Obama could have (should have) put everything on the table instead of surrendering on single-payer right off the bat.  His negotiating skills were weak.  I doubt Hillary would have made that mistake.

Obamacare has some good features but continuing to enrich the insurance companies is not one of them.

Yeah, he started off wanting to be the guy who could collaborate with the opposition to attain reasonable solutions. Trouble is you just end up giving everything away when the other side is totally Machiavellianian. His idealism cost us all. Then again it is best to recognize the limits of what you can realistically win so you don't wind up on the rocks.

I'd love to play poker with Obama.  I'd be a rich man.

Obama has soured me entirely on the Democratic party. It obviously doesn't actually represent progressive ideals. Like others on here have pointed out, it turns out that on most issues, he's only one step to the left of either Bush, and he's actually a step or two to the RIGHT of Regan, and that's just messed up.

Even thinking about the upcoming elections makes me feel a little nauseous. Many of the complaints about third party voting are legit, but so are complaints about both of the major parties. Every presidential hopeful seems to be in the pocket of the wealthy and the 1%, so I don't see much changing regardless of who gets into office.

I'll vote based off of my hopes that a candidate won't take regressive social actions. I'd like to see more states rights. But I don't have a candidate I like yet. I don't really want Hillary in office. I'm sure her stint in the oval office would somehow ruin any other female candidate for decades.

At this point, presidential elections in the US just make me feel completely hopeless about the future of this country.

With Obama it's impossible to tell if he was ever really a liberal and got corrupted by influence or a corporatist with great political skill.

(April 21, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'd love to play poker with Obama.  I'd be a rich man.

You are not a republican.   He won't throw any games while playing you. 

Democracy is fun! *Manic laughter*  

Quote: I'll vote based off of my hopes that a candidate won't take regressive social actions. I'd like to see more states rights.

Except it is the states rights shits who ARE taking the most socially regressive actions.

History will have to judge whether Obama was 

1. ...a tragically naive idealist who thought he could heal the divides of the nation if he was just nice enough, 
   
2. ....an inept product of the Peter Principle (promoted up to a level beyond his abilities, brilliant at state level politics but in over his head at the Federal level) or 
   
3. ...an ingenious 5th column agent secretly working for the Republican Party. 
   

I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to actually embrace #3 but you know, it would explain a lot. After all, he took a roaring progressive movement that gave him the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses facing a GOP that was disgraced after the economic and foreign policy disasters and within two years he managed to thoroughly marginalize and demoralize liberals, gave the GOP room to regroup and revive and covered up for the abuses of the previous administration. He couldn't have done a better job if he really was acting as a 5th columnist. 

(April 21, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Pizza Wrote: Democracy is fun! *Manic laughter*  

But oligarchy is more fun! ...for the wealthy few, that is, suckas!