Quote of the Day

"If you're of the mind that the economy needs all the extra help it can get right now -- and you should be -- this is a lot more extra help than anyone expected Republicans and Democrats would agree to give it. And from a political perspective, if you believe that what matters for elections is the economy -- and you should -- then it's worth it for the White House to lose news cycles in 2010 if it means adding jobs by 2012."

~Ezra Klein, on the tax cut compromise

Thank you, Elizabeth. And farewell.

POSTED BY JHW22

Elizabeth Edwards has passed away.

Ass-Kicker in Chief

POSTED BY JHW22

The President took to the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room today to answer questions about his tax compromise and as the briefing progressed, so did his anger. Granted some people never realized that he has some asses to kick on the left so now many are outraged and quite upset that he could possibly chew their asses. But, hell, when you question the man's values based on some narrowly confined spectrum of liberal idealism that excludes the ideals of fellow Dems, well then, you're going to get some of that fight you've been demanding. It's funny how many Dems said he needed to grow a pair and are now pouting because he called them out. Looks like those big, tough liberals are the real pussies. Can't take a lecture from the President, eh? Tough shit. Grow a pair and grow up. ;)

I, personally, LOVED his take down and was sure to email and call the White House with my support of his compromise and the press conference.


EDITOR'S UPDATE: Here's the video.

Stupid People

You can't charge someone with treason against the US government if they're not a citizen of the US. Morons.

Sanders to Fight Tax Cuts Compromise

Yesterday on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Senator Bernie Sanders said he would do all he could to prevent the tax cuts compromise bill brokered by President Obama from passing, but didn't use the word "filibuster" when asked.

"I think it is an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Sanders told Schultz, adding that Democrats opposed to the deal “are right. We're talking about social justice. They're talking about more tax breaks for billionaires who don't need it.”

While Sanders did not explicitly say he would filibuster the bill, he made his intention clear, saying, “I've got to tell you, I will do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

While I agree with President Obama's position that he cannot play with the lives of 2 million people whose unemployment benefits would expire at the end of the year like the Republicans are doing, someone has to draw the line somewhere.

 My only disagreement in the President's statement yesterday was his assumption that after two more years of Bush taxs cuts for the wealthy, the public would come to realize that they are unsustainable and want them expired.

 Two points: 1 - He's assuming that the general population is intelligent and pays attention to these sorts of matters, and 2 - the public is already aware that keeping the tax cuts in place for those making over $250,000 yearly would add $70 billion a year to the deficit and the latest poll shows that 67% of those polled think the tax cuts should expire for those making over $250,000 or expire altogether.

My Favorite Comedian

My Manifesto

POSTED BY JHW22

I am admittedly NOT a presidential scholar. Aside from not being alive longer than the last six presidents’ terms, I have only become a serious observer of politics in the last five years. In that time I have become a mom, volunteered for a number of organizations reaching across issues I knew little about prior to my assistance, and tried to just keep up with the topics of the day. In NO WAY could I add to my list of priorities the self-education of every presidency prior to my birth, nor the presidencies of my infancy, adolescence and teenage years at times in my life when that type of subject was nowhere near important. So, with that said, I am not able to go toe to toe with anyone on what FDR, Truman, Carter or Reagan did on any given maneuver or policy fight.

But what I can say is this: I would bet that most people who make comparisons to Obama and any other President aren’t as knowledgeable on the analytics as they may like to sound. It is easy to say, “Obama needs to go all FDR on the Republicans” because it sounds good and you could probably find hundreds of blog posts, articles and Daily Kos diaries stating the same idea. But how many of the people who wrote those actually studied FDR and truly understand the nuances of his deal-making, his compromises, his obstacles and his political ammunition? How many people who make such easy statements actually have the capacity to compare with such certainty as to summarize the current President as a failure based on the FDR metrics? How many of those people are able to take scenario A of FDR and properly compare it to scenario A of Obama and not only zero in on the exact similarities but also be able to make enough matches with such similarities as to be able to make a complete judgment that the scenarios are so exact that the only outcome must be that Obama should take every identical step FDR took?

Even people who have been alive and aware during previous administrations don’t know any more of the inner-workings and logistical maneuverings that actually took place. Americans seem to think we know everything when actually, we don’t know shit. Because we read it somewhere does not make the information complete. We also tend to think that if we know A through G, then obviously the next letter is H. Well, that’s true of the alphabet but not politics.

I will concede that some of the authors of the “Obama should be FDR” pieces do know a lot about FDR. I am sure there are many who have read enough biographies and histories to have a fair handle on the situation. However, any one of them who then tries to convince me that the scenarios of each president are equal may have read history but are most definitely avoiding the reality that there is no possible way that any two scenarios faced by any two presidents can be exactly the same. You CAN NOT take a policy discussion or decision without seeing a million details that do not match history. Just as I could not figure out your ATM pin number without a multitude of potential combinations, far more possible mixtures of personalities, opposition, coordination, dollar amounts, concessions, conflicts, time-lines, external impacts, internal consequences, etc, etc, etc, mean that NO COMPARISON can be made that should or could form any judgment on the current president.

(By the way, you can substitute FDR for Truman or Carter or Reagan or Lincoln.)

Now, I am called naïve, a bot, a whatever Paul Krugman or Glenn Greenwald want to call me, but frankly, I find the naiveté in any person who thinks you can narrow an opinion of the current president down to a overwhelming simplistic and far-reaching avoidance of reality that the past is not the present. We can LOOK to the past for guidance but we can’t pretend that the past can be duplicated. In comparing Obama to any previous president is beyond simplistic and far-reaching, it is a stubborn avoidance of the frustration that HE isn’t the problem. Rather than deal with the reality of the actual problems we face, it’s far easier to say he isn’t being FDR enough. We may as well say he isn’t Atticus Finch enough. Because, although Atticus is a fictional character, the demand that Obama act exactly like another person in another time with different problems, different players, different options, is as fictionally-based as wishing he were someone who never existed. Although, technically, there was a real person Harper Lee based Atticus on, but you get my point.

SO, I do not accept any comparisons or evaluations of Obama based on prior presidents. If that’s all you’ve got, and if I were a professor, I’d send you back to rewrite your entire thesis and tell you to avoid the “Handmaid’s Tale”/”1983”/”Animal Farm” aspect of your analysis and give me your actual understanding of the options he actually faces, with the tools he actually possesses, against the challenges he actually has to overcome TODAY. THEN tell me, step-by-step and in non-black and white ways what he could have done and what he can do that would have made any other choices valid and more successful than he has been.

Let’s take the public option. Tell me how Barack Obama (and NOT FDR) could have succeeded with that. Base it on what he said and not what anonymous reports stated. Before making assumptions of what was said in back room meetings, before assuming reports are based in pure fact and no spin, look at the situation he was presented with. Consider the possibility he was on the phone every hour, talking with members of Congress (because according to the PBS documentary on the official White House photographer, Pete Souza, Obama was, in fact, on the phone more times than the media reported).

Next, consider the possibility that the media killed the public option. The American public was supportive early on. What happened? Things like “death panels” and “kill the bill” became the media focus. The media called the public option DOA long before Obama conceded, publicly at least, that it wasn’t going to survive. The very organizations who determine whether Obama’s message gets out to the American people pre-wrote history. They called it dead before anyone could actually make a dent in negotiations. In my honest opinion, that empowered the right by suggesting the possibility and by distracting the left from the discussion. The right pounced on the left’s key issue and the left freaked out over Obama. No one was left to fight the right and the lies were able to take hold in the American public.

Obama stayed on message but a certain faction of the left was so damn frazzled that we started running after our own quarterback and caused a fumble that was scooped up by the opposition who then ran to within field goal range. We won the game but barely. We would have creamed them had we protected the quarterback. But we lost focus of our priorities. Today, the law we have is helping me personally.

If everyone can pretend that they know what FDR would have done, then I suggest that people stop and consider that we would have had a public option today if the media had reported facts as opposed to speculation. We would have had a public option had Democrats held strong together and played the plays as planned rather than forgetting how to play altogether.

But would’ve, could’ve, should’ve aren’t relevant. I am saving money. My son is covered despite a pre-existing condition. My life is better because of what DID take place.

Now, without going issue by issue or point by point through the last two years, let me say this and ask that you apply it to all you have assumed, decided, declared:

What do you KNOW? Do you easily accept every report you read? Does any part ever sound just not right? Do you have questions that the report didn’t raise? And when you have that feeling, when you still have questions, what do you do with it? When you read another source that says the same thing, so you then say, “Aha, it must be true”? If you’ll recall, I have said that Republicans tend to think that if 100 websites say “bibbity bobbity boo in Kalamazoo” then it must be as written. It never occurs to them that all 100 sites using the phrase word-for-word means someone copied and pasted. 99 people copied the words of 1 person but the idea is still that first person’s. The other 99 stopped short of analysis and just repeated. THAT is not confirmation. It’s repetition. The Democrats don’t do that specifically. We don’t really copy and paste entire articles and try to pass that off as Woodward-style fact-checking. We’re too proud of our own writing abilities that we at least re-write what we read.

Democrats take an idea and revise, add their own flourishes, put their own voice to it and state it is absolute fact whether or not they ever put a second of their articulate genius toward actually finding out if that initial idea were true, unbiased or simply relevant. No, if an idea sounds kick-ass, Democrats rush out to tell the same idea in their own way without bothering to come up with an idea on their own. Inevitably, the writers who love to share other people’s ideas in their own words, accidentally slip up and start using the same words or phrases created by the first writer to summarize the situation. Presently the words are “cave” and “fight” although no one can truly articulate what either means to them. It’s really just a feeling. I remember the first time I saw “cave” used in regards to Obama and the Bush tax cuts. Now it is THE word used by all Democrats who don’t want him to but a cent or a day – even though they may not even know why a certain dollar amount is so sacred.

No one wants him to “cave” yet I’ve seen countless times where people have said they would be OK if the amount were raised to another number. How can we demand he not cave and then be willing to compromise on the number? It’s because the idea of him not caving sounds good but no one has really defined that meaning for themselves, let alone the masses of people who read that and revise that. The word has become overused by people who imprinted on it without analyzing the meaning. The same people want Obama to “draw a line in the sand” yet they really have no clue what or where the line should be, they are just certain that a line MUST be drawn. They are certain that they know a line is needed. To me, the demand is hollow without any true understanding of what the magic line should be.

Democrats don’t think beyond black and white any more than the Republicans do. For example, the federal pay freeze. The accepted assumption is that Obama froze federal employee pay to give, without a “fight”, some phantom concession to the Republicans. I have not seen, perhaps it is out there but I’ve missed it, the mention that over the last several months as the private sector has created jobs, the government has laid people off. Yes, we have had consistent job LOSSES in the government sector. To me, a pay freeze is the alternative to further layoffs of federal employees. And to me, it is a legitimate alternative. But the quick assumption was that Obama “caved”. Now, Obama did not give the reason I see in his speech. He didn’t say it’s to save federal employees from loosing their jobs. But right now we need him emphasizing job creation and not massive losses. He had to put a stop to the bleeding but Democrats won’t see that because that isn’t the message being fed. And in this case, although I wish he’d put that message out there, I can see why he won’t. But few Democrats will search beyond the blogs and articles and cable tv to find the meaning that makes sense.

In summary, I COULD go further point by point through the last two years and “prove” why Obama has stayed as true to his promises as the best presidents of our history. I could remind everyone that he has always said he is here to work with all, for all. I could point out the challenges he faces of Fox News and right-wing blogs and racism and corporate money and the Supreme Court, and on and on. But none of that is relevant to my overall point.

The overall point is that Americans stopped thinking for themselves. Today Obama was giving a speech on the economy. MSNBC cut away. CNN either cut away or never aired it. CSPAN wasn’t airing it. But www.whitehouse.gov was live-streaming it. And yet people say Obama doesn’t talk about the economy. This is one of a hundred speeches I have watched or listened to him give. He talks about the economy every day. Someone from his administration is talking about the economy every day. So why do people think he isn’t? It’s because the media controls the message and because Americans are too lazy to seek out the information. Americans assume that if the media isn’t bringing the information to them, it just must not exist. And when the media speaks, we parrot.

And then we blame the president for what we don’t hear or what we do hear.

So, perhaps I should have been clearer in earlier posts. Perhaps I haven’t put the correct message out there. Perhaps I am still failing. But I refuse to consider worthy a conversation with people who either live in a constant state of comparing two centuries, two presidents and two extremely complex realities who also rely on the very media we have all watched disintegrate over the last decade. Any Democrat who will pick and choose which articles must be true based on some in-grained cynicism or some need to justify their own desires to pretend as if they are all-knowing, are frankly, in my opinion, not a part of any solution. They may have access to, and more frequently use, real data and facts, but the spin they choose to place on the reality of today suggests to me they are as unproductive and obstructionist as Republicans.

What I look for in a true discussion is the lack of catch-phrases. If you use the buzzwords of the day, I can only assume you have either accepted others’ ideas without even applying your own verbiage. Or you have subconsciously adopted others’ thinking and therefore are going to be zombie-like in your debate. There is no getting through to the latter. So, I only want to discuss with people who have asked themselves how they formed their ideas, which sources they used, why those sources, and have they really sat and thought something through before taking a stand one way or another. If you are an expert on FDR and can tell me that 4 out of 5 scenarios of each debate Obama faces are 90% similar, then have at it. But if you’ve never actually studied the papers, letters, speeches, reports, etc. of FDR and can’t tell me with any certainty that 4 out of 5 scenarios of each debate are the same as what Obama faces now, then I don’t want to read the letters “F D R” in your response to me. (Again, you can substitute any previous president). Oh, and I should add, that when I hear journalists I actually respect say things like “Truman never polled the military” and then a month later say “when Truman polled the military” I call bullshit. And when I see other people parrot one or both of those talking points, even talking points from journalists I respect, I also call bullshit. When it comes to the DADT survey, it was NEVER about whether to repeal or not; the survey was to help the military effectively plan the repeal through effective policies and education. That is something we should honor – a prepared military. Instead, the media pre-misconstrued the report until they saw the results and have since done a 180 on the way they report on it. Thus, I see average Democrats doing the same. And that is one example where I say, unequivocally, that I have watched the media messaging seep into the subconscious of Democrats.

So, if you use any word of the day, convince me, in your own words, that you have thought through the situation on all levels. Show me devil’s advocate thinking and maybe then we can get somewhere. But if you tell me you think black simply because the media says so or because Republicans say white, and you can’t even comprehend gray in your logic, then I don’t have time for you.

I have spent HOURS developing my opinions, my perspective, my understanding. In all of this I have concluded that the media is mostly a rapid-fire, beat the next guy, soap opera. And sadly, many Democrats, who I expect to be smarter, fall for the agenda, messaging, tone and mood set by those we shouldn’t be accepting with such enthusiasm. Yet, Democrats pick up their language, mood, tenor and assumptions for no reason I can comprehend.

Anyone who parrots the media is not worthy of another moment of my time. I have serious thinking to do and only want to participate with serious thinkers. I have a lot to learn and expect only those with integrity to teach me. If you aren’t that person, I implore you to try to be that person. Change how you get your information. Change how you process it. Change why you believe what you do. And finally, find your own damn voice in it all. You don’t have to write or speak eloquently, but know that what you think and say is your own and not some media-tainted creation.

Wake up and rub the newspaper ink off your face. We all know what the media has come to. So why do you let it be your guide?

The Hitler Comparisons Continue...

... from an unlikely source.



Now, in Greenwald's defense, he was not comparing Obama to Hitler, as he said so repeatedly in defense of his tweet. He was just comparing the website owner to Leni Riefenstahl, the famous Nazi propaganda movie maker. But obviously, the logical conclusion to everyone except Greenwald, is that if he's comparing the website owner to Riefenstahl, then the subject must be...

Still, he stood his ground at least for a while with tweets like, "Nobody whose brain works thinks I compared Obama to Hitler. If I wanted to do that, I'd do it directly - & not deny it after" and " I've slammed the Bush-following Right for doing the same thing many times - of course, nobody among those weeping now objected." I'd like to see the tweet or article Greenwald wrote that comes close to comparing a Bush follower to a Nazi propagandist. Maybe he did, but I didn't catch it.

And what was Greenwald so disgusted about? A blog called The Only Adult In The Room, dedicated to daily Obama news, albeit positively spun, but in no way inaccurate or misleading in touting Obama's accomplishments. For example, his latest trade deal with South Korea that wasn't completed on his trip there and therefore labeled a failure by the mainstream media. Or perhaps it was the photos of joyous soldiers in the midst of their excitement to meet the President on his trip to Afghanistan. Maybe that's what propelled Greenwald to send his tweet. Are we not allowed to see that perhaps some members of the military are happy to see the President? That perhaps some of them are *GASP* Democrats?

I don't really frequent that site, but maybe I should every once in a while to see some positive news on our President instead of listening to how much of a failure he is 24/7.  Look, I get disappointed as much as the next liberal when I don't think things are going as well as they could be due to a certain White House decision or the perception of capitulation disguised in the form of "compromise," but maybe if the general public who doesn't follow politics on a micro level could see or hear something positive... or at least in a non-partisan manner, we wouldn't be talking about his approval rating daily (which, by the way, still happens to be higher than Reagan's was at the same point in his tenure).

Anyway, after all was said and done, I suppose Greenwald had received enough backlash to realize he was being a total dick and mistaken in the perception of his tweet.



Does anyone have a percentage of Greenwald posts or tweets that are negative as opposed to positive towards Obama? Does the President deserve credit for anything good that's happened these last two years? Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag on this tweet and in my opinion, it hurt Greenwald's credibility and solidified the notion that he is against ALL things Obama.

Must Reads

Frank Rich: All The President's Captors

Gail Collins: Arizona Strikes Again

Thom Hartmann: Tax Cut Lies: The Day The News Died

I Can Sleep Again

Derek Jeter remains a Yankee. I don't know what I would have done had he signed with another team.

/snark

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 4, 2010

... brought to you by Vice President Joe Biden.

Tax Cuts & Unemployment Insurance

More Like This, Please

I know the birther thing is played out already, but there are people still bringing frivolous lawsuits to court to challenge President Obama's citizenship and legal right to the Presidency.

Anderson Cooper does a great job on this one.



Now let's see some more investigative journalism refuting the daily right wing talking points about tax cuts, deficit reduction and claiming to do the people's work, and we'll finally have something going to rebut the GOP supporting corporate media empire.

Boehner: Listening To The American People?

All we heard from Speaker of the House-Elect Foster Brooks after the election was how they were going to "listen to the American people" and "do the people's work."

Well, listen up, Boehner:

According to a new CBS News poll... 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals... Another 14 percent of Americans say the cuts should expire for all Americans.

That's a total of 67% who'd rather have the tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners. What do you say, Boehner? How about you, Mitch "Mr. Limpet" McConnell? Are you going to listen to the American people as you've repeated ad nauseam and extend the Bush tax cuts only for those under the $250,000 threshold?

A few years too late, y'all

POSTED BY JHW22

I HATE being lumped in with fellow Texans as if all Texans are bad. So please refrain from any comments about "Texas should secede" or crap that would imply I am part of the problem. Thank you. And with that, I give you the latest bills proposed by the Texas State Legislature followed by a multiple choice question:


























And here's my question: Why do YOU think they waited until now* to do this?

A. You can't challenge the leaders in D.C. when a fellow Texan is in the White House.
B. There is scuttlebutt that the current governor may run for President.
C. As a distraction from the fact that the state's budget isn't balanced.
D. All of the above.
E. Other -- please explain.


*It is possible that someone in the past proposed this but I seriously doubt it and am not about to waste time Googling some phantom Loch Ness Monster of Proposed Texas Legislation. Y'all feel free.

DADT Quote of the Century

POSTED BY JHW22

Ben Nelson articulated (around the 1:20 mark if CSPAN's video will relax on the damn buffering) the root of problem faced by members of the United States Military who are muzzled by Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

"I want to tell the truth but you won't let me."

$250,000

POSTED BY JHW22

I heard someone, maybe Chris Hayes, ask someone, maybe Kent Conrad, something like "Why is $250,000 the limit on the Bush tax cut extensions?" Jeez, why haven't we asked that question before? Why have Democrats drawn the line in the sand (ugh, I hate when talking points seep into my writing but sometimes it's the best phrase) at $250,000?

Isn't the tax cut extension to those who make less than $250,000 going to add to the deficit? Yes.

Why is it OK to add to the deficit for those making less than $250,000? Because someone, somewhere decided that $250,000 tops the middle class. Why?

Let's look at this regionally:

Teachers in Texas make about $40,000. Teachers in New Jersey make about $60,000. Houses in Texas are about $200,000 yet houses in New Jersey are about $400,000. An income of $250,000 means something different in Texas than it means in New Jersey.

So why $250,000?

The median family income in 2007 was $50,000. So why don't we say middle class stops at $100,000?

The question is, why are so many saying Obama is caving when they don't even know why he's supposed to be committed to a magic dollar amount? If someone can show me why that number is the magic number and show me why I should commit my heart and soul to fighting for that number, then I will. But if I am just supposed to stomp my foot because someone told me that number is worship-worthy, then fuck that shit.

Brain Dump

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, so I've been away for a while and that last post felt good. But I need to get a few things out that aren't really post-worthy. More reflection and curiosity than anything deep and thoughtful:

I fear I am inadvertently raising a Republican. My child hates change. He likes the Christmas tree but is mad that I moved a bookshelf to put the tree up. He hates when I change throw pillows. He hates the new toothpaste. He falls apart over transitions. He falls into ritualistic OCD. SEE! He's a Republican. What am I doing wrong? ;)

Why did Bristol Palin drive to LA for DWTS? Her mom flies all over the country on private jets and she can't bother to send her kid to LA on a plane? Is it so she could have a "truck" in LA? Or was it just for a story? And really, a truck? Who is she? Scott Brown?

Did people call Laura Bush a fascist for encouraging parents to read to their children? No. So why can't Michelle Obama encourage healthy eating and *gasp* exercise without being labeled a Nazi? I have a friend in a small red-state town who seriously fell into the trap of blaming Michelle Obama for the cafeteria menu changing to things her kid hates. The whole town is in an uproar over Michelle Obama personally changing every elementary school menu in the country. Yet, I don't hear them yelling at Rachel Ray for doing the same thing. Shame on that hyperactive speed-cooker for trying to discourage crappy eating habits. Personal freedom means being able to raise an obese child if a parent chooses. Don't tread on them and don't make them use a treadmill, damn it.

Wikileaks: Someone needs to plug that leak. Transparency is one thing. Theft is another. And really, it pisses me off that it's not even an American who has single-handedly decided what to do with our documents.

I cheer each time a judge determines that the health care law isn't unconstitutional.

The DADT study is exactly what I thought it was going to be: a review of what the effects of repeal will be and how to move forward. I wish people like Rachel Maddow and Bill Press, etc, etc, would have realized that sooner rather than acting as if it were a survey about whether to repeal. They really ranted about a lot of nonsense. Much Ado About Nada.

I like Secretary Gates.

I think I'll be writing another Palin post soon. Trying to figure out how to write something thorough and organized. I tend to lose my mind when thinking about her and I want to be clear and linear and make relevant connections. Trying to manage that when discussing the walking chaos factory is hard.

Answer to an excellent question

POSTED BY JHW22

In the comments of the previous post, one of our loyal readers, Vic, asked a question of Broadway Carl and me. How do we feel about the federal pay freeze? Rather than answering in a comment, I figured I'd make it a post. I'm feeling rather long-winded today and it's a point that deserves more discussion than I could provide in a comment. And I am over-due for a post anyway.

I am very supportive of Pres O, but I admit that there are moments when the doubting arguments start to make a dent - like today. What do you and Jennifer make of his salary freeze announcement? The perception that he always caves before he needs to is starting to get to me.

Vic used a key word, "perception". It is exactly THAT -- a perception. One of my consistent beefs is with the distortion of, selection of and analysis of the administration by our media. THEY decide what we know. THEY decide what details we receive. THEY decide what tone to set. THEY decide OUR moods. But honestly, none of us know how Obama got to the salary freeze decision. Because it was a surprise to us does not mean that it wasn't without a fight.

I understand the frustration people feel but I disagree with the premise that he caves before he tries. We have no clue what or with whom or for how long or how he discusses any issue. Just as he says he needs to get out of the fishbowl that is Washington, we need to realize that we are not looking into a fish bowl and seeing all there is to see. However, we are told to believe he just jumps without thinking or fighting. Why? Why do we continually go where we are led by the very people we criticize repeatedly for being, as Palin correctly states, "lame"? What about Obama in his speeches, in his politicking, suggests that the perception is the reality? Why don't WE do a better job demanding that the two match? Instead we allow the perception to become the accepted stance and then we fight against it. In many ways, we create our own enemies out of thin air. We waste energy and resources punching shadows instead of stopping and thinking and trying to grasp why decisions are made.

We aren't in the room, on the phone or at the other end of the Presidential Blackberry. WE don't know when he goes to the wall or when he realizes that flexibility is key to progress.

Secondly, Obama wasn't really a fighter in the campaign. I don't know how many times Dems would say, "I wish he'd....". We've done it to him since day one. Often I hear "We want the campaigner" back as if that Obama were a different person. He hasn't changed. His job has changed. I've always said that a campaign is a wedding but being President is the marriage. Weddings are about the drama and excitement, the memories and good vibes. But everyone who is married, or in a long-term relationship, hell, even a friendship, knows that the wedding ends when the bride and groom drive off with cans strung to their bumper.

When my husband and I were first married, we fought all the time and the fights may have appeared to be about stupid things but they were always about one thing at the root of it all: communication. And it's with persistence and bending and listening and changing that a marriage progresses into a relationship that makes both people feel involved and active and stable.

The problem is that we can't communicate with Obama in any direct way. A speech is one-sided. A press conference doesn't necessarily address our specific questions. We can't get in deep to understand and share with the very person we want to hold accountable for every decision made. It's truly not fair. We demand so much of a President but have no way of communicating with him. Instead, we rely on the media to do it for us and we get frustrated at him when the messenger tells us to.

Now the Republicans are threatening to block all legislation unless the Democrats add to the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's hypocrisy in so many damn ways. We all know that. But what is the best way of dealing with them? Is being equally stubborn the answer?

The Democrats didn't care about the deficit much more than being able to call hypocrisy on the Republicans before. We don't care if we add to it if it creates stimulus. But by goddess we won't add to it if it benefits the wealthy!

Well, here's the deal. We need to be grown-ups. Do I want us to add to the deficit? NO. I have been one of the Democrats who wants to pay it down so we can free ourselves from debt to places like, oh, China. But do I think there is no solution other than black and white? No. I am realistic. There are options. We are as bad as the Republicans when we say "we won't compromise". Hell, that's what the Republicans said in their letter. We know that Murkowski said she would vote to repeal DADT because it's the right thing to do. But now she'd block it because she wants to play a game of extortion?

Do I like extortion? No. That's why I also don't like blanket statements like "Tell Obama not to compromise" especially when followed by some vague threat of primarying him with someone "more liberal".

WE MUST COMPROMISE. But compromise is a bad word these days. So from now on I'll just call it what it is: being a grown up. Progress is working toward a goal. It isn't being a stubborn ass (pun intended) refusing to climb a mountain. Progress is being the bigger person and seeing that giving an inch gains a mile. Who gives a fuck about the inch when we have a mile?!

Priorities and perspective. We need them. We also need to step back from our knee-jerk emotional responses and see that big picture our President is always seeing and trying to show us. It's on us to stop demanding specifics and start thinking about what is more important: the result or how we get it. I want results and we are getting them from President Obama. How we get them is water under the bridge.

Back to the initial point about the salary freezes, the best I can articulate it is this: we have been creating private sector jobs. We have been losing public sector jobs. I would rather we freeze salaries than lay people off. And yes, some workers will be frozen at a pay that is too low already. But that is better than being without a job or having to get a similar paying job with zero health benefits.

I am constantly remind myself of four things:

1) Am I being a hypocrite? If so, reconcile it with integrity and honesty.

2) Do I believe the source or the spin? If not, decide what I think.

3) Read, watch or learn two positive things for every negative thing I read.

4) Obama IS the person I voted for. He IS doing the exact job I expected him to do. The frustrations are valid but irrelevant to the bigger picture of a nation consisting of opposing views and opinions and interpretations of fact. Follow Obama's lead on this because he's a grown up and I need to try to act like a grown up myself.

Oh, and I should probably add that we all define "fighting" differently. My idea of the President fighting may not be his idea or your idea or a Republican's idea. People need to stop clinging to semantics on this issue.