Some emotional reactionary types don't like what Obama did? SHOCKING!

For the purposes of a useful discussion, I'd suggest you go to the more even-tempered and credible of Obama's supporters, plenty of whom have made far more cogent criticisms of him than anyone you list.

WHen you're seeing Impeach Obama bumper stickers in Berkeley, you know he's in trouble. And that was before Libya.

I'm SO glad I didn't drink the Kool-aid.

While I agree with Chris that Moore and Farrakhan are complete nut jobs, that doesn't change the fact that Obama has consistently backtracked on his campaign promises.

These representatives have been argent supporters of his and were involved in a conference call over the weekend to discuss their frustration:

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions”

Would you consider any of these even-tempered and credible of Obama's supporters?

What does qualify as even-tempered and credible, because from where I’m sitting most of his supporters are progressive socialists or duped ill-informed voters. It is unfortunate for them that they voted for a “slogan” (ie: change) as opposed to voting for the man. One look at his voting record would have set the record straight as to where he stands (or in his case he doesn’t stand on anything, he abstained from voting most of the time and flip flopped on the ones he did).

I personally find all of this amusing. This is what happens when you support anyone based on looking good in a suit, reading a tele-prompter well, having a slick campaign slogan, because of the color of their skin or for any other reason than doing your due diligence as a responsible voter and finding out what he actually was all about (Chicago politics, in all or it‘s undignified glory).

Like grandma always said “be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it”.

Looks like the chickens have come home to roost (grandma said that too)…..

The reason for the shrieking hysterics from the Sullivan crowd is simple:

They got played, and they can't bear to admit that those of us who were critical of Obama from the start were right. After all, we're a bunch of racists, how could we possibly be right?

The absolute worst thing for the left to do is be forced to admit that they fucked up.

Hence the "Obama's Women" lament.

It's absolutely amazing to me that the general populace actually thinks that **any** politician will - or even CAN - fulfill his promises.

Hasn't it occurred to anyone yet that a politician will say whatever it takes to get elected - and it's just a matter of whatever words soothe the largest percentage of voters? The very thought that people think these promises can be fulfilled does not speak well of the human condition.

@ghark -

Then please explain the media's furious reaction to the first 100 days of Bush's first term. They couldn't believe that he was making good on campaign promises. How dare he fuck things up for all future candidates like that?

It's all Booosh's!!!! fault!

I call him Barack "W" Obama now.

When I see the bumper stickers with George Bush asking "Do you miss me yet?" I say "You left?"

I hate to say it, Kucinich has a point. The President (no matter who it is) just can't get us involved in a hot shooting war with a sovereign nation just because.

Libya did not attack NATO, nor the US, nor where they likely to attack either. As such, you really ought to get an authorization of the use of force from Congress. And the for the love of Pete, you really need to keep the Congressional leadership in the loop. And it wasn't like this just happened, and we needed to do something immediately.

Now, if we "accidentally" put a Hellfire missile into Megrahi, I'm not going to cry too much.

What does qualify as even-tempered and credible, because from where I’m sitting most of his supporters are progressive socialists or duped ill-informed voters.

Here are a couple of people who generally support Obama, and are sane and well informed, making thoughtful criticisms of his decision to use our military to attack Libya (not hyperlinked to avoid spam filter):

James Fallows:
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/on-libya-what-happens-then/72741/

Josh Marshall:
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/at_the_end_of_last.php

Sane people don't take their cues from Michael Moore or Louis Farrakhan. Kucinich, whom I believe to be sincere, has always been a creature of the far left – which is not what Obama is. And Sullivan is known to be "excitable", in Kaus' apt phrasing.

From Obama's campaign positions and his record (vague rhetoric aside), he has always been an establishment Democrat, not some radical leftist. There was very little daylight between his positions during the campaign and those of Hillary Clinton, and I suspect that few policies would be different if she were elected instead of him. Both Obama's most strident critics and his most ardent fans mistakenly think he is someone different than who he is – behind the soaring rhetoric are rather ordinary Democratic beliefs, and a general agreement with the interventionist view of American foreign policy.

@ brian -

OK so they hated him at first for doing what he said...but then there was plenty of time later for rescinding all that anger, but curiously, they got mad at him for other things - gee how can that be .... honestly, I don't spend a lot of time dissecting media reaction. I mean, does it matter?

Oh, you mean some people listen to all that crap? I just keep seeing these little brown nuggets falling out of the mouths of these talking heads, especially the ones that ask a question and won't shut up long enough to get an answer. Just sayin'...

“From Obama's campaign positions and his record (vague rhetoric aside), he has always been an establishment Democrat, not some radical leftist.”

George Soros (socialist), Bill Ayers (radical Marxist), Jeremiah Wright (anti-American racist), Saul Alinkski (extreme Marxist radical). These are just a few of the people who have helped mold Obama for decades. He has, on record, lauded praise on them.

If he’s not a progressive leftist, no one is.

Also, Dennis Kucinich was against his very “socialistic” healthcare bill. Until of course he bought his loyalty on the plane ride in the final days leading up to the vote.

There is no vague rhetoric on his voting record. There is nothing vague about abstaining or flip-flopping. Follow this link and see for yourself:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

If he’s not a progressive leftist, no one is.

He's not a progressive leftist.

If you look at Obama's actions as president, you will find that he is on the center-left of the political spectrum, not the far left, and well within the mainstream of the Democratic party in the U.S. (which is far more centrist, particularly on economic issues, than the liberal/labor parties of other developed democracies in the world).

Obama has broken with the in the U.S. on a number of key issues, and is regularly subject to harsh criticism from his left. A quick, but by no means exhaustive list: escalating Afghanistan, continuing the slow wind-down of Iraq on the timetable set by the previous administration, supporting reauthorization of the Patriot Act, preserving Bush appointees in the key roles of Fed Chair and Secretary of Defense, failing to nationalize stricken banks in the financial crisis, pushing through a much smaller stimulus bill than that desired by liberal economists such as Krugman, maintaining many of the policies of the Bush administration regarding the handling of detainees, failing to pursue criminal charges or even investigate Bush administration officials over torture etc.

Obama's signature health care bill was roundly criticized by the left for not going far enough toward socialized health care (this was why Kucinich opposed it), and was very similar to the bill passed by the Republican governor in Massachusetts, which was in turn based upon the Republican alternative to Clinton's failed health care bill in 1994.

You can argue that Obama's policies are misguided, and that conservative alternatives are superior, but it's simply not correct to characterize his actions as those of a leftist. In the arc of U.S. politics, he's a bit to the left of the Clintons, but well to the right of people like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and many of the people you list above.

Chris, don’t confuse political expedience with being a typical democrat. It’s quite clear that “Obama” is a construct, a carefully manufactured image, most of it having little or no connection with any discernable substance.

Starting with health-care “reform.” We all know about this or, at least as much as we can be expected to know about a bill that is incoherent, contradictory and not fully grasped by even its most fanatic adherents. Government health care was the goal the left was aiming at with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid a half century ago. And there still not there yet, the left won’t be satisfied until they have their completely centralized system. That’s why Obama doesn’t care what’s in the current program, because it’s designed to fail, and in short order, then he can nationalize it in order to “save” it.

How about the nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, we know even less about that, apart from it being a “breakthrough.” Undoubtedly leaving us vulnerable all while Iran and North Korea are now in the nuclear bomb building business. Not to mention Obama leaving Israel to twist in the wind.

What about the manned space program, now effectively kaput. Constellation was morphing into the gold standard NASA program. The idea of a major nation not possessing a manned program in the 21st century is an absurdity in and of itself.

What about clearance for new nuclear reactors or offshore drilling programs? Each involves triangulation of the most transparent and inadequate type. The reactor projects must still clear the standard regulatory barriers, an unlikely event. The drilling program is almost completely bogus. More exploration fields off of Alaska were closed than opened, along with the entire Pacific Coast and much of the Atlantic.

Obama has taken all of these off the board. His other recent efforts: beating up on Wall Street, attempting to resuscitate the unions, groveling before third-world tyrants, are also characteristic of the American left. He is doing exactly what would be expected from this type of leftist. With his college-sophomore grasp of the world, he seriously believes he’s doing the right thing and will be vindicated before the end titles roll up. This in defiance of the clear failure of every last leftist domestic and international program of the past eighty years. This is quite simply ideological blindness. It would seem the Big O has you duped as well…..

It would seem the Big O has you duped as well…

Hardly. I just like to deal with you know, facts, rather than conspiracy-minded conjectures. I think that opposition to Obama like yours, that paints him as some sort of crypto-Marxist fooling everyone, actually helps him because it is so thoroughly at odds with his actions. But keep on keeping on if it works for you.

The reason for the shrieking hysterics from the Sullivan crowd is simple: They got played, and they can't bear to admit that those of us who were critical of Obama from the start were right.

It's not so much that they got played in that Obama promised them something and then didn't deliver.

It's that they deluded themselves into thinking that the things Obama promised could actually be done.

And could be done by a rookie politician with no experience in actually running anything.

We should keep in mind that the decision to enforce a "no-fly zone" over Libya is one that any of our presidents since at least Roosevelt would have made. Should Gadaffi want to, he could bomb every oil port and refinery, creating an economic and financial calamity across the world. Saddam Hussein showed us that very strategy.

Yes, I know that Libya only produces about two percent of the world's exported oil, but it is no coincidence that Europe is leading the charge to keep the oil flowing from that region.

OOps- I meant environmental and economic calamity.

Hasn't it occurred to anyone yet that a politician will say whatever it takes to get elected - and it's just a matter of whatever words soothe the largest percentage of voters? The very thought that people think these promises can be fulfilled does not speak well of the human condition. -- GHARKNESS at March 22, 2011 7:16 AM

Then explain Ronald Reagan's success.

He had his ideals, but was pragmatic enough to demand more than could be delivered and what crossed his desk was what he wanted in the first place.

Chris, just because you’re an Obama apologist doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist. Just simply point out one thing I said that was conspiracy minded.

Attack me if it makes you feel better, seems that is what the left does best. The fair minded (sarcasm) left always resorts to these kind of tactics. You've clearly learned that lesson well, I'm suprised you didn't call me a racist.....

Christopher has been explaining Obama, not apologizing for him and has been reasonable throughout. I have no love for Obama but I don't have to think he's a socialist to dislike his actions. He's not a socialist, he's a product of the Chicago Democrat political machine. Isn't that bad enough?

Christopher has been explaining Obama, not apologizing for him and has been reasonable throughout. I have no love for Obama but I don't have to think he's a socialist to dislike his actions.

This.

Why the hell are you quoting Louis Farrakhan? He's the radical american version of Moammar Gadhafi. Thankfully people in america are sane enough to not let Farrakhan gain any real type of power.

@Astra: I agree with your summary.

I don't like Obama's policies and political makeup either, but I think what he did with Libya would be what any other President would do, but he took it a step further - Obama appeared indecisive and wobbly in public, but behind the scenes he was planning with the allies.

If he did it in public, there would be screaming and teeth-gnashing from the far left like there is now. That's because the far left finds a fellow traveler in Khadafy - a dictator who shows no mercy to his citizens, and the far left yearns for the day when they can be hard-line dictators in America.

This is why you're hearing calls from the far left for Obama's impeachement, returning his Nobel prize, "this isn't who we voted for," etc. It's because Obama is attempting to remove one of their idols and they don't like it one bit.