Am I the only one who is depressed about ALL of the current options for POTUS in 2012?

[Anonymous]

I like Obama, but I do not think he is doing a good job - needs a little more experience. When I watch the debates with the current Republican candidates, I get nervous. When I hear talk of Palin getting in the race, I get downright depressed. Is there anyone else out there?!?

[Anonymous]

Don't be depressed. It's important to remind yourself that all of the candidates are vastly supeior to Obama. He is so snakebit, unlucky,uncoordinated,un-inspiring, and doesn't even seem to have any real friends. Such an odd duck with his head bobbing between teleprompters attracting flies with nobody listening. Friggin anybody is better than this crap.

[Anonymous]

Nobody ever likes any of the candidates. It's fashionable or something to put everyone down. The American way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be depressed. It's important to remind yourself that all of the candidates are vastly supeior to Obama. He is so snakebit, unlucky,uncoordinated,un-inspiring, and doesn't even seem to have any real friends. Such an odd duck with his head bobbing between teleprompters attracting flies with nobody listening. Friggin anybody is better than this crap.

Panty sniffer, you are going to be soooooo sad when he gets another four years. Hate to break it to you, but your peanut gallery has no winners in it. It's 2004 all over again except without McCain's war record or maturity.

[Anonymous]

Obama at his worst is better than any Republican who has a chance. I'm intrigued by Huntsman, but he's far too rational to make it through the primary.

[Anonymous]

I'm the same. But it usually seems this way when things are not going well, trying to pick the best of the worst options.

[TheManWithAUsername]

I think most people are with you. I don't think I know a single person who likes any of the people likely to win.

The Dems haven't nominated anyone that people with true, traditional Dem values could fairly get excited about in a looooong time.* The Reps have put up plenty of exciting candidates, but I personally don't know the kind of people who get excited about neanderthals or feudal lords.

If people on the left want exciting candidates, we need to stop supporting opportunistic compromisers and crypto-Republicans in primaries. E.g., Kucinich wasn't my ideal candidate, but if he were president the wars would be over and the Bush tax cuts would be over (so the budget would be better), at a minimum.

* I say "fairly" and do not count Obama, b/c the excitement over him came from wishful thinking about who he was, which was largely contrary to the evidence.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I think most people are with you. I don't think I know a single person who likes any of the people likely to win.

The Dems haven't nominated anyone that people with true, traditional Dem values could fairly get excited about in a looooong time.* The Reps have put up plenty of exciting candidates, but I personally don't know the kind of people who get excited about neanderthals or feudal lords.

If people on the left want exciting candidates, we need to stop supporting opportunistic compromisers and crypto-Republicans in primaries. E.g., Kucinich wasn't my ideal candidate, but if he were president the wars would be over and the Bush tax cuts would be over (so the budget would be better), at a minimum.

* I say "fairly" and do not count Obama, b/c the excitement over him came from wishful thinking about who he was, which was largely contrary to the evidence.

Our entire system of government is based on compromise. The reason we are now an ungovernable country is because our elected officials no longer understand this. When people like Palin and Bachmann go on and on about our Founding Fathers with no idea what they are talking about it makes me feel sick.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Our entire system of government is based on compromise. The reason we are now an ungovernable country is because our elected officials no longer understand this. When people like Palin and Bachmann go on and on about our Founding Fathers with no idea what they are talking about it makes me feel sick.

Two to tango. The reason we're in this situation is that the Reps are bully lunatics AND the Dems keep capitulating and appeasing. Dems could have drawn lines literally decades ago, and the Reps wouldn't be running the country into the ground.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our entire system of government is based on compromise. The reason we are now an ungovernable country is because our elected officials no longer understand this. When people like Palin and Bachmann go on and on about our Founding Fathers with no idea what they are talking about it makes me feel sick.

Two to tango. The reason we're in this situation is that the Reps are bully lunatics AND the Dems keep capitulating and appeasing. Dems could have drawn lines literally decades ago, and the Reps wouldn't be running the country into the ground.

How do "draw lines"? Every new Congress has the ability to make new laws or change old ones. Short of making something like Social Security part of the constitution, it will always be up for debate and change. Rightfully so. I am sure you would not be happy if conservatives were able to permanently impose their policies. I certainly would not.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:How do "draw lines"? Every new Congress has the ability to make new laws or change old ones. Short of making something like Social Security part of the constitution, it will always be up for debate and change. Rightfully so. I am sure you would not be happy if conservatives were able to permanently impose their policies. I certainly would not.

I think you misunderstood me - actually, I'm not sure what you think I meant. I just meant they could have taken stands.

Some times off the top of my head when that would have been appropriate:
- Reagan proposes budgets with massive deficits that weren't leveraged to grow the economy
- turncoats join Reps in killing single-payer under Clinton
- Clinton became a Republican and leads in NAFTA and welfare deform
- Bush tax cuts
- unfunded Bush wars
- insane Bush deficits, again not leveraged
- Rep and turncoat castration of Obama health insurance plan
- Reps holding budget hostage to extend Bush cuts

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do "draw lines"? Every new Congress has the ability to make new laws or change old ones. Short of making something like Social Security part of the constitution, it will always be up for debate and change. Rightfully so. I am sure you would not be happy if conservatives were able to permanently impose their policies. I certainly would not.

I think you misunderstood me - actually, I'm not sure what you think I meant. I just meant they could have taken stands.

Some times off the top of my head when that would have been appropriate:
- Reagan proposes budgets with massive deficits that weren't leveraged to grow the economy
- turncoats join Reps in killing single-payer under Clinton
- Clinton became a Republican and leads in NAFTA and welfare deform
- Bush tax cuts
- unfunded Bush wars
- insane Bush deficits, again not leveraged
- Rep and turncoat castration of Obama health insurance plan
- Reps holding budget hostage to extend Bush cuts

Did he "become Republican" or did he, as a Democrat, simply believe that NAFTA and welfare reform were good ideas? I think we are better off when our leaders try to solve problems rather than stick to an ideology. All of this " playing to the base" is really damaging to the country regardless of which party.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Did he "become Republican" or did he, as a Democrat, simply believe that NAFTA and welfare reform were good ideas?

What's the difference? It's not like the Republicans thought they would be bad (they weren't TPers then). Everyone supporting it including him did so because they though it was a good idea and/or their lobbyists liked it. The fact is that they were the kind of initiatives that Reps typically believe are "good," and that they effected the kind of changes Reps usually support and Dems used to oppose.

Anonymous wrote:I think we are better off when our leaders try to solve problems rather than stick to an ideology.

Lame straw man. "Personally, I think we're better off when our leaders forgo solving problems."

The only problems the Dems solve are those caused by the Reps, and they only solve them by giving the Reps what they want.

Anonymous wrote:All of this " playing to the base" is really damaging to the country regardless of which party.

That's the same glib approach that the media take. No matter what's happening, everyone thinks we just need more moderation, and the moderation is always defined as somewhere between Dems and Reps.

How has the Dem leadership played to its base? Can you give some examples of Dem extremism and intractability interfering with governance in the last 30 years? The only I can think of is the government shutdown under Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Nothing depresses me as much as the only one in the field for the Democrats. We can't take another four years of him.

[Anonymous]

Obama has disappointed me to no end but I will die if the Republicans retake the White House. I can take another four years of him. Absolutely. Warts and all.

Look, the problems are systemic no president, no system, no reform can fix them. We're in a decline.