Are You a 'Cynic' or a 'Truster'? How Much Slack to Cut Obama

Given the choice between Obama and McCain, I certainly don't regret my vote. Close to home, I'm on unemployment and Obama gave me a raise and a tax cut. I'm disappointed with him on ending the war(s), gay rights, legalizing pot, and other things but realize he cannot go out on a limb without the support of his party and they stab him in the back every time. If Congress passed a law legalizing gay marriage or pot, I'm convinced Obama would sign it. Senate Democrats are spineless corporate weasels, quislings. Like LBJ, who believed in Civil Rights but voted against until his position was unassailable, I believe Obama is a careful, maybe overly careful, politician who, when he has the votes, will do the right thing.

are also a worthy, productive effort. Taking the Democratic Party back for the people seems more doable and promising in the long term than tuning out or voting for 3rd party candidates.

"Why not?" "Time's running out." "Based on?" "Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday." "The answer being?" "We rise up en masse." "And then what sort of world?" "It'll be up to us."

Most posters here seem not to appreciate the nature of true power. It does not matter which party or which individuals man the levers of institutional power in the US (even though one party is clearly more noxious than the other) because the REAL power lies with the not-very-behind-the-scenes oligarchs: the oil magnates, bankers, war profiteers, big pharma, big media... (basically the richest of the rich.)

It does not matter how good a person and how well intentioned Obama is: the oligarchs simply will not permit any governmental action that goes significantly against what they see as their own vested interests, regardless of how US citizens--and the world--might be harmed in the immediate and in the long term: the problem is the most powerful people tend to be the most greedy, myopic, nihilistic and treacherous. Anyone who might show any potential for a credible challenge to them is rendered ineffective or destroyed by various means--usually through selective propagandizing of their missteps via MSM megaphones, blackmail, or much worse (e.g., Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Spitzer--not to mention MLK and perhaps Paul Wellstone...)

For any blogger or poster who has ever labeled left-leaning politicians and media personalities as cowards or corrupt (like Obama or Pelosi--for taking impeachment off the table), ask yourself this question--and BE HONEST: "Would you be willing to take a stand that would result in your losing everything you have worked your whole life to achieve? That causes you to lose your livelihood--or at least your level of standing or sustenance? That may result in the loss of your life?" If you cannot answer this question in the affirmative, then your criticisms of Obama, Pelosi, Senate Democrats (although it seems some of the latter are truly compromised) are naive and/or disingenuous.

Beating up on left-leaning politicians may seem gratifying, but it is errant and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. Instead of passing responsibility to politicians who are boxed in, ask yourself what you can be doing to TRULY change the balance of power in this country: how can YOU help expand consciousness and involvement of the greater population at large--those who remain blissfully ignorant?

It is not nearly enough to preach/blog to the choir, write letters to government officials or even to have street protests. Even though these things are worthwhile, they are too easily ignored by those who have true power. The real threat to the oligarchs lies in cracking through to the general population, like Rosie O'Donnell was doing: she was reaching mainstream housewives from her perch on "The View" (why do you think the Right did not stop hounding ABC until she was removed, while a _freak_ like Kucinich is allowed to do whatever he wants?) The oligarchs can only be challenged by a MASS movement, not by efforts of elected Democrats or left-wing activists. We need an UNRELENTING, full-frontal assault on the MSM (mainstream media), and to continually, tirelessly expand awareness and COMMITTED INVOLVEMENT of the masses. When we have that, our progressive leaders will have true power to do the work of the people. Without that, we are merely pissing into the wind.

I reluctantly voted for Obama and wrote in my many comments to liberal websites that with the rejection of Kucinich this country was forever screwed by its brainlessness.Obama has not disappointed me.Centerist from our party are thrilled with corporate friendly Obama but as i wrote to comment on a pj Carpenter article show me one,even one decent thing he has done to support liberals. From day one he showed his conservative roots appointing cabinet members who were conservatives to run his government.His bailouts help only the corporations.He made no effort to support the union bill giving workers a choice.He has not ended the wars or torture or anything protecting our bill of rights instead he has backed bushs plan. And don't give me the crap he is faced with a conservative Democratic congress.We know that but he hasn't even tried to force them to pass anything liberal.At least FDR tried when in his later years the congress again turned conservative.If we have a choice between Obama and the usual conservative dregs i plan on not voting next election.My advice is when the Democrats send you mail to help support them with money you send their letter back listing the things they have not done to help the common man as the reason your not backing them.

Obama wasn't my first choice. During the '08 presidential primary campaign I was for, first, Dennis Kucinich, secondly John Edwards. I was even toying with the throwing in with Chris Dodd, as I got to know a couple of his campaign volunteers. But Barack Obama?

Long story short I warmed to Obama during the primary season and voted for him for president.

Since January 20, however, I can truthfully say I have been more disappointed than pleasantly surprised with President Obama's performance. It's a serious case of buyer's remorse: I thought I was getting a Wellstone Democrat but when I unwrapped the package I found I'd brought home a Rockefeller Republican.

I have not trusted Obama to do the right thing since he voted to confirm the incompetent Condi Rice as SecState. In this context, his disappointments have been predictable, and when I am surprised, it is a good thing that just happened and not a bad one. This way, as his latest disappointment regarding indefinite detention demonstrates, when he does something of which I don't approve, I don't waste precious energy being disappointed in him - AGAIN!

Yes he can speak, and yes he has a brain, but I have not seen much difference other than that. What happened to single payer health coverage? What happened to bringing the troops home? What happened to restoring the Clinton era taxes for the top 5% wage earners? And lastly what happened to the repeal of DADT, DOMA, enacting Hate Crimes Legislation, ENDA, UAFA, and Civil Unions with full federal benefits for same sex couples? 40 years and no legislation to help gay people! If he chooses to not keep his promises to the gay community, I will campaign for and donate to the devil, yes Sarah Palin! I will work day and night to help whoever is running against him! Promises are promises and they are supposed to be kept!

It never seemed to me that Obama was a liberal, but it did seem that his centrist vision was far, far, far to the left of Bush, Cheney etc. and I supported him strongly, once it was clear that no better alternative to McCain was to be offered. Clearly he has turned out to be a breath of fresh air after the Bush years and even after the Clinton years.

We have to be aware of the constraints that Obama lives under. He has a Democratic Congress that has a powerful corporate/Republican wing and he cannot always depend on their support. He has a Supreme Court that is hostile to his agenda and a media that is extremely hostile.

This is no reason to withhold criticism or pressure on Obama, but rather a reason to keep the pressure up. It is hard to get through the media noise to let him know there is popular support for a more progressive agenda and a good deal of activism is needed to break through that media barrier.

On the other hand, this pressure needs to be kept civil. The voices that decry Obama as worse than Bush, perhaps as the devil himself are a destructive force. People who disagree with Obama's policies or actions should speak up about those policies and actions, but for progressives it is over the top to make it personal and to make it a blanket attack. Rest assured that the conservative noise machine will do a better job at this than anyone else can.

We liberals have been out of power for so long, that we want everything to change right away. It is understandable, but it is a poor strategy. We should take a page from the Republican play book and aim for long term, abiding change. That means that we can't be playing for quick hits and instant gratification. We need a long term strategy, and we must not lose patience when things don't turn out exactly the way we want. We have an excellent opportunity and we need to build on it and make it deeper and stronger, not sacrifice all the work on the alter of ideological purity and quick results. The president is not a dictator and does not have absolute power. Anything big has to be filtered through Congress, which won't be easy. When the Republican were in power, the Democrats were able to slow or stop many things. The Republicans can do the same thing. Even with 59 Democrats in the Senate, it is going to take all the skill, finesse and strategy in the world to get anything meaningful passed. Clinton plunged ahead on health care and gays in the military in the first year of his presidency and lost both. His presidency was crippled from that point on and the Republicans took back the power in 1994. I would rather see moderate liberal gains over eight years, than a few spectacular failures in the first few months. Even though I would prefer to have some very liberal judges on the Supreme Court, I would rather see three or four centrist, Sotomayor-types appointed than to see us lose the power and watch Mitt, Newt or Sarah appoint the next justices.

Because President Obama clearly has two sides to him, as has been pointed out, I have decided to ignore both sides and throw his words from his campaign back at him. When he clearly chooses the "status quo" over CHANGE, I write to him and call him on it, and then send emails of what I wrote to those individuals and organizations who share my progressive point of view.

When the President clearly has made a LIE out of what he said during the Democratic primary, I call a LIE a LIE and ask him how much longer he intends to LIE.

When the President acts in accordance with his campaign promises (not so much) I write him and thank him and send THAT out by email.

The President clearly responds to pressure. His campaign rhetoric showed he had NO intention of offering a public option. It was clear that Sens. Baucus and Grassley (DUMB and DUMBER) were following the President's lead. Now, they are temporarily "out in the cold." How much longer they stay that way depends on how much pressure we CONTINUE put on him to listen to the 70+% of American people who WANT a public option, or even better, a single-payer option.

PRESSURE ON!

Well, not entirely. Probably not even primarily. The ones who are truly to blame are those who sold Obama as their "true progressive" candidate for their own reasons. They were angry at Edwards, Biden, and Clinton for voting for the AUMF. They were angry at Bill Clinton for being too centrist and saw Hillary as guilty by association. They didn't think Kucinich was charismatic enough. They thought third-party candidates had no chance. So they took a candidate with almost no record on many, major issues, and they projected what they wanted him to be. They listened to his inspirational (but often vague) speeches and heard what they wanted to hear. They translated ambiguous campaign slogans of "Hope" and "Change" and they chose to overlook the vaguery or political practicality of his promises, real or perceived.

I voted for Obama in the GE, but suffered no illusions about his progressivism, or lack thereof. By his own admission, he is no liberal. He is a centrist, and I don't mean that in an accusatory or pejorative way. On policy, he is very close to Clinton, arguably slightly right of Edwards, and significantly right of Kucinich or Nader. Those that believed otherwise, and sold him as such throughout the primaries and the GE are the ones that practiced their own selective listening and interpretation, and in doing so, set the "true progressive" bar way too high for Obama to clear. They also called anyone who disagreed with their vision of Obama, be they other candidates or their supporters, "DINOs", "Republican-lites", "trolls", or just a plain old "racists". To be fair, Obama didn't really do much to discourage them, but then again, he was a politician trying to win an election.

Why would he?

My bar for Obama was not very high .... I figured he'd be better than McCain, and on most policy issues he was close to Clinton and Edwards. He didn't have much experience, but he could run a campaign, had the support of a party with significant numbers in Congress/Senate, and a had public that was sick of Bush and the Republican agenda in general. In short, he would have the tools to make bold, substantial change.

Yeah, ..... right. The tools, maybe, ..... just not the will and the courage.

In any case, before any of the disillusioned "true progressives" start blaming Obama for suddenly and inexplicably changing, or, more often, failing to meet their definition of "Change", well, ...

... maybe they should look in the mirror.

Some of these responses appear to come from tantrum throwing 12-year-olds insisting on instant gratification. Before we end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater let's lighten up and give the man a chance. Barack Obama was elected to be president of a "Democratic" nation: Something of which we can be justifiably proud. However, we did not elect a dictator nor do we want one. Although he is in many ways unique, he is still a plain old president who has to work for all the people while dealing with the other two thirds of our governing body, parts of which are totally hostile but, nevertheless, cannot be ignored. Time will tell if we've had better presidents but for sure we've had worse. So for now, I would suggest we keep up the pressure but tone down the extreme rhetoric that plays right into the wrong hands.

In 1964, we voted for LBJ, the peace candidate. We got Vietnam. In 2008, we voted for Obama, the peace candidate. We got AfPak, McChrystal, Bob Gates, mass murder from drones, a continuation of the Bush national security state. "Everybody's crying 'Peace on Earth', just as soon as we win this war." For shame, Barack. For shame.

I read before the election, if you wanted to know who would win just check out who the top corporations were donating their money to. I did, and it was Obama. Well, so much for every vote counts. Having not liked McCain since he was assigned to Mayport Naval Air Station, I voted for Obama, even though I had changed from democrat to independent. I was under no illusion that he was going to keep his campaign promises and he hasn't. So now, I have changed to a political atheist. If you are a politician and your lips are moving, you're lying.

I remain a hopeful skeptic.

Paul Krugman put it well in his column on Friday.
"When it comes to domestic policy, there are two Barack Obamas.
On one side there’s Barack the Policy Wonk, whose command of the issues — and ability to explain those issues in plain English — is a joy to behold.

But on the other side there’s Barack the Post-Partisan, who searches for common ground where none exists, and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak."

And here's part of what I wrote as a comment, #66

What part of 72% of the American people being in favor of a public plan does Obama not understand?

The Republicans say no to everything, so they can be ignored. They lost the election in November and they display not a shred of interest in cooperating with the Democrats on anything in the interest of the public.

Since when do Max Baucus (MT) and Kent Conrad (ND) get to control the conversation about the health care plan that affects millions, some of them even in the sparsely populated Great Plains? I know Baucus has received millions in campaign contributions from the health care industry. Conrad too perhaps?

Hello, President Obama. Where did you lose your nerve and your willingness to represent the millions who elected you? The natives are getting restless. Financial regulation toothless so far. Banks still lying through their teeth, people losing their jobs and their homes. Transparency was a nice campaign promise. Who would have guessed the White House would emulate Cheney and refuse to release the list of visitors? Hello again. Why does the public not get to know who's doing the public business in the White House? As far as I know it's supported with tax dollars.

And let's not even get started on Bagram being closed to the reach of American law and renditions continuing and pictures and documents about interrogations and detainees not being released.
_____
Further I would say that I'm totally disillusioned about our democracy. The bankers and financiers have a choke-hold on the economy. Essential health care reform is seriously jeopardized by Congress being on the health care industry payroll. Over 70% of Americans want a single payer or public health insurance option but almost to a person Congress says that it's "off the table" and Senator Baucus had doctors and nurses arrested for daring to try to speak about it at hearings.

And the national security state is determined to continue most of the appalling policies so enthusiastically introduced and adopted by the Bush administration. Not that they started it. Obama is so far unable or unwilling to stand up to them. And I imagine Cheney and Addington are getting a good chuckle (outright glee doesn't suit their temperaments) at the Obama White House enjoying and hoarding the executive power they explicitly expanded in the previous 8 years.

I certainly am cynical about our government in general. Will Obama emerge as strong counterweight or will he be just a more articulate version of the presidents we have in the past 50 or 60 years?

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

First, I truly believe that Obama is a Reagan Conservative corporatist who wholeheartedly believes in trickle down. Next, I have also come to the conclusion that Obama has no earthly idea of how to run a country and since Democrats do not know how either, he has no choice but to go to Republicans for help. I am still angry and disappointed in Obama and really see no interest in Liberal issues from him. All I see is 4 more years of Bush.

We have to keep in mind that it took 8 years of Bush/Cheney to bring the country to its knees. Obama has been president for 6 months, a mere nano segment of Bush and Cheney's time in office. Anyone who expects a quick turnaround is unrealistic. He not only has near-impossible challenges to conquer but he has to fight republican obstructionism, media pundits and blue dog democrats who have consistently thrown political grenades in his path. That makes me a truster. Obama is doing things that make me question his motives, such as appointing republicans to posts that democrats are fully qualified to fill. And he has been slow to address several issues that he campaigned on. I also think he is too trusting of republicans who would stab him in the back first chance they get. That makes me a cynic. I walk on both sides of the fence so just call me a cyntrust.

The question in my mind has always been what could he have done for the better for little cost which he did not; the answer, for me, is that he has often in the wrong direction under those circumstances: he is a neoliberal who tends to be somewhat more progressive on the domestic front but as much as an imperialist and corporatist as any of them -- to the ultimate detriment of everything both national and itnernational. That's not cynical -- just observation.

LBJ gave the "Zoo on the Hill" comment after becoming President. Start with Bill Moyers comment: "Money ruined democracy." Proceed to Bill Maher's comment: "Obama is not a liberal & both parties are to the right of center." Add on Sen. Durbin's recent statement: "The Senate is owned by the banks." Top these quotes off with Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation in Jan., 1961, containing the oft quoted warning: "Beware the military-industrial complex." Essentially, we live in a country with one-major party(The American Corporate Party). The once fairly reasonable Republican Party of Lincoln is simply gone, replaced by ideologues backed by Fox & right wing hate radio. The other wing of the Corporate Party consists of mostly corporate owned Dems. They are not spineless, nor cave-in prone. They simply stand-up for their business owners. "Screw the People" is their working principle. Obama is a well intentioned "wood chip" caught in the swirl of the corrupted sewer system called Washington, D.C. Progressives will continue to be used by the Democratic Party as a source for remaining in power over the entirely corrupted Republican wing.

No More,No Mas, None ! We have old soup in a new bowl ! A brown bushit !!!!! He has shit backwards on every reason I voted for him for. I think the military industrial corporation must put a note under the pillow of every newly elected politician when the arrive in Wash D.C. !! And they tell them they will be the next JFK if they don't obey them war criminals !!!!! 1. Bring the troops home now ! 2. Prosecute the war criminals now ! 3. Single payer now ! 4. And right on down the list !

And only half of what I see. If that makes me a cynic, so be it.

I campaigned for him, knocked on doors for him, I voted for him and I placed my trust in him. I won't ever make those mistakes again. I'll never vote for him or anyone else again, particularly on the federal level. Our government is irretrievably broken. Rush Limbaugh doesn't have to hope it will fail, it already has. This country is fucked.

I hate being crammed into a catagory. So don't. Obama has inherited the biggest mess in history, and the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. These are times that try men's souls ... words seem to echo across time. I survived the 50's and 60's ... from Ike to Kent State to Woodstock. What is happening in Washington isn't really unique; however, the choice of Obama was obvious. Can you imagine the belly-achin' if McC and SP were in charge now? LOL and now all we can wait for is the next election which will more than likely leave our country in ruins if the gop "wins" - especially if their ultra-right wins. Obama seems to be doing fine as can be expected with the mess he inherited. There is no perfect politician, no perfect leader. If you're waiting for that, you may as well pick a number and read War and Peace. I am always optimistic, yet realize that the actual powers that CONTROL this country (big oil, big business, big ...) are still pretty much in control and of course still have their following of wolves in sheeps clothing. We have tried since the 60's to bring about sane leadership; yet the "powers" still prevail. That is our concern, not just one man who happens to be president. There is only One Thing that has my trust, and it is not of this world, nor has a political agenda. For the rest who put faith or trust in the world, there'll always be something to complain about. Samuel Clemens would have a field day :)

I started out as a cynic. Obama's background was too corporate and his stances were either too wishy-washy or too tied to corporations. Even so, he's managed to disappoint me. I'd hoped for something a bit better, but he's been either giving away the store before even starting to bargain or he's just followed down the road of Bush.

Plain and simple...how many campaign promises has he broken? geronymous

America is a great country if only Barack Obama did his job. His job is to hire the best and the brightest to execute the will of the people. Once Obama had hired the best and the brightest to run the federal government, Obama should have started to undo the criminal actions of the Bush Administration:

re-regulate the banks by re-introducing and ramming Glass Stegall Act through Congress, regulate all derivatives and prosecute all the bankers, mortgage brokers, lawyers et al involved in the subprime mortgage and derivatives scandal;

prosecute Bush employees for illegal wire tapping, spying, torture and false and malicious prosecution of political enemies;

immediately bring back the SEC up-tick rule and staff up the SEC and FBI with investigators, lawyers and forensic accountants;

fire Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers and replace them with Dean Baker and Paul Krugman;

overhaul bankruptcy law by re-criminalizing stock offering fraud and give federal bankruptcy judges the legal right to cram down underwater mortgages;

identify every unqualified political Bush hack appointed to a federal civil service job and replace them with qualified professionals;

spearhead Single Payer Healthcare through Congress and offer limited compensation to health insurance companies for their cooperation in transitioning to a federal government system (horse drawn carriage and buggy whip companies didn't get any compensation when the automobile industry pushed them out of business);

replace the American War of Terror against non-white Americans and the Moslem World with forced peace negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis and force a 2-state settlement with a permanent NATO peace keeping force between the two people;

legislate national right of way standards for wind power and solar system installations and transmission lines and provide substantial incentives so that all available wind power and solar farm sites will be utilized;

pilot and legislate standards for carbon sequestration technologies such as installing lime stone scrubbers on all coal, oil and gas fired power plants;

subsidize transportation of bulk items via railroads, barges and ships to discourage trailer truck usage and raise the federal excise gasoline tax to reduce gasoline demand;

demand the resignation from all US Military Officers that have failed to serve and protect the United States Constitution;

reintroduce the Rule of Law by immediately banning electronic touch screen voting machines and prosecuting Karl Rove and his gang of thugs for 8 years of election rigging.

enforce FCC regulations by prosecuting Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et al for violating FCC regulations and legislate the immediate break-up of all media monopolies as well as pass tax legislation that gives a $200 tax credit for $200 purchase of any newspaper subscription;

America would be well on its way back to being the beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to admire and emulate if Obama was doing his job of ending the Reagan Devolution...

Have seen this since the days of my high school council elections - the candidates will promise anything to get elected. Once in office they will generally renege on virtually all of the "change" promises they made, once they find out that it is often more difficult being an incumbent in office than being an aspirant to an office. I voted for Obama knowing full well that he would not change things dramatically. The only change that really mattered to me at the time of the last election was to get as many of the hypocritical, untruthful, and downright fanatical repukes out of office as possible...

Lets face it, there are no leaders in the political arena that fill the needs of the country. Obama is at best a compromise and, at that, probably the best compromise we have. In general, I am not overly pleased with him BUT considering the alternatives he does have the calmness and the intelect to govern. He has some good ideas but is too willing to pare them down to please others. I really do not like his insistance on biparitsanship, with the current band of Republican malcontents in office, the ONLY way he will get them on board is to abandon a progressive agenda completely and adopt the failures of the last 28 years (Reagan, Bush, Clinton [sic] and B#%h). In 2008 the voters (at least this one) didn't vote for bipartisanship, we voted for change. I am still waiting for FEMA to be given its rightful place in the cabinet (as Carter intended) instead of being a sub-branch of the ill formed Homeland Security. I am still waiting for someone in the White House to announce that the Conservative path we've been on since Reagan failed us, that Gingrich, Rove, Cheney, Limbaugh and all other formers of the Conservative ideology are, in effect, full of shit and don't know their collective asses from holes in the ground. That they have had their time in power and it didn't work, that we are dumping that and getting down to the business of governing. And telling us that Reagan was WRONG! about govenment being the problem: Govenment is what keeps us safe from the hostile control of corporate greed.

I suggest that everyone rent or purchase the movie "Bullworth". I watched it again yesterday and it is just as if it were taking place right now instead of 1996. The similarities are uncanny, especially concerning health insurance. Maybe it just goes to show us that nothing ever changes. Color me a cynic.

I foresee "Yes We Can" being relegated to “The check is in the mail” and “I won’t spunk in your mouth.” Is that cynical?

Although, as a rule, I try to give hope a little wiggle room, I am troubled. Recently, I've written two articles touching on the subject. Rather than attempting to condense the ideas into the confines of the comments section, I'm pasting the links below. I hope this is not read as a tardy attempt at blog-whoring by my fellow cynics -- but rather as an attempt to use these internet machines as a means of, as Rob Kali at OpEdNews is fond of saying, using a "bottom up" strategy to rouse the Obama Administration from the stupefying effects of the Washington Swamp Fever that seems to have stricken it since it settled near that noxious bog of arrogant power and shameless self-interest off the Potomac. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/052709a.html http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/061009a.html

So long as Merkins are willing to knuckle under, which particular right-wing tool we elect is pretty meaningless. The Constitution, forged by the richest men in America, gives power to the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. Either we bend over, or we take arms. It ain't gonna happen otherwise.

After the two candidates I preferred (and preferred for policy reasons) fell by the wayside I ended up with Obama. As the campaign progressed I became both irrationally hopeful and excited about his candidacy, as well as horrified at the prospect of a McCain-Palin victory. To support and vote for Obama was a COMPLETE no brainer, and anticipating an historic victory of a black man as president was also a very strong attractor to the theatre of Obama. Additonally, he WAS a great campaigner and candidate, and coupled with the increasing lunancy of McPalin, I really knew Obama HAD win in order for me to keep my sanity intact. Fast forward to now, and I am very disappointed in myself, as a Marxist, that I believed that Obama's victory would be anything more than continued corporatist rule. I had hoped that the edges of ruling class war would be dulled by "sensible" liberal policies, and that Obama would at least be FDR- lite. However, unless Obama is rope a doping and the future holds for the better, we are getting at this juncture, Republican lite from his administration. To wax unpoetic, I have no illusions that what I want policy wise, will NEVER happen. I live in a political world where I always have to vote for the lesser EVILS. So, I guess, label me a cynic.