Log In | Register
I just read a seed entitled I Peeled the Obama Bumper Sticker Off My Car Today. It was a very cutesy and misleading headline (I'm not saying it violated any CoH--it was just very very well done.) The author peeled off his 2008 bumper sticker to put on a 2012 bumper sticker. My own experience of Obama, for whom I had campaigned as well as I could and for whom I had publicly criticized Hillary (you can check my vine history) and at whose winning I was absolutely head-over-heels with delight.... my own experience became one of growing puzzlement followed by dismay followed by the realization I'd been had. As had many of my friends who not only campaigned for him but some of whom gave considerable amounts of money to his campaign.
In contrast to that cutesy headline, mine is rather prosaic but absolutely true. I am going to provide the link to when I metaphorically scrapped the Obama bumper sticker off my car. In that link I fail to mention his first choice for a cabinet position, the insider's insider, Geithner. I would think that everyone who is even vaguely progressive or even in favor of the Middle Class would find that choice a bit odd, don't you think? I don't mention him in what follows. Here is the public moment when I peeled off my metaphorical bumper sticker in public:
Not in my name, Mr. Compromiser-in-chief, and never again. [For a more recent seed and thread of comments about Obama, if you have lots of time you read here: Recent Gallop Poll shows Obama's Chance of Re-election Fading.)
Now I know most viners don't have the time or patience to read links like those just mentioned. So let me briefly list a few reasons why I've given up on this guy forever:
1. He's continued the Bush II economic policies and the disastrous foreign war policies (includes getting kicked out of Iraq because of a deadline Bush II had signed and an incredibly immoral increase in drone attacks killing thousands of innocent civilians).
2. He didn't fight for the public option, against continuing the tax cuts for the rich, provide a shovel-ready jobs program (there continue to be an abundance of much needed shovel-ready jobs out there), or fight for extending the employment insurance programs. What could I possibly mean he never fought for any of these these things? What I mean is that during the first two years of his presidency he NEVER used the bully-pulpit by giving a speech (his one tremendous skill) from the oval office during prime time that explained and defended the public option, that said what a disaster continuing the tax cuts for the rich would be, argued for the available jobs program that would have jump-started the economy for the Middle Class, or explained, using the conclusions of a Bush II committee, why unemployment insurance was the best policy for America in purely economic terms (no tear jerking stuff about starving children at Christmas, but hard economic facts).
3. He escalated the hopelessly hopeless war in Afghanistan which had no rationale.
There's much more, of course, but I don't expect busy viners to read anymore here.
I welcome all comment and especially encourage comments where the commentator employs reasons and arguments, preferably against me since that makes it even more fun. I also welcome similar comments on the position I am taking, especially those defending this position against well-argued attacks. The reason for requesting a good defense is that I will only have a very limited time to engage in this discussion.
I will enforce the CoH. So please, no insulting remarks. Thanks in advance.
