But this is the problem and why we're making a fuss out of it. Many of us were saying EXACTLY what you're saying now. That Obama is not some big Change from politics as usual, Obama isn't this fresh faced new spin on politics. He's a politician saying **** to people that they want to hear and not being fully truthful.
I understand your frustration. I suppose I'm just not as caught up in it. You did all that you could I'm sure. But in politics there is a race, people choose a side, both campaign, somebody wins, somebody loses. I was very frustrated in 2004. Now, a little...but not nearly as much as I was back then. Of course I was on the winning side this time.
We were shouted down, insulted, and told "Nuh uh!" for saying such things. We were told just wait and see, he was going to be different, that we should be voting for him because he's really going to be different.
Yes and the right engaged in the exact same kind of bull**** towards Dems/Libs on this very board. RHH, bhkad, TD, Aqua, Navy, GH, and a host of others did the same thing. Shouted down? Hardly. Shouted back at? Sure. The right just lost the shouting match. I'm not saying you did it, but several on here did. Welcome to hyper partisan politics and all the joys it brings. It's the new rage.
He ran on being a "Change" from typical politics more than any Presidential candidate I can think of. It was pretty much his core, central point in the campaign. All politicians talk about it a bit, but he made it a central issue. And his followers bought into it hook, line, and sinker and attacked anyone that dared to say that wasn't the case.
Seriously, as much as it was made fun of by the right and criticized, are you really surprised at all? How much more ambiguous do you have to get with a campaign slogan? "Change." Seriously, they gave themselves a lot of latitude. He's going to do things differently than Bush and that is change from the last eight years. Is it the kind of change he campaigned on? Hardly. The whole campaign slogan was so simplistic that it begged to be attacked. And it was.
So now, after he hoodwinked the American population, those that were saying he was just like every other politician before hand are pointing out examples showing they were right. Not surprisingly, those that attacked them before now are either silent or make excuses.
Who's silent about it? You know how things get around election time. It's turned up to 11 and the gloves are taken off. That's politics. It sucks, nobody likes it, we all want politicians to be honest about everything they say, and that is why we gripe. And? What really
changes? The election ends, things calm down, people lose the level of interest they had, and then the griping begins. We have four years of this to look forward to.
You can't run on a central issue, get your followers going rabid at people that dare to question his integrity on that central issue, get elected and basically go back greatly on that central issue that helped get him elected, and then expect not to be called on it.
I agree with you, and people are calling him on it. Where have I said he shouldn't be called on it? The right did the same thing with their fear mongering and patriotism campaign. "Democrats and liberals harm our troops!" "Terrorist supporters!" Swiftboating.
Which is my point. Keep shouting, keep holding them accountable, hell...why don't you run for an office? I'm simply looking at this and saying "this is our system, good, bad or indifferent...it is what it is." No one man, not even the "Messiah", the "ONE" is going to change that. It will take a movement by a large majority of the people to educate themselves and vote intelligently. Starting with Congress, because there is where the real problem lies. Even then it's a crap shoot because we live in a mixed capitalist society and as long as there are campaign donation to be made there are positions and votes to be sold that may very well run contrary to the will of the people.
