It’s pretty hard to still have faith in the Democratic party after years of hearing the treacherous Pelosi declare impeachment to be “off the table.” But some individual Democrats who retain their integrity can still be found–Kucinich, Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold to name a few.

As for Obama, respect for him requires the abandonment of logic and seriously that doesn’t seem like a great sacrifice for most of the country. He’s repudiated the concept of habeus corpus and by association that of the Magna Carta, ideas that liberated people from feudalism. If you don’t uphold these concepts there’s no foundation to build on–it’s not rocket science.

And why SHOULD Gitmo close if its function–an American slave/torture colony–is simply transferred somewhere else? The Supreme Court ruled that prisoners in Gitmo should have habeus corpus. Bush reacted by ceasing to bring prisoners to Gitmo and by flying them to Bagram instead where there was no habeus corpus.

Obama agrees with this strategy and sustains it, as Bagram’s prison population grows every day. So why even close Gitmo at all? What’s the point? It doesn’t improve our reputation. It doesn’t improve our self-respect as a nation. It would have been a cosmetic “Mission Accomplished” moment–maybe the whole choreographed charade just seemed too tiresome.

Could not agree more. During the Bush years the Republicans bragged about making the Democrats a permanent minority party. They didn’t give a second thought to wiping them off the political map. Now that the Democrats are in power, they have a chance to eliminate the Republicans in a positive way - by passing National Health Care. Instead, they stubbornly cling to a backward Capitalist-Republican ideology and reject the will of the people who put them in power. They are well bribed at the corporate trough and the fat bank accounts fueled by those bribes keep them in the electioneering game.

Who cares if a Democrat or Republican is elected, when they both represent the monied interests, rather then the common people?

Take a long hard look folks, Obama is the LESSER EVIL you have chosen. Why complain about getting EXACTLY what you voted (settled) for?

Stefan:
Please don’t include me when you describe Barack Obama as the lesser evil. I was proud to vote for him and think he is well on his way to becoming a great President, that is, if the disgusting Democratic Congress doesn’t stop him in his tracks. I am pointing out the people who are responsible for this Congress: The Democratic activists who year after year tell us to vote the straight Democratic ticket. Who never set any standards for their politicians. Don’t believe me? Next year these same clowns will be telling us to vote for Arlen Specter. To do so means you will have to disregard everything they’ve said in the past about Arlen. Has Arlen changed? No. What positions has he changed to become a Democrat? None. Isn’t it grand? By having no standards for so long our activists have created a party where you can switch the R for a D and make no other changes. Just warms your heart.

How can this puny, imputent Democrat controlled Congress push Barack Obama around, yet failed repeatedly to stop George W. Bush?

That sir, is also an excuse just like the voting straight ticket talk.

President Obama has refused to resind any of George W. Bush’s usupstions of power, the Unitary Presidency as they call it. Barack Obama will do as he pleases, just like George W. Bush did. Its not how much Congress will allow Obama to do and even if this were not so, Obama isn’t for anything he isn’t willing to go out sell before the Media. It’s not called the bully pulpit for nothing.

Who said anything about them pushing Obama around? Don’t put words in my mouth. What they did is vote to protect their backsides. It’s what they always do. I can’t believe that there is only 6 U.S. Senators that believe Gitmo is a disgrace and should be closed. But I can believe that there are 90 Senators who will jump through hoops to avoid the “soft on terrorism” charge.
This Congress will simply not stand up to that charge or even the threat of that charge. It worked on them in the Bush administration and continues to work on them.

Unlike most of the left I value the bully-pulpit aspect of the Obama presence. I look back on history and see that Ronald Reagan created a conservative empire out of that bully pulpit. Not to mention FDR and his fireside chats. I believe that if a President convinces the public of the rightness of his mission the Congress will fall into line. Tip O’Neil couldn’t hold his dems together against Reagan because they were hearing from their constituents. Reagan was resonating with the voters. Obama’s challenge is to do the same. If he can do it for a sustained period he can overide Congress and be great. If he can’t he won’t be great. After 120 days I would say the jury is still out.

Well I’d say the jury is comatose because everytime a choice has to be made between upholding the Rule of Law and trampling it, Obama grinds it underfoot.

It’s not really prudent to give that kind of behavior a lot of latitude.

Barack Obama has been an elected politician for some 15 years now, he has a well established mode of operation and it seems rather naive to believe he will change his ways now that he has ascended into the Presidency!

120 days?

Only if you desire to ignore all the history of this man.

You can name any national politician, and I can quickly name what issue(s) the politician has fought for, put his neck on the line as they say; but not with Barack Obama. This guy hasn’t stood for anything except his own career, but hey, it sure could be construed as great… Obama is a “plastic politician,” someone that says little to nothing that is substantive. He has his surrogates go out and make all the arguments, while he sits back and claims credit for anything that turns out to be popular while leaving wiggle room to evade responsibility for those initiatives that go belly up.

How can you even begin to compare Obama with Reagan?

Ronald Reagan was well known, established decades before he rose to the Presidency, on his third try no less. People knew exactly where Reagan stood on every major issue, there was no plastic quality to him, not one shred. People can trust that, even when they don’t agree with the leader; but Obama is completely different in his approach to politics. Everything is held close to the vest, obscured, not precisely what it at first appears to be. This causes great mistrust, even among those who typically agree with the leader.

So given Obama’s abhorrence to putting himself out there, just how can he mobilize the bully pulpit? Why even bother to watch his talking [crack] heads on today’s [Sunday’s] political commentary programming? Do you believe they speak candidly to the public?

As to being proud of your vote, what is the alternative… that you voted for him but you’re not proud of it? What does that say? When did expressing one’s self become tantamount to putting words in another’s mouth? I speak for no one but myself and never even attempted to suggest otherwise.

In the end, I believe Brenda said it best in the first comment on this thread. It’s pretty hard to still have faith in the Democratic Party after years of treachery!

What this all sounds like to me! We have the “best Congress money can buy”! In the largest Banana republic in history! That says it all, thinks I!

“Our Activist World Carousel keeps spinning and spinning.”

Wow, does it ever. I am re-reading articles and letters-to-the-editor my activist parents wrote in 1968, ‘69, and ‘70. My mom discovered McCarthy, and was the first person in our town to notice his campaing and speeches. With their own money, very quickly, they organized the Gene McCarthy campaign in our hometown, and donated office space for the county office. They created ads for McCarthy and wrote letters-to-the-editor weekly. Ad approval by the campaign? What approval? McCarthy sent a telegram to our campaign office contratulating them. That was the extent of what he knew. McCarthy had little money, so volunteers drove the campaign. My father designed ads for the local newspapers and placed them with his own money. He directed voters, Independents, Republicans and Democrats, how to vote for the slate of delegates or write in McCarthy’s name. They knocked on doors, put together meetings and action workshops, and worked during every minute of their spare time through the NJ primary in June ‘68.

After the August Convention, my mom became totally disillusioned and depressed. She had been angry and frustrated prior to discovering McCarthy, but there were several months after she began working for his campaign where she had hope that someone would and could end the war in Vietnam and work for peace. McCarthy’s candidacy gave her hope in the same way that Obama’s candidacy gave the majority of Americans hope. But the “Machine” (as they used to call the power brokers in those days) swooped in at the ‘68 Convention, and with back room dealing, all of a sudden, Humphrey emerged victorious, and my mom’s dreams were smashed. NH, NJ, and PA were major reasons why McCarthy got as far as he did. My mom saw the abyss, once again, and what seemed like a never-ending war and decided that all efforts to change things were fruitless. My dad did continue on to support neighborhood racial intergration and other causes here and there. I don’t want to believe that Obama is smoke and mirrors. But perhaps he’ll be too much of a concialator.
As my mom had answered to potential voters when asked what kind of president McCarthy would be, she said, “Nobody can answer that question about any candidate until he has been president. But his experience is excellent and his ideas are clear on all issues.” I suppose this is what we take with us to the voting booth, and then we hope for the booth. It’s 40 years later, and the parties are still a “machine” that is tough to break. With another illegal war or two and no clear end in sight, and so many other issues that seem to be similar, while different, I have to agree with you that we are on an endless carousel. Same crap, 40 years later.

Obama has begun to mend international perception of the US as a nation, which is in my mind a good thing. But the mending of our national problems will be a very long time coming. George McGovern said last year that he thinks it will take at least 20 years to get us out of the mess that GW Bush got us into.