4 ms·

Then Obama was counting on many people not to understand politics when he chose to make promises on things he wouldn't have the power to change.

by Camillo 14y ago

enraged_camel 14y ago
An argument could be made that Obama was young, inexperienced and naive when he made those promises. But that's leaps and bounds different than accusing him of making promises and then breaking them. Because that implies malice. It implies that he lied. And I don't think we have any proof of that. Personally, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not a perfect president, but he's not awful either (like the parent implies).
- rhizome 14y ago
  Is this along the lines of the "Once he got into office they showed him the OSHIT information" rationalization?
pasbesoin 14y ago
Especially during his 2008 campaign, as much as (or more so, parsing the details of his language) making specific, topical promises, Obama... "preached" and promised to be an advocate. I think that as much as in specific deliverables, "the Left" feels rather thoroughly betrayed, on that front. In this specific instance, he should have called Congress out on their behavior. People understand real compromise. They also understand that when the other party is completely intractable, there comes a time when you confront them on this. Or you lose power. Or... your original position was actually different from what you projected.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Obama did call Congress out on their behavior. Openly, publicly and many times. It accomplished absolutely nothing. Look, when you have an entrenched party, backed up by the ultra-rich, that has sworn to do anything in its power to make sure you fail, there's not much you can do, even if you are the President of the United States.
  - glesica 14y ago
    Didn't the Dems have both houses of Congress for the first two years? Unless the "entrenched party, backed up by the ultra-rich" you're talking about is the Democratic party (I would argue that it is both).
    - parfe 14y ago
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106376613 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1063766... Due a lawsuit and illness and death the Democrats had a filibuster breaking majority for something like 58 days. And even then it would require every single senator to be in agreement.
      - lmickh 14y ago
        So because the Democrats didn't have total control on Congress, they aren't responsible for the failures to drive issues forward? They had a majority. They should step up and take ownership for their part. I remember when we expected statemen to work out difficult conflicts. Now they just throw up their hands and say "He did it" while people cheer them on for "sticking to their guns". It isn't our fault, they are the ones that refused to compromise by accepting my proposal...

Then Obama was counting on many people not to understand politics when he chose to make promises on things he wouldn't have the power to change.

by Camillo 14y ago

Then Obama was counting on many people not to understand politics when he chose to make promises on things he wouldn't have the power to change.

enraged_camel 14y ago

An argument could be made that Obama was young, inexperienced and naive when he made those promises. But that's leaps and bounds different than accusing him of making promises and then breaking them. Because that implies malice. It implies that he lied. And I don't think we have any proof of that. Personally, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not a perfect president, but he's not awful either (like the parent implies).

rhizome 14y ago
Is this along the lines of the "Once he got into office they showed him the OSHIT information" rationalization?

pasbesoin 14y ago

Especially during his 2008 campaign, as much as (or more so, parsing the details of his language) making specific, topical promises, Obama... "preached" and promised to be an advocate. I think that as much as in specific deliverables, "the Left" feels rather thoroughly betrayed, on that front. In this specific instance, he should have called Congress out on their behavior. People understand real compromise. They also understand that when the other party is completely intractable, there comes a time when you confront them on this. Or you lose power. Or... your original position was actually different from what you projected.

enraged_camel 14y ago
Obama did call Congress out on their behavior. Openly, publicly and many times. It accomplished absolutely nothing. Look, when you have an entrenched party, backed up by the ultra-rich, that has sworn to do anything in its power to make sure you fail, there's not much you can do, even if you are the President of the United States.
- glesica 14y ago
  Didn't the Dems have both houses of Congress for the first two years? Unless the "entrenched party, backed up by the ultra-rich" you're talking about is the Democratic party (I would argue that it is both).
  - parfe 14y ago
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106376613 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1063766... Due a lawsuit and illness and death the Democrats had a filibuster breaking majority for something like 58 days. And even then it would require every single senator to be in agreement.
    - lmickh 14y ago
      So because the Democrats didn't have total control on Congress, they aren't responsible for the failures to drive issues forward? They had a majority. They should step up and take ownership for their part. I remember when we expected statemen to work out difficult conflicts. Now they just throw up their hands and say "He did it" while people cheer them on for "sticking to their guns". It isn't our fault, they are the ones that refused to compromise by accepting my proposal...