It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On Sunday night Chris Matthews, another former Obama enthusiast, made headlines when he told Alex Witt on MSNBC that “there’s nothing to root for… What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets?”
Matthews is also upset that Obama is running a "virtual presidency," through endless impersonal emails, rather than building and exploiting the interpersonal relationships that are vital for effective governance. On that score, he laments: "I hear stories (from members of Congress) that you will not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election."
Huffington says now that she is disappointed in Obama and could even see herself voting Republican in the next presidential election. “To me,” she says, “the issues are more important than the party.” She pauses. “Trust me, I realize how hard it is to change the system, but Obama has demonstrated only the fierce urgency of sometime later, and at the same time the middle class is under assault”
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, has asked The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the Obama administration’s award of a $443 million sole-source contract to a company owned by a major Democratic donor.
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that the Obama administration has taken unusual steps to procure an experimental smallpox vaccine from a company owned by a major Democratic donor despite concerns from some experts that such a drug was unnecessary and would not be effective.
Citing “serious questions” about the contract, the Los Angeles Times reported that McCaskill has asked the inspector general of HHS to investigate. McCaskill is the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting and Oversight.
Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.
Can you list the names of the democrats that weren't on the Obama "bandwagon"?
I'd really like to see that list!
Early reports are indicating that the youngest members of the country's electorate voted Tuesday in higher numbers than in the last presidential election — and they voted more Democratic. Youth turnout appears to be exceeding 2004 levels, which was itself a year with a big surge in voters ages 18 to 29.
What’s more, young voters may prove to have been the key to Barack Obama's victory. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976, according to CIRCLE, a non-partisan organization that promotes research on the political engagement of Americans between ages 15 and 25.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.
Can you list the names of the democrats that weren't on the Obama "bandwagon"?
I'd really like to see that list!
Originally posted by sonnny1
Agree.
Kool-aid was being served in BIG cups,2008!
Early reports are indicating that the youngest members of the country's electorate voted Tuesday in higher numbers than in the last presidential election — and they voted more Democratic. Youth turnout appears to be exceeding 2004 levels, which was itself a year with a big surge in voters ages 18 to 29.
What’s more, young voters may prove to have been the key to Barack Obama's victory. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976, according to CIRCLE, a non-partisan organization that promotes research on the political engagement of Americans between ages 15 and 25.
Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin
Thats just the youthful democratic crowd........
Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KendraSins
You made a claim.
I asked for names.
You reply with rhetoric.
Still waiting on that list of dems that weren't ever with Obama.
*crickets*