We’ve had a black president who disappointed us. Is America ready for a woman president who disappoints us?
Ready for Hillary?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
46 Comments. Leave new
Oh, God. A minimum of two years of hearing all my “democrat” friends talking about how Hillary is really gonna solve everything.
I pointed out a while back that for some voters, Obama was going to be Eddie Murphy’s character in 48 Hrs. Walk into the redneck bar, unplug the juke, and tell the stunned hicks “You know what I am? I’m your worst nightmare, man.”
And he could have. Remember the swearing in? He could have asked for ANYTHING and the Congress would have HAD to give it to him. They might have grumbled, but the real hold-outs? Maybe 20 people. He could have swept aside all the real opposition. We could have had single-payer health care. Our prisons could be filled, right now, to overflowing, with corrupt Wall Street bankers and lawyers. Imagine how much the tax base could have benefited from a tax of wealth (not earnings, wealth).
I wonder if The One ever starts laughing uncontrollably. “My God,” he’d say to himself. “What a bunch of chumps they were to vote for me. I still can’t believe any of those dumb fucks voted for me a second time. Shit, I could probably start murdering children and these idiot voters would still support me … Oh, wait.” And then he starts laughing again.
“And he could have. Remember the swearing in? He could have asked for ANYTHING and the Congress would have HAD to give it to him. They might have grumbled, but the real hold-outs? Maybe 20 people. He could have swept aside all the real opposition. We could have had single-payer health care. Our prisons could be filled, right now, to overflowing, with corrupt Wall Street bankers and lawyers. Imagine how much the tax base could have benefited from a tax of wealth (not earnings, wealth).”
This completely flies in the face of logic, reason, and the facts.
Nonsense. Johnson did it. Kennedy did it. Every president who has faced opposition and got what he wanted despite the opposition has done it.
Obama simply wasn’t interested in it. No one is twisting his arm to unilaterally and without oversight bomb people with drones. Those drones kill people whio are guilty of nothing other than being in the apartment next to the one the drone hits.
Obama wants to blow up children? Obama gets to blow up children. If he wanted Gitmo prisoners tried and executed, or tried and released when found innocent, he could have done it like that (snaps fingers).
Not this fantasy irrelevancy again. *sigh*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
This article alone demonstrates that the opposition Obama faced was UNPRECEDENTED- so saying “Other Presidents did it” is about as useful towards proving your point as saying “Obama should’ve made his magic wand and gotten his way.”
And that’s without going into how the Republican Party (emboldened for the past forty years by the complete and utter failure of “progressives” to get how the process works) has become crazy then they have ever been.
Thinking back to the past may make you feel better about your irrationality(and the Republicans “progressives” put in charge being able to block progress), but it’s worthless as an argument, as there is no comparable historical situation.
No, Whimsical, it’s fact. Obama had a democrat majority in both houses, so it wasn’t the gop who made him drone-bomb Pakistan only 3 days after he was inaugurated & it wasn’t the gop who prevented single-payer’s enactment, it was Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who did that, so stop lying & stop defending corporate war criminals like Obama or his gop/democrat crime partners.
Speak for yourself, Ted. Those of us with realistic expectations of who Obama was and what he would be able to accomplish given the who he was up against aren’t disappointed in the slightest.
Count me among them, Whimsy.
Oh, please, you’ve made it perfectly and repeatedly clear that
a) Obama disappoints you at every turn and
b) Your expectations about who he were and what he could accomplish were never even in the same galaxy as realistic, let alone the same solar system, planet, country, state, neighborhood or ballpark.
This is something Whimsical just can’t wrap his head around. We didn’t have great expectations for Obama. Oh, sure, we WANTED him to do the right thing, but we knew he wasn’t going to save the world. We EXPECTED so little, and he fell short of even that. Is it really so much to expect that he not start so many wars, not kill children, not torture, and not spy on us all?
In other expectations, I think every cartoon Ted does against a Dem will bring Whimsical out swinging.
Jack Heart –
“We EXPECTED so little, and he fell short of even that. Is it really so much to expect that he not start so many wars, not kill children, not torture, and not spy on us all?”
*
EXACTLY!!!
Yet, Hitlery already had her chance when Bubba was cramming NAFTA down America’s throat (while also simultaneously shoving it up our asses)! As a consequence, we still must let the (Capitalist Party’s) (half) Black guy (with that Negro Marie Antoinette on his arm) martial-law his way into a third term while functionally finishing off what may “Patriot”ically be identified as “the Rest of the American Constitution.”
HEY, all you STUPIDS! It ain’t the race of O’bummer that’s destroying our nation, it’s his sponsoring money-junkies of our global banking institution. BarryHO is more crafty than he is intelligent.
Meanwhile, what has the Head Mullato in Charge done for America’s (marginally much more) Black population, lately?
DanD
Rahm Emanuel (& Obama also) stopped single-payer’s enactment: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34051.html
http://www.healthcare-now.org/obama-received-20-million-from-healthcare-industry-in-2008-campaign
Riiight.
Because LBJ faced not a single bit of opposition when he was pushing through Civil Rights. He LOST the South for the Democratic Party. He knew he was losing the South, and he still signed the Civil Rights Bill, even though it was political-party suicide.
Draper: “According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz. ”
Wow!!!! Fifteen people at a dinner party! Wow. I can see why Obama gave up.
Less sarcastically, this doesn’t contradict my point: Obama had to strike when the momentum was on his side. As I said, RIGHT AFTER the inauguration. I mean RIGHT AFTER, 30 seconds after. And after he finishes announcing what he wants to get done, he throws it right back in their faces and challenges them to get in his way. If Obama blinked much more, his eyes would be a continuous blur.
Obama had popular support and a lot of goodwill. He could have shouted down a gang of thugs in 45 seconds flat. HE. DID. NOT. So no more of this “he couldn’t because he couldn’t.”
He couldn’t because he didn’t.
He didn’t because he couldn’t care less about the people he huckstered into voting for him.
Like I said, I bet he still laughs loud and long.
Obama didn’t set his own tune because he was already part of a much bigger orchestra, that being the CAPITALIST POLITICAL PARTY. The CPP has two subdivisions that being the DemocRATS, and the Repugnicans.
From the very start of his conservatorship, he’s supposed to take the presidency where Dubya couldn’t, mostly because Dubya wasn’t “Black.” Do you hear ANY complaints (from the progressive side of the isle) about all the old men, grandmothers, young children, babys-in-arms, young pregnant mothers WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE PEOPLE OF COLOR being drone-slaughtered by this power-freak?
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/obamas-campaign-later.html
Actually,. G.Dubya Bush was just BarryHO’s more conservative first and second term.
DanD
@Alex-
Really? You’ve got evidence that the most powerful people in the Republican party sat down the night of LBJ’s inauguration and made a vow not to debate the merits of his proposals, but to oppose everything he proposed simply because he proposed it?
If you do, I’d love to see it- but you don’t, because the situations are not remotely comparable (except on the most superficial of levels). And you know it, or you wouldn’t be getting so angry every time I point out what complete and utter bullshit it is.
“Wow!!!! Fifteen people at a dinner party! Wow. I can see why Obama gave up.”
Wow. This is pathetic and just shows the weakness of your argument- its not the head count that matters, its the power represented. The fifteen most powerful people in the Republican party- with the ability to control the rest of their party decided to oppose everything Obama proposed, simply because he proposed it.
And then they followed through. That’s NEVER happened before.
“Obama had popular support and a lot of goodwill. He could have shouted down a gang of thugs in 45 seconds flat. HE. DID. NOT.”
At best this is extreme magical thinking. At worst, this shows a STAGGERING lack of knowledge of the actual powers and abilities of the President.
Obama could’ve tried shouting them down, and they would’ve gone ahead and done what they agreed to do- block every proposal anyway, just because he proposed it.
So let’s have no more of this irrelevant, incorrect, historical inaccuracy- “Other people handled a situation that was superficially similar, so Obama should’ve done everything I wanted.”
I don’t care if you don’t like Obama. I do care if the reason why is a lie. And this ridiculously false meme you keep on pushing about other president goes way past lie into complete and utter bullshit territory.
I want to see Hillary Clinton win simply to enjoy the right wing backlash and mysogynistic anger of Tea Party types…..I know, I’m selfish like that…but it pleases me
Oh, yeah? You’re into that? I’m lucky to be into misandry with it all over the place. Men are a bunch of deadbeat dad moron jerks afraid of strong women and commitment, amirite? And they all support rape!
I don’t buy into the philosophy of “I can predict the future, because I remember the past.” Hillary is not Bill. I support her because she cares; she tried to obtain Universal Health Care, but she was blocked by profiteers. I am a Founding Member of *Ready for Hillary* because I believe that she can and will make a difference that benefits all Americans. Join the effort here:
https://www.readyforhillary.com/home
For Zionland, selecting HC to the Offal-Office is the next best thing to electing Bibi Netanyahu (or some other namebrand Zio-nazi, lord-of-war extremist of occupied Palestine) to America’s chief executive office.
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=706
http://mybigfatanti-zionistlife.blogspot.com/2009/08/hillary-clinton-said-mishpucka.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/02/275759/us-plans-political-genocide-in-palestine/
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372
DanD
D,
I’m sorry. But I’ve been hearing that for a very long time now. “X would have done Y, but Z blocked them.”
Hillary Clinton is one of — if not the single-most — powerful women in the world. the notion that “someone” could stop her just doesn’t hold up. What does hold up, however, is that H.C., must like Barack Obama, is in it for personal power accretiion. H.C., and B.O., are perfectly happy letting people rot in metal boxes over in Cuba because, well, resisting that would take effort. “I would prefer not to,” as Bartleby would say.
Oops. The Freudians will have a field day: “must like” should have been “much like.”
Oops!!!! Sorry – “She cares … she tried” just does not cut it, And are you actually promoting a “Yes, she can” redo for a campaign slogan? When you’re in the club it is hard to see how old fashioned and vacuous it is. Nothing Hillary has done or said inspires hope for the substantial transformation that the US needs. Of course, she will be marketed as a powerful, progressive, historic figure and sold to the masses just as Obama was – as an agent of change. But her conservative credentials are obvious to anyone who understands how far to the right politics has swung. She phoned it in as a senator, took no chances, championed no great cause, just sat on her hands biding her time, waiting for the moment to make her cynical, self-serving, narcissistic move.
gofomo –
I don’t “hope” to “change” your mind; but I’ve met both Bill & Hillary, who used to be next-door neighbors of mine in Little Rock.
When I worked at the Clinton Presidential Materials Project (fore-runner of the Clinton Presidential Library) I had the opportunity to view Hillary’s work on the proposed Universal Health Care system. Whether you accept “She cares … she tried” or not, it is not important or significant at this point.
Let’s just wait and see, okay?
Lying liars and the lies they tell … how would Hitlery win? Maybe because she has the vote-counters in her pocket ~
http://floppingaces.net/2014/02/27/lest-we-forget-hillarys-heroism-under-fire-guest-post/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hijacking+electronic+voting+machines
DanD
I just realized, about 30 seconds ago, while re-reading the cartoon, in each case:
“woman” or “black” or “gay” in each instance carries with it a particular conceptualization, doesn’t it?
We expect a “woman” to be “prochoice.”
We expect a “black” to be “affirmative action.”
We expect a “gay” to be “marriage equality.”
We have a lot of trouble accepting that a lot of women are fine with not having a choice as long as some man takes care of them, that a lot of blacks don’t want to run things, as long as they get their share of one of the lesser roles, that a lot of gays don’t want to get married, as long as they can continue to pull in six figures a year.
And those are the people that the groups who run everything go after: women who are happy being married and happy giving lip service to slut-minorities who can’t keep their legs closed, blacks who aren’t interested in smashing the stop-and-frisk police state as long as “my kids” aren’t getting their skulls creased by John Law and darkie layabouts are being told to get off their shiftless asses, gays who are more like industrious and adorable Neil Patrick Harris than probably AIDS infested Harvey Fierstein.
Every oppressed group throws some subset under the bus: the women threw black women away, the blacks threw black women away; the gays threw trannies away. But they threw they away so that they could, by discarding, move closer to the median. And that’s Hillary, isn’t it? A nice, safe median politician, ready to compromise on every single issue that matters, because, well, as we’ve always been told, you have to compromise. No one votes for someone who actually stands there and takes a stand on a principle.
Look at LBJ. …
Yet LBJ is usually cast by historians as a highly effective politician, albeit with some grave errors. Though I can hardly think positively of a guy who is almost entirely responsible for such a long, pointless, brutal, unwinnable war.
And the ‘social safety nets…?’ If you are dependent on the government to survive, you are still poor. It’s the same with charities. They don’t make the source of poverty go away. In a way they obscure the true nature and scope of the problem. I have a serious question though: it isn’t just some unfair conservative myth that poor people make poor choices. I know these people. They have 4 kids on minimum wage and buy lottery tickets. Why should they be subsidized? How is THAT fair? The cost to society is far more than children going hungry and doing poorly in school. The vast majority of parents are unfit…I’ll leave it at that since I am way off topic already.
Contrary JH, you are precisely on target! While Bubba always liked to compare his reign to Kennedy’s Camlot, in reality what he and his crypto-Jewish wife actually produced was so much closer to LBJ’s “Great Society” (though Hitlery certainly was no Lady Bird).
Among other things, Kennedy sealed his fate as a soon-to-be-assassinated leader when he attempted to wean America off the Federal Reserve and its debt-oriented system of fractional banking.
http://john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/reserve2.htm
On the other hand, Slick Willie cooked the Social Security Trust Fund books in order to invent his “retirement”: of the national debt, thereby irreversably ensconsing the Federal Reserve and its fractional banking fantasies as a part of America’s retirement safety net.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-bill-clinton-myth
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_deficit.html
While the Housing Crisis had its meltdown during Dubya’s second term, it was born during the Clinton years.
DanD
Ted,
Sent you an e-mail about the site not opening the comment window. Possibly it’s an ad causing the problem.
Whimsical,
“At best this is extreme magical thinking. At worst, this shows a STAGGERING lack of knowledge of the actual powers and abilities of the President.”
Now come on. Stop it.
Look at Reagan’s presidency. I had to live through it, so you can at least take an hour to review it on wikipedia. That bastard got away with everything he wanted, more or less. Sure, he had a few defeats, but all he needed to do to get the lion’s share of his villainy accomplished was to chuckle, fire off a made-up anecdote about black bucks driving Cadillacs and eating steaks, and sit back and watch the crowds froth at the mouth.
He stifled AIDS research, he bent the Constitution over his desk and fucked it silly, he reintroduced the “conservative Republican” crazy-ass show to the political arena. (Look it up: if Reagan had lost, the wingbat conservatives would have probably quietly died off like the Whig Party. They’d be off urging city councils to pass ordinances against lipstick on women while they read long passages from Ayn Rand into the record.)
Reagan was the ultimate animatronic puppet, and his handlers shoved their arms in all the way to their shoulders.
And then Bush Jr. came along and showed everyone how it was REALLY done. His handlers got the Supreme Court to overturn democracy and anoint him as president. Stopped a recount right in the middle of the fucking thing. Why? Read the opinion: Because it would be detrimental to George W. Bush for the recount to continue.
During his reign, he literally flew home in the middle of the night in his jam-jams to make sure that the State could ram a little Christian extremism down the throat of a dead woman. Wouldn’t even let the UN inspectors finish their check of Iraq.
And you want to try, even for a single second, to tell me presidents have limitations to their power?
Stuff and nonsense. Sure, they can’t reintroduce gladiatorial games. They can’t turn water into wine. But W showed EVERYONE exactly what the president’s power and abilities are: they extend as far as a president’s controllers want them to.
Ask ANYONE who lived through Reagan or W about how presidents are controlled. Some are controlled by Congress, the Supreme Court and their own moral sense. Some are their own men. And some have the right puppetmasters. They’re like Superman: they can do anything up to and including flying backward around the planet to reverse time.
So no more of YOUR fantasy about how Obama couldn’t get it done. In order for that to be true, Obama would have had to have tried in the first place. And he did not. The landscape of presidencies is littered with instances of presidents meeting AND overcoming opposition (as well as meeting and failing to overcome opposition). Well-planned, well-funded opposition is part of the equation for many of them. But the presidents still got things done despite the opposition.
Why do you keep defending this guy? It isn’t like he’s a victim of circumstance. He’s killing innocents, he’s gone after more whistleblowers than George W. Bush, his presidency is the most secretive one since Nixon.
No one is forcing his hand onto the mouse button. No one’s got a gun pressed to his temple, ordering him to sign the orders. He kills because he has the power to do so. He leaves people to rot in jail cells because they had the unmitigated nerve to point out he’s a hypocrite. And no one — so far — has been able to stop him.
If he felt as strongly about, well, anything as he does about blowing up small children 6,000 miles away and retaliating against people who point out the criminality of his administration, he could get it done. But he does not.
We can go around this all day, but these facts aren’t refutable. He kills. If he can kill, he can also do other things, like demand trials for imprisoned people. He could sign a presidential pardon for Edward Snowden — or any of the whistleblowers that his administration has put in prison for the temerity of pointing out his administration’s sociopathic tendencies. Yes, some people IN THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTY will object. If Obama invented fucking time travel so that everyone could win the lottery, the Republicans would object. If he solved global warming tomorrow, the Republicans would be screaming for his crucifixion.
So why doesn’t Obama, now well into his second term, do something? Anything. A half-assed healthcare website that ensures for-profit corporations will make even more money off sick people? I don’t consider that an accomplishment. I consider it a screwover because I can see what should have been done. You pass Civil Rights. You do an FDR-style works program to get the millions of unemployed people back into the economy. You force universal healthcare onto the country like universal healthcare’s been forced onto those hellholes Canada, Sweden, Germany and England. God, who’d ever want to live in those places anyway? Did you know their students can go through college without ending up five figures in debt? Disgusting, isn’t it? Oh, if only the King of Germany or the President of Canada could stop these atrocities.
Hillary will be just as bad as Obama, if not even worse. And her supporters will tell us all, over and over: “She’s the president! Her hands are tied. She has no choice but to not issue a presidential pardon. It’s not like she’s the president, for goshsakes, she’s the president. That’s the like, most powerful person in the world, so she can’t do whatever she wants! Unless it’s kill people! Which I’m against, which is why I support her when she kills people.”
Fifteen people of the opposition party sitting down and planning how to thwart the president at every turn? Holy fuck, Whimsical. Have you ever watched football? You’d be stunned at how hard the guys on the other side of the field try to stop the other team from scoring. It’s amazing.
alex_the_tired –
“No one’s got a gun pressed to his temple, ordering him to sign the orders.”
*
Are you sure?
All that needs to be whispered in his ear is: “Remember what happened to JFK?”
alex_the_tired –
“Look at Reagan’s presidency. …. That bastard got away with everything he wanted, more or less.”
*
The flaw I see in your argument is the assumption that it was Reagan who wanted those things to which you refer, rather than those puppeteers who pulled the strings. (?)
As I said, the controllers had their arms all the way in Reagan up to their shoulders.
What you fail to recognize, however, is that Reagan was killed by Hinckley and Reagan’s movie stand-in showed up for subsequent photo ops, while Nancy continued to run the executive branch (our first female President).
Sie scherzen wohl, derlehrer ?…
Henri
@ mhenriday –
Sicherlich! Aber eine interessante Einstellung, nicht?
😀
In der Tat ! But in that case, how about the following scenario – Slick Willie died of a heart attack while being subject to the tender ministrations of Ms Lewinsky in the Oval Office, after which he was replaced by doubles, while Hillary ran the show. A worthy successor to Nancy !… 😉
Henri
@ mhenriday –
Reagan’s stand-in had been in the wings for years and simply awaited the opportunity.
Bill’s double would have required much time to find and deploy.
Interesting, though, is the thought that Hillary has already accumulated the experience that will be her guidance for eight years from 2017 forward. 😀
Ach, as Aisopos’ fox said to the lion, «vestigia terrent». The trail Ms Clinton left as US Secretary of State makes me feel that it would be extremely dangerous to entrust her with the office of US President. But I fear that on this matter, we must agree to disagree…. 😉
Henri
mhenriday –
As I said previously (somewhere on these pages), let’s just wait and see.
I hope she decides to run, and I hope she wins (and gives me some kind of government job (like ambassador to Mexico). 😀
@Alex-
“Look at Reagan’s presidency. I had to live through it, so you can at least take an hour to review it on wikipedia. ”
Nice attempt to infantalize someone who points out how repeatedly and thoroughly wrong you are. Won’t work though.
You’re generally a decent sort of fellow, Alex, so I’m going to assume you’re not being deliberately hard of thinking, and missed every one of the half-dozen or so times Ive posted this on here: I am OLDER than you. I may be OLDER than Ted; I can’t be arsed to find out because age has no relevancy to quality of argument.
I lived through Reagan’s Presidency and the Shrub, and Junior. That’s how I know for certain that I’m right and you are wrong.
For God’s sake, why do you think I’m so hard on “progressives”- because I’ve watched you weaken and cripple this country for over forty years in a vain attempt to hang on to your mythical “purity” rather than do what’s best for the United States.
I watched as you based your election strategy on right wing nonsense in the 70’s, and doubled down on your stupidity election cycle after election cycle despite it being glaringly obvious that your strategy did not, was not, and would never advance the goals you claimed to want one iota.
I had such high hopes for this country, and thanks to “progressives” being so easily and consistently manipulated by the right wing, NOW the best I can hope for is to die before the crash you are being manipulated into working for (wittingly or un) happens.
Needless to say “progressives” have a LOT to answer for.
Your arguments about Reagan and Bush, and Junior are worthless for the simple, inescapable fact that they were dealing with a party that
a) had some respect for election results and the office of President
b) believed in debating proposals on their merits
c) was open to horse trading.
(The country probably would’ve been better off had Democrats pulled a tea party and opposed everything Reagan proposed, but they didn’t)
The Republican party that Obama had to deal with has NONE of those qualities. They decided to oppose everything simply because Obama proposed it. This is UNPRECEDENTED in American history, and that is the simple fact that you cannot get around, no matter how wildly you spin.
And saying that Obama should’ve been able to handle it because other Presidents faced much less insane and consistent opposition is about as useful as you telling me I should be able to beat up Wladimir Klitschko because Ali once beat Frazier. And about as accurate.
“And you want to try, even for a single second, to tell me presidents have limitations to their power?
Absolutely Presidents have limits to their power. Read the Constitution if you don’t believe me. Obama has done everything within his power to get things accomplished, and has not wasted time or political capital on pointless things that would accomplish nothing; all the speechifying you would’ve had him do- which would not have lessened Republican’s unprecedented obstructionism a jot or a tittle.
“Well-planned, well-funded opposition is part of the equation for many of them. But the presidents still got things done despite the opposition.”
Never to the extent that Obama faced. Again, this is a fact that cannot be gotten around, no matter how wildly you spin. And Obama has gotten things accomplished. Frankly, I would say given the circumstances, he has accomplished between 90-95% of what was possible for him to accomplish. Anything else is magical thinking.
“Why do you keep defending this guy? ”
Because people unfairly attacking him for things beyond his control seriously pisses me off. Especially when I call those people out and ask them to explain HOW Obama could overcome UNPRECEDENTED Obstructionism and their answer is magical thinking or a handwaving “Well, he should have”.
“I don’t consider that an accomplishment. I consider it a screwover because I can see what should have been done. You pass Civil Rights. You do an FDR-style works program to get the millions of unemployed people back into the economy. You force universal healthcare onto the country like universal healthcare’s been forced onto those hellholes Canada, Sweden, Germany and England.”
Explain how Obama gets these things past a Congress that has vowed not to debate those things on their merits but to block whatever Democrats propose simply because Democrats propose it.
Because unless you can that paragraph is utterly worthless as argument. And be concrete please- no magical thinking, and for God’s sake no more of this revisionist historical fancy- “Other Presidents dealt with some opposition so Obama should’ve done everything I wanted because of that.”
We can go around this all day, but the facts aren’t refutable: Yes, other Presidents dealt with opposition. No President has EVER dealt with a political party this insane, this determined to block every proposal simply because of the people proposing it and this relentless in its willingness to destroy the country to stop a President from achieving anything positive (Its amazing what Obama has been able to accomplish DESPITE the Republicans- imagine what he could’ve done if he had a party as willing to work with him as the Democrats were to Republican Presidents). No other president. NONE.
And claiming otherwise is handwaving history to conform to your magical thinking; and I won’t let you get away with it.
Whimsical, you can’t cover up, distract from, or successfully explain away Obama’s corporate war criminality, which he is just as guilty of as his gop & democrat predecessors, no matter how hard you try. You’re not fooling any of us who, much to your chagrin, actually pay attention.
@ sknyjohn –
You’re wasting your time responding to a troll. Not a thing you say will have any effect. His attacking Democrats as opportune, attacking Republicans in turn, and attacking “Progressives” at every opportunity leaves any objective observer wondering: “If everything is objectionable,” why aren’t there some suggestions for solutions?
Here’s one example of irrationality: “I lived through Reagan’s Presidency and the Shrub, and Junior.” [Hint: Junior & the Shrub are the same.]
Next: “… what’s best for the United States” is left there hanging in limbo, with no substance to grasp. This is typical of everything I’ve read posted by this troll. Gripe, gripe, gripe about everything that’s happened, offering no path to achieve results.
I learned a long time ago that if one complains about the current state of affairs, one should have some viable alternatives. I haven’t seen any from the troll – only complaints.
Whimsical really isn’t complaining. Whimsical is actually praising (& lying in doing so) Obama’s “achievements” & is falsely asserting that Obama is the solution, though Whimsical is falsely claiming that only the gop is the “problem” instead of acknowledging the truth that Obama, democrats & the gop all are the problem, though Whimsical has indeed only offered fake solutions (cheerlead Obama, flood congress with democrats) instead of real solutions
@ sknyjohn –
As I said — Let’s hear some concrete suggestions for solving the problem(s), rather than just bitching about them. 🙂
Here’re links to real solutions, unlikely to emanate from the likes of (& might not necessarily be understood by) Whimsical:
http://detroit2012.org/about-detroit-2013-2/
http://detroit2012.org/suggestedReadings/%7BR%7DEvolutionInThe21stCentury.pdf
http://detroit2012.org/resources/suggested-readings/
http://www.leftturn.org/grace-lee-boggs-visionary-organizing
pt 1. http://www.livestream.com/newplay/video?clipId=pla_295f8ce8-6f05-4dab-b5c4-337da2fd1ae9&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
pt. 2. http://www.livestream.com/newplay/video?clipId=pla_de92bb17-3106-4687-9649-dd85ae9dd43d&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
http://www.livestream.com/newplay
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/2/grace_lee_boggs
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/sarah-van-gelder/detroits-renewal-can-it-inspire-the-social-forum
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/22/legendary_detroit_activist_grace_lee_boggs
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/14/grace_lee_boggs_on_detroit_and
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/51076
http://www.ucpress.edu/excerpt.php?isbn=9780520269248#readchapter1
1999-2-grace_lee_boggs_nyu_110414_24kbps.mp3
1999-2-grace_lee_boggs_brecht_ 4.15.11_110415_24kbps.mp3
1999-4-grace_lee_boggs_brecht_4.15.11_closing_remarks_110415_24kbps.mp3
g lee boggs comm. rev. NYC 4.16.11 pt. 2.mp3
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/planting-seeds-of-hope
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/planting-seeds-of-hope?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content=BoggsGL_PlantingSeedsOfHope&utm_campaign=110616_PeoplePower
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/grace-lee-boggs/wisconsin-time-to-grow-our-souls
http://rethinkingschools.org/archive/25_04/25_04_review.shtml
http://boggscenter.org/2011/10/the-next-american-revolution-by-grace-lee-boggs/
gl boggs on ows radio show pt 1.mp3 (audio/mpeg) 6928K
gl boggs on ows radio show pt. 2 4.17.12.mp3 (audio/mpeg) 6913K
sknyjohn –
My last comment wasn’t aimed at you but at the troll. I’ll admit that it was worded awkwardly. I don’t need to be convinced of alternate solutions. Thanks for the work you put into that post! 🙂
Hillary in ’16 ? War with China in ’17 (she would be sworn in on 20 January that year) ? Of course, now that the sparks are flying from the US adventure in the Ukraine, we might not have until 2017….
Henri