers mocking and chiding our president until now.

Seriously, have you been on a different planet for the last 8 years?!

Obama's inability to deal effectively with foreign nations and rogue rulers makes me quite uneasy and fearful

Ah, "fearful". There's the key. Fox "News" = mission accomplished on that point. Try turning it off. The fear may instantly vanish. Or you can keep cowering under your desk, and duct-taping your windows so those skeery skeery evil turrists don't getcha!

his lack of experience and ability to make quick and informed decisions.

Well, your man Bush made "quick" decisions anyway. The informed part? Um, not so much. Thank god in heaven that he's gone. And the cleanup from the disaster continues. Thanks for reminding us...

SunnySteve said:

Frank, Brad, Sibel: You, and the work you do, are why I make a monthly Paypal donation to this website. I am more moderate than you on many particular issues, mostly about tone. But this website breaks new ground and takes real risks on core issues that others are too timid, or just too conformist, to take on.

Just a quick note to say thanks, Steve. Of course, for your support. But even more so for your willingness to see beyond whatever superficial issues that you may take with our work here --- on political positions, or "tone", as you see it --- to focus on content and substance over form. The former is what matters, the latter is, perhaps, just a delivery system.

Wish there were millions more like ya!

Hey Frank, dont know if I agree with you totally about Obama but appreciate you expressing your views.
If you feel like getting your feet wet, FDL is calling everyone together (lurkers) HERE for views on the HC situation. It's worth a read, if nothing else. (or maybe not....) It sure doesnt hurt to bring ALL together to discuss our thoughts together, collectively...and ultimately civilly.

Wow! You managed to voice everything I have been thinking and then some. If all the haters had bothered to listen to Pres. Obama over the course of the past few years they would know that he is doing exactly what he set out to do, act like a grown up in a sea of whiny spoiled children.

Thanks Frank, I am a huge fan of your musings. This one I am printing and saving for the ages, along with my "I Was There" election night button, my Obama for president sticker, my thank you for canvassing and contributing letter, and every other thing that connects me to the leader that will go down in history as one of this country's greatest. I know he will because I was dead on about predicting that the horseless cowboy would be one of the worst.

But wait! In tonight's exciting episode of "Punch the Dirty Fucking Hippies!" I've yet to see a solipsisization of exactly why we're paying Blackwater to slaughter dozens of exactly 30 random people in Pakistan with a Hellfire MAC missile every time a Pakistani with a grudge drops a rupee on a neighbor they're not fond of.

(That's the amazing power of American technology! Collateral losses from these drone strikes are always 30 people... exactly! Who'd have thought that an anti-tank missile retrofitted with a thermobaric warhead would have such precise discrimination?)

Anyway... your premise is still as full of holes as it was when you essayed this topic a few days ago.

This is your second attempt at a "Redeem Obama" article, and while it is better thought out than your first attempt you are still avoiding the worst of what Obama has done in your attempts to paper over his failings with what you argue are his "successes".

I could spend the evening composing a point-by-point refutation of your claims but I'm tired so for now I'll just pick one that shows clearly the peculiar set of filters you're viewing Obama through:

"Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)"

You misspelled that. Let me help you...

"Moved the trial of certain selected accused terrorists back into the American judicial system while simultaneously declaring their guilt in advance over national media... while also at the same time condemning other accused terrorists to military show trials and/or indefinite detention and forever denying them their day in a real court because the evidence to convict them was either non-existent and/or was obtained by torture."

Get it? You can't trumpet the trials in NYC while at the same time carefully ignoring the people who are being denied trials.

That's your difficulty in a nutshell.

As for the health care reform health insurance reform corporate feudalism that Obama coerced out of the Senate... and his and Emanuel's fingerprints are all over that bloody hatchet... well you might want to try reading about

what your favorite corporate tool...

has actually done to us with regard to his 'promises'...

... and then you might begin understand why, in his haphazard attempts to avoid a repeat of the 1994 Dem electoral route by punching the Dirty Fucking Hippies as hard as he can while simultaneously sweet-talking them, Obama is actually insuring that 1994 will happen all over again for Dems.

But that's okay too, as his real masters will be served no matter what and Obama will be duly rewarded.

No, Obama will "win" only in as much as he will see to it that the corporations are appeased and that the oligarchs are mollified. That's his day job and Obama regards we, the people, as only pawns in the multidementional chess games he plays while kowtowing to the elites.

Frank, I would call you an intellectual lightweight, but you aren't that smart. I am so far above you intellectually I can't even see you down there. If you were to live 10,000 lifetimes and were to carry what you learned from one life to the next, you couldn't even begin to understand things the way I do now.

What you wrote will come back to bite you. Let's see if you're bright enough to realize what a fool you are when it happens. I doubt it.

I agree with Terry Cardwell - Obama is doing exactly what he said he would as he campaigned.

Why must everyone continue with the Bush this and Bush that, and a huge mess to clean up. Yada, yada, yada.

Is this meant to imply that Obama had no clue who the previous president was and what a mess he had made of things? You mean to tell me he had no idea of what he was getting himself into? Perhaps people forget that the Dems controlled Congress for the last 2 years of the Bush Admin - just who's mess is he really trying to clean up....Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's, and Waxman's perhaps? And Obama campaigned for a job that he seemingly wanted, then he wants to take office and act like he had no idea of the mess Bush and the Dems made and wants to continue to whine incessantly about it. I'm thinking he could have stopped campaigning and dropped out of the race if he felt it was just too overwhelming of a job for him, or he felt inept to handle the mess. Seems to me, he had no clue and was too egotistical to drop out even though it would appear that the job is over his head.

And Frank - what part of my post said I watched Fox? What part of my post said Bush was 'my man'? That's that I thought. Yes, I do watch Fox - at times, along with CNN and I listen to radio shows across the board, not just conservative talk. I visit many blogs, not just this one. I had no clue this blog was in existence when Bush was president or perhaps you would have seen my rantings about his poor decisions and my opposition to his actions - the very same actions that Obama continues to this day.

How could I possibly be against Obama and support Bush? They are one in the same, there is no difference in the two administrations. If you dislike Bush, then you dislike Obama - if you like Bush, then you like Obama. That's pretty simple.

I'm glad you think KSM will get a rigged trial and be found guilty irregardless of procedure. You have more faith in what Obama says than I. I do hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right. The man is guilty, he stated that of his own free will and asked to be put to death for his crimes. Why in the hell does Holder and Obama feel that they must now try him and in a civilian court no less? My guess is it is a back door way to put the Bush administration on trial, what they wanted to do in the first place.

For that, I have no problems, but what goes around, comes around. At some point, Obama will no longer be president - and there is no telling what crimes the next administration might decide the Obama administration committed. This is the exact reason why this must not be allowed to happen - why administrations need not speak ill of the previous administrations - for eventually, they will be the previous administration. Unless Obama plans to be the last administration prior to creating a One World Government and being World President - which I do believe he has already started campaigning for.

Do I believe he accomplished anything at Copenhagen - NO! I think he made the US look weak and accomplished not a single thing. Funny, lots of commentators on both CNN and Fox feel the same way I do about his appearance there.

If you want to play semantics, then I'm wrong, Obama never stated that unemployment wouldn't go over 8% - but his administration did publish a report showing a graph of unemployment numbers with and without the stimulus. I guess any report generated by the Obama Admin doesn't necessarily mean Obama supports it. LOL
"Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009." Since then, the Obama Admin has indicated that they projected the wrong numbers. Hummm...how about that. And are you disputing the fact that the Stimulus bill was RUSHED through Congress? or were you just playing semantics with me on what Obama actually 'said'?

I noticed your Alinsky style of attacks, more so toward the end of your response to me. I'm an America, if you are an American too, then we are on the same side and there should be no name calling or insults hurled at each other. Grow up! Debate the issues and stop trying to intimidate with your insults - it won't work.

David Lipscomb @ 19:

Your comment was so absurd and over the top, I might have assumed it was satire, until I just read this comment that you left on another thread.

Either your satire misses by "10,000 lifetimes", or you are so lost in your tea baggery and wingnutism, it's remarkable you're even able to come up for air.

I'll hope it's the former, rather than the latter.

Sally Hill said @ 20:

Why must everyone continue with the Bush this and Bush that, and a huge mess to clean up. Yada, yada, yada.

Sally, I do believe you just won the "Most Naive, Understatement of the Year Award".

Perhaps people forget that the Dems controlled Congress for the last 2 years of the Bush Admin - just who's mess is he really trying to clean up....Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's, and Waxman's perhaps?

No. Bush's. And the Republicans'.

And Frank - what part of my post said I watched Fox? ... Yes, I do watch Fox

You don't say. And you're replying to me, not Frank. I was the one who blasted you in the previous comment, not Frank. He's the one who wrote the original article above.

I had no clue this blog was in existence when Bush was president or perhaps you would have seen my rantings about his poor decisions and my opposition to his actions

Cool. Then you should be able to point us to links from all those blog comments you made elsewhere to show us that disdain. I believe I requested a link in my reply above, to your previous comments expressing your outrage for Bush trying terrorists in American courts. Got such a link?

(Along with any of the others I requested, like evidence of Obama trying to shut down Fox, or any of the other substantless allegations you made in your original comment above?)

I'm glad you think KSM will get a rigged trial and be found guilty irregardless of procedure.

"Irregardless" is not a word. Just FYI.

(re: KSM) The man is guilty, he stated that of his own free will and asked to be put to death for his crimes. Why in the hell does Holder and Obama feel that they must now try him

Um, cuz that's what we do in this country, according to the U.S. Constitution, that you must also disdain? As to what he admitted "of his own free will", what did he admit? What makes you think it was of his own free will as opposed to having done so under repeated torture? And, even it was, you've never heard of someone confessing to a crime they never committeed? Really? Yes, that's why we have a judicial system. If you don't care for it, please move to Iran or N. Korea, or wherever your sense of morality and justice might find a better match than it does here in the U.S.A.

My guess is it is a back door way to put the Bush administration on trial, what they wanted to do in the first place.

I wish! But your evidence for them "want[ing] to do [that] in the first place" is what exactly? The fact that they didn't???

there is no telling what crimes the next administration might decide the Obama administration committed. This is the exact reason why this must not be allowed to happen - why administrations need not speak ill of the previous administrations - for eventually, they will be the previous administration.

.

No. That is why we have a justice system which holds trials in public, so no adminstration can hold someone guilty for a crime they didn't commit (at least that's the theory, anyway.) If Obama commits any crimes he should be held accountable for it. I can't believe you just announced that all Presidents should be above the law. Have I mentioned the great fit you seem to be with the governments of Iran and N. Korea? I hear the Taliban is looking for fresh leadership? Are you available to relocate?

Do I believe he accomplished anything at Copenhagen - NO! I think he made the US look weak and accomplished not a single thing. Funny, lots of commentators on both CNN and Fox feel the same way I do about his appearance there.

Well, then, that's evidence enough for me! BTW, what was the agreement Obama was able to broker in Copenhagen? Do you have any idea? Or will you answer be as utterly bereft of any actual information as this one was in reply to my first comment to you?

If you want to play semantics, then I'm wrong, Obama never stated that unemployment wouldn't go over 8% - but his administration did publish a report showing a graph of unemployment numbers with and without the stimulus.

"Semantics", telling the truth, whatever. As a reminder, you said, in your first reply:

So he made no such "promise"? And you're admitting you either lied or got it entirely wrong? Good. That's the right thing to do. Please avoid knowing disinformation again here in the future, as that is one of the few posted rules we have here that, when broken, will get you banned.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you are quoting in your graf which includes quotes, so it's pointless to comment to that.

And are you disputing the fact that the Stimulus bill was RUSHED through Congress? or were you just playing semantics with me on what Obama actually 'said'?

I don't think either Frank or I suggested it wasn't rushed through. And thankfully so. They are to be commended for acting so quickly and judiciously. Too bad they did such a crappy job in the bargain of writing the actual bill.

I noticed your Alinsky style of attacks, more so toward the end of your response to me.

Who is Alinsky? And why do Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and now Sally Hill keep referencing him or her? I suspect that's another answer I won't get from Sally. As I suspect she doesn't know who Alinsky is either, other than what Glenn and Rush has told her about him/her, whoever he/she is.

But yeah, other than that, thanks for noting my Alinsky style of attacks! If you like those, you should see my Shmolinsky style of wardrobe!

Good luck with the blood pressure issue, Sally.

Comment @22

But yeah, other than that, thanks for noting my Alinsky style of attacks! If you like those, you should see my Shmolinsky style of wardrobe!

I spit my pepsi when I read that...LOL!!!

Classic...friggin' classic...

add comedian to Brad's resume...

This article is so full of shit, I'm quite frankly afraid to touch it!

In Education alone, Mr. Schaeffer is way off by giving Obama pass.

Thousands of Public Schools nationwide are being readied to be tipped-over to private Corporate Ownership, due partly to the ongoing efforts of Obama's own Corporate Robot Arnie Duncan.

It started with Bush and has picked
up steam under Obama.

These and other Education Issues,
ignored by a complicit Corporate Media,
are documented brilliantly
on sites such as:

http://www.susanohanian.org/

Funny, the wingers think Saul, George, Jeremiah are O's mentors when actually it was most likely Milton and Alisa Rosenbaum. O's grandma was a banker so we know where his influence came from as he was growing up.
Sally is another that didn't "wake up" 'til after the brown person got 'lected and then went to all the wrong locations to get her start up info into politics.

Zapkitty - yer awesome!

Sally Hill - keep posting...pleeease!

Brad - keep responding to Sally.

Frank...well, Frank, I've let you know how I feel about your take in previous postings. You should feel lucky to have Brad here to *somewhat* defend you, as you defend Obama.

Brad - is this the same article that Frank accidentally published last week, and then had removed...the one I spent an exceptionally long time responding to on Frank's comments about the teacher's unions?

Obama has used up his first year honeymoon with very little of the change he promised. As this video of an Iraq veteran's speech shows, Obama and Bush are standing together as they are both "war presidents" now. You can plead for more patience and ultimately people will have little voting choice anyway. But it's well known that any change needed to happen in this first year.

Soul Rebel

No, that was more of a generic plea for people to stand with him against the rising tide of Obama criticism. He also lashed out at public school teachers, of all people, for supposedly leading a conspiracy against Obama.

(Then again Obama is spending a lot of quality executive time lashing out at public school teachers by corporatizing schools right and left so I guess Frank's attack fit that mold.)

This article is much better written, more focused with more examples... and is just as wrong.

rats... my comment #30 was in reply to Soul Rebel's question in #28 but I dropped the attribution...

... and I typo'd "Hellfire MAC" in my comment #18...

... nap time!

[ed note: I fixed 'em fer ya. Sleep tight. --99]

comments 8 and 9 are sharp and well aimed. 14 as ever is spot on. 18 is scary sharp and brings most of my points home well.

Frank, I appreciate your changed perspective and efforts to learn more. We're all working at that same task. What most of us here are trying to say nicely is "Learn faster dude. And help us to learn faster too.

Take a look at past predictions of folk like Matt Taibbi and Elliot Spitzer and Dmitry Orlov. Then take a look at their accuracy. Finally please take a much longer look at what they're saying today.

Obama has changed the tone of the administration's propaganda. He's moving Bush/Cheney agenda more aggressively than they did.

One of the wisest points I've heard raised in the last month is that Obama is doing exactly what he stated. That statement is accurate in that he's doing exactly what realists like Naomi Klein outlined any real Friedman student will do as a died in the wool NeoLiberal. Where Obama flat out lied is in the statements obviously intended to woo Progressives.

Statements about plans to support labor and rein in out of control robber barons (naming some of them like Walmart), renegotiating NAFTA, bringing back Constitutional Law, bringing meaningful change throughout our system.

Frank. No meaningful change has taken place. It's all gotten worse. Granted, the ship of state he pledged to turn around isn't going to change directions quickly nor easily. He isn't turning at all though. In fact, he's accelerating in the wrong directions even while Rahm and all argue and slap down the Progressives in their own party as they protect the demagogues like Lieberman and the wingnut Repugs and Dems.

So Frank, please save the strawman arguments for a less well informed crowd. Brad and all support our literacy well. Please try to keep up with us all better. And good luck on Mike Malloy's show next week. I wanna see you do well so I can get help relating in some meaningful manner with my still religious right family and friends.

Thank you Brad and all, JN
ps. Let's all keep in mind how aggressively and effectively Rahm, Barak and Biden are protecting US war criminals while refusing to fulfill their duty as protectors of Constitutional Law. Hell they haven't even fired Karl Rove's handpicked US Attorneys.
pps. comments 25 and 26 rock too. I keep forgetting all the corporate oligarchic fascist takeovers BushBama's rushing through. Probably easier to look up the staff he's assembled (when he wasn't busy purging real Progressives) and their careers. Arne Duncan? Tim Geitner? Ben Bernanke? Leura Canary? Rahm Emmanuel? His choices for watchdogs of industry from the biggest offenders in industry? Monsanto? Diebold?..... Seriously, why doesn't he save us all the hassle and just openly put Rove back in his old office space?

No blood pressure problems here, sorry to disappoint.

Why is it that when you Obama supporters run out of excuses for him, you resort to correcting people's typo's, punctuation, spelling, and grammar? LOL It's become so common place, it must be in your rule book that the Obama camp gives those that are paid bloggers or either just volunteer for the job.

Am I admitting I was wrong? Did I lie? - NO, but if it makes you feel better to think I was and did, go right ahead, or ban me if it would help. I gave you a quote from their campaign that backed up what I paraphrased - if you don't believe it - then do some research, it's out there.

Why does everyone have to be wingnuts and whatever else you call people just because they have a different opinion? I have argued with you just fine without resorting to calling you names or trying to degrade you in any way. It's called respect for your fellow American - too bad the nation as a whole no longer sees such an attribute as important.

People's blogs go into archives after awhile, and I post here and there and when it is no longer intellectual, I drop the blog and go elsewhere - I'm not loyal to any one blog. I tried to find a post of mine from just 3 months ago, and couldn't remember the blogs name, finally found it, and the whole original post had been removed along with the comments. I have no idea why you feel I am lying to you, I've told you, I didn't like Bush any more than I like Obama. I have real problems with the stunts the Bush Admin pulled.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you know well who Alinsky is, but we can both pretend you don't if it makes you feel better. It's very odd how the same tricks of the trade are used on these blogs when the Obama supporters start loosing the debate. LOL At first it bothered me, because it just seemed like a cheap way out - but now that I have come to know the trend and trickery, I find it rather amusing and know that it's my cue to move along.

Always the same - degrade the poster then plead with them to keep posting. So if little Johnny goes out on the playground for lunch and Harry, Nancy, and Barack constantly call him names and demean him - you think he is going to continue to go out on the playground at lunch - or maybe he'll just eat lunch in the cafeteria where the intellectuals eat.

Floridiot- the president is brown? Humm...I had forgotten, but your right! Since he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents, went to predominantly white schools and ivy league colleges, he just seems white to me, I guess because he acts just like Bush. I guess that makes me a racist or something. So how would you go about explaining my awakening when Bush was in office? Is he a different color too and I just didn't notice it because of my wingnuttery issues?

Nahhh, nothing to see here, no real substance, no real debate, just a lot of name calling, and intolerance of an opposing position and opinion. All these blog owners kill me - they want their hit count up, want people to come and then allow degrading and demeaning posts to visitors. No integrity. So long and farewell, maybe someone new will come along that you can call names!

Take care and Merry Christmas!

Not to pile on, Frank, and I know you've got a lot of reading here, but here's some more inventories of this sorry presidentin':

http://sjlendman.blogspo...etrayal-and-failure.html

http://www.thenation.com...portunity_to_big_to_blow

http://www.rall.com/2009...-foreclose-on-banks.html

http://motherjones.com/p...behind-real-size-bailout

Nice to see you back, Sally! Is Beck's re-run already finished tonight?

Why is it that when you Obama supporters run out of excuses for him, you resort to correcting people's typo's, punctuation, spelling, and grammar?

Dunno. Go ask an Obama supporter.

LOL It's become so common place, it must be in your rule book that the Obama camp gives those that are paid bloggers or either just volunteer for the job.

You mean the Alinsky rule book?! If so, and if it talks about how to be paid to be a blogger, please let me know where I can find that book!

Am I admitting I was wrong? Did I lie? - NO, but if it makes you feel better to think I was and did, go right ahead, or ban me if it would help. I gave you a quote from their campaign that backed up what I paraphrased - if you don't believe it - then do some research, it's out there.

I research all day, dear. You offered an unattributed quote (which you now say is "from their campaign" --- who? when? where?) that you say backs up what you paraphrased. However, it doesn't. So, to repeat, you claimed:

And so I asked for evidence of that "promise", and you were unable to offer any. So you then posted an unattributed quote from someone, from somewhere, from some time, and claim that it backed up the point you were "paraphras[ing]" even though it didn't even do that!

The irony here: You were trying to show how Obama lies, or some such, but had to make up a lie to do it. (Well, you were told that lie by folks like Beck and Rush, so you didn't have to make it up all on your own. You just bought into their bullshit enough to repeat it here because you, dear Sally, have been played for a fool by them. Yet you don't seem to care.)

Why does everyone have to be wingnuts and whatever else you call people just because they have a different opinion?

They don't. By way of example, I disagree with much in Frank's original article above. But I don't believe he's a wingnut. He just has a different --- if informed --- opinion on many things. You have a different opinion than mine as well, but yours is astoundingly misinformed, and wholly based on partisan, America-hating nonsense that you are gullible enough to repeat on a blog in front of other people, under a pseudonym, which u can then disappear into the night with when you've failed to cover your already psuedonymous ass.

I have argued with you just fine without resorting to calling you names or trying to degrade you in any way. It's called respect for your fellow American - too bad the nation as a whole no longer sees such an attribute as important.

Yes, I know. They are too busy calling Obama a Marxist and/or a Fascist (odd contradiction there), or making up attacks like "he promised unemployment wouldn't go higher than 8%", and such, to have time to respectfully learn the FACTS before shooting off their mouths and embarrassing themselves.

People's blogs go into archives after awhile, and I post here and there and when it is no longer intellectual, I drop the blog and go elsewhere - I'm not loyal to any one blog.

"Go into archives"? If you left a comment about your outrage that George W. Bush was trying terrorists in U.S. courts, I'm sure you can find it, and point us to it. You didn't, so you have nothing to point to, because you didn't give a damn about issues like unemployment, or health care, or trying terrorists in U.S. court, or defying the constitution when George W. Bush did it, because you are a plain, transparent, sad little partisan who gave a pass to America's worst President for 8 years, only to come out now and express your "outrage" now that Fox "News" has managed to gin it up in otherwise well meaning (hopefully) folks like yourself who have fallen for their partisan, America-hating scams.

I tried to find a post of mine from just 3 months ago, and couldn't remember the blogs name, finally found it, and the whole original post had been removed along with the comments. I have no idea why you feel I am lying to you, I've told you, I didn't like Bush any more than I like Obama. I have real problems with the stunts the Bush Admin pulled.

Good. Then you should be able to demonstrate the evidence for that. You've already made three comments on this one article. I'm sure you've got HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of outraged comments of yours out there you could point me to, displaying your outrage at Bush over the last eight years. Or at least you could point me to them, had you actually made any.

Again, where's your outrage over Bush trying terrorists in U.S. courts? That oughta be a simple one, given the "outrage" you displayed about a KSM trial here. I'm sure you've got a paper trail a mile long condemning Bush for giving all of those terrorists trials in U.S. courts, right? (Of course you don't. And we know why. You haven't said a peep about it until you were instructed to do so by Fox and friends a few weeks ago for the very first time.)

I have a sneaky suspicion that you know well who Alinsky is, but we can both pretend you don't if it makes you feel better.

Good. Then let's "pretend" I don't (since I actually don't, pretending is easy). Now let's pretend that you *do* know who he/she is, beyond Rush and Beck using his/her name all the time (I hear them do it too). So now, tell me who he/she is please, and what it is that he/she said that you've accused me of doing. And thanks again in advance! (You won't honor that request either, like all the others you've failed on so far. You are 100% FAIL so far in that regard, in case anybody is keeping track.)

It's very odd how the same tricks of the trade are used on these blogs when the Obama supporters start loosing the debate. LOL At first it bothered me, because it just seemed like a cheap way out - but now that I have come to know the trend and trickery, I find it rather amusing and know that it's my cue to move along.

You're moving along, dear, because you've had your ass handed to you, since you weren't able to come up with a single shred of the requested evidence to support a single "argument" you've made here. Not one. I wouldn't blame you for disappearing at all given your sad performance here.

BTW, if you spent any time actually educating yourself (watching Fox "News" doesn't count as "educating yourself") you might have learned a bit about who you're talking to, and that I'm not an "Obama supporter", having voted against him in the last election and all. Good grief.

Always the same - degrade the poster then plead with them to keep posting.

No pleading here. Please go away. Or stay if you like. But if you stay, be prepared to back up your allegations with any evidence whatsover. You can't, so you'll play the whining victim card, ala Ann Coulter, and then quit, ala Sarah Palin.

So long and farewell, maybe someone new will come along that you can call names!

Ouchie, someone got their feelings hurt cuz they couldn't back up their positions. Not even once. Bye bye, dear! Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Take care and Merry Christmas!

And a Happy Hanukkah to you!

LOL, Brad. Thank you for fulfilling my previous request (you too, Sally!

I wanted to echo two points that I would have made in response to Sally anyway...

Why is it that when you Obama supporters run out of excuses for him, you resort to correcting people's typo's, punctuation, spelling, and grammar?

Where are these numerous Obama supporters that you seem to be referring to? And 'irregardless' STILL isn't a word.

It's very odd how the same tricks of the trade are used on these blogs when the Obama supporters start loosing the debate. LOL At first it bothered me, because it just seemed like a cheap way out - but now that I have come to know the trend and trickery, I find it rather amusing and know that it's my cue to move along.

First, 'loosing' is not what you mean. You mean 'losing', as in you are sorely losing this battle. The other word, the one you incorrectly used, would be more like 'Brad is loosing the Hounds of Don't Expect That Faux News Crap To Fly Here on you'.

Second, your cue to move on is that you have been spanked. Hard. Twice. I suggest ice and a soft cushion. And not being so specious.

So...Zapkitty, Brad, (Frank?)...did that article that lashed out against teacher's unions evetually get published? If so, I missed it. SR

This is an onion article right?

I can't believe that this is being allowed by you Brad!
But I love Freedom
OK here we go.

Continued the draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq

-actually the number of privately contracted troops rose in Iraq.

Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan

-actually better options do exist,(education) and Im surprised you think escalating war is NOW a good idea as we are going broke.

Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights

..as drones attacks are spreading into Pakistan, and White Phospherous is used against Palestinians.

Restored America's image around the globe

My question is- how does a minority win Presidency after 2 blatently stolen elections? Pyschology dear Watson, and you see the emperor in his clothing.

Banned torture of American prisoners

How are you sure?
Yes, to you and the TV, he may say "torture is banned", but when you say that as a fact to me you sound like someone who thinks officials found "WMD's in Iraq." You are repeating propaganda.

Stopped the free fall of the American economy

It isn't over yet bud! Over 10% official unemployment, 140 failed banks this year, commercial and residential sales still way down, foreclosures up, more taxes with less services, bailouts that 99 to 1 was not wanted so on and so on. Oh and he is surrounded by the people that help create the problem, sweet.... Goldman Sachs of America

Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community

-don't you see the negative effects of globalism and international "relations" yet?

Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming

-While planting a garden is good, the carbon scheme is bad. We don't know enough yet about how temperature and C02 interact with each other, and the entire debate has been bought for profits. (Its corrupted)

Stood up for educational reform

No child left behind ledgislation: not left behind.
The system infact is getting worse and many teachers are facing cuts and layoffs Frank, I date one of them.

Won a Nobel peace prize

-Are you SERIOUS? Yeah , and he increased the war, on all fronts; Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances

-Oh Frank, if only those courts would hear the evidence of nano-thermite in the dust, a high grade military incendiary and explosive.
Please stop supporting the lies of 9/11 Frank, along with playing off of terrorism and fear, it makes you look silly.

Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin

I wont start, but in short, I dont want your pills or shots. Keep your "healthcare."
If you don't see the corruption, I wish you the best. You'll be paying for it, one way or another.

Responded to hatred from the Right and Left with measured good humor and patience

-yawn...Bush was a "friendly" guy too Frank! Wake up!

Stopped the free fall of job losses

Not so much..but hey Im glad your doing good!

Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far Right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty"...

-So were you praising Bush as he was being pelted by tomato's and eggs in DC at his stolen inauguration for his courage? Maybe there is anger from both sides for reasons...and maybe I don't care how big their boots are, get the F out of the middle east Frank!

Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly

-Ah, like Hitler!

and then you say this:

Who actually has failed...

...are the Americans that can't see the beginning of a miracle of national rebirth right under their jaded noses.

It is really scary that you said that Frank. The same was said during the 30's in Germany as propaganda campaigns during eroding civil liberties, expanding army, and a deteriorating society.

But there were the propagandists Frank, some were paid, others simply misinformed. The one's that said how great Hitler was, against all evidence.

Do you belong to either group?

I don't celebrate, but cheers.

Jesus, Brad. Everybody knows who Saul Alinsky was.

I do now. He was a real bastard, wasn't he Sally? Organizing to improve each others lives?! What will they think of next?

I didn't get a sense of to what "tricks of the trade" Sally might have been referring. Was it being honest about the nefarious deeds to which individuals and organizations contribute?

It's a damn good day when I learn something new. Thanks, Sally!

What a bunch of hooey! Sorry, Frank, but I'm not buying it - I'm gonna believe my own lyin' eyes.

This is about a whole lot more than Abomina "winning" - such a childish concept. The goal is for the people of the US, and indeed the people of the world, to live better lives. It's not a goddamned game, with "winners" and "losers." I want a president who says what he means and means what he says, and I'm sorry to say I have not seen anything remotely resembling honesty from the new war criminal-in-chief. Slaughtering innocent peasants in rugged mountains on the other side of the world by sending remote-controlled destruction, controlled by a bunch of cowardly, murderous video game geeks "working" 8-hour shifts in Florida, all to pander to the fossil fuel barons - as someone near and dear to us all might say, "Pfeh!" He can put his Peace Prize where the sun don't shine...

This Glenn Greenwald piece about Obama's civil liberties record and the creation of a tiered [aka fascist] justice system won the top prize [Top Quark] of the 3quarksdaily best articles of the year... as judged by Tariq Ali, and it is definitely a reality check about the quality of this administration.

Pfeh, indeed, my dear! Many have taken to just calling it the "War Prize". Saves a lot of screaming and hair tearing and stomping and pitching forward and banging yer head on yer monitor....

2009 Misinformer of the Year: Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

Frank is nothing if not stirring... this is the most comments I've seen posted here in some while. Praising Obama and rationalizing for him sure did get us riled up.

I've recently been over reading Andrew Bard Schmookler at www.nonesoblind.org... particularly regarding the nature of evil and the fact that we should be calling out that nature whenever we see it.

On the single issue of the senate health care bill Obama and his people have fostered stripping out the Public Option, while disingenuously claiming to support that position... bearing false witness.
By 2014 not having health care will be a crime and a fineable offense... mandating payments to private health insurers.
The far right has claimed Obama is a Socialist... well that is true, a Corporate Socialist. Then again maybe he is paying back the $20 million he received in campaign funds form the health care industry. Quid Pro Quo.... which I believe is illegal or perhaps I missed the abrogation of that law.

Bottom line for me is Obama is the Saruman of our age, a golden tongued wizard of words.
Still... I'm wondering who the Sauron of our age really is?

You said it for me, Frank. I'm really disappointed with jaded whiz kids on the left, who now dogmatically crave simplistic answers in the same way the ignorant right has for three decades. For many of them, it just seems an ongoing explanation of their own personal failures. "I coulda been a contender, if only the world had been organized as I think it should be." I guess it was always easier to shoot spitballs from the the back of the class than actually take responsibility for anything.

First time in the 5 years I've been reading this blog that I've ever seen an article that was not worthy of this site. I would refer Mr. Schaeffer to the articles by Ernest Canning on the very site. After 8 years of Bush, we should all be FAR more perceptive. While Obama's rhetoric and charm are beyond dispute, his policies and appointees are 100% BUSH. Hell, there's even a place for Dana Perino in the Obama administration. That alone tells you all you need to know.

It's called the 'flat tire' principle. You infiltrate an organization or team with someone pretending to be on board, but their real objective is to obfuscate, water down and/or prevent any *real* change or progress. And in fact, as multi-award-winning journalist John Pilger correctly observes, Obusha's first job after college was working for CIA front company American International Corp., who among other things did exactly that--infiltrate Australian liberal groups with stealth right-wingers.

And that is what we have with Obusha. Empty words of hope and change while in fact we continue to follow the Neocon "Project for a New American Century" playbook. We have now expanded the war front into yemen and are militarizing Colombia as we ramp up to hit Venezuela, while we forge documents about Iran's nuclear objectives' to justify destroying Iran via proxy (Israel.)

Cheney's hand is still firmly on the till. His spokesperson is now simply a lot more charming and well-spoken than the last one. But the perfidy remains.

Succeeding at what?
Frank, you still live in a fantasy world of religion and faith. You must believe what you say because you are sincere. This is deeply troubling, as faith and critical thinking do not go hand in hand. They are at extreme ends of the spectrum. They can never work together because science requires proof. You have conveniently ignored the evidence that our new president has taken the mantle of our old one, and done little or nothing to change.
Our president has succumbed to every request from those still in power. He has proven to be either a liar, or a puppet. I do not see a middle ground as a result of those actions he has taken, and those that he has not.
Faith equals delusion. It is the easiest way out of reality.

Thank you, Mr. Cirile - couldn't have summed it up better, at least without considerable effort. What scares the bejeezus out of me is how shiny the wrapping paper on this Obamanation of a law (Man! They FINE you if you can't afford to pay their extortionate prices for health insurance???) is, and how little we all know of what lies within. Funny, I often thought of Abomina and Tiger in parallel tracks. Truth is, they're both sluts...

In "Americans Are Hell-Bent on Tyranny", Paul Craig Roberts, a former member of the Reagan administration, observed:

Obama's dwindling band of true believers has taken heart that their man has finally delivered on one of his many promises --- the closing of the Guantanamo prison.…

In truth, Obama has handed his supporters another defeat. Closing Guantanamo meant ceasing to hold people in violation of our legal principles of habeas corpus and due process…

All Obama would be doing would be moving 100 people, against whom the US government is unable to bring a case, from the prison in Guantanamo to a prison in Thomson, Illinois.

Richard Fritzon, #9, is exactly and approximately right on.

Obama is an extraordinary orator, a very smart man, and a breath of fresh air after his predecessor. He's no leader, unless by leadership you mean the ability to compromise away all decency until you get a "win".

I hope no one EVER forgets what HIS economic team did to this country, when they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring about change.

Well, first I want to thank the now-departed Sally for turning me on to Saul Alinsky (I googled Alinsky and quickly found the URL that Agent99 supplied at #38).

As usual, he looks like a very interesting person who made wonderful and powerful contributions to social democracy in the USA. Of couse, I can imagine that Faux Liars must hate him for his good work for the downtrodden.

As for the OP, well I do believe that Schaeffer is totally and completely off base, and also using bad tricks to argue (as has already been well stated above by better articulaters than I).

I think it must be hard for a "turnaround" like Mr. Schaeffer (and I respect his "conversion" and his "apologias" greatly) to come ALL the way to the other side.

The power of that belief that "the Democrats and The Rethuglicans are very different" is great.

The truth that the majority of the House, Senate and White House Democrats and Republicans are owned by the corporate oligarchs and that the differences between them are mostly contrived to maintain the different factions of the population in their separate corners is harder to believe and see.

It was said (Napoleon? Marx?) that "Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

I think that the two party system is what keeps the people from killing the politicians. Two many people hate ONE SIDE or THE OTHER and believe THEIR side is going to solve the problems when they have power.

The truth is that POWER is in the hands of the corporate state, and that they control the choice of candidates, whether you are eligible to vote, and how your vote gets counted, and that WE THE PEOPLE have almost no power other than to spend our money and be good cogs in the corporate machine.

I am not saying we must abandon the electoral process or either of the parties, but we should be quite aware of the game we are playing, and how badly stacked against us the deck is.

O.T. but relevant: Grisjalva of the House Progressives...

... "the last best hope to stop this disaster of a 'reform' bill"...

... has just clearly and deliberately signaled that the House Progressives will renege on their multiple written and video-recorded promises about a public option and will instead work with Pelosi to force this corporate-mandated shit sandwich down America's collective throat.

That didn't take long, did it?

Amen! It feels as if all were irrevocably lost. Let us hope it's a false impression. In any case, I'll be more than happy to help any of you get settled here in the good old civilized old world. Happy trails, podners...

Oh, and a note to Frank. The others who have said this are, in my opinion, completely correct. Congratulations on escaping your cult. Please remember that you are susceptible to them. And please have the decency and common sense not to insult those who've never joined cults.

You like Obama. Peachy-keen. You'll grow up someday, or perhaps you won't.

I posted comment #51 to make clear to any who have not read my articles that Frank Schaeffer and I do not agree on this particular topic.

But so what? Diversity of opinion enriches the content of this blog.

It is disturbing when I see some on the Left repeating the acerbic level of discourse that we usually associate with wing-nuts on the Right.

Those who have challenged Mr. Schaeffer's intellectual capacity or his sincerity are way out of line.

Those who have chastised Brad for including a view that does not square with theirs do not realize that Brad's goal is to both provide factual content on the vital issues of our time and a broad range of respectful dialogue.

That doesn't mean that anyone has to accept what I, Frank or Brad have to say on a given topic. The provision of sound reasons for rejecting any point posted are a welcome addition, that, like the range of discourse reflected in a comparison of this piece to mine, enriches us all.

Correction to my last, comment. My earlier comment was #50.

Brad-
This would not be accepted at a truth emergency summit...
You know it, this is Bull.

Lots of heads exploding these days. It's nice to see a sensible analysis of where we are. Some on the left are having a pout at the moment but most will get over it and realize that we are headed in the right direction. We've got the right President who has keeps his head when all around him are losing theirs.

Obama a success?
Sure, if you don't plan on living on EARTH.

So many very inforned comments here! Thanks everyone, I really appreciate reading people so much more informed than I. I posted mine so quickly without proofing and apologize for bad typos. Brad: I am not illiterate, was just in a hurry!

During Bush years, Machiavelli was the favored writer. Now right wingers are all reading Saul Alinsky to try and co-opt his techniques for their purposes.

And my favorite Christmas present for myself is that you'll be on Molloy all next week. And that you provide MP3s since I'm often in ballet class during his show!

Happy holidays to all.

Here's the link to Pilger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2905dfwdFmI

FYI, John Pilger is 2-time winner of Britain's Journalist of the Year award and is also a winner of the Sydney peace Prize.

Frank,
I'm not hearing a whole lot from you defending the points made. I'm interested what you think of some of the better researched references made to other writers and facts established that refute your opinions.

Ernest,
I'm sorry or not if refuting opinions with contrary and clear facts seems rude. Most of us are trying to keep level, clear and calm here. Referring to other blogs' comments, I think we're almost all doing pretty well here.

Brad,
gotta laugh when I see the laser focus of someone telling you this is bull that would never fly at a truth emergency summit. Talk about cutting through all the chaff and then right through the point. Gracias Brian R comment58.

Think it was Orlov who gave BushBama the Gorbachev award. He's managing the decline of the empire the same way Gorbachev did. Wasn't it Scott Ritter arguing with Stephanie Miller last month who pointed out that Gorbachev was warned he needed 650,000 troops to invade Afghanistan to get the job done? Yeh and look how well Gorby's strategy worked out when he sent too few with too little armor up against stinger missiles while his own economy was overextended and crashing all around him.

Thank you again Brad for the platform and the group of folk who you've drawn here to bring out facts and lace them together.

Please continue. Renzoku BB

Yes, it sure looks like folks are divided. It's not too surprising when you see who owns the media.
Okay, I'm a bit of a cynic also. Why is health insurance company stock zooming up? But then, who will claim victory if this health bill fails?
Looking at the Congressional votes for 2009, the obstructionism of the Republicans is undeniable. They even tried to filibuster a defense appropriations bill! If they actually win more seats in 2010, will they shut down the government?
Maybe Obama should come out strongly for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just to get the Republicans and media to disagree.

There was a troll "Sally" on several Democratic blogs during the 2004 elections. Could this be the same Sally, or someone using the name because it is well known. Perhaps people already got this and I missed it.

Just listening to Norman Goldman subbing for Ed Shultz. Obama gave an interview yesterday about the health care bill. In it he said that the public option was just representative of an ideological position or some such shit. Apparently it is not representative of good policy that will help the American people.

Done. With. Obama.

Agent 99 @ 38 said:

Jesus, Brad. Everybody knows who Saul Alinsky was.

Well, I guess we do now. Thanks, Niners. He seems like an absolute monster.

Little wonder Sally is unable to respond as to what is wrong with him, or what "rule book" is being followed, or whatever that nonsense is she was blindly repeating from Rush and Beck w/out bothering to learn if it actually has any relationship to reality or not before doing so.

He's simply ghastly, isn't he?

Soul Rebel way up @ 39 asked:

So...Zapkitty, Brad, (Frank?)...did that article that lashed out against teacher's unions evetually get published? If so, I missed it. SR

The article you refer to (on which Frank hit PUBLISH rather than SAVE TO DRAFTS accidentally) hasn't been published. Not yet, anyway. Frank often submits several different versions of articles as he's working on them, and as I try to keep up with them (particularly while on the road, as I've been for the last several weeks).

When/if that one actually runs, it will include the comments you left on it before we realized it had published accidentally, if only momentarily (though long enough for u to read and comment, of course, even as it wasn't ready to actually be seen yet.)

Sorry for the confusion there!

This is one of the most thoughtful and interesting posts I've seen on the Net for a while from one of the most interesting characters out there right now. Mr. Schaeffer's abandonment of his right-wing religio-political views and strong adoption of a view directly counter to everything he once believed in struck me from the moment I first saw him on TV as sincere, passionate, and maybe unique. I always give him special attention when I hear from him because of this. He's clearly intelligent. This posting contains so much, and is so full of thoughtful, passionate advocacy that I am struck quiet by it - it is a unique voice out there now I do believe - I want to think on what he has said for some time before I decide anything. I need time to reflect. Thanks to Brad for hosting this important voice.

Obama's latest: he uses the Washington Post today to flat-out lie to the American people by saying "What Public Option? I never said there'd be a Public Option."

So when will Obama be held accountable by his supporters for his lying... or, to be more precise, for his continued lying?

renzoku bb.com said

Ernest,
I'm sorry or not if refuting opinions with contrary and clear facts seems rude.
__________________________

Not at all. To the contrary, that type of response to Frank's "Obama is wonderful" argument is quite appropriate.

You will find it, for example, in RICHARD FRITZSON's articulate comment #9 and in Coleen Rowley's (comment #29) short but powerful rebuttal.

You will find that to be the approach I applied in "Beyond Afghanistan", where I parsed the empty rhetoric used by the President during his Dec. 1 Afghan escalation speech. You will also see that approach applied by me in Progressives of America - Unite!

Where I draw the line, when it comes to rudeness, can be found, for example, in DAVID LIPSCOMB, comment #19:

Frank, I would call you an intellectual lightweight, but you aren't that smart.

You can disagree; link to other articles, present a sustained argument that Frank's "opinion" is unfounded. But you don't need to challenge his intellectual capacity or his sincerity to make that point --- at least not unless you are dealing with someone like Rush Limbaugh who has no integrity and should be called out for that lack of integrity.

Brad @ 67

Personally, I have no use for capitalist "leftists", and the interest taken in him by Hillary and President Walking Eagle [they walk because they're too full of shit to fly]—merciless class warriors both—has smudged his record considerably, but, well, yes, I think the right has tried to ACORN Alinsky's memory... and maybe even are succeeding.

... Brad said...

Agent 99 @ 38 said:
Jesus, Brad. Everybody knows who Saul Alinsky was.

Well, I guess we do now. Thanks, Niners. He seems like an absolute monster.

Don't try to run from us Brad... the Central Commissariat still has photocopies of your membership card on file.

I am quite surprised by the number of folks who whole heartedly applauded Mr. Schaeffer. I agree that every so often in this cynical media we harp on the negative and we need a reminder of the positives. I believe Mr Schaeffer went too far in his attempt. I am glad there were plenty of others who disagreed like myself with the content and actions of the administration. I am also glad they were able to site good sources for their arguements.
I am sorry for those who turned to name calling. I also thank Brad for identifying the false-fact opiners on the site.
A comment I forgot to mention before was: After people are overcharged for their insurance to the point they can not afford it, and end up dropping their coverage, will they they be fined/jailed for not having insurance? Or will this be a way to gradually get everyone into a government single payer system, because the greedy private insurance companies will price themselves out of the majority of the population. The problem with this scenario is that it will require many years of depleting the financial resources of the dwindling middle class to reach that breaking point.
The final insurance bill (it's not a health care bill because it does little to nothing about pharmaceuticals, health care providers or tort reform, as small as it is) that goes to Obama (who will sign anything to claim a victory), I hope, will not have the insurance requirement in it or there will be Constitutional challenges to the the law.

This guy (Obama) could not lead a horse to water. He does not have what it takes to be a leader.
His accomplishments consist of: 1) Escalating the war in Afghanistan. That's it!
As far as I can see this regime is a continuation of the Bush tragedy in sheep's clothing. We are still in Iraq and will never leave. We are escalating in Afghanistan and will never leave. Iran has lifted itself into a powerful position, Israel is still out of control, there is still rendition, Gitmo is still open, eavesdropping is rampant, the White House is still fighting at every turn to become open and available to real people, private deals are still being made in the White House, GWs cronies are being promoted and the health care bill has become a bail out for the insurance companies.
We are fucked. If you can't see that there is something wrong with you.

Quicky from #22:

Brad Friedman said,

"Irregardless" is not a word. Just FYI.

actually it *is* a word, it is just not the preferred one of the two. It is indeed in many dictionaries. I happen to like it, also. It may not make *logical* sense, but it sounds more appropriate when used for dramatic effect.

irregardless |ˌiriˈgärdlis|
adjective & adverb informal
regardless.

USAGE Irregardless, with its illogical negative prefix, is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as : irrespective. Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean 'without regard or consideration for' or 'nevertheless': : I go walking every day regardless of season or weather.

George Carlin commented on the advent of "popular usage" - including the words "usage", "irregardless", "momentarily", and "forte".

"Fuck popular usage."

Popular usage is both the beauty and the bane of the English language. Sometimes it saves everything, and sometimes it pisses people off more than it helps anything. As for me, I wish we'd just advance to mind reading and forget the weight of language altogether.

Oh, but language is a beautiful thing.

Here's some:

"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Post about his legislative record this year. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

An excellent piece by Prof. David Michael Green of Hofstra. Wish he had been my PoliSci advisor.

Thanks, Soul Rebel, for

"Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

There goes Abomina, botching the use of criterion. Oh well, he probably thinks of himself as a "quality president." At least he can pronounce "nuclear"...

Gotta watch this now, there are some new public health centers gonna be going up around the country, they're just not advertising them too loudly...might upset the teabaggers.

Bernie received funds for 2 more in Vermont.
Read between the lines after the bill becomes law.

I send my older uninsured boys to the (free) clinic in Brooksville on Saturdays if they have a problem, little wait, no bill, good service (so they tell me).

On this week of holiday cheer (oh brother), I couldn't help but snicker out loud with Brad's dismissal of dear Sally's comments. Thanks for making my day. I really needed that.

And Frank, don't let up. I am rooting for Obama and right now, very disappointed. I'm trying to keep my tongue and your list will help me 'keep the faith' that this new administration will somehow make things right. I still have hope.

Happy holidays everyone.

Give him a chance? We did!

In each and every case Obama has worked mightily to repair and strewngthen a corrupt status quo.

Health care reform? Yeah, From the begining his goal was to keep the current corrupt and inefficient system and force tens of millions more to by the vile products of the insurance monopolies. A few tweeks were added to pretend to provide real "change we can believe in."

The only jobs he protected are on Wall Street. How can the CEOs and CFOs collevt those multi-million dollar bonuses if their companies weren't paid hundreds of billions in subsidies? Meanwhile Larry Lunchbucket suffers! And Obama just keeps getting advice and policy from the same corrupt crew that got us into this mess... Now we know why "Wall Street" gave him more money than any other candidate from either party.

I could go on, but am too disgusted. Obama is just a Pied Piper for fools who want to ignore his catering to the powers that be. They'll listen to his piping and follow him to disaster.

Dump Obama and get a REAL visionary in 2012!

Agent 99 @79

As for me, I wish we'd just advance to mind reading and forget the weight of language altogether.

HERE! HERE!

A return to our original state...telepathic/empathic communication.

BlueHawk

I meant that... deeply.

xoxoxox

Correction: Business International Corp., (BIC) not American International Corp., was the CIA front company Obusha used to work for (and probably still does.)

"We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In other words, you found a NEW god and you feel like you have to defend him against all who don't worship him as you do.

Hi All: thanks for the comments on my article and for David's article too.

Meanwhile back on planet earth the US Senate just made history with the first step in meaningful health care reform.

Best, Frank

PS.

Re Obama, responses to my pro-Obama piece, and responses to the responses.... etc. Note that Andrew Sullivan says it well in the Atlantic. So rather than go back through everything again and again for the Obama critics here it is from Sullivan. (The Atlantic Dec 23, 09).

http://andrewsullivan.th...9/12/meep-meep.html#more

By Andrew Sullivan

My own view is that 2009 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Obama. Since this is currently a minority view and will prompt a chorus of "In The Tank!", allow me to explain.

The substantive record is clear enough. Torture is ended, if Gitmo remains enormously difficult to close and rendition extremely hard to police. The unitary executive, claiming vast, dictatorial powers over American citizens, has been unwound. The legal inquiries that may well convict former Bush officials for war crimes are underway, and the trial of KSM will reveal the lawless sadism of the Cheney regime that did so much to sabotage our war on Jihadism. Military force against al Qaeda in Pakistan has been ratcheted up considerably, even at a civilian cost that remains morally troubling. The US has given notice that it intends to leave Afghanistan with a bang - a big surge, a shift in tactics, and a heavy batch of new troops. Iraq remains dodgy in the extreme, but at least March elections have been finally nailed down.

Domestically, the new president has rescued the banks in a bail-out that has come in at $200 billion under budget; the economy has shifted from a tailspin to stablilization and some prospect of job growth next year; the Dow is at 10,500 a level no one would have predicted this time last year. A stimulus package has helped undergird infrastructure and probably did more to advance non-carbon energy than anything that might have emerged from Copenhagen. Universal health insurance (with promised deficit reduction!) is imminent - a goal sought by Democrats (and Nixon) for decades, impossible under the centrist Clinton, but won finally by a black liberal president. More progress has been made in unraveling the war on drugs this past year than in living memory. The transformation of California into a state where pot is now more available than in Amsterdam is as remarkable as the fact that such new sanity has spread across the country and is at historic highs, so to speak, in the opinion polls. On civil rights, civil marriage came to the nation's capital city, which has a 60 percent black population. If that doesn't help reverse some of the gloom from Prop 8 and Maine, what would? And, yes, the unspeakable ban on HIV-positive foreigners was finally lifted, bringing the US back to the center of the global effort to fight AIDS as it should be.

Relations with Russia have improved immensely and may yield real gains in non-proliferation; Netanyahu has moved, however insincerely, toward a two-state solution; Iran's coup regime remains far more vulnerable than a year ago, paralyzed in its diplomacy, terrified of its own people and constantly shaken by the ongoing revolution; Pakistan launched a major offensive against al Qaeda and the Taliban in its border area; global opinion of the US has been transformed; the Cairo speech and the Nobel acceptance speech helped explain exactly what Obama's blend of ruthless realism for conflict-management truly means.

The Beltway cannot handle all this. And that's why they continue to jump on every micro-talking-point and forget vast forests for a few failing saplings.

But when you consider the magnitude of shifting from one conservative era to one in which government simply has to be deployed to tackle deep structural problems, the achievement is as significant as his election year.

I remain, in other words, extremely bullish on the guy. There is a huge amount to come - finding a way to bring down long-term debt, ensuring health insurance reform stays on track and reformed constantly to control costs, turning the corner on non-carbon energy, reforming entitlements, finding a new revenue stream like a VAT, preventing Israel from attacking Iran, preventing Iran's coup regime from going even roguer, withdrawing from an Iraq still teetering on new sectarian conflict, avoiding a second downturn, closing Gitmo for good, ending the gay ban in the military ... well, you get the picture.

Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is. And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.

Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform.

If Frank gets to cross-post this tiring Sullivan piece, do I get to cross-post my response?

Agent 99 @87....

I know that you deeply mean that 99...

That's what makes even more meaningful...I believe it with you...that's the sheer beauty of it.

Birds of a feather my friend....

Kazaaaaaart!

Justifying the Unjustifiable
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Lutheran Pastor Niemoller

If President Obama and Attorney General Holder defend John Yoo, then I will be their opponents. Unlike them, I, as the Nuremberg Prosecutors knew, that there is no such thing as good evil. All evil is evil.
Nazi jurists who rationalized and legalized Nazi War Crimes were prosecuted as War Criminals, despite the fact that they never left their offices, Justified the Unjustifiable.

If you really want people to read your articles, you might try to not insult them in the first paragraph. I'll never know WHAT you had to say.

Thank-you for saying exactly what I've been thinking, especially to those like me on the left. What's lacking on the left is an understanding of how politics works. It's slow and incremental, but the alternative is chaos. What we are also lacking is the skill to criticize Obama where he needs it while making it clear that he's still the horse we're betting on.

Re #96:

Why would you bet on a horse that pulls up lame out of the gate at every race?

Pulled up lame...
- prosecuting Bush administration war crimes and crimes against the Constitution...
- on Afghanistan policy...
- on withdrawal from Iraq...
- on the stimulus (not enough)...
- on the bailout (too much, no regulation)...
- on healthcare reform...

Really, if this is what you consider a bettable horse at this point, I'd like to be your bookie, and I have some tips on a few old nags.

I hate when incrementalists say that those of us who would like to see Obama live up to his promises and expectations are politically naive. I guess these same people would never have fought for the Revolution because that would have been too drastic a change.
It is naive to think that there will be political will in the future for more health care reform, constitutional healings, banking reform, or non-militaristic international diplomacy if we do not act while we have a 60 (or high 50s) vote in the senate and a clear majority in the house. The conservatives only had it for a short window, yet because of their political will and uncompormising strong-arm tactics, they were able to push through things that will take several generations to fix because the incrementalists are not willing to push the extra mile to get what needs to be done now.
Incrementalists either are naive to think that they will continue to have this opportunity at reform, or they really do not believe these things need changing.

I'll stick with historians. Most pf what I read here is opinion and probably incorrect

Obama is younger than me, less experienced in business and insituting policies we saw back in the 1960's that failed under LBJ. To call him a great, good man, uniquely qualified to lead us is ludicrous. To say that anyone who disagrees with him is racist, fear monger is indefensible.

Historians will rank President Obama right under Jimmy Carter as a failure. We need leadership based on experience not rhetoric from a Sophist.

Obama is letting the beltway and their corporate friends rape the American people. Obama filled his government with neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. The fact that war monger Hillary Clinton is in the cabinet speaks volumes. That the piece of shit Rahm Emmanuel is anywhere near the White House is scandelous. The Rubinomics traitors, in the form of Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, and others is a betrayal to the American people. These are the same fuck-heads that "liberated" capital - sending the American people sprinting in a race to the bottom, to be competative with the likes of the Chinese and India. Where is American Industry? Ask the neo-liberals. What the fuck is a "service economy" anyway? Is any other country buying that economic model. Nope. We have enriched the world by living on credit, as wages stagnate and self gluttonous Americans stuff themselves with gadgets and other frivolities. We have mortgaged away and enslaved our own children.

What did Obama do to mitigate any of this? Nothing. He hired the same fucks that created the problem. They must be laughing their collective asses off. That he took the Nobel Peace prize is not only absurd, but revolting. His willingness to hand over hundreds of billions of dollars to the very villains that caused this mess is simply amazing.

The "health care" bill sucks, and is a give away to the insurance industry. As New York Times' Bob Herbert states in his piece A Less Than Honest Policy (12/18/09), the dirty little secret of the Senate version of the bill is to tax good healthcare insurance to the point that employers will not buy them, but supplement good insurance with cheaper insurance that requires people to pay more out of pocket, thereby encouraging less use of health care services. “The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans…Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services.”