this hypocrisy is being pointed out...over and over...but the result is denial...

Bernie and Elizabeth can have their turns in 2017 if that's in their future.

I'm also appreciative that we have Senators Sanders and Warren in the Senate because they definitely are the big picture kind of leaders who are so important for our Country's heart and soul.. as are the President and VP.

"...Obama gets totally raked over the coals.." for even having a wounded veteran as his guest at the SOTU because they didn't understand what was happening.. The kneejerking is emblematic of ODS.. you know the one that is denied it even exists.

Actually Sgt Cory Remsburg was being honored for Resilience in the face of unbearable challenges. The gopropaganda machine accused the Sgt of being a "prop".. they did not care for the message this sent of ending the wars. Not if they have anything to say about it.

PBO wants Peace Negotiations in Iran.. does that sound like someone who wants to glorify war? No, it doesn't. We're out of Iraq and winding down in Afghanistan..

"In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama told the American public that the Afghanistan War, the longest in U.S. history, would end by the end of 2014. Proclaiming that Afghan forces are “now in the lead for their own security,” Obama’s next move is to finalize a security agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai which calls for a “small force” of Americans and NATO allies to remain in the war-stricken country, with said forces having moved to a “support role.”

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/state-of-the-union-2014-afghanistan-war-to-end/

Here's to those who appreciate what a brilliant, caring, courageous, compassionate, intelligent President we have now. And, I'm really grateful for Obama's sense of humor.. I know having one gets us through some rough roads.

[font size=21pt][font color=blue]YES WE[/font]

[font color=green]CANNABIS![/font][/font]

And I am also very grateful to have voices like Bernie's and Elizabeth's to help drag our Dem party back to what used to be its major strengths from the 1930s on: all of us unified behind social, political, educational and economic goals that are intended to improve life for everyone, not simply those who have LOTS of $$$$ in their pockets.

Encourage them every chance we get because there are those dems who wanted to sanction Iran while Peace Negotiations are going on. They need to be discouraged ever so much.

Yes, We Cannabis!

stealing! I stole it from Kath and asked if she just made that up? And, she said she got it from someone .. she didn't know who.. Pass it on IrishAyes!

But I'm beginning to believe that the reason why there's a double-standard around here is because:

1: Senators Sanders and Warren aren't African-American;

2: The double-standard bearers aren't Democrats;

3: Stirring up negative feelings about Democrats is beneficial to their true Party.

It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called DUers can nitpick the tiniest thing that can be twisted and presented in the most negative light all just to excoriate this president.

These so-called DUers aren't stupid - their writing shows that much - so when they started the blame-game that "President Obama failed to close Gitmo!!!" without mentioning that Congress was united in thwarting him and had presented a veto-proof bill that would prohibit any president from closing Gitmo successfully - including denying the funding for such a costly extraction - then you know they're not on this message board and in this pro-Democratic Party community as Democrats in good faith.

Far left, far right, and many issue-voters in between.

Candidates who talk a good game (even when the words they speak run counter to their actions) are always valued over elected officials trying to work within the confines of their situation.

You hit an idea out of the ballpark !

and too little learning aren't to be taken seriously.

Here are two political polar opposites who have for years worked together in the background to get something accomplished, as difficult as it is to get anything done in Washington. It's a good article, not just about these two, but about how things get done after the fundraising, fights, and other bluster and bullshit we hear about every day.

<...>
"Esther Olavarria, a Democrat, left Cuba as a child, worked as Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s top immigration lawyer and now holds a post in the White House. Rebecca Tallent, a Republican, left suburban Arizona and became Senator John McCain’s chief of staff, briefly advised Sarah Palin in 2008 and is now a top policy aide to Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio.

But if there is any way to unlock the immigration stalemate in Washington, colleagues say these two might find it."
<...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/us/politics/2-women-transcending-party-renew-quest-for-immigration-deal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140122&_r=0

They just see a figure they can use to poke the President with. Neither would be in any different position as President - the best they can come up with is that they would talk a lot tougher, which would accomplish nothing - they freely admit they just want to get the emotional satisfaction of hearing a President say something, even if that would alienate and make progress harder.

Much like the Teapublicans, these ODS-inflicted people honor rhetoric over governance. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the majority of them aren't even Democrats but rather Libertarians disguised as. One thing's for certain...they all have ODS in varying stages.

A double standard means that people who are similarly situated are treated differently. A President and a Senator aren't similarly situated.

Here's what often happens: The President proposes something. The Congressional leadership of his party honors party loyalty and supports "their" President. The Congressional leadership of the other major party works out their own position. Sometimes there's a vote on a bill that's pretty much what one side wanted, but often what finally emerges is some kind of compromise.

In that scenario, Sanders and Warren have the option of supporting the Obama position, the McConnell/Boehner position, or a compromise. Nothing else is on the table -- because Obama didn't use his office to put anything else on the table.

Take the ACA. Let's not even talk about the obvious sensible approach of single payer. Consider just the far more limited question of a "robust public option" as per Obama's own pronouncements. If he had proposed a bill like that, it might or might not have gotten through, but at least he would have tried. I'm confident that Sanders would have voted against a Republican amendment to strip the public option. (Warren wasn't in the Senate then but she would also do the right thing in such circumstances.)

Once Obama caved on the public option, though, that policy choice wasn't available to Sanders and other progressives. The choice was a flawed ACA that coddled the big, for-profit insurance companies, or preserving the status quo.

It's not at all a double standard to fault Obama for making that the effective choice, while not faulting Sanders for preferring a flawed change over a bad status quo.

And you just used another double standard - you excuse their voting record away and still hammer the President.

So, the President compromising on something to get it passed because there are no other options is bad - but Sanders and Warren supporting that compromise because there are no other options is perfectly acceptable? Hey, Jim, guess what? You just defined double standard. Drr.

Moreover, Sanders and Warren are actually in the legislative body where the BILLS begin. Beyond that, Sanders owes the President nothing, as he's supposedly independent. If he doesn't like something, he's free to stand up for his convictions and not vote for it, or propose something different.

But again, the double standard at work here.

Scenario One: President Obama proposes an ACA that, per his earlier promise, includes a robust public option.
Scenario Two: President Obama proposes the ACA as he actually proposed it, and Sanders offers an amendment to add a robust public option.

In your view, these two scenarios are fundamentally equivalent in terms of what might actually get passed. Therefore, faulting Obama for not doing the first requires one to fault Sanders for not doing the second.

For my part, I see those two scenarios as being very fundamentally different. What the President of the United States says and does has a huge impact on the political landscape. Whether a particular policy change can be passed is not a given, pre-existing fact; it's affected (not totally controlled but powerfully affected) by the President's choices. It's affected by an individual Senator's choices, too, but to a far lesser extent.

If Obama had proposed a health-insurance reform bill that included a public option, and then found the public option eliminated by a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats, there would have been much less basis to criticize him. At least he would have tried. He might have succeeded, by playing heavily on party loyalty. Even if he failed, taking a more progressive position would have helped to shape the public discourse. Those of us who criticize him from the left would be much less critical on this particular issue if he had handled it that way, even if the ACA as actually enacted had turned out to be exactly the same. In contrast, there was nothing Sanders could do that offered the slightest possibility of adding a public option, once Obama had proposed an ACA that excluded it.

I just picked the ACA as one example. There are plenty of others, notably appointments (Geithner and many other examples), where Obama made the effective choice and a progressive Senator, confronted with that reality, had no available course of action that would put a better person into the office.

Obviously there are cases (such as closing Guantanamo) where not even Obama's political power is sufficient to achieve a good result. There was a time when I was critical of Obama over Guantanamo, but when I learned more about the issue, I changed my mind. One could find some details where he might have done better. Overall, however, the blame on that issue lies with Congress. I don't blame Obama for his failure there because at least he tried. That illustrates my point that each political actor's conduct should be assessed according to the options that were open to him or her, given how other actors are deciding. It's not a double standard to judge different officials differently when the practicalities of the situation are that they had different options open to them.

Warren and Sanders are not obligated to support compromised legislation. If you're going to get on Obama's case for compromising, you better damn well get on their case for supporting it. If you don't, you're a hypocrite or a fool. Pick which one.

It's a collective. The only reason a Senator is not equal to a President is because the Senator is part of a 100 person body, Yet totally that body plus the House are equal. Everyone in the House or Senate has to compromise. The president doesn't have to compromise with himself. Yet he does with the body that has to compromise among the 535 people in it.

saw your post!

This is a GROUP, specifically for the promotion of the President's policies. GD is where you want to take your arguments and complaints if you wish to continue to have them posted. As one of the mods so aptly said, "We like our peace here." So if you want to argue or criticize President Barack Hussein Obama, do it elsewhere. Not here, understand? Nobody owes you a sweet plea to behave yourself in our living room.

I'm perfectly well aware of the difference between a group and a forum, thank you, and I've never come to the BOG for the purpose of posting any of my criticisms of Obama.

In this thread, however, the OP brought in two other politicians. The point of the OP, as I understood it, was that some of the criticisms that have been leveled at Obama (elsewhere, of course) would be equally valid if applied to Sanders and Warren. My opinion was that such criticisms would not be valid as applied to them, because of the way their situation differs from Obama's. The point of my response was to explain that distinction, thus explaining why I, for one, do not criticize Sanders and Warren for voting for imperfect bills.

I'm a DUer who has voted for Obama every time he was on a ballot I could cast. I approve of the overall performance of all three of these politicians. Obviously, however, that doesn't mean that all three of them are peas in a pod, with no distinctions to be drawn among them. (I'm sure there are issues where Sanders and Warren disagree with each other, too.)

So my question is, does "We like our peace" mean that DUers can't say anything favorable about Sanders and Warren here, if the explicit or implicit point is that Obama is good but that Sanders and Warren are in some respect better? The BOG certainly has the right to set such a rule. It does greatly constrict the discussion, however, especially in a context where the whole point of the thread is an alleged double standard, and where the comparison is initiated by someone supporting Obama.

They belong to the 100 person body and none of those 100 people can get all they want. Even for the Senator to pass a bill, each Senator part of it had to compromise. So if compromise is so terrible, no bills should ever pass, as each Senator would stick to his or her clear principles. And each representative. Therefore, no bill can ever pass.

Politics is the art of compromise, and thank goodness that includes the President, too. The President is one person who can stand for what they want purely and get nothing passed at all, or they can learn where to compromise to make progress.

Warren or Sanders, if president, would not have to compromise as much as they do in the Senate, but would still have to do so.

If you don't know who that person is, the better path would be to ask whom I quoted.

In the second place, playing Philadelphia lawyer won't get you anywhere. You were - still are - just grasping for any straw to criticize and start an argument, tarnishing any claim to good intentions. I'm not a group mod, as you could easily look up for yourself. But I do watch the door a bit, and I can guarantee you what the group standards and practices are. If you have a bone to pick, do it elsewhere.

Has GD grown so dull and boring that you can't 'debate' everything to your heart's content where it's welcome? Does it seem fine to you to sit in the Sea Hawks bleachers and cheer for Denver? This is a booster club, not a long-knife debating society, thank you. I'm personally (and not alone) sick of having an open hand pounded with a closed fist. Take it outside.

You state that I came here to "start an argument" that belonged in GD. By my lights, the OP started the argument, by charging quite a few DUers with intellectual dishonesty. (No one was called out by name but the brush was pretty broad.) The OP gave a basically accurate summary of the views of many of us, and then criticized us. I answered the criticism. If you don't want the BOG to be a long-knife debating society, then perhaps you should be recommending that posts like the OP be taken outside.

I wasn't asking you what anyone else's quotation meant, and I don't see where you got that.

What I did ask you was about the parameters of the BOG. As it happens, I looked you up before I posted, so I knew you aren't a host. Your post, however, expressed a forceful opinion about one aspect of the group's rules, so I asked you to elaborate on your comment. You've declined, as is your right, so that's the end of that.

is the end of your merry little romp here.

of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies"

Group hosts have wide latitude in moderating

So in practical terms, the SoP, as enforced here, may mean posts in this group should show support for the president and his policies

Though stabbing and slashing have not been common in this group, hosts certainly retain authority to act to prevent knife-fighting here whenever necessary

But I agree with you that we should expect it to get worse

than bedbugs. That's why I have absolutely no pity for their poor widdle feelin's, although I acknowledge my duty not to sink to their level by returning abuse for abuse. But neither do I hesitate to rap their knuckles when they slither in to foment trouble and play their violin when dismissed. As someone said earlier, we don't owe them free rein to abuse. It's a favor and a duty to humankind in general to kick a troll's ass to the curb ASAP.

good times, grant.. thanks for the memory. that was huge! Thank you again, for writing that, grant.. it was important. Everyone that doesn't march to their beat is one.. never once looking at their objection of adoration as "cheerleading" or the aforementioned "lackey butt-kissing shit".

"The real funny point is that if they were to talk to their 'heroes' they would be surprised how much affection all of these people have for each other, including Secretary of State Clinton."

I think so too.. it would horrify some.

"Look! He can't swim!"

As for bigger pictures, I read one comment in GD or FB, can't remember which now but it wasn't a compliment - that the Democrats keep playing multi-level chess in a country that only knows how to play checkers. Well, we need to move the nation forward, not revert to the lowest common denominator. For instance there are parts of the new farm bill that I don't like and hope will get fixed along the way. But I'm not going to run around with my hair on fire at the least sign of smoke because soooo often I've seen things turn out better than I could've expected. I don't believe the majority of Dems would play games only for the sake of political theatre, yet that occasional impression has so often turned out to be a superb sleight of hand that I'm willing to wait and see. I make sure they know what's important to us - as if they need to be told! - and I think that's their true end goal.

For instance, Harry Reid's recent defiance of the fast track aspect of TPP; is it at least barely possible we're watching a little bit of good cop/bad cop gamemanship? Yes it would be delightful if politics could be done in the simplest most straightforward fashion; but when you've got madmen obstructionists, you have to finesse where you can.

If what you said wasn't the absolute truth. they would let out a collective whine that he can't swim.

-Obama doing something that the left supports/Obama supported by prominent progressive voices= thread sinks within a day, with maybe several dozen or so recs at the maximum.
-Repeated speculations about cuts to the Big 3, extension of the Afghan war, or outrage about a surveillance program that has been in existence for decades and is not unique to the U.S.= hundreds of recs and comments.

Outside of the cat threads, those aforementioned threads get the most love and attention on a site that is supposedly for Democrats.

President Obama does something that the Left wants = "We made him do it."

President Obama succeeds in high stake diplomacy that averts a war = "Putin bailed him out."

I lost count of how many times I've seen the "We made him do it" posts. It's insane.

it's because a bunch of whining, screaming expletives MADE him do it cuz Obama doesn't have a sensible thought in his head.

that kills me.

and I do the same for Sanders, Leahy and Welch- my Senators and rep- when I believe that they do.

member of the "DU Double-standard crew": when you either, say something positive about something that President Obama (and his team) has accomplished; or, when you are critical of Sanders, Warren, Leahy or Welch. Until then, I will remain unconvinced ... not that I expect you to care about what I think.

For one thing I was one of his earliest and most vocal supporters here in 2007-2008. and I've said positive things about him even recently. I stood up for him for years. It's only over the past 3 years or so that I've become so disillusioned with his administration. I laud him on social issues but he really is a moderate conservative on economic issues. Nope. Don't stand with that

And look around, bud, I've criticized all three of my reps repeatedly over this vote- and I've criticized Leahy over quite a few other issues.

try doing some research before you erroneously blather on with false crap.

Oh, I forgot, I'm addressing someone with full blown OAS.

to said recent positivity?

Or do I have to shift through the haystack to find the needle.

if that was a complement ... know it took three re-writings to come up with it; the previous 2 would have gotten me a time out. If you were being sarcastic, you should have seen the previous responses I deleted before settling on that one ... they would have made you blush!

Many would have gone with the responses that might make me blush. I thought your response was nicer than it might have been.

Thanks.

Though I fully expect her/him to reply: "I'm not going to do your research for you! You are not the boss of me!"

At which point, I would respond, merely, "Okay."

I don't think she'll be back here.

as if all of those statements provides carte Blanche for every whine, every complaint, every misinterpreted motivation of Obama today.

at a poster.

Don't forget where you are, cali.

It's the Barack Obama group, we generally support the president and one another.

CYA

(President) Obama Adoration/Admiration/Acceptance Syndrome?

I proudly claim that "malady."

under ObamaCare ... it's covered!

ODS!

I went to the ObamaCare "Big Blue Book"* ...

And it says they treat the former (OAS) by providing the "sufferer" with more exposure to the reality, e.g., lists of the administration's successes; and they treat the latter (ODS) by having them turning off turn off fox news, and getting them into psycho-therapy to answer the question of "why this clearly competent, deep-thinking, smart and intelligent, articulate, charismatic, committed to family, Black man, causes you so much psychic distress."

* (the book that doctors used to use to look up symptoms, make diagnoses and determine treatments)

You have acres to romp around with your negativity, why come to this small patch to disrupt?

since DAY ONE the GOP has said, repeatedly, that it will never work with this POTUS and I think we all know why.

The tally was 68-32, so neither Senator was necessary for passage. They could have easily stood on principle, thereby satisfying the personality-cultist purity patrol, but they didn't.

That won't stop the rationalizing, of course, but it does provide excellent grist for ridicule.

Racism hardly qualifies one as a liberal, but we all know there are all sorts of changelings on every website. The term trolls might need a breather so I decided to switch to an Irish expression for awhile.