Barack Obama has got to go

This man is almost singlehandedly bringing the Democratic party down to its knees.  Democrats are plummeting in polls while Republicans are surging everywhere.  

We are not going to get any healthcare reform, no climate change legislation, not improved economy, nothing.  

We have come to the same point that Republicans came to in 1974 when they realized that Richard Nixon had to be put to sleep for the sake of the party.  The same needs to be done with Obama.

If we can get rid of Obama within the next couple of months, we may be able to save our party.  Joe Biden can take over and serve out the rest of Obama's term.  

Even if Obama stays, he is likely to be impeached in 2011 by the new Republican Congress.  

We need to remove this cancer now.  

Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats (all tags)



Offshore drilling off Alaska

The most disappointing news for me this week was not the RIP of the public option.  The Obama Administration approved the oil drilling off of Alaska.  

by FilbertSF 2009-12-10 04:24PM | 0 recs
He is going to have to open up ANWR

In exchange for votes on cap and trade.  

by Kent 2009-12-10 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Offshore drilling off Alaska

Congress passed a law that did that in 2007, when oil prices spiked and the repubs were crying "drill drill".

If Obama was going to block it, there needs to be some reason. He can't just block drilling by fait...

by vecky 2009-12-10 05:37PM | 0 recs
What if it means less Oil from Saudi Arabia?

It seems to be part of a deal including more nuclear and cap and trade.

I wish we didn't have to take the good with the bad, but..

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-10 07:31PM | 0 recs

Why didn't I think of that.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-12-10 04:42PM | 0 recs
Quite simply because...

you're kool aid drinking bot.  Sometimes I don't know where Obama ends and you begin.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-10 04:44PM | 0 recs

Kinda' makes you wonder how a bunch of deadbeats like us could've won the election, doesn't it?

by Shaun Appleby 2009-12-10 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Shucks

"we?" Aw shucks.  Now you think you're part of the Administration,too?  Do you have an office in the West Wing?

You're just a koolaid drinker.  Just another dittohead sucked into rhetoric and charm.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-10 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Shucks

The 'we' was in response to your confusion about Obama and I.  But don't despair, you have a mere three years to wait for the opportunity to vote against Obama.  Again.  Assuming, of course, your head doesn't explode in the meantime.  Good luck.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-12-10 10:51PM | 0 recs

More cliches more cliches more cliches.  

They're so much better than arguments.

by Strummerson 2009-12-12 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

The Democrats would be KICKING ASS if not for that bum Obama.  Have you ever noticed how everyone else in the party is poised and competent except for him??  He is single-handedly dragging down a veritable Dream Team of progressive politics.

by Steve M 2009-12-10 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

He is bringing the party down.  The party was riding high until he messed up on healthcare.  

by Kent 2009-12-10 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

Kent shut up already. I wish I could reach through this screen and knock you back to Free Republic you little jerk. YOU ARE THE ONE who has to go.

by spirowasright 2009-12-10 05:51PM | 0 recs
oh just hide him and move on

it's not worth it to feed trolls.

by ND22 2009-12-10 06:52PM | 0 recs
Especially that Harry Reid

Boy, I tell you, if McCain was President, we'd have single payer healthcare and the big banks would all be under our control, because that jerk Obama wouldn't be around to stop the Democrats from ruling the world.

by ND22 2009-12-10 05:48PM | 0 recs
Do you even know what you write?

We have come to the same point that Republicans came to in 1974 when they realized that Richard Nixon had to be put to sleep for the sake of the party.  The same needs to be done with Obama.

Do you know what "putting to sleep" means? Your diaries are high speed drive-by diarrhea in action.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-10 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what you write?

Yep.  This diary is a Federal Crime.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-10 06:35PM | 0 recs
Is it a bannable offense...

...if I print this diary out on paper and then wipe my arse with it?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-10 07:32PM | 0 recs


by you like it 2009-12-10 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

Obama accpeted the Nobel Peace Prize today.
OK Kent, Upstate Dem,Bartcop, the little crybabies at Democratic Underground  and everybody else in the cult of Kucinich who get off kicking this man around, go over to DKos, check the diaries for a picture spread from Oslo and then come back and tell me he has to go.
I didn't vote for him, he scares me at times, he definitely scares most of may family and friends, but I also pray for him as much as I can and I'm not all that uncomfortable with him inthe Oval Office.
You people actually supported him. I wish you had his back.

Pal;in vs. Kucinich in 2012--the Flying Monkey Right or the Gimmie a Pony Left?  

by spirowasright 2009-12-10 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

MeteorBlades banned Upstate Dem for using an extremely nasty slang term for vagina to describe a woman.

by Khun David 2009-12-11 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: jezus!

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.


America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.


That's a fraction of his acceptance speech, which runs more than 4000 words. It is a lengthy, cogent argument appropriate for a person of such stature - a president of the United States - standing on the world stage to accept an honor of such stature - a Nobel Peace Prize.  So it would be grossly unfair to suggest that you should, in a blog comment, make your own counter-arguments with the same degree of substance and humility. I did want to quote from his speech a bit, however, to point out that it actually is not at all dismissive of your point of view; it addresses it head-on.

by Rob in Vermont 2009-12-12 01:42PM | 0 recs
Well, this pretty much sums up the Anti-Obama left

You see them all the time, but rarely so well defined.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-10 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

"I did vote for him and even heavily supported him in the primary.  However, the man a supported is not the same man who is now President." - Kent, October 2009

"What more did they expect?  I always knew that Obama knew almost nothing about how Washington worked and expected nothing to get done." - Kent, November 2009

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-10 08:17PM | 0 recs

Brilliant.  So, tell us, what's your plan for removing this cancer?

by mikeinsf 2009-12-10 08:49PM | 0 recs
Ever heard of primary challenges

Or a third party candidate.  Whatever makes sure he isnt reelected in 2012.  

by Kent 2009-12-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Ever heard of primary challenges

Keep it simple.  Just do what you did last time.  That really worked out well for you, didn't it?

by Shaun Appleby 2009-12-10 10:53PM | 0 recs
What a f'ing idiot n/t

by jsfox 2009-12-11 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

"Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal," says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it."

Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency. In order to grasp the full horror of what took place, however, one needs to go back a few weeks before the actual bailout -- to November 5th, 2008, the day after Obama's election.

That was the day the jubilant Obama campaign announced its transition team. Though many of the names were familiar -- former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, long-time Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett -- the list was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who had served as one of Obama's chief advisers during the campaign, didn't make the cut. Neither did Karen Kornbluh, who had served as Obama's policy director and was instrumental in crafting the Democratic Party's platform. Both had emphasized populist themes during the campaign: Kornbluh was known for pushing Democrats to focus on the plight of the poor and middle class, while Goolsbee was an aggressive critic of Wall Street, declaring that AIG executives should receive "a Nobel Prize -- for evil."

But come November 5th, both were banished from Obama's inner circle -- and replaced with a group of Wall Street bankers. Leading the search for the president's new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama's biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters -- chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm. And to help him pick Obama's economic team, Froman brought in none other than Jamie Rubin, a former Clinton diplomat who happens to be Bob Rubin's son. At the time, Jamie's dad was still earning roughly $15 million a year working for Citigroup, which was in the midst of a collapse brought on in part because Rubin had pushed the bank to invest heavily in mortgage-backed CDOs and other risky instruments.

Now here's where it gets really interesting. It's three weeks after the election. You have a lame-duck president in George W. Bush -- still nominally in charge, but in reality already halfway to the golf-and-O'Doul's portion of his career and more than happy to vacate the scene. Left to deal with the still-reeling economy are lame-duck Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former head of Goldman Sachs, and New York Fed chief Timothy Geithner, who served under Bob Rubin in the Clinton White House. Running Obama's economic team are a still-employed Citigroup executive and the son of another Citigroup executive, who himself joined Obama's transition team that same month.

So on November 23rd, 2008, a deal is announced in which the government will bail out Rubin's messes at Citigroup with a massive buffet of taxpayer-funded cash and guarantees. It is a terrible deal for the government, almost universally panned by all serious economists, an outrage to anyone who pays taxes. Under the deal, the bank gets $20 billion in cash, on top of the $25 billion it had already received just weeks before as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But that's just the appetizer. The government also agrees to charge taxpayers for up to $277 billion in losses on troubled Citi assets, many of them those toxic CDOs that Rubin had pushed Citi to invest in. No Citi executives are replaced, and few restrictions are placed on their compensation. It's the sweetheart deal of the century, putting generations of working-stiff taxpayers on the hook to pay off Bob Rubin's fuck-up-rich tenure at Citi. "If you had any doubts at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street," former labor secretary Robert Reich declares when the bailout is announced, "your doubts should be laid to rest."

It is bad enough that one of Bob Rubin's former protégés from the Clinton years, the New York Fed chief Geithner, is intimately involved in the negotiations, which unsurprisingly leave the Federal Reserve massively exposed to future Citi losses. But the real stunner comes only hours after the bailout deal is struck, when the Obama transition team makes a cheerful announcement: Timothy Geithner is going to be Barack Obama's Treasury secretary!

Geithner, in other words, is hired to head the U.S. Treasury by an executive from Citigroup -- Michael Froman -- before the ink is even dry on a massive government giveaway to Citigroup that Geithner himself was instrumental in delivering. In the annals of brazen political swindles, this one has to go in the all-time Fuck-the-Optics Hall of Fame.

Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the government's bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson. "Geithner assures a smooth transition between the Bush administration and that of Obama, because he's already co-managing what's happening now," observed Stephen Leeb, president of Leeb Capital Management.

by jeopardy 2009-12-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Unless you are Matt Tiabbi

you just plagarized his work.

by Khun David 2009-12-11 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

Next time please just put this in

HTML tags for blockquotes

If you don't mind. Thank.

Taibbi's piece is based on false assumptions and riddled with factual errors. Robert Rubin wasn't CEO at Citibank when Citi went in all on CDOs, Charles Prince was. To blame Rubin for Prince's failings undermines much of his argument.

Taibbi is a polemicist. Apart from ideology, he's little different than Glenn Beck. Taibbi paints this as some vast nefarious conspiracy when in fact it is simply part of the nexus of economic and political power that runs the country. If you're shocked about this, then you simply have not been paying attention for twenty years.

There is, as I wrote last week, an unholy union of bank and state that stems from a philosophical belief that what is good for Wall Street is always good for the country.

This is not to suggest that much of Taibbi is saying isn't true but his premise that Obama wasn't beholden to Wall Street prior to winning the nomination is simply not true. If Obama "sold out," it happened long before he was elected to the Senate. His record in the Senate was a centrist one. He voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy policy. Progressive Punch ranked him as the 25th most liberal Senator. Obama outbundled Clinton on Wall Street and that's quite an accomplishment considering that Clinton represented NY in the Senate. Taibbi is not one to let facts get in the way of a good expletive-laden rant.

His piece is not investigative journalism but opinion-based. It should be read as such. Entertaining perhaps, but not entirely factual.

William Greider, he's not.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-12 04:23PM | 0 recs
Hey Charles

How is this diary still up?  I have never before called for a diary to be taken down, but this one does potentially call for violence against a sitting president by suggesting he should be "put to sleep." It may not be quite specific enough to qualify as a federal offense, but it seems clearly over the line to me.  When I first read it, I thought it would be gone within an hour.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-13 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

edit: forgot the cite. it's from Taibbi's new piece about Obama being owned by the banks.

can anybody argue with that?

by jeopardy 2009-12-11 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

No, I'm pretty sure you're right that it's from Taibbi's piece.  No argument here.

by Steve M 2009-12-11 09:02AM | 0 recs

Austan Goolsbee as William Jennings Bryan.

by JJE 2009-12-11 11:35AM | 0 recs
I missed your next post

However, by posting several paragraphs, you violated the "fair use" guidance of this site.

by Khun David 2009-12-11 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: anything to silence dissent huh?

Not silencing 'dissent'.  However, it is wrong when someone steals someone elses work (such as reposting another person's work, not attributing that work to the original author or not linking to the original article), and is a violation of many websites' terms of service.

by Khun David 2009-12-12 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

thanks, that's what i wanted to hear. good to know we all agree who wrote it

by jeopardy 2009-12-11 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

dang i keep messing up on the "reply" button.

jeeze, bad day

by jeopardy 2009-12-11 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama has got to go

When you say, "This man is almost singlehandedly bringing the Democratic party down to its knees," I assume "Obama" was a typo and what you really meant were "Nelson and Lieberman" and "these men".

by Nathan Empsall 2009-12-11 10:20AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads