Katrina vanden Heuvel on Obama's First 100 Days

[RedRedOC]

Who is this lady and why is her opinion important?

[TNMTTX]

"...budget, however flawed..."

Yeah, however flawed the budget is doesn't matter, as long as it advances the Progressive agenda!

[mgsfan15]

What does closing Guantanamo accomplish?

"repealing the Global Gag Rule"

So, he supports the killing of babies.

And reducing are number of nuclear weapons isn't a good idea. Here's a quote from the president: "I will cut investments in are proven missile defense systems, I will not weapanize space, I will slow are development of future combat systems..."

Does that not scare you?

[agitcam]

It sounds pretty clear that she and her magazine are irrelevant.

[polisharabia]

....and Heuvel says in this video that he passed a budget, 'however flawed'......... LOL!!! This is better than the 3 stooges go to the moon!!! LOL!!! And Heuvel indicates in this video that 'progressives' the next 900 days, is a time to speak up and mobilize for real reform!!!! Change we need, and 'the mother of all battles'. And celebrate the first 100 days!!!! LOLOLOL!!!! I can't take it anymore!!! And she gets paid for this???? ROF!!!

[polisharabia]

....and now you got Heuvel supporting him

and thinking he's doing a good job!!!

....LOLOLOLOL!!!!

.....flys a plane over new york and scares

the living.......out of the people!!!! LOLOL!

.....What a complete joke!!! The world is

laughing at America!!!! Obama is probably laughing so hard with his wife...

and no matter what, you support him!!!

ROFL!!!! Next, he will apoint Bill Clinton

as the moral executive for kids!!! LOL!

[polisharabia]

First you vote in Obama!!! LOL!!!!

And he has Biden, and then appoints

Hillary!!!! LOL

Then he spends 4 trillion and bankrupts

you!!!! LOL!!!!!

Then he apponts a guy who has not

paid his taxes, and puts in that guy

as white house secretary!!!! LOL!!!

Then he gets a dog from Kennedy who

is still wet from Chapquitick!!! ROFL!!!!

[paleocrat]

I agree. Far too soft. Pakistan; the continued money drain known as the "War on Drugs"; Israel's continued occupation and belligerent jingoism; the impact of immigration on our environment, population, and labor; the all-too-transparent love affair between administration officials and Wall St.; and the overwhelming amount of lemon drops and lollipops scattered throughout the stimulus package should give any populist, traditionalist or progressive, reason for pause.

[quitearow]

Dear Katrina, You just talked about President Obama's first 100 days and you never once mentioned CANNABIS or HEMP.

Are you a robot?

[kanani717]

I hate the hypocracy of our liberal "leaders". When Bush tortures people, he's called a war criminal. When Obama sends drone aircraft in Pakistani villages killing dozens of civilians within his first 2 months he is in office they say he made a "tatical mistake". Oh, and appointing Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissenger, William Lyn, Rahm Emanul, & Larry Summers in his cabinet were "mistakes" too?

If he is was against the war, why did he appoint noone who oppessed it?

Hmm....

[kanani717]

This bitch is just another O-BOMB-BA sell out. The stimulus was a pork filled waste, GITMO has gotten worse and still practices rendition, private contractors are still making profits, the millitary budget expanded, Obama is continueing the messes in Iraq,Afghaninstan/Pakistan, & the rest of the world, & W. is still a free man.

And we are supposed to celebrate?

Fuck you Katrina!

You are NOT a progressive!

You should be fired for supporting to that millitary industrial complex puppet.

[josephstra]

You are too soft. Obama's first 100 days brought nothing, but all of the same at a slower/slithering pace.

[hollywoodartchick]

Once again we are back to speaking of the Democrats as antidotes to the horrors of a Republican administration. Till that last sentence, I was OK with the summary. I am not convinced they are different in core issues like banking and finance. Obama still won't address single-payer. The 2 corporate parties are not the only games in town, but as long as progressives pretend that we have to unite behind Dems to prevent GOPs, we can't get out of this trap of corporate presidents.

[SerinaJK]

I agree with you in the sense that Progressives are denying bi-partisanship that was originally promised during Obama's campaign. I honestly think it's unfair that this term solely relies on one side of politics. As a Democrat, I firmly believe that our Government's Administration would benefit if bi-partisanship took place. We need a balance.

[hollywoodartchick]

I do understand what you are saying, but I think a balance between the GOP and current Dems is like a balance between corporate domination of public policy and surrendering all hope in any alternative. They may dance for the sake of party gamesmanship, but I don't really see anyone in there sticking up for America's working poor, and I don't see enough Progressives turning to the parties whose platforms do put us first. If pragmatism always = moving to the Right, who needs it?

[SerinaJK]

I understand what you're saying here. All parties in politics tend to lean more toward one way rather than following through on what they promise. The real problem is, the GOP and Dems have not reached an equal understanding about the issues that need to be resolved (issues that concern the citizens). Most would rather put on an episode of WWE Smackdown only to come to an equal decision about how they're going to make money; not how they're going to support the Nation.

[hollywoodartchick]

The politicians have gotten used to not having to make decisions with tax implications on their watch, and the bickering may allow some to stall it off or pretend they tried to prevent the spending come election time. You are right that they have gotten least-common-denominator in their communications. But if we elected a flock of Greens and Peace and Freedom candidates, I think they would get the message...and we would have real representation.

[SerinaJK]

You have my support with that. More parties really should get involved with building the future of our country. I never understood why it was always left up to the Democrats or Republicans up until now. It's all about the financial gain for both parties and not for the people. I would go Independent, but it would be disrespectful to Susan B Anthony not to vote.

[hollywoodartchick]

Oh yes - I would not dream of dishonoring Ms. Anthony or Ms. Cady-Stanton by abstaining. I just resolved the day Clinton signed NAFTA that I would never again waste my vote under the hopes that a corporate candidate of either stripe would be "more likely" to do right by the people. When people jeer me about costing Gore the 2000 election, I tell them that they cost Nader the election. Progressives limit themselves too much.  I support parties who have a populist agenda, and I support clean $

[SerinaJK]

Well, counteractivity never solves anything as we both know. As for us Progressives, most of us do need "cleaning up", but not all of us are that corrupt.

[hollywoodartchick]

Most Progressives mean well, but the panic to funnel everyone behind "likely to win" candidates very early in election cycles turns off our judgement. I don't consider voting my conscience "counteractivity," and I am not so sure that counteractivity solves nothing anyway. I consider urging everyone to sacrifice their own best interests to "win" with candidates that sell us out to be hypocritical and counterproductive. It may take time to grow the Greens, but we have a start.