Consistency: An Open Letter to Obama's Supporters

Yeah. I'm thrilled that he won. Now it's time to hold his feet to the fire.

I'm still annoyed with him about his healthcare proposal but we'll give it a shot and see what it does. 

One thing I would support, however, is a revisitation of some of those signing statements that Bush issued and some of those executive orders.  Recinding them would be a great start.

I agree with Dennis and Mykola about principle and analytical thinking and organizing which is all about cohesive, consistency and terminology that doesn't get corrupted as it always does by Middle class opportunitsts, class elites, who are fearful and servile to the oligarchy they serve.

Here is a link to REAL NEWS and Common Dreams, regarding the need for social movements to push the Corporate and Imperial Obama from American Empire into real change.  Obama's foreign policy looks already ominous, hardly indistinguishable from Bush' fascist foreign policies.   He wants more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even as Patreaus admits that the military cannot murder Afghanistan into submission, as they just did again by killing 30 people in another Wedding bombing....ala war heroes Americans.

Another disturbing development regarding the MIDDLE EAST is that Dan Ross, a protege of Wolfowitz, Bush's NEOCON, and Clinton's NEOCON and Zionist, has signed on to the Bipartisan push for nuclear aggression against IRAN, and is one of many Zionist, liberal war hawk "INSIDERS" what the NEW YORK TIMES calls the "BELTWAY CONSENSUS", translation, screw the public and be damned, they will do as Biden, a clone of Lieberman has suggested, set up OBAMA, and that means us, set up a "crisis" within the first 6 months to continue American Empire.

Now it is almost confirmed that Emmanuel Rham, a right wing Zionist liberal, who organized against anti war democrats for pro war democrats, is being considered the Chief of Staff for OBAMA.....

He needs to ditch all these right wing pro ISRAELI ZIONISTS..."expert idiots" and start all over with an FDR DOMESTIC AGENDA, that deals with the corporate fascists and their bail out to the rich.  If OBAMA hopes to be a great President, he need to go to the real social center, moral center and not the corporate, class center of the two class parties and their political hacks.

We need to get OBAMA to realize, we do not need another Bill or Hillary Clinton, sell out democrat that brought on the disastrous free markets and the collapse of social wealth and the middle class.  Such CORPORORATE ROT will corrupt the faith the world and the public has right now in the naive believe that he will serve us.

HERE IS THE LINK:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/05-8

AND FIRST QUESTION THE MEDIA SHOULD ASK OBAMA:  ARE YOU JOINING HANDS WITH THE NEOCON FASCISTS, THAT SURROUNDED BUSH, INCLUDING YOUR VICE PRESIDENT, BIDEN, IN THEIR SUPPORT OF ANOTHER ILLEGAL WAR AND AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAN???????

Yeah. I'm thrilled that he won. Now it's time to hold his feet to the fire.

Voters have already failed in holding him accountable. They've awarded with the presidency a man who voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act, Bush's illegal wiretapping, the Iraq occupation, protecting corporations in court at the expense of consumers and employees, etc.

Not that McCain would have been any better. The voters failed the moment these two men secured the respective nominations. As it pertains to this column, Obama supporters have already been inconsistent in the fact that they voted Obama president.

Yeah, he has some good ideas. He is also against gay marriage and he's going to escalate our presence in Afghanistan.

Leaving aside the topic of gay marriage which under the Constitution is a matter reserved to the several states, I'm curious as to why an "escalated" presence (whatever that means) in Afghanistan should be viewed pejoratively.

I have to agree with Adam Becker there, I didn't pay that much attention to the election last night because it really didn't matter. During the primaries it was brought up that there really wasn't that much difference between Obama and Hillary, I think what people fail to realize is that there really isn't that much different between Obama and McCain. The main difference that I can see is their health plans, and neither of those were all that great. Oh yeah, Obama wants to raise taxes, but the thing is with McCain's spending plans he would have forced tax increases on us eventually just to pay off the massive dept.

The main difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain would have at least inherited an opposition Congress to balance him, while Obama instead inherits a lapdog Congress that won't provide a single check at all.

Too early to tell how Obama will govern, Adam. Based on my extensive reading of him in both his books and his public record I don't think there's any doubt that he's to the left of the DLC-types who dominated the Clinton administration notwithstanding whether or not he chooses Emanuel to be his COS because Emanuel was to the left of most of them too and was more of a hatchet-man guy in Clinton's WH than a policy operative. I'll be watching his cabinet choices closely for clues on this as well as the people he chooses to staff his Congressional-relations posts with. I'll begin a series of columns on all of this beginning on Monday.

Bill Harrison:

Too early to tell how Obama will govern, Adam.

Yeah, but accountability - the subject of this column - is based on past performance, not future. Obama could run the country into the group between 2008 and 2012 and it would be "too early" to know what he would do between 2012 and 2016 should we re-elect him. All we have to go on is the past, and Obama has not been held accountable for his past; in fact, he's been rewarded for it. That past includes supporting the worst of President Bush's activities, so the Democrats who rallied behind Obama have been inconsistent in electing this man.

Adam Hobson:

The main difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain would have at least inherited an opposition Congress to balance him, while Obama instead inherits a lapdog Congress that won't provide a single check at all.

I don't quite understand what it is about the parties that makes this so, but the Democrats were nothing but lapdogs to Bush while they controlled the Senate for half his presidency (the PATRIOT Act and Iraq invasion and occupation were BOTH originally authorized and then subsequently renewed by a Democrat-controlled Senate) while I see absolutely no way the Republicans would play that role for a President Obama.

To Democrats, that probably means their party puts "compromise" ahead of ideals, even if the result is two parties that worked together to kill a billion people in Iraq, produce the PATRIOT Act, further insulate corporations from accountability and create an atmosphere of organized crime in Washington.

To Republicans, that probably means their party is sticking to its guns and not letting the Democrats ruin the country, even if those "guns" are all the things I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Oh yeah, Obama wants to raise taxes, but the thing is with McCain's spending plans he would have forced tax increases on us eventually just to pay off the massive dept.

Yeah, I really wonder how people afraid of Obama's taxes think the country was going to pay for John McCain's government. The single best moment for Obama during the campaign, in my eyes, came during the second of the three debates. McCain kept prodding Obama on his tax proposals, and finally Obama responded with (paraphrased), "look, if we're going to continue having the government provide the things it does, someone has to pay for it." The options are simple: Severely - and I mean *severely* - cut back the expenses of the federal government, or increase revenues of the federal government. Hell, both are going to be necessary eventually if the country wants to get its skyrocketing debt under control. Instead, McCain proposed either a stagnant or bigger government, but with less money to do it.

Obama could run the country into the group between 2008 and 2012

That should say "ground" not "group."

I think what people fail to realize is that there really isn't that much different between Obama and McCain.

You know, I hear this a lot. But the funny thing is, I've never, ever heard it from someone who wasn't a Libertarian.

Just because your ideal federal government is eight people in a tent discussing tariff policy and how best to whittle the military down to a $30/month budget doesn't mean that McCain and Obama aren't different.

Picture it this way: The earth is Obama. Mars is McCain. That's 35 million miles at their nearest...quite a distance. We people of the solar system (Republicans, Democrats, and most independents) find ourselves pretty close to one or both of these candidates, and have a pretty healthy respect for the divide that separates them. You, however, are Pluto. You are Alpha Centauri. You are the Horsehead Nebula. You are the Andromeda @!$%#ing Spiral Galaxy. You are so mind-bogglingly distant from mainstream political opinion that to you, the rest of us look like a blurry little dot. But I assure you, there are two very distinct, very different sets of political ideals and policies in that little dot. You just have to get a little bit closer to see them clearly.

Sorry. I've been sitting on that rant for a while now waiting to blurt it out at some poor individual. Continue.

Picture it this way: The earth is Obama. Mars is McCain.

Yes, and in the context of the entire universe, Mars and Earth are pretty much right next to each other, holding hands. In the context of a 180-degree political spectrum, Obama and McCain are about two degrees apart.

Not to mention, there's a difference between the differences McCain and Obama say exist between each other and the differences actually exist. Take your military example: Both say they want to expand the military, and by a pretty significant amount. Both think health insurance is the answer for US health care. Both voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act. Both say they want to close Guantanamo. Neither did anything about the country's current economic "crisis" until after @!$%# hit the fan. And so on.

There are differences - it's just the differences are on things that don't matter.

I don't quite understand what it is about the parties that makes this so, but the Democrats were nothing but lapdogs to Bush while they controlled the Senate for half his presidency

...

while I see absolutely no way the Republicans would play that role for a President Obama.

To Democrats, that probably means their party puts "compromise" ahead of ideals

I don't think the Democrats compromise on their ideals so much as that the ideals of the Democratic politicians are different than the ideals of the Democratic people. I don't think that Democratic politicians have ideals against things like the Patriot Act or effective corporate regulations. Democratic politicians get money from corporations and the Patriot Act gives them move personal power.

I see the same thing in the GOP. You claim that a GOP congress would never compromise with Obama, but I don't see that as so. The GOP is perfectly willing to compromise small government, hell they don't even need to compromise, as shown during Bush, the GOP is perfectly willing to grow government even when the Democrats have no power to make them. That's because while small government may be an ideal of many of the actual people in the GOP, it is not an ideal of the actual politicians, who are more than willing to accept the greater power that comes with bigger government.

And this gets to Danny McGee's point, the reason that I can call the parties so similar, and for reasons besides being just a libertarian, is that politicians share more in common with each other, than they do the people they represent. Yes, the people who are Democrats and Republicans have differences and are not the same, but other than for some very trivial areas of policy, the politicians of the two parties are far more the same than different.

The reason that most people don't see the lack of difference is because their so obsessed with partisan politics, with us verse them that they don't realize how the politicians are hoodwinking them all.

I don't think the Democrats compromise on their ideals so much as that the ideals of the Democratic politicians are different than the ideals of the Democratic people.

I think you're right - which makes said people's support of the Democrat Party all the more baffling.

Almost all of us have to hope for something. Most people stick to conventional politics and hope that their candidate is the Real Dealt^TM. That's why Congress has an approval rating of 17%, while 90% of incumbents were reelected. That's also why I stick to libertarianism even though baring a gigantic revolution, or apocalypse, it just ain't gonna happen. We all need to hope for something.

I see the same thing in the GOP. You claim that a GOP congress would never compromise with Obama, but I don't see that as so.

The more I think about this, however, the more I disagree with it. The Democrats have not been much more than a rubber stamp for Bush. I mean, sure, they put up a token fight on things like the Iraq timeline and the children's health insurance bill, but ultimately Bush's opposition led to him getting exactly what he wanted. I just can't possibly see the Republicans being so overwhelmingly cowering should Obama try something they claim to not like.

Obviously the Republicans are in a different position now, as they are the minority and any good or bad that comes from Congress can be blamed on the Democrats. But I just think the Republicans would be more than willing to stall Congress if they were in control and didn't want to support something Obama or his allies in Congress put before them. Maybe I'm overestimating how much their aggression will carry over now than a Democrat is in the White House.

Almost all of us have to hope for something. Most people stick to conventional politics and hope that their candidate is the Real DealtTM. That's why Congress has an approval rating of 17%, while 90% of incumbents were reelected. That's also why I stick to libertarianism even though baring a gigantic revolution, or apocalypse, it just ain't gonna happen. We all need to hope for something.

Yeah, we all have to hope, but hope doesn't have to manifest itself into support for people who have repeatedly proven themselves to not be capable and/or interested in living up to our hope.

The "hope" that leads to Obama being elected can only be "hope" that a person will change after failing to live up to the "hope" before. Sooner or later, someone outside the big two parties must be worthy of the optimism.

Again, I think it comes down to priorities. There was one area that the Democrats did not budge on at all, and that was with judicial nominees. In the past the GOP has always been far more accommodating with their "advise and consent" role in the judicial nominee process. I don't think a GOP congress for Obama would be his lap dog, oh they'd make a boatload of noise, but in the end there are only a few select issues where they'd even really care (more than like the evangelical ones). On most of everything else they'd quietly conform.

And I also still don't think that the Democratic Congress was weak in not standing up to Bush, they just had their own priorities, the minimum wage being it. I don't think that the Democrats in power really care about the Patriot Act or the Iraq War all that much, which is why they were so fast to compromise. Hell, remember, most of them voted for it all in the first place before the people started making noise. In words the Democrats are against the Patriot Act and Iraq War because that's their role as anti-Republicans, but in practice, they just don't care.

In words the Democrats are against the Patriot Act and Iraq War because that's their role as anti-Republicans, but in practice, they just don't care.

I agree, and I think that in a nutshell is what I've been saying about Obama. The problem is, many, many people voted for the Democrats - both in 2006 and 2008 - because the party said it did care about the Iraq occupation. The Democrats got to power in 2006 and immediately forgot about that, and the voters didn't seem to care in 2008.

Now, Obama says he's going to get out of Iraq, but wants the military significantly bigger anyway. Nobody seems to see this as a concern. Certainly the accountability this column is calling for seems incredibly unlikely.

The only thing that really seems to be a priority to the Democrats is staying in power. They'll do, say and support anything if it means staying in power. That appears to be the overriding motivation, and it means nothing they do or say can be trusted (which again isn't to say the Republicans are any better; they're just as power-hungry).

I just feel like I could infer a list of priorities from the Republicans that would fall roughly in line with what the party claims as its priorities, even if I would word them slightly different than John McCain would:

- Protect corporations and the rich, economically and legally

- Limit federal regulation in many industries, though not without exception

- Preserve stereotypical "Christian" social values in America

- Maintaining the threat of military force as a tool of diplomacy

... I could probably produce more. The point is, I think these are the things the Republicans campaign on, and I see them vigorously promoting these priorities in Congress. The Democrats, on the other hand, get elected on a platform that is nominally the opposite of this, but then they do nothing to push that agenda. That is why I see a Republican-controlled Congress put up more opposition than a Democrat one.

I mean, look at what a Republican Congress did to Clinton. They impeached the man over a blowjob (OK, put him under oath about a blowjob, whatever)! Meanwhile, Democrat leaders call the notion of impeaching Bush - a man guilty of certainly far greater crimes - pointless.

Impeachment is obviously an extreme example. The point is, the Republicans had no qualms about taking the fight to Clinton over even the smallest things. Bush has @!$%#ed things up on a scale I'm not sure we are even capable of fathoming at this point in time, and it's still not enough to get some emotion on these issues from Democrat leadership.

Ok, I can agree with that. But just a quick addition:

Limit federal regulation in many industries, though not without exception

I don't think the GOP wants to limit federal regulation, in fact they use federal regulation all the time to achiever your first point, protect corporations and the rich. Federal regulations are used all the time to create monopolistic situations, limit corporate liability, limit innovation to protect antiquated industries, etc, etc, etc. That's why I find it so easy to oppose federal regulations, because 9 times out of 10 those regulations are meant to protect the rich and powerful, not the common man.

Also, I don't think your forth point, or rather the opposite of your forth point is part of the Democratic agenda, even in theory. Remember, it was the Democrats who started Vietnam, and it was the Clinton Administration who sent our military into more separate combat situations than any president prior. That's why Obama can seek to increase the military, especially our presence in Afghanistan and the rank and file Democrats are perfectly okay with it.

I don't think the GOP wants to limit federal regulation, in fact they use federal regulation all the time to achiever your first point, protect corporations and the rich. Federal regulations are used all the time to create monopolistic situations, limit corporate liability, limit innovation to protect antiquated industries, etc, etc, etc. That's why I find it so easy to oppose federal regulations, because 9 times out of 10 those regulations are meant to protect the rich and powerful, not the common man.

I was thinking mostly about regulations aimed at protecting the environment, worker safety and pay, quality assurances and legal redress for employees and consumers who feel wronged. Opposing these things I'd say falls in line with the first Republican priority I listed.

Also, I don't think your forth point, or rather the opposite of your forth point is part of the Democratic agenda, even in theory. Remember, it was the Democrats who started Vietnam, and it was the Clinton Administration who sent our military into more separate combat situations than any president prior. That's why Obama can seek to increase the military, especially our presence in Afghanistan and the rank and file Democrats are perfectly okay with it.

I don't think the majority of people who voted for Obama are aware his Web site said the military is too small. I also don't think the majority of American people regardless of who they voted for realize just how much money the US spends on its military, certainly not relative to the rest of the world.

Kennedy starting Vietnam and Johnson escalating it has as much bearing on the current situation as the Republican Nixon being the one to get the US out of Vietnam does. I don't think people voting for Obama think necessarily that he wants to defend the nation with spitballs (as Zel Miller might say), but I just have a hard time believing most people realize just to what extent the Republicans and Democrats agree on the use of military force. If they did, they would be more alarmed by Obama's proposal to expand the military.

Everyone's going around acting like Obama is their friend now, like they grew up with him and trust him - and that strikes me as silly.

Isn't that how George W. Bush was elected ;-)

He's a good speaker

He's an above average speaker at best, it's just that his competition brings the curve down and makes him look better than he actually is. It's weird too, maybe I've gotten used to him, but I think his speaking ability has actually worsened, or maybe he's just gotten tired.

I really like the idea of paying 4000/year college tuition in exchange for service hours

Can that be retroactive? ;-)

We don't need a charismatic smile, we need someone who is going to go in and @!$%# @!$%# up.

That's kinda why I am hoping for Jesse Ventura in 2012. Yea, he's a bit crazy and out there, but man will he @!$%# up the system if he runs.

Everyone's going around acting like Obama is their friend now, like they grew up with him and trust him - and that strikes me as silly.

I'm going to sort of mirror what Aine was saying, without the FU's, but -- c'mon.

You wrote this article *the day after* we elected our first African American President, after decades of racism, the specter of slavery and everything that both of those issues entail, and many of us were more "involved" in this election than in any election of our lives - some of us the first election we've been involved in in *any* capacity - putting almost two years of effort, of arguing for the guy we supported, often arguing against outright lies, right up until election day, pushing out countless articles, etc. In short, for those of us who fought for this, there's really no good comparison to what it means to finally see him stand on that stage.

For black citizens, it just gets that much more important and momentous. In *that* regard, it's practically absurd to expect people to gloss over the achievement and just skip right up to the point where we sigh and accept that the America is a bit @!$%#ed right now.

You, then, step in while some people probably haven't even stopped drinking as part of the celebration, and @!$%# on the party. You're the guy who, the day after the Super Bowl victory for the home team, before the parade, before it even sinks in as to what's happened says:

"Whoah, whoah, whoah. Let's not pretend that this changes the fact that we've got some holes in the defensive line, and -- let's not forget that we only *just* won the big game. We need to start thinking about next year opening game, because those guys aren't resting right now..."

Well, okay. But goddamn it, man -- let people enjoy something after fighting for it, in some degree, for eight years.

Obama hasn't been sworn in, he's simply the President-elect. He's not made any policy decisions. 

I just think it's silly for you to make some sort of claim that his supporters, still high on their well-earned victory (again, the *morning after* it's earned) have some sort of unrealistic expectation of Obama that you, the guy who sat on the sidelines a bit, have some special vantage point on.

We get it. It's not going to be handed to us on a silver platter. He may @!$%# some stuff up. There's a lot to do. Blah blah @!$%#ing blah. 

I don't even remember who it was that brought it up earlier in this sub-thread, but yeah:

Libertarians.

Their motto should be: "We're never happy with anything."

or...

"If you're not just like us ... you're just like everyone else..."

I owe NOTHING to Obama.

I will give NO support to Obama.

I will angrily pay my taxes, soon to increase 2010.

I will gloat and mock at every given opportunity. Christian republicans are treated like crap and blamed for everything when there are more contributing factors to our country's current state. So, you want to treat me and my peers like crap? Fine, don't expect unity. I'm Christian first and the dems have made it a dirty word. Enjoy your messiah. Mine's better.

Mykola

Excellent article.  Lets see how things evolve.  

Well, I mean, I guess you can get upset at me if you'd like. I don't dispute the value of having a black president, I think that's pretty cool - but in terms of american policy it may be utterly meaningless.

I'm glad you're so happy that he won - treasure that. But I feel like everyone I know is walking around like they just got laid, and it's freaking me out a little bit. I do feel like I have some slightly more objective vantage point here - and all I'm saying is, enjoy the party but be ready for him to turn out to be human.

And worse, an American politician.

And the scrutiny needs to start sooner rather than later. I'm actually surprised that this article was as well-received as it was - I expected a lot more people to be upset with me. But I'm right.

I think you underestimate the value of symbols in people's lives. Obama won with the margin he did because he was able to harness people's emotions and make them care about government. He inspired hope in a place a lot of people had given up on finding it. That's a more powerful thing than you are giving it credit for. It's not a simple matter from there of removing the emotional component and still expecting people to have the same investment. That's just not how people are, no matter how right you may be about your position.

I think you always have this hope and expectation that people are rational and will behave logically but we aren't 100% rational beings. We aren't even close to that, and while that fact may be inconvenient I also think it's part of what makes us human.

And I'll be honest with you. After reading stories about 80 year-old civil rights activists who served time in jail or lost jobs because they had the audacity to register blacks to vote or march for equal rights finally getting to vote for a black President, I think this election is more than just "pretty cool." Barack Obama was born roughly 3 years after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to restrict voting based on race, and now he's President of the United States. Do I intend to critique his Presidency if he makes what I perceive to be missteps? Of course. But I'm also going to walk around like I just got laid. Because this @!$%# is @!$%#ing awesome.

Well, I mean, I guess you can get upset at me if you'd like.

I didn't say I was upset with you. I said I think *you* believe that you have some special insight over people who are excited, or that you have a more rational view, simply because -- one day later -- people are still excited as hell. I simply believe you're being a bit premature in making that claim.

Do I intend to critique his Presidency if he makes what I perceive to be missteps? Of course. But I'm also going to walk around like I just got laid. Because this @!$%# is @!$%#ing awesome.

Right. That's my point.

And, ultimately, I think you do this in a lot of instances. For example, you'll often be the first person (or the second, depending on whether or not I get there first) to jump into a meta fight and let the @!$%# hit the fan, encourage the explosion, and then...

The next day you'll write a meta article about how we need to come to grips, that some of what we're seeing is hurting Newsvine, etc.

In other words, this just seems to me like another example of you wanting to play the devil's advocate side of every argument, and -- in this instance -- I don't think you have a particularly compelling or unique point of view, and I don't think you *do* have a special insight.

You're essentially looking at a bunch of people who *did* just get laid while scoffing about the fact that they're acting as though they just got laid, and even worse, you've come into the bedroom before we've even lost our erection to remind us that we may have just gotten an STD or walked into an unwanted pregnancy. Thanks, for that.

Why not wait until the symptoms of either complication actually manifest to bother us?

And, for what it's worth - I don't have a problem with your article, or the suggestions, nor do I disagree with it, particularly, as I mentioned way down below in my first comment.

I'm responding *specifically* to the discussion in this sub-thread.

But at the same time, I feel like now's the time to pay attention, now's the time to adjust our focus. 

But again, you're preaching at people who have *been* paying attention for over two years, now. My point is - you don't have to tell us something that we're already doing, simply because we've paused for a relatively short period of time to enjoy a victory.

That celebration doesn't mean what you're alleging it means, given there's a couple months before he's even sworn in.

"Whoah, whoah, whoah. Let's not pretend that this changes the fact that we've got some holes in the defensive line, and -- let's not forget that we only *just* won the big game. We need to start thinking about next year opening game, because those guys aren't resting right now..."

Dude, don't even try to use a sports metaphor with me, cause I'll just blast it full of holes.

So you think an election is winning the game? Does an election actually change anything by itself? No! The election isn't even part of the game. The game is actually getting in the bloody oval office and doing the job of the President.

The election is like the draft. Yea, Obama was just drafted #1 overall, but that doesn't mean he'll be a Peyton Manning, he could turn into a Ryan Leaf. So yea, celebrate your draft pick, but draft picks alone won't win you @!$%#. Just ask the Detroit Lions. Now he has to struggle through the preseason (transition period) to get ready for the real season (when he's actually the President).

I think you underestimate the value of symbols in people's lives.

I really do think that America needs a figurehead king. Let them be the @!$%#ing "symbol". They can be the guy that gives the speeches, that Americans want to have a drink with, or is some racial symbol or whatever. Leave the Presidency to someone up to the doing the job.

But again, you're preaching at people who have *been* paying attention for over two years, now.

Correct me if I'm wrong Myk, but I think the point of this article is that yea, a whole lot of people have been paying attention over the past two year or even longer. And a hell of a lot of people are upset with Bush and recite his every sin. But many of these same people are perfectly willing to ignore the sins of Obama because they got their guy in.

Mykola Bilokonsky

Perhaps I missed something in what you wrote, but As I understood him, he expects us to hold him accountable.  That said, I think we should always hold our leaders responsible, but it does sound as though you feel what he campaigned on is not enough of a task.  I will hold his feet to the fire, but I also realize that once in office he will have knowledge of information he was not privy t before.  That is not an excuse to do nothing, but an excuse to have to shift, redirect, or rearrange.  I am not blind to the mess he walks into and know it is greater than anything of my lifetime.  What I will hold him accountable for is filling me in on exactly where we are once he is fully informed and then and only then can we begin a dialogue of where we go from there.  To suggest anything else is presumptuous and unfair to anybody who is working without all the facts.

Adam! I didn't realize we had a fortune teller in our midst! I know what you say applies to some people but I deem not near as many as you might think. There are many, many of us who think bush came close to being traitorous, and we think of Obama as our man in Washington. That does not, however, let him wander free. bush was or should be a lesson in apathy. Never again! This time we will watch our man and see that he does right by our country.

Correct me if I'm wrong Myk, but I think the point of this article is that yea, a whole lot of people have been paying attention over the past two year or even longer.

The guy hasn't even gotten "in" yet. I'm saying that Mykola is making speculative and *pre-emptive* assumptions about people, based on the fact that they're giddy that their guy won a two-year long process. 

It's utterly absurd to judge people WHILE they're having an orgasm. Don't tell me I make stupid faces while I'm getting off -- I *know* I make stupid faces while I'm getting off. You're simply pointing out the obvious. If I don't *stop* making stupid faces after I'm done getting off, feel free to pull me aside, and let me know.

And, as I've already mentioned, you don't need to tell me about the article, because I didn't disagree with him, there.

So you think an election is winning the game? 

When Myk calls people's excited response to his having prevailed over John McCain into question, yes - I do.  Two people were pitted against each other, only one of them could score enough points to be elected, so - yeah - I think it was a game. He may be playing a *new* game, now - but that doesn't mean that the election wasn't a game.

And, again - it's silly to expect that people aren't going to respect or take seriously the new rules of the new game he's about to play simply because they're excited about his having won a different game.

And, for what it's worth, if you want to attack my sports metaphors but not even bother to look at my sex metaphors -- I can accept that. You might want to think about the ramifications of that, though.

;)

And, for what it's worth, if you want to attack my sports metaphors but not even bother to look at my sex metaphors -- I can accept that. You might want to think about the ramifications of that, though.

Hey, while I hold my "master of sports at newsvine" title very dear, I do not claim in the least to be the "mast of sex at newsvine"

I guess the thing is that you and oldfogey are seeing the criticism in this particular thread as premature, but I kinda don't see it that way. I've gotten to know many of the users on newsvine over the past three years, and I've seen how they acted. I've also seen the complete lack of criticism most have had for the 110th Congress, or Barack Obama the Senator. I think this lack of accountability will be extremely dangerous now that Obama has been handed a lapdog Congress that will do his bidding without a moments hesitation.

It's probably pretty clear now that I don't exactly agree with much of the Democratic platform, however, in the few areas I do agree, ending the Iraq War, civil rights and drug decriminalization, this recent Democratic Congress that Barack Obama was a member of, made zero progress. Why should I give the 111th Congress or President Obama the benefit of the doubt when they have already failed to even try to accomplish something in the areas I actually agree with them?

I've also seen the complete lack of criticism most have had for the 110th Congress, or Barack Obama the Senator. I think this lack of accountability will be extremely dangerous now that Obama has been handed a lapdog Congress that will do his bidding without a moments hesitation.

I've seen criticisms - not many, but some - but to be fair, most of those who were Obama supporters have spent the last several months combatting utterly ridiculous claims and (often) outright lies. 

Again, you're basing how we'll behave in the new game based on how we behaved in the last game, and I don't think they're comparable games, but I still say they're both games.

this recent Democratic Congress that Barack Obama was a member of, made zero progress.

And, realistically, that's about as much progress as a two member majority (for only the last two years) facing a veto-hungry lame-duck President can make. You're arguing that they should just cut the funding for troops and hope Bush doesn't make a crazy decision to keep them there without proper funding and -- that's a pretty crappy expectation given Bush's history in Iraq. They took a stand, Bush wouldn't have it, and now you say they "did nothing". 

civil rights and drug decriminalization

I'm not sure what you expected them to do here? 

Rally behind the gay community? Cut off funding for the drug war?

Again, rallying behind them isn't going to do much. What policies would you suggest they enact? As for the drug war - not a chance in hell with only a two seat majority.

I think this lack of accountability will be extremely dangerous now that Obama has been handed a lapdog Congress that will do his bidding without a moments hesitation.

Adam H., if Barack Obama is serious (I have no idea whether he is or is not as his past actions don't match his campaign rhetoric) about governing from the center I can assure you he will not have lapdogs in the form of Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Henry Waxman and a whole host of others -- he'll have curs of his own stripe turning on him with fangs bared. Jimmy Carter still hasn't pulled Tip O'Neill's canines out of his wizened behind. Carter was done in by relations with his own party in the Congress -- not with the GOP minority.