Obama Blinks

He made the economy WORSE. He was in a position to turn it around, and he made it WORSE.

Four more years of Obama means four more years of wars in the Middle East, and four more years of flag-draped coffins being shipped home at a sickening rate.

We cannot turn our country around with four wars going on in the Middle East. We simply cannot.

Do you read what the neocons are writing? It is scary. They seem pretty sure they've convinced Obama to go straight on, country by country, to Iran.

Done and dusted. I have written many a pointed email..and called numerous times to the WH. DCCC and the DNC both get an earful from me whenever they want some cash from me...they will have my vote but, not my cash....and we all know cash is king.

When I called and complained my cell phone was turned off. Took me three days to figure out what happened . I still had the company invevtory part working but no connection to the main computer. Eventually I took the battery out and put it back in. Then it worked again. I was terrified I might have broken the phone and might get fired. Then I was angry when I realized how callous they had been. I believe my president has no real power. I dont think the position of the presidency has had real power for a long time.

They love it when you try to contact them because they know then that you are still wasting your time trying to contact them rather than doing something that might actually accomplish what we want.

It's been a good 15-20 years since our representatives in D.C. simply quit paying attention to us.

Contacting them does no good whatsoever because they have already proven they will simply do whatever is the best for their own self interests.

Out of all the efforts you've made to contact them, how effective was it?

Do you believe they changed course because of your contact?

Even the huge email campaigns we've launched, they did nothing to impact the outcome of the vote or issue we were protesting about.

They simply don't care what we think or believe should be done because they are going to do what suits their own best interests, anyway.

Wow Jake, good comment and probably not far off the mark, except; for the constant lies that most of America digests as news. You and I and most of the commenter's I read are searching out truth. The voting masses are going to vote the media hype at this point unless there is a major game changer. Just the fact the the GOP is restricting voting in red states should be enough to keep the party of NO alive.

Because of this administrations failure to prosecute torture and banking crimes Obama will lose many millions of votes. The lesser of two evils is still evil and I can't in good conscience vote for a person who puts money over health. Science says what poison is and the poor tend to get the most exposure. In a world of 7 billion water and air and soil are our greatest assets.

I think he will probably win reelection but keep your eyes on those voting machines. I predict this election will be decided in court; reminiscent of 2000.

Bingo, never underestimate cowboy swagger.

I am fascinated to watch and see if Obama's strategy works.

I agree that most Dems will vote for him in 2012, but will they do the groundwork?
And if they don't will that make a difference.

I do not see the passion any more. Single payer slap, Tax breaks for the rich extended, and now kicking our children in the lungs; he shat on himself. I won't be surprised if he loses; that is for-sure!

I just read an article on politico where activists just aren't sure if they can do the same campaigning in 2012. But they said they had not decided yet.

They are waiting on his tar sands decision.

At any rate, the base may support Obama but not enthusiastically.

Can the independent voters make up the slack?

I am an Independent ... NO I won't take up the slack; NO I won't campaign for him; NO I won't vote for him. I've had it, and from where I stand at this moment in his first term, I don't see all that much difference between a middle-of-the-road republican and him so whether I vote my conscience or go along with the dyed-in-the-wool Obama-ites I don't see much difference in how this country will be run if Obama gets his second term.

Well we have 14 months to figure that out. I am hoping for an intervention. Government sanity is at an all time low. Obama, by far, is not the worst problem in Washington. Perhaps a little more extreme weather will bring the voters to their scenes as to electing a representative government. Oh shit, I was day dreaming again.

The Obama administration is hoping that Perry will scare you into voting for Obama.
This strategy probably will work.

Excellent article -- now what can be done to make sure ALL the DC infidels are 'dismembered'/ voted out/ wind up on unemployment?
The author definitely has a point -- maybe I should stop being so angry at 'Obama-the-wishy/washy' and realize that ALL dems in power are that way. I guess the best place to start is to do whatever we voters can to get ALL of the incumbents out, and try something/one new.
Pwr 2 the voting peons! Vote out ALL incumbents!

I wish that would fix the problem, but the last election only gained a worse lot who are a total embarrassment to democracy.

When you say a vote for a third party is a vote thrown away, you are simply parroting the GOP and DNC's scare-tactic memes....it's much like the "911" scare tactic Bush/Obama use against us, but more partisan.

To simply vote for whichever oligocrat the DNC or RNC chooses for you is giving away your vote to them. You are transferring the only power you have as a voter by simply letting the DNC or RNC choose for you.

When you vote for someone who you do not believe is the one who will make the best president for our country, you are throwing away your vote.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

When you vote for a third party, write in a vote, or don't vote at all, you are telling the DNC and RNC that you will not be another mechanical cog in their oligarchy wheel. You WILL think for yourself, despite their best efforts to convince you it is wrong to do so.

The ruling oligocracy (which is what our two-party political system is...just two halves of the oligocracy) quit listening to the voters at least 15 years ago...maybe more.

And why should they listen to us, when voters like you will continue to vote for them, even when they break their promises and act illegally. There is no reason for them NOT to ignore us and, instead of doing what they promised, do what suits their own best interests.

In 2010, an unexpectedly large number of Democratic Party voters simply did not bother to show up at the polls. They didn't vote for any candidate or any measure.

There is concern that 2010 was the birth of a new apathetic class of voters.

THAT is something that got noticed by political parties and their strategists, because apathetic voters can no longer be controlled by either the DNC or RNC. That belief can spread to other voters--quite easily, especially in poor economic times.

If enough voters become apathetic about voting, it usually means they are apathetic about the country, and no longer believe its rulers. THAT is a destabilizing force in the country.

So political parties tend to take notice when it looks like a new group of apathetic voters has formed.

I believe that reality can be used against the politicians and parties who ignore our needs and our demands.

Quite simply, "If you care, don't vote."

It's the only way left we have to send a message to our government.

Pffft!

Jake's just telling you to do "more of the same" and you are dumb enough to believe that it will produce a different outcome.

If we don't do something to shock our government in the 2012 election--such as simply not bothering to vote for anybody or any measure--we will have Jeb Bush in 2016.

That's what the plan is, and after another 4 years of Obama, even Democrats will vote for Jeb.

Oh, his strategy is working quite well.

Unfortunately, his strategy is working towards further empowering the neocons (including the GOPers).

A vote for Obama in 2012 ensures Jeb Bush in 2016.

I pray they do not. It is a tremendous waist of resources to be an activist for Obama. You simply cannot believe anything he says, and he has already run our country further into the ground than Bush Cheney did.

I was a ninja activist in 2008, for Obama. Biggest mistake of my life.

Instead of waisting our resources working for a bait-and-switch scam artist like Obama, we should contemplate where we could use our resources that would produce REAL change....not the Chump Change we got from Obama.

Now that's what I'M talkin about!!

Hoping for a vague intervention is the same as throwing our votes behind Obama in 2012.

It's clear our political savior is not going to come to us from without--it will come from within.

Well, I agree with both you and Wolfess.

1. We need a different class of politicians in D.C.

2. For us Democrats, to do that, we will have to remove the current bunch of neocon-lite Democrats from office.

3. The void may be filled, the first time around, by Republicans. That's because the mothereffing DNC has not seen it fit to run the kind of politician who will truly serve the voters.

4. Having the void filled by GOPer politicians is not a bad thing, because it will send a message loud and clear to the Democratic politicians: fuck us over at your own risk of office.

5. In 2014, there will be Democratic candidates who WILL be willing to serve the voters and not the elites.

And we rebuild our party.

As much as we like to hold our noses about the Tea Party, by God, if the Tea Party threw weight behind a candidate and that candidate was elected in 2012, the newly elected politician (mostly) damned straight did what they promised the Tea Party.

We have to take a no-tolerance approach to the neocon Democrats in D.C., and be willing to risk losing big-time to clear out the neocon Democrats so that we can rebuild the party with politicians who will pay attention to our needs and our demands.

If we are not willing to do that, IMO, there is no hope. There is really no reason to vote anymore because we will just be making the oligarchy that much stronger.

I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again. I know the system is rigged and in my life Ross Perot has been the only 3rd party candidate that had a chance. The media is controlling the gig. It does not matter how load you scream or how many posts you make pointing out truth, the sheep our being led by their own greed and lack of love for fellow humans. You,,,,,,, have even chosen to belittle me for discussing the problem. CNN is where your venom should be spat. PEACE OUT.

I have conversations with other voters all the time. Most our helplessly unaware of how the systems even work. The money flow into politics has to be stopped. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE AS LONG AS IT TAKES A BILLION DOLLARS TO GET ELECTED!

IMHO, there is no hope; for this government anyway. You know, on the local level, there are examples of working government........ somewhere.......maybe . Voting should be a requirement and health care should be a right. Oh, and marijuana should be legal; all drugs decriminalized.

PoliticalAmazon,

Thank you for the reply; I wasn't expecting any more from this post, much less a vigorously reactive one—no offense.

I above many realize how desperately we need to transition to a new political party system, but from my perspective, I also see the reality that the timing just isn't there yet. It could very well be in 2012, which I discussed in detail in my post, which further makes me wonder how much—and at what depth—you read my comment.

There will be no third party in this system: one of the two parties must go. My "THEORY" (emphasis) is that Obama recognizes that the more rational party must stay. And you and I both know the Democrats are the more rational conservative party. If the GOP go the way of the Whig Party, a new slot opens up—thus fulfilling your wish.

Ultimately though, whoever controls the television right now and has the most corporate backing is a shoe-in. That's why Obama's taking the approach he is with marginalizing the GOP. I could be an idealist and vote for the Green Party, but without substantial media coverage, I've effectively been counterproductive. Such a movement will not "build up" over time as you think, it will only succeed in this system upon a major paradigm in our country (disastrous event or scandal, etc). Your chance may be coming, but not in the way you perceive it to begin.

I mean no disrespect, but I'm not taking what you say as fact, but only your personal theory—as you should mine. My reason for pointing this out is because what your tone implies is a matter of correction, not bringing another viewpoint to the table. I don't need your supposed corrections on what is and is not throwing out a vote. I will take a polite opinion, however. Pardon me, but I cannot take fundamentalism or idealism without looking at realism first.

"When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil."

This is such an absurd overgeneralization of the political climate, it is not even funny. To compare someone like Obama to a potential candidate like Perry or Romney—much more a previous president like George W. Bush is like comparing a J-walker to a serial killer. Yes, technically the J-walker is the "lesser of two evils," but it's to a substantial degree. I do not look at politics by hollow catch-terms. I told you succinctly why I would vote for Obama—not just vaguely because he was the lesser of two evils. But by NOT voting, you essentially forfeit and allow the GREATER of the two evils to win by math alone. I consider that largely illogical. In fact, you contradicted the lesser-of-two-evils argument:

"When you vote for someone who you do not believe is the one who will make the best president for our country, you are throwing away your vote."

Ultimately there is never a "best" or "perfect" president, so there will always be some level of "lesser-evil" within the election. "The best" president is the polar equivalent to voting for the lesser of two evils: it's just said in a lot prettier way. So what is one to do but compromise at every election? You be the idealist and vote for yourself—the only "perfect president" in the eyes of you as a voter. We'll see how far that goes.

"When you vote for a third party, write in a vote, or don't vote at all, you are telling the DNC and RNC that you will not be another mechanical cog in their oligarchy wheel. You WILL think for yourself, despite their best efforts to convince you it is wrong to do so."

This is where I stray from fundamentalism or idealism or acting out of principle: I instead choose realism or practicality. I understand wholly that if I would have voted for another candidate, it's not going to change anything: what fraction of a voice I have now will be me screaming in solitude. Conservatives relish the idea of the democratic party fragmenting into apathy and discontent.

You want to change the political sphere by attacking, or changing, a symptom. Instead, what we need to attack is the root: money in politics. As said: whoever controls the television and has the money will be victor nearly every time. NOTHING else matters. With that, the only way to appeal to the general public via 30-second soundbites is to appear moderate enough to attract independents and moderate conservatives and progressives.

It's not that "voters like me" continuously vote blindly for republican or democrat, it's that voters like me who have idealistically voted for third parties in the past begin to understand what is happening: our people NEVER get in due to the way our system runs, and the WORST candidate (not the lesser of two evils, even!) gets in. Well I'm glad you feel morally true, but as I said, the timing isn't there yet (but I believe it is coming).

In essence, you're contributing evidence to my point: Obama is taking the Democrats in a new direction: the direction to appeal to the apathetic voters. These apathetic voters are sick of gridlocking in politics and would prefer someone who is diplomatic (check), works with the opposition (check), and is open to new ideas (check). In essence, Obama is eliminating the NEED for the GOP. But you should probably fully read my first comment rather than having me repeat myself.

That second to last statement you made almost makes me believe you're a conservative troll. I have no evidence, and hate resorting to ad hominems, so I hold no weight behind that. But that is a completely absurd belief that not voting will get us anywhere in this country. I believe the problem you're addressing has been simplified far too much.

If you want to change the current political sphere:

1. MORE PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE.

2. They need to vote for the rational party and thus

3. Not vote for the uncompromising extremists: Let the GOP party collapse and allow a new party to take its place.

4. Segregate capitalism from democratic voting.

Honestly, Amazon, after reading all of your latest replies on this thread, it doesn't appear you even finished reading my post. You made absolutely no counter to my theories on Obama further in my post, you only managed to get to my second paragraph—at which point you fumed—and thought you could put me in my place or something.

The two types of people who will cause another four-years of conservative hell—far more disastrous than anything you think Obama has done—will be no-voters like you, and blinded tea-party voters.

Your theory might work, and I'd do it, if it had the momentum behind it already. Your investment (it most certainly is a good one), however, just does not have the time to come to fruition in order to save this country. That's my problem with it in a nutshell. Perhaps I'll join your movement after 2012. But like I said, I doubt it will matter anymore.

No, I'm saying based on specific circumstances that "I" (I am quoting and emphasizing I for you, Amazon) am making an exception this election because I know that if I don't vote, the Republicans win because they control too much of the advertising and have too much funding. I never told anyone else to DO anything. I KNOW that not enough people, nor the right group of people, would join such an idea. I FEEL that if my theory does not hold true, and that if Obama isn't who I think he is post-2012, the GOP's aren't wiped out, or another GOP candidate gets in—that this country is done anyway. We cannot afford another 4 years of digging our own grave.

So while you think your idealistic move will get us anywhere—that we'll even have enough on board to make a dent in politics and for the right reasons—I think you are, in fact, the dumb one.

Question: When the change started to strike for independence from England, do you think it was 100% of the residents in the New World?

How about the labor movement? It took the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire to strike the match (literally and figuratively), but the labor movement did not start with all of America's workers behind them.

We have to start somewhere. As long as we support Obama and his ilk, we are working against change.

Sorry. It's been a long day in the trenches. Mea culpa for being an asshole.

Think about it: Why in the hell would Obama want to steer the Democrats closer—but certainly at a moderate level—to the Republicans? The damage Obama is doing for the Republicans by acting in moderate terms far outweighs the benefits of a temporary puppet-democrat. The voters will only be confused in 2012 when they see no liberal alternative (that is, the typical swing-voters: AKA the majority). What will they do? EVERYONE might just vote for the rational party: the Democrats. That is, so long as they don't maintain the absurd delusion that not voting or throwing their vote out would somehow pay off in time. The tea-party is doing more damage to the "apathetic voter" you were talking about.

We don't need a third-party, we need the GOP just GONE: which is far more likely to happen in my opinion. They're on the chopping block, and they know it: why do you think they pushed something like Citizen's United through?

See, Treewolf, right there, we could start focusing on those three issues as the basics for what we need in political representation, and not vote for anyone who isn't for those three things.

The important thing is to have a small list, and get people to agree that those are the absolute minimum we have to have to vote for someone.

Thus a political movement is born.

I am rather disappointed with Obama, but the only real contribution I can make is to converse with my fellow Americans about ALL the realities of our broken government. Share the truth through promoting truthful media; friends don't let friends watch FOX.

Tree,

I appreciate your comments. I often tend to just vote up the comments I agree with or "agree to disagree/compromise." I get OCD when it comes to dedicating time to a response. Or when I don't think I have anything worth saying, I don't say anything at all, haha.

Regarding what you say here, I am wholly with you: the political climate changes when we stop the spread of misinformation largely built up by FOX News, the Church, and interest-groups like that which backed Citizen's United. Take care, and always a pleasure to listen to what you have to say.

I agree he is giving the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. As with the Whig party they are going too far and will fall by the wayside, eventually to be replaced and start all over again. This is a fact since conservatives will never really embrace a progressive agenda. People from the religious extreme will also try again, never believing anything outside their own dogma. A progressive agenda is an evolution to a higher degree of civilization, a collection where, as I believe Cicero once said " The good of the people is the highest law". (Hope I spelled the name right). A basic centralist position, which I believe the president has taken, is just another way progress is made. Strange as it may sound, but too liberal a position can be as disruptive as a conservative position. What we are doing is changing what the central position is. 100 years ago equal right for women was unspeakable, 60 years ago, civil rights for minorities was unspeakable, 30 years ago homosexuality was unspeakable. 30 years from now what will we look back and see? What will be accepted then that we can't believe now? Be patient, I believe the long bend of history will continue to head towards greater freedom and responsibility. We will look back to see the changes and wonder what took so long. I have hope for the future, because where else is someone like Barak Obama possible????

Oh by the way good comment!

I respectfully disagree with your comment, Vote for whom you will but don't ever give up. (Some people can't see pass Obama color.) I am not saying that you are one of these people but this is true. Vote for someone, read up on someone you like that's running in this race. But please don't give up VOTE!

I am completely in agreement. Progress does not always come in the banner of revolutions and complete 180's: as you said, the central stance is far more strategic than people realize (I believe).

I like your timespan of the rights we've obtained over the years. It's so sad that every generation believes somehow that this is the best we can do... That their generation was or is the plateau.

The way I look at it, I can only be optimistic. Because no matter what happens, the facts don't lie, as indicated by history books. And progress is inevitable.

Thank you, kindly :-)

thats great, but the question would be why?

The president still has my vote!

But that's what we are right now with Obama in office. Give me something better.

I'm with funkiman..and my reason would be Supreme Court Justices....only reason I have to punch Obamas ticket.

so its better to have a democrate conceed it to the republicans a little at a time?

-not anywhere near true . (YES) he has caved on many , many issues ( BUT )

my mama taught me everything that comes after BUT is a bunch of shit.

I get your point and will more than likely with out a sigificant chalenger vote for Obama, but at least you arn't acting like your better or the rest of us are stupit for not loving our choices like many who support Obama do with anyone who questions his integrity or his track record of failure.

again more fear the republicans speach which is all well and good but you advocate that we instead vote in a president who has a proven track record of either furthing by his own pen the republican agenda (see patriot act) or capitulating all progressive/ liberal legistlation while alowing republican legistlation to pass with out a hint of real resistance. that seems like a poor idea to me.

Thank you.

Really?? I thought you might think you changed my mind.. Sorry

On top of what you just said, the only way to grow the economy is to create new industries and technologies.

More so than the political game he is playing, perhaps he is missing out on creating new jobs -- at all levels. Because when you create new industries you need janitors, salesmen, engineers and chief executive officers.

I don't believe that Obama personally gives a hoot about the environment or even global warming, he probably doesn't even think man is contributing to the cycle.

But he doesn't have the wit to realize this could make him on of the best presidents/heros the world has ever seen by creating a worldwide green economy and saving the environment weather it needs saving or not.

He can be credited with saving the world economy AND environment.

Hence, I still question the game they are playing.

exactly, well said jan.

Thank you Jan for standing so firm on our environment. He did start with the car Industry and hope he continues. I think now he is thinking of the economy, jobs. and of coarse the election. I don't always agree with Obama but feel he will do much better then the Republican field. Good comment.

QUOTING JAN FOR GORE:
"This is the crux of it to me: Obama knows that the choices on the other side are not even going to be entertained by environmentalists. I wouldn't vote for a Republican running now if you paid me a million dollars."

-------------

Do you REALLY think there is a difference between the GOPers and Obama, especially on environmental issues?

I'm talking about actions, not his pretty promises.

Who was it that opened up the Alaskan wildeness for drilling? Hmmmm--that would be Obama, wouldn't it?

I see the choice for Democrats as not voting at all, voting third party, writing in a candidate OR voting Repubilcan.

If you vote for Obama, you're voting the Repubilcan agenda.

You are also voting for Jeb in 2016, because that is why the GOP isn't running any viable candidates and why the DNC isn't running any viable candidates--it's Jeb in 2016.

I don't think Obama cares if he is a hero--he LIKES it if it APPEARS like he is a hero (as in his Operation:Manlihood, aka the murder of OBL). But he has repeatedly ignored the hero's way and instead did the GOP's bidding.

I don't think he cares about the environment, either. I think he knows man is upping the rate of climate change, but he simply doesn't care.

He cares for himself, and that is it. He wants to be rich and powerful once we shove him out of the Oval Office, and to do that he must blow the military/defense industries and the rest of corporate America. So he puckers up and blows whenever he can.

I don't even think he cares for his wife or children. He would not humiliate his girls like he has by his lies and broken promises, and the damage he has done to the environment. Malia especially is tres savvy and very environmentally oriented...how can she ever look at him with anything but disgust after BP?

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still vote for evil.

In that case I'll stick with Obama.

I don't care who you vote for, but to tell Democrats not to vote is EVIL. Third party is throwing your vote away or for a Republican. The Republcans hate Obama so much you can't possibly believe he's anythig like a Republican.That's BS.

He is not the same as Clinton.

LOL. Nicely put.

he "winked" with his secret brown eye.

I object to Obama represented as weak or incompetent. I do disagree with his pro-corporate orientation. Both Strauss and Friedman stressed manipulation and deception as essential to achieving political ends. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are opposite faces of the same anti-democratic coin, and both came from roots influenced, or tainted, by theory created at the University of Chicago. They only fight among themselves over details. Both of them are useful to the would-be Fascists who would own us. Think of it as liberal fascism vs conservative fascism. Our new two party system?? Both sides in the pay of the same Corporatist masters, divided by the wedge issues that drive their electoral bases.

Yeah, Obama's kind of "hope" comes with a tube of K-Y.

If business needs to pollute to profit, then they should get the hell out of the way and make way for new technologies.

Per John Galt.

you damn republicans are the most two faced skitzo MF's I have ever seen you all talk out one side of your face about how obamas agenda is bad then prais every decision he makes out the other side of your face. its like you dont know whether to fuck him or beat him. though after thinking about it those are both your MO for pleasure anyway bunch of BDSM freaks. no one here is buying your crap please try hawking it elsewhere.

as far as you and you rich friends bitching about regulation stifling your investment by all means get the fuck out of this country we dont want your greedy unscrupuless criminals here anyway. Take your asses to china where they dont care if you imploy children in unsafe conditions working with toxic materials. Or where you can dump those materials into a streem you "own". Or shit just own a bunch of people as slaves which is what you all are realy pissed off at this government for taking from your families in the past. they'll let you do all these dispicable things in China so get fucking lost.

you and yours do not labor. getting up at 10 am and having a leasurly breakfast while checking your stock portfolio befor taking in a late lunch with some friends at an upscale resturant is not labor. Those that labor for you make your money you just sit back and siphon it of their sweat and hard work. you and yours are leaches. More than a re-distrobution of wealth you should be afraid that we are gona just stop accepting or engaging in ths ponzi scheme at all then all that paper you have will be worthless. then your realy fucked cause all you silk skinned people have not worked a day in your life and will surely just curle up and die at the thought of having to get your hands dirty.

will surely just curle up and die at the thought of having to get your hands dirty. Oh promise me that's true! We could sure do with a few thousand less 'entitled rich' making a mockery of the rest of us and this country.
Pwr 2 the revolutionary peons! Guillotine the rich!

The EPA may not be perfect because it is a political punching bag, but we are much better off with it. The USDA has been overrun by Monsanto lovers. We would be better off to fire the whole lot of the decision makers in that agency and replace them with scientists. Both agencies and all other agencies need far greater transparency.

Agreed. Not only Monsanto lovers but ex Monsanto CEO's and employees. I give thanks to Current's top 50 Doc's for the Food, Inc documentary. I never heard of it till now. Huge gov't agencies with no teeth or for that matter, even a willingness due to Monsanto's influence and infiltration. We pay for those entities to even exist. Why do we let them get away with such flagrant misuse? I cant think of anything I could do to change any of this. The EPA started out so strong and has fizzled to nothing. Nobody watching the watchers

Bingo the utility of these agencys is not in question but their staffing needs to be kicked and replaced with scientists that have no working relationship with the corporations they are to regulate. and ya Transparency is a must.

Hell, I would settle for a "real old school democrat" tough guy like Jimmy Carter, at least he realized the rethugs were up to no damn good! And wasn't afraid to stand up to them.

up'd this kvb1

Woodrow Wilson would be an improvement, more like Herbert Hoover. And Hillary most definately would have been better, I had no such illusions about Obama in 2008.

It depends on what your values are.

Hillary and Bill were the muscle behind sending offshore jobs created in America. They have profited handsomely from it. They have done nothing to slow down their support of ofshoring our jobs, even when it is clear it will be the death of our nation.

H&B also did those shout-outs to racists during the 2008 campaign, towards the end.

My mother was a strong Civil Rights advocate. I cannot vote for anyone who would say veiled racist comments in order to get ANYTHING--even elected POTUS.

If I had it to do over again, I would write in a candidate.

Voting for Obama was WORSE than not voting or "throwing away" my vote.

Because I voted for him, contributed to his campaign, and volunteered, I am partly responsible for what he has done to our country.

I will NEVER again vote for someone about whom I am not 100% sure. Better to not vote at all--at least it sends the message that I'm not buying in to the bullshit candidates puked out by the DNC.

"Veiled racist comments"? What shout outs to racists? According to who, James Clyburn? What a bunch of made up media baloney just to get wonder boy some votes and it was all bull! And you know it! Bill Clinton a racist, I have officially heard everything now, that is the most ludicrous accusation I have ever heard. It does not even deserve retort, it is so patently fabricated. If you cannot think for yourself or do anything but spout media talking points, perhaps it is best that you do not vote.

No, he's the biggest Republican the Democratic Party has ever elected president.

He's serving the Republicans because he wants to.

I completely agree with your post supermanrico.

you and me both. I was a Hill raiser too. But, when Obama got the nod..I fell into line like a good soldier. I'm not so sure that a lot would be different..but, 1 things for sure..She sure would know how to fight the enemy.

Or Ron Paul. Just saying.

She would've made a lot of difference. She would've taken revenge for the impeachment that the stupid republicans did to her husband. But we are just dreaming now. Too bad.

Or Osama bin Laden, for you must be the same. just saying.

Great!