Face the facts Obama is a blue dog Democrat he is no progressive:

Most people here are in total denial and do not want to face facts.  It is fantastic that Bush is gone and it is equally fantastic that McCain got crushed but those facts do not make Obama a progressive.

Let us look at the issues and his positions:

He is for extraordinary rendition.If I may jog your memory
Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, then Voted to Extend it.

He is against Gay and Lesbian marriages.

Rick Warren is his buddy "wink wink nod nod"

Do you remember Donnie McClurkin in SC?

His plans for faith based initiative are indistinguishable from those of Bush's.

Rhetoric on NAFTA that we heard in Ohio last year was just that.

Commerce secretary pick Judd Gregg scores 0% on AFL-CIO union issues.

His fiscal brain trust consists of "Banker bailing" Geithner and Summers.

He has picked Gen James Jones who could have been McCain's pick to head the NSC.  He had no problem selecting "Anne Oakley" to be the SOS. Perhaps in the end she would turn out to be lot more "progressive" than him.

He prefers  "blue dog" Kathleen Sebelius over  progressive "Howard Dean".

He thinks Time Kaine is a great replacement for Dean.

If he barks like a "Blue Dog" he is a blue dog.

Thank God we did not elect McCain.

Tags: obama (all tags)



Obama is a blue dog Democrat

Pretty much. His instincts on domestic policy are conservative Democratic, the economic situation is forcing him to the left but he is resisting all along the way. He is, to my mind, more liberal on foreign policy, but we have not seen enough of the details of his foreign policy for me to be sure.

Obama's Binyam Mohamed position, and the worsening conditions at Guantanamo, are deeply disturbing.

by souvarine 2009-02-09 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts

I don't understand why all of sudden people are having to face this fact. While he may have put out some progressive ideas  while campaigning he never once came off like a pure progressive at least to me. I fully understood this when I supported him and voted for him.

Now to your point about being a Blue Dog I think that's a bridge a bit to far. A moderate yes, conservative I don't see it.

He against a federal mandate on gay marriage while fully supports a states right to recognize them.

He is for extraordinary rendition. If I may jog your memory
Umm no this isn't so. He is against extraordinary rendition. There is a world of difference between rendition and extraordinary rendition.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2 009/02/02/renditions/

Selibus: Blue Dog really?
Abortion: "Sebelius has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and they have conducted fundraising activity on her behalf.[43] Sebelius vetoed abortion legislation in Kansas in 2003, 2005, 2006, and again in 2008."
Education: Wanted and did raise taxes to fund education reform. Certainly not the action of a Blue Dog.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Kathleen_Sebe lius.htm

His plans for faith based initiative are indistinguishable from those of Bush's.

I think you need to take a closer reading of this initiative if you think it's the same as Bush's. You can certainly argue whether any kind of faith based initiative belongs in the administration, but to call it the same as Bush's show a lack of ability to get passed a headline and actually read what's in the plan.

by jsfox 2009-02-09 04:01AM | 0 recs

Bill Clinton did renditions as president and I never once heard a progressive complain about it, and this was pre-9/11.

Kathleen Sebelius is awesome. We would be lucky to have her as HHS. She is a progressive fighter with a strong record of success.

Obama's worldview is very liberal, his actions range from liberal to moderate. If he was a Blue Dog his first couple weeks would have looked very different.

by Lolis 2009-02-09 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Sebelius is no different than Daschle, she's got alot of ties to the Healthcare Industry.

She's also from a state where the dominant party is Republican, and she's going to listen to her own constituencies.

As for Obama being a blue dog, my view is that right now he's got a real problem: its likely that somewhere along the road to the white house Big Pharma convinced him to be pals with them and they did him a favor he needs to pay back by not actually implementing Universal Healthcare.

And so he's walking that fine line. Rahm Emmanuel in charge of the show - that meant from the beginning that deals are being made.

Lets see who wins. The People of the United States of America.

Or the Lobbyists..

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

I don't get why people don't understand that big pharma would LOVE a universal health insurance plan.  It means everyone has to buy their product.  Big pharma pushed for Medicare Part D for the same reason.

by Jess81 2009-02-09 07:04AM | 0 recs
then you were not listening

Reagan and Clinton used extraordinary rendition, the ACLU and other civil libertarians complained about it consistently.

You can argue that the Clinton renditions, which involved capturing Egyptian terrorists and returning them to Egypt, were more justified than the Bush renditions. But you cannot argue that progressives never complained about it. They complained about it loudly from within and outside of the Clinton administration.

Obama is likely to return to the Clinton style extraordinary renditions, returning captured Al Qaeda members to their native countries.

by souvarine 2009-02-09 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: then you were not listening

Souvarine - You know I love ya, but we need to be sure we separate extraordinary rendition from rendition. The two are not the same.

Extraordinary rendition is the the type that the Bush administration practiced. Our own black prisons and /or sending folks to countries where torture was likely.

Rendition, as under the Clinton administration, is the practice of picking up suspected terrorist or even criminals transporting them back to their home countries or another country where they will be tried fairly and treated humanely. ( Not sure how this can be guaranteed, but that is the difference by definition) Now we can certainly argue whether both should go away, but we do need to separate what one is over the other.

Rendition, in law, is a transfer of persons from one jurisdiction to another, and the act of handing over, both after legal proceedings and according to law. Extraordinary rendition, however, is that which is outside the law.

by jsfox 2009-02-09 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: then you were not listening

I believe the key is "in law". Transporting captives without due process through our courts is what distinguishes extraordinary rendition from ordinary rendition. The prospect of torture does not make rendition extraordinary.

We regularly deport prisoners to countries like Jordan, Syria and Egypt after a hearing before a judge. Those people may be tortured when they return to their countries, but their rendition was still ordinary.

I expect Obama will continue the practice of returning foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan to their home countries without due process. He has no interest in keeping POWs, and we have no legal basis for imprisoning people captured in Afghanistan here in the U.S. Obama may ask for assurances that those people not be tortured, as Clinton did, but those renditions will remain extraordinary.

by souvarine 2009-02-09 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts

Today we have our first indication that Obama will keep secret, and therefore probably continue, the extraordinary rendition program. Greenwald reports that:

Yesterday, enthusiastic Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan wrote about this case:  "Tomorrow in a federal court hearing in San Francisco, we'll find out if the Obama administration intends to keep the evidence as secret as the Bush administration did."  As I wrote after interviewing Wizner two weeks ago:  "This is the first real test of the authenticity of Obama's commitment to reverse the abuses of executive power over the last eight years."  Today, the Obama administration failed that test -- resoundingly and disgracefully

The NY Times reports (via Greenwald):

In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.

Judge Schroeder asked, "The change in administration has no bearing?"

Once more, he said, "No, Your Honor." The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration," and "these are the authorized positions," he said.

Given this development we should assume the Obama administration intends to keep extraordinary rendition in its covert toolbox until they demonstrate otherwise.

by souvarine 2009-02-09 02:46PM | 0 recs
Either you're with us or you're with the enemy.

Because the ONLY options are Blue Dog or True Progressive.

by geverend 2009-02-09 04:34AM | 0 recs
Sorry, but "No."

There are no facts for me to face.  I wanted a centrist pragmatist in the Oval Office.  I got one.  I'm not in denial.  He's precisely the change I was looking for.

And I'll let jsfox's comments stand re: Sebelius and rendition.  You do your argument a grave disservice by undermining it with poorly presented supporting information.

by Dreorg 2009-02-09 04:46AM | 0 recs
Did you just talk smack about Sebelius?

Wow, that was a bad move.  I mean, this diary is full of weakness, but Sebelius is a true success-story Democrat and everyone here that's gotten over the primaries is not going to begrudge her getting her due.

by Dracomicron 2009-02-09 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you just talk smack about Sebelius?

No he didn't smack down Sebelius -
She's ok, but being a success story in a Republican Red State that didn't vote for Obama during the general election ....

Lets put it this way.. whose success story would be written if she gets taken out of the running for the Senate Seat? Seriously. The GOP makes deals with the Democratic party behind the scenes.

And you've also heard all that crap about how the southern states don't matter, and how a 50 state strategy didn't work.

Not too much like Howard Dean, but alot like a lobbyist.  "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" . Sebelius appointed means the GOP have one less state to fight for in the upcoming senate.

Sorry. That's a success story, alright. For the GOP. They will party in DC if she gets the nod, because the Dems dont have anyone on the bench to take the Senate seat.

I always said when Bush's popularity rating dropped to 28 percent, that it disturbs me that there are 28 percent of Americans who think he's doing a good job....

So naturally there is the opposite of people like me, who are going to say that minorities dont count, and they're never going to amount to anything and just cut a deal.

Just cut a deal.
meh. Its a negative diary about Obama, but he deserves it. He's going to screw the pooch if he doesn't take real measures for change.

The last thing he needs is his own movement turning against him

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 07:01AM | 0 recs

No he didn't smack down Sebelius -

Called her a Blue Dog... not sure how else to take that.

Lets put it this way.. whose success story would be written if she gets taken out of the running for the Senate Seat?

You make it sound like the Senate is the best she should aspire to.  I am confused.  Why would Hillary Clinton take an appointment rather than remain in her safe Senate seat, then?

Or are you suggesting that we should put the onus of winning a Senate seat in Kansas on her alone, rather than actually grooming and funding another qualified candidate?

Wasn't Howard Dean's schtick recruiting Democrats that can win in red states?  Can't we still do that?

Its a negative diary about Obama, but he deserves it. He's going to screw the pooch if he doesn't take real measures for change.

"For a change?"  Change from what?  I'm not sure what he deserves after two weeks in office, unless it's the benefit of the doubt.

by Dracomicron 2009-02-09 07:27AM | 0 recs

Its surprising that you have to ask what Obama's campaign of change would be ... from?

And No, its not my place to say where Sebelius (sp?)  aspires to office, but if you are going to be clear about winning red states don't gimp this state by taking the strongest candidate out of the running and send her to the Cabinet
 - she's already said no once, by the way..

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 11:17AM | 0 recs
her due....???

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:02AM | 0 recs
Blue dog?!?


Paragraphs are your friend.  Even if you'd used them though, you'd still be way off the mark.

by fogiv 2009-02-09 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Blue dog?!?

One need not expend much effort to rebut something so clearly wrong, if any at all.  

by fogiv 2009-02-09 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Blue dog?!?

Spoken like a user with a single fair use violating diary and a grand total of 22 comments.  Were you banned cabinet, perchance?

by fogiv 2009-02-10 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama

Who ever said Obama was the champion of progressive causes?  I certainly didn't.

That being said, your diary is pure BS.

by lojasmo 2009-02-09 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama

Yes, but its  also apt. The guy is making points that really need to be made. Especially now. Obama is perhaps different in that he sees himself with some humility but the lobbyists are moving in on DC with a vengeance unlike anything I've ever seen before they are scared to death

And they were the ones who crashed everything.
My offer to you is,  what if he's right..?
What if everything is a lie?

If it is, the biggest crash that ever occurred is on the way and nothing will stop it. America is holding on by its fingernails right now + we know we caused the global meltdown .... + we are looking for someone to lead us out of it.

And if that light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train..?

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama


by Jess81 2009-02-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama

Daschle equals Obama.

And has since Obaa came to DC in 2004.

That whole anti lobbyist bit was all about marketing and PR and especially - it gave you a "reason" to loathe Hillary -

it was never reality.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama

A multi billion dollar industry dedicated to disconnect the voter from his or her democratic representative , to wit, lobbying, is neither

a) the reason not to vote for hillary
b) some sort of fantasy

its instead

a) the reason hillary lost
b) a waking nightmare responsible for many ills

" Corporations in America have taken unprecedented control of American Institutions"

Guess who said that.

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 11:20AM | 0 recs
as is your response to it.

at least the poser made an effort.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: as is your response to it.

The poster's 'effort' is predicated on lies.  So, there is a difference.

by lojasmo 2009-02-09 11:52AM | 0 recs
as is your response to it.

at least the poster made an effort.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Democratic contenders.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all said that troops in Iraq wouldn't be out by 2013, Hillary Clinton and Edwards at least voted one time for Bankruptcy reform, Hillary Clinton said that people weren't paying their student loans that's why there need bankruptcy reform.  All the reform measures that GW Bush reformed started under Clinton anyways. I think that all three of them would of pretty much governed the same way as compassionate capitalist.

by olawakandi 2009-02-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Face the real facts

I sure remember Donnie McClurkin in SC.

And 90% of the netroots said nothing.

I also remember in SC what horrible false things many in the netroots said about John Lewis and Bill Clnton and I ill never forget that either.

And what was the effect of those lies against our 2 greatest living Democrats?

We get Judd Greg and his ZERO labor rating and NO Dean!

Hillary would definitely had been a lot more "progressive" than Obama.

But hell - I knew that from the start

by Zapata 2009-02-09 08:13AM | 0 recs
Isn't PUMA LOVE a wonderful thing....

Your devotion is touching, and, even though Bill once said "the Era of Big Government is over" and the Clintons FORMED the DLC (Joe Liberman, anyone?), you can continue to live in how reality MIGHT have been, and who can argue with that?

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-09 08:28AM | 0 recs
oh cut the cartoon crap - its juvenile.

first Im no woman

and Im not white and as always, I vote 100% Dem.

So I guess Im no "Puma".

But I am also a 100% Labor.

And being such - Im a lifelong member of the one effective progressive force in politics -


Theres a reason why 95% of the AFL-CIO backed Hillary.

We knew shed be there for US when needed.

She NEVER would have picked a ZERO AFL RATING Repub to be in her cabinet.


And Id bet that Dean would have been at HHS from day one.

by the way -

I dont obsess over affiliations like you children of Kos do (its a big tent Party)...

but, if you  are so upset about the DLC maybe you might notice that Obama picked the BIGGEST DLEC INSIDER EVER to be his chief of Staff

- so Id think you oughta think about dropping that attack.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: oh cut the cartoon crap - its juvenile.

Wow, a hit and run Obama smear agent is asking for a more mature dicussion?

Laughable, Zappata.

Read your posts.

All I wonder is, do you have your Clinton Altar set up to catch the Morning Sun, or is it an afternoon lighting effect you are after?

Oh, and, I never said I was upset about Rahm, you silly man.

It's you, in your Clinton obsession, that wants to make them out to be the second coming of FDR?

They WERE AND ARE Centerists, this revisionism that somehow they were more liberal then Obama is lacking one substantial fact you can come up with.

The Unions backed Clinton early, because she was CLEARLY the nominee before the morans Bill picked to run the campaign pulled the worst flight plan since the Hindenberg.

When the writing was on the wall, they all went to Obama's camp.

Where they are now.

And, you keep stating stuff THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN as part of your arguement.

Who knows, I can contend, she would have made Newt Ginrich HSE director, and, my contention is JUST as legit as yours.

It's tremendous intellectual laziness to keep throwing those straw-men up.

If you want to present your Pro-Union liberal contention, be my guest.

But, what you are really doing is fighting the Primary war...

Which you and your candidate lost.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-09 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: oh cut the cartoon crap - its juvenile.

of course your not upset with Judd Gregg or Rahm - how could you be - they were picked by Obama - and if you criticized them youd be critical of Obama -

and that, of course, you just will NOT allow...
(and youre here with childish insults, personal attacks and juvenile cartoons all just to prove how "SERIOUS" you are about this!)

but please realize I was pointing out that whilst you are all upset about the DLC - enough to use it to smear the Clintons -you should understand that Rahm himself c0-wrote the actual book defining DLC policy goals.

Im just pointing out your inconsistency.



None.  Thats a ridiculous and uninformed statement you made.

THE CHANGE TO WIN CO-OLITION ENDED UP BACKING oBAMA - BUT THAT WAS MORE ABOUT ..Ooops caps lock...divides in the labor community and Andy Sterns ego than anything else...but I wont burden you with these facts - cause you dont bother with them do you, so why bother?

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: oh cut the cartoon crap - its juvenile.

None.  Thats a ridiculous and uninformed statement you made.

They are really scary, aren't they folks?

How do you hold a job when you can't execute three or four logical actions in a row?

The caps lock seems too big a technical complication, I hope the nice Library Lady is helping them log on to the Internet thingy?

Scary, I have to tell you....

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-09 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: oh cut the cartoon crap - its juvenile.

I don't want to wade into this Obama-Clinton argument, but I do ask that you not lump the "Clintons" together.  It's a problem that women face in the public sphere.  You shouldn't ascribe Bill's governance/philosophy.  For example, I am not sure Hillary was/is a DLCer.  I have not seen statements by her to that regard.  I may be wrong, but I would hope that she does not get labeled that way simply by virtue of being married to Bill.  Many married couples have divergent views (to make an obvious point) and I don't think it's cool to forget this- especially because it is usually the female partner whose views are subsumed by the male's.

by orestes 2009-02-10 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Face the real facts

I contend that Hillary would definitely had been a lot less "progressive" than Obama.

So now we have a debate and must research our respective propositions.  Let's both get into those magic machines that enable us to pursue alternative historical time-lines to gather supporting evidence.  Don't forget your camcorder.  

Meet me back here when you are ready.

Or, instead, perhaps we can leave out hypothetical assertions couched as proven (or even provable) demonstrations.

In the mean time, I offer you a tissue.

by Strummerson 2009-02-09 08:28AM | 0 recs

I contend you -

dont know what the heck youre talking about.

What do the words "Zero Labor rating" mean to you?

by Zapata 2009-02-09 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

You made an unsupportable assertion that makes as much sense as arguing that Lincoln would have doubled the slave population if he had had a different mother and father.

But to answer your question: 100% Labor rating, or more properly AFL-CIO rating, is exactly what Hilda Solis, whom Obama nominated as Sec. of Labor received.  This I think is more significant than the Gregg move, which I happen to oppose.  

Either you are cherry picking your "facts" in order to produce the bitterest possible vinegar, or you "dont know what the heck youre talking about."  Which is it?

by Strummerson 2009-02-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

I vote for "trolling meaninglessly without regard to or interest in facts."  Someone's got a bad case of ODIOUS (Obama Derangement Syndrom).

by Dreorg 2009-02-09 09:38AM | 0 recs
i write about specifics

and you come back with an insult and a charge of being a troll.

i bet you learned "all about politics" at Kos, huh?

Again, how do you feel about a repub with a ZERO LABOR RATING  being chosen to head up commerce?

(We wont even mention Dean and HHS)+

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: i write about specifics

you polemicize with one single factoid and lay claim to being master of specifics?

You've clearly proven that Obama is Milton Friedman and Richard Perle all rolled into one.

Now I sense you've been away from home a bit too long.  I apologize for keeping you.  Feel free to return to March 2008.

by Strummerson 2009-02-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: i write about specifics

MyDD is my polical junkie home.  This is the only political site I am registered at, and the only one I diary at.  You'll not find "Dreorg" as a registered username at kos.

However, unlike you, I don't have anything against kos, I just prefer the environment at MyDD.  I don't through "kos" around as though it were a coded insult.

I also have a feeling that you have confused me with Stummerton.

by Dreorg 2009-02-09 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

What do the words "Zero Labor rating" mean to you?

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

what do the words Sec. of Labor with 100% AFL-CIO rating mean to you?

by Strummerson 2009-02-09 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is Great! He is neither nor

First of all, President Obama is doing an awesome job.

Secondly, democrats who somehow expected a Prez Obama to be the champion of liberalism & the progressive movement needs to see a doctor.

Third, Yes, Obama is no Ted Kennedy. Obama is certainly no Jesse Jackson. But Obama is also no Ben Nelson. He is certainly no Max Baucus.

He is who he is. Trying to pigeonhole him as a liberal or a blue Dog are both WRONG Big Time!!!

Leave him alone! He has more than enough problems.

He is the President of all Americans regardless of their left or right wing views.

by latinomaker 2009-02-09 08:26AM | 0 recs

just wow.

its like a mirror of a Bushie defending Bush.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama is a blue dog Democrat

Dude.  The primary's over.  Hillary Clinton lost.  She works for Obama now.

by Drummond 2009-02-09 09:46AM | 0 recs
you people are so Bushie like

its freaky.

by Zapata 2009-02-09 09:50AM | 0 recs
Blue dog? Really?

Oh please. Grow up. It's been almost 3 weeks and he hasn't turned around everything you'd like. Poor baby.

by Travis Stark 2009-02-09 10:47AM | 0 recs
its funny
the clintonistas were the ones on mydd that claimed obama was too far left or too far right. most others knew he was pretty middle of the road.
i am disappointed that his agenda isn't more progressive, but i never expected it to be. i do find his style of governing most refreshing.
by citizendave 2009-02-09 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: its funny

One refreshing thing about the last wave of Obama supporters who landed at MyDD during the primaries is that they rarely pretend Obama is anything but a centrist. He is a moderate to conservative Democrat, if that is what you wanted you are probably happy with him.

I voted for him knowing full well that he is a moderate, so most of the surprises for me have been pleasant ones. I would prefer a more progressive president, but I'll take what I can get.

But this diary has important implications for those of us who want to move the country left. We must keep up the pressure on Obama and our representatives to move left. We can't expect him to govern the way we prefer without pressure.

by souvarine 2009-02-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
Its not a move to the left

The Democratic party , with its initiatives to return democracy to America - is no longer the party of the left (how much money in tax cuts is Obama going after - tons! ) ... rather it is a party of the connected.

We should not try to move Obama to the left but move him back into being connected with us, the people who elected him.

... the price of freedom is..

by Trey Rentz 2009-02-09 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Face the facts Obama is a blue dog Democrat he

Thank god he'll never win any of the big states.

by lockewasright 2009-02-09 12:38PM | 0 recs
I think it was disenfranchising FL and MI

that hurt him the most...

And, that Latino vote....the man has problems, let's face it.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-09 12:58PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads