2010 in a paragraph

Here it is:

In a party-to-party measure, Americans by 46-32 percent said they trust the Democratic Party over the Republicans to handle the main problems the country faces during the next few years. That slipped for the Republicans from a 43-37 percent division in February. Still, it's nothing like the Democrats' thumping 56-23 percent lead -- the biggest in polling back to the early 1980s -- a month after Obama's election. This "trust to handle" measure is one on which the Republicans pulled even with the Democrats in October 1994, making it one to watch closely as the 2010 campaign unfolds. The "inclined to reelect" result, meanwhile, matched its low, 32 percent, in a 1991 ABC-Post poll; it was similar, 34 percent, in October 1994.

If you read that twice, you'd know everything you missed from 2008 up till now. Dems were up big, real big, as the party to trust and now are down real big too, as inclined to re-elect. What's keeping it close is that few still trust that the Republicans will even try to solve the main problems of the country. 



Tags: (all tags)



I am losing trust too

I will not trust the Republicans either. But I am losing my trust for the Obama people who I supported over other Democrats in the primary. He has a bunch of idiots in charge. That Goldman charade we saw was just that. The time to implement the strongest reforms was when the government had all the leverage. They can still implement reforms now, but whatever they try to do now will still be weaker than what they could have a year ago. Obama and the Democratic Senate(including the likes of the shameful Dodd who is trying belatedly to redeem himself) have dropped the ball with respect to financial issues.

I am also disillusioned with the likes of the liberal senators who havent done a good job fighting back against other democrats selling out the party ideals. Fighting back means finding political ways of increasing your own leverage. They should have made their own demands making the catering to any niche group of senators a failed strategy. By keeping quiet, they let the Liebermans and Nelsons rule the roost the first year.

I have become more libertarian after observing the one year of the Obama administration. They talk a lot, but I do not see enough accountability. What use is increasing regulations if the government won't enforce them strictly? Some of these Wall Street abuses were happening unchecked under the Clinton administration and there were rules back then that could have been enforced. Until government injects a sense of accountability into cabinet members and their underlings(if your department dropped the ball repeatedly, RESIGN), no amount of regulations will make a real significant difference. All it does is create more government bloat.


What we need to see is a blacklisting of disgraced ex-government officials. If they failed spectaculary while in government, any real patriotic Democrat or Republican will cut off access to this guy when he becomes a lobbyist or liaison to some multi billion dollar group.

I still do not see the benefits of this healthcare bill when it comes to controlling costs.  Yeah, 30M more insured. I dont care. Maybe they could have just rolled over that 30M into Medicare without making any changes and wasting our time over such a marginal bill. I would have preferred that option. The extra money Medicare would spend would be offset by the savings of not getting such a bill passed.

Mining and environmental stuff: Let's see what Obama is made of. Is he going to crack down after the mining disaster?

Obama has dropped the ball on the war on terror too. He is wasting money on Afghanistan. He is not as clueless as the neocons and Bushies. But he still lacks courage. Now I read this http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/2010/04/28/Outside-View-The-United-States-India-and-the-politics-of-benign-neglect/UPI-48551272455580/

Imagine if India invaded the US(not that it is practical considering US could crush India) on the pretext that the US is harboring terrorists. Read that link and see what I mean.


Watched Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution series on ABC. Sure, it was a reality show but it exposed problems with government monopoly on education. You had these inane government regulations about food balance and yet the beauracrats ended up taking policies which had good intentions and used them to serve bad food to kids while rejecting healthier alternatives because they did not meet regulations.  That is not a republican problem, last time I checked.

At this point, I see no reason but to vote third party in 2012. I am tuned out. THis year has been a massive joke, and it's all not Obama's fault. I have contempt for our Senate and do not see a lot of good happening there. I do not care anymore at this point and will just worry about my own career.



by Pravin 2010-04-28 01:00PM | 2 recs
Blurring the distinction between two parites

That is what's behind the change in poll numbers. Not long ago I read an essay in Huffington Post, which basically posited that the current adminisration in its misguided effort at bipartisanship was blurring the lines between what are Democratic ideas and what are Republican ideas. As we all know that the healthcare bill has few if any Democratic ideas, because it is entirely based on a proposal originally made by the Heritage foundation that they now disavow. Why did that happen? I think because Obama truly believed in his "post-partisan" image, that he would be able to get Democrats and Republicans work together and coalesce around him. That did not happen. And by blurring the lines and not standing firmly behind Democratic ideas, we have, as Ed Rendell puts it, a crisis in the Democratic party. By trying to accomodate the party that is unwilling to cooperate, Democrats are now on the defensive, "hiding behind the shower curtains".

Republicans on the other hand have used the public disenchantment of TARP, the rancorous healthcare fight, which the now portray as another corporate giveaway and have donned the libertarian mantle. They no longer speak of social issues like abortion, guns etc, even though as we have seen in VA it is still at the heart of their social and political agenda. Right now in NC, my friends who were vocal supporters of Obama, are now talking about voting for BJ Lawson, a Republican who comes in the garb of a libertarian trojan horse. His mantra is the same old Republican song and dance minus the social issues. And the sad news is, given the current state of affairs, even in a disavowedly blue district like the NC-4, Lawson just might defeat the long incumbent David Price.

Moral of the story, the Democratic administration has a lot of the goodwill by trying to become Republican-lite. So now we are trying to make people believe that they are paying the lowest tax rates ever (which they are, but don't believe), that the healthcare bill will make is easier for them to buy insurance (which it will but no one believes) and that Democrats will be tougher on big banks (which they will but few believe that). That is the price of a years' worth of misguided and ill-advised bipartisanship.

by tarheel74 2010-04-28 01:06PM | 3 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

But you can also blame people like Rendell for this mess.  Why?  Because Rendell is DLC.  And we know what that means.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2010-04-28 01:28PM | 2 recs
You're talking to a PUMA

tarheel had no problem with the DLC two years ago. 

by ND22 2010-04-28 01:39PM | 0 recs
And you're a fucking idiot

who's stuck in a time warp.

by tarheel74 2010-04-28 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: And you're a fucking idiot

I thought no foul language was allowed by Jerome?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-28 06:51PM | 0 recs
RE: And you're a fucking idiot

I make an exception for that one; probably you too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 11:28AM | 0 recs

birds of a feather and all that

by ND22 2010-04-30 06:42PM | 0 recs
Jerome's a gutless hypocrite

He doesn't even try to hide it anymore. Just point and laugh at him, that's what the rest of us do.

by ND22 2010-04-30 06:45PM | 2 recs
RE: Jerome's a gutless hypocrite

Dude, you don't even exist except as a made up name on the tubes, get a life.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-01 06:01AM | 1 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

Given the choice between DLC and Heritage, I would choose DLC. But aside from labeling Rendell DLC, have you actually followed his governorship? He had the guts to stand in the way of the Republican senate who wanted to cut education funding. Rendell's policies in PA have been Democratic if anything.

Now back to DLC, it is defunct. We have a thing called the third way and it runs the Obama administration, because I don't know where you've been buddy but the healthcare bill is anything but progressive as is the President and his inner circle. So get with the times and smell the real world.

by tarheel74 2010-04-28 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

For someone who you claim isn't that progressive, he sure has managed to accomplish a lot of progress on traditional democratic fronts.

Obama may be no "FDR", but neither was FDR.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-28 06:55PM | 1 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

If Rendell is doing so well, then why is the PA Dem party in even worse straights than the party nationally?


by vecky 2010-04-28 08:20PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

That is actually pretty funny, how the followers continue to berate the DLC, while ignorant of the reality of what its morped into and whom it leads now.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 11:31AM | 0 recs
I get it

the DLC is only bad...sometimes.

by ND22 2010-04-30 06:46PM | 1 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

What has the Democratic Senate done? Very little. You got to lay part of the blame on them too , and not just Obama.

by Pravin 2010-04-28 01:51PM | 1 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

Of course the senate is to blame. The money they get from various third parties is strong motivation to leave things as it is, and if you have to rock the boat, well not too much. Even now we are stuck with two choices on financial reform, a flawed bill versus do nothing. It is as if the American people are forced to swallow whatever crap that is dished out as the best thing out there. The present bill can be made much stronger if the Brown-Kaufman amendment is adopted. My bet is it will not happen, why? Same reason; too much money and power is wielded in the senate by the very same industry that this bill is supposed to regulate. If we have a modicum of progressive ideas in the healthcare or the finance bill, thank the House and Nancy Pelosi for that.

Come election time we will be asked to donate our money and time to people who don't give a damn about us, so know where your Senator and Congressman stands on the issue. If he represents you then vote for him, campaign for him and give him money, but if not don't waste your time.

by tarheel74 2010-04-28 02:54PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

Maybe your standards are too high? Once FinReg passes, by any measure this will be the most "doing" senate since the 60's. 

I mean really, compared to the crap since 1994 it's like night and day.

by vecky 2010-04-28 08:22PM | 0 recs
Saying what needs to be said

The progressive blogosphere prides itself on being a fact-based community. Ultimately, debate has to be about the facts--not just feelings. Thanks, vecky, for injecting some reality. I'll just post some items for consideration:

$787 billion stimulus

credit card reform

student loan reform

health insurance reform

financial re-regulation

hate crimes expansion

defunding of the F-22

confirmation of 1st Hispanic SCJ

Lilly Ledbetter act on fair pay for women

4 million more kids on SCHIP

With the real possibility of DADT repeal and climate legislation succeeding this year, this is clearly a record of achievement, whether or not one agrees with it. Most of these were/will be accomplished at a time when Dems lacked a supermajority, too.

by eskimo 2010-04-28 11:30PM | 1 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Yea, all it takes is to create pseudonym and you're off to the races with a new reality.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 11:15AM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Let us compare this to Bush's signature achievements.

(a) Clear Skies Initiative

(b) Healthy Forests Initiative

(c) No child left behind

(d) Middle Class Tax Cuts

(e) Dept of Homeland Security


Of course, the picture changes when you look at the details behind the pseudonyms, doesn't it.

Obama's list is similar.  Take credit card reform, for instance.  It prevents credit card companies from interest rate gouging....unless they send you a written notice on a piece of mail that can resemble junk mail, and you opt out by replying via US Mail using very specificv language.

by Ravi Verma 2010-04-29 12:30PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Before that bill got enacted, every credit card company raised their retroactive rates sky high. Now they are charging fees for going over the limit and while they cannot raise your rates retroactively anymore, they circumvent that by increasing your interest on future purchases, unless you decide to cancel your card. So behind the fancy name the bill does nothing to prevent the credit card companies from fleecing the average consumers.

The same thing can be said about the healthcare bill. It has no provisions to enforce that insurance companies do not drop people by rescision or raise their rates, beyond dropping them from the exchange. So if you are locked into your employer based insurance you are at their mercy.

by tarheel74 2010-04-29 12:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Well mine didn't. I'm quite happy with the new CC regs. They can't jack me around with hidden rates and fees anymore. The US currently has the strictest CC rules in the entire Western block. Nice to be a leader rather than a follower for a change.

by vecky 2010-04-29 08:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

"The US currently has the strictest CC rules in the entire Western block"

Oh yeah?

Visa cuts swipe rates in Europe, raises them in America

"While most Western economies have taken action to rein in excessive debit card swipe fees, here in the U.S., the credit and debit card industry continues to hurt retailers and consumers by setting rates indiscriminately and raising rates at will," said John Emling, senior vice president for government affairs at Retail Industry Leaders Association, in a statement. "Without interchange reforms in the U.S., reform in Europe means the credit card industry will look to American retailers and consumers to make up lost revenue. As Congress debates comprehensive financial reform, now is the time to bring appropriate oversight and transparency to interchange fees."



by tarheel74 2010-04-29 09:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

excessive debit card swipe fees

Debit cards... 

by vecky 2010-04-30 12:44AM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Well, at least your not copy and pasting a list.

I would argue that Bush's signature achievments are: creating a occupying militarization of the ME, the encroachments on civil liberties; the expansion of executive power; the institutionization of securing the status of weath.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 01:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Well, I was being sarcastic with my list, as are you.


The healthy forest initiative was a signature achievement in nomenclature ~ As I recall, the audacity of that was unprecedented.


I do think that Bush has one real signature achievement: the nuclear deal with India.

by Ravi Verma 2010-04-29 02:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

That's not really a signature achievement either. In the two years since it's signing not a single US company has received a contract to build nuclear plants in India - while plenty from Russia and China have. Now the US has to lean on the Indian government to pass legislation which would actually make US companies competitive. So FAIL again.

BTW, you left out Medicare part D. Quite the glaring omission.

by vecky 2010-04-29 08:53PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Actually, the US needs to lean on itself, to allow US companies to bid for the nuclear plants in India.  There are certain steps that the US (read: Obama administration) needs to take before that can happen.  You could perhaps also point to a lack of a nuclear liabiliy bill in India (somethign which is being corrected now), which American companies do not like.  In any case, I am not sure how that constitutes a FAIL, but if it does, I am not sure how that constitutes a FAIL for Bush.

And, I would be very interested in any sourcing you can provide on Chinese nuclear reactors in Indian.

Because, you know... that would be strange (to say the least).


by Ravi Verma 2010-04-30 02:18AM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

It's a FAIL because the Indian liability protection should have been included as a condition in the original agreement, since Bush was touting the increased business opportunities for US companies. The agreement was an excellent deal for India, for the US however it was bleh. So i'm not sure how it meets the "signature achievement" test, unless the standards are awfully low.

I actually meant Russia and France. I think I typed China because i was reading an article about them at the time.

by vecky 2010-04-30 02:43AM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

So, what you are saying is that while Russian and Chinese (or French, whatever) companies could work without liability clauses, American companies need special protection that should have been negotiated in advance ?

Perhaps you are not aware that the larger issue is some certifications that the Obama administration needs to issue.  Seems like you are fairly well connected there...perhaps you should take it up with them.

The agreement is an excellent deal for all CO2 emitting nations...because it means India will emit less CO2 in the next 20 years.  I thought that point should have been obvious to everyone ~ it was even obvious to Bush. 

And no, not everything is about jobs in the US.

by Ravi Verma 2010-04-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

"Seems like you are fairly well connected there...perhaps you should take it up with them."

I swear you would think that she is the official mouthpiece of the OFA.

Anyway, regarding liability, the reason Russian and French companies can go ahead is because their liability is underwritten by their government. In case of private US companies the sticking point is what should the liability cap be, espcially given that one of the worst industrial disasters in India happened under a US based company, and the health and environmental fallout from that is still ongoing.

by tarheel74 2010-04-30 01:02PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

Exactly. Know your industry. American companies are not willing to work in India without liability protections as tarheel said. Personally I think they're just angling for another bailout from the gvt., but eitherway Bush should have been aware of that before he went ahead. Pretty glaring omission.

The certs from the Obama admin are neither here not there, American companies aren't even willing to bid on work in India until they get the liability protection. If the certs really were an issue I imagine Bush would have granted them, this being his "signature" issue after all.

And yes, I except the American government to negotiate deals that serve American interests. I know that was out-of-vogue during the Bush admin but his incompetence is not an excuse. I mean it's called the "Indo-US" nuclear agreement for a reason, not the 'Indo-Russia-France-Deal'. Pretty simple really.

by vecky 2010-04-30 08:32PM | 0 recs

American interests are served by reduced CO2 emissions in the world. And so, Bush's deal did serve American interests.  But I will admit that you have been ideologically petrified into a state where that can never be regognized, and are therefore entitled to spew nonnsense.


Either that, or perhaps you have trouble accepting that global warming is linked to CO2 emissions.

by Ravi Verma 2010-05-01 01:11AM | 0 recs
RE: Right...

LOL, maybe you don't understand the agreement, because caps on CO2 emissions or targeted reductions of greenhouse gases are mentioned nowhere in it. It's not a climate change deal, how far down the rabbit hole did you have to go to dream that one up?  Hard to believe anyone with ANY knowledge of the Bush admin would try and pass that off ignoring the evidence both of his energy policy and actions. Now you've just turned his "signature achievement" into a laughing stock.

It's certainly a new one, Bush cared about Climate Change! Hey did you know that the economic depression caused a world-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?  (well, not in India or China). "America's interest" or another "signature achievement"? His plan all along...


by vecky 2010-05-01 01:50AM | 0 recs
RE: Right...

Why is it so hard for anyone to understand that every kWhr produced with nuclear fuel is one less kWhr produced with greenhouse gas emitting fuel ?


For your sake, I hope the explanation is that your livelihood is tied to your not understanding that.

by Ravi Verma 2010-05-01 11:29AM | 0 recs
RE: Right...

Well I did try to give you the chance not to insult your own intelligence, but that seems to have failed.

If you wish to continue as the worst example of a Bush apologist, that's your decision, but trying to pass off policy decisions of other countries as "signature achievements" of his administration is even insulting to tea-baggers. 

Next I except you'll be passing off Denmark's wind-energy projects as "significant achievements" of Bush--Haliburton-Cheney. I would advise listening to yourself, as lack of such has been found to being a contributing factor in ridiculousness.

by vecky 2010-05-01 04:18PM | 0 recs
RE: Right...

Excuse me, but if you can confuse China for France, then you should refrain from questioning other people's intelligence.


I mean, I have heard of people confusing Switzerland for Sweden, but China for France ? 

by Ravi Verma 2010-05-01 05:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

4 million kids on SCHIP a new reality indeed.

btw the list was missing Re-START, just to mention a few.

by vecky 2010-04-29 09:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Saying what needs to be said

There is a difference between enacting some laws and have a record of success.  I would contend that a number of those laws were not successes at all.  See, eg, credit card reform which refused to re-enact the old usury law.  Limiting the interest rates companies can charge would have been a success.  Requiring fuller disclosure, not so much. 

by orestes 2010-05-02 09:21PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

I have to agree with you in the realms of Obama's post-partisan image.  I liked when he campaigned on a platform that emphasized bipartisanship, and truly believed he would do his best to fulfill that.  His efforts to be post-partisan were attempted it seems like, but the political discourse in this country makes crafting truly bipartisan legislation pretty much impossible.  

I would like to see an emergence of a third party in the United States.  Maybe that would quell some of the bitter divide between parties.  Personally I'd like to see cooperation in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, if it results in a good bill.  I don't even know that thats possible anymore.  

When there is this much opposition and scorn, people lose faith in their government and the political system as a whole (and to some extent they should).  

In 2009-2010 we've seen too much political discourse

by Chuckie Corra 2010-04-30 05:23AM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

At some point of time the President has to decide when to go it alone. He came with a historical mandate and a clear majority in both Senate and the House. One would expect that he would use his bully pulpit effectively to push HIS agenda through instead of diluting it further and further for people who have stated time and time again that their goal is not only NOT cooperate with him but to actually see him FAIL.If anything his reluctance to take them head on is leading to disillusionment within his own base.

In the end it comes down to leadership. If there is a tough leader in Washington it's Nancy Pelosi and that's why she is the right's most hated person. Even this week, we saw the President make an effort to dodge leadership on immigration. He basically said that the Congress does not have the will to tackle immigration this year. What happened next? Harry Reid introduced the framework for immigration reform and Pelosi said that Congress will tackle immigration reform if there is leadership from the WH. Leadership in this case is the other way around, the WH trying to abdicate its responsibility of taking a stand on contentious issues, whereas the Senate and Congress leaders are not quite ready to give him a pass so easily, especially in the wake of this toxic Arizona law.

by tarheel74 2010-04-30 12:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

I think a big issue is that the majority, in essence, is governing.  They use filibustering to prevent votes, and lies like death panels to distort public opinion (obviously this is HCR specific, but it echoes the entire Obama Presidency).  

the 41 Republicans in the Senate are calling the shots more often than the majority democrats.

by Chuckie Corra 2010-04-30 02:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

I think you mean the minority is governing, I get your point. Which makes it worthwhile for the President to encourage the Senate leadership to call their bluff on important issues. Let me them stand in front of the nation and read the telephone directory instead of debating important legislations. They should have done that during HCR (but that was extremely bungled by all parties esp the WH and the Senate), they called the Republican bluff during the current financial regulation bill and they should also call their bluff on immigration reform. That requires leadership and a certain amount of intestinal fortitude.

by tarheel74 2010-04-30 03:26PM | 0 recs
RE: Blurring the distinction between two parites

Oops yes, I meant minority.  Typo.  

Yeah, i think it just took HCR for the dems to realize they needed to call their bluff.  Unfortunately that took about a year. . 

by Chuckie Corra 2010-04-30 04:10PM | 0 recs
Having fun?

Is this thread the PUMA reunion party?

by vecky 2010-04-28 08:17PM | 0 recs
RE: Having fun?

Why do the pumas always congregate in Jerome's threads?

You never see them anywhere else in here.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-29 10:14AM | 0 recs
RE: Having fun?

Have you read Robert Kuttner's new book?  Is he also a PUMA?  Please, stop annoying the blog here with your nonsense.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 11:27AM | 0 recs
If you can't see the difference

between you/tarheel and this blog and Kuttner, you need someone to hit you in the head.

For example, Kuttner never endorsed Hillary Clinton and then turned around and criticized the administration as too Clintonian. He criticized Hillary for the same reason he criticizes Obama now.

Another words, he was consistent and didn't try to spin arguments that fit his narrative. You, on the other hand, have proven to take whatever happens and somehow spin it in order to make an the argument that Obama and the Democrats are in peril, because you're still angry that he won. You try to criticize him from the left, which is fair, but expect us to forget that your criticizing the same positions your candidate advocated. You convienently disappear whenever something good happens, only to reappear when something bad happens with some snidy childish sarcastic post where you do a bad job hiding your selfish glee and enjoyment in watching the Democratic Party suffer.

I don't care about the primaries because I know your endorsement of Hillary was nothing more than your illogical hatred for Obama, I just enjoy pointing out what a hypocrite you are and how terrible you are at hiding your illogical hatred for Obama.

It really kills you that he's been so successfull, hasn't it?

by ND22 2010-04-30 08:42PM | 3 recs
RE: If you can't see the difference

Welcome to 2010, whenever you get around to joining us from your '08 vacation.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-01 05:59AM | 0 recs
RE: Having fun?

Everyone needs a home.

by vecky 2010-04-29 08:56PM | 0 recs
Same reason

Catholics congregate around the Pope.

by ND22 2010-04-30 06:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Having fun?

Actually, what I notice, is that the posters still stuck in 6th grade with their name calling tend to show up a lot.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-29 11:26AM | 0 recs
RE: Having fun?

You mean like this: http://mydd.com/2010/4/28/2010-in-a#comment-1250052 ?

Btw, what did Kuttner have to do with your thread? His basic critic is that Obama's admin is too full of Clinton admin types. Which is not terribly surprising given the Clintons influence on the Democratic party from 1992-2008. Your post instead seems to be about democratic poll numbers.

by vecky 2010-04-29 09:09PM | 0 recs
but enough

about you Jerome

by ND22 2010-04-30 06:50PM | 1 recs
Time to Engage People

I supported Hillary Clinton, and didn't not care an ounce for Obama.  But I have to admit he has done a great job, probably better in many ways than Clinton could have done.


The guy seems to be handling the problems of the day better than most would, and he seems to be checking off the campaign promises.  

The same could be said for Democrats in Congress.  


So I think it is time to throw the support behind them all, fire up the energy, take it to the Republicans, and make sure that the Republicans don't get control of the House or the Senate and put the brakes on and obstruct obstruct obstruct.


Imagine the hearings and the nonsense and petty bs if the Republicans had the power to call hearings?    Nothing would get done.    NOTHING.


Besides it is FUN kicking Republicans ass in November.  

by RichardFlatts 2010-05-04 09:30AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads