I'll tell you something: Barack Obama was elected president in large part on a promise to restore the nation's battered moral authority. He appealed to voters because he seemed to understand what his predecessor did not, i.e., that America must embody ideals bigger than the exigencies and expediencies of the moment.
Somebody should remind him of that....Sometimes a dented promise is worse than no promise at all.
If Mr. Obama is unwilling to lead in the manner he promised, then perhaps he had best get out of the way so that people of this nation who elected him can de-select him and consider some alternatives.
Which demands the question: "Which alternatives, exactly?"
As i stated in my reply:
I have become progresively more certain that the Pukes threw the election in '08, precisely to install in the Presidency someone who would erase the vile taste of Bushevism by becoming even more detested. They surrendered the Senate numerically (but not politically) for the same reasons.This is not the first I have taken up this tune, but it's become more and more a mind-worm...
When the Dims settled on the "novelty" slate--either BHO or HRC--they had their "perfect storm."
Not only would neither one (or anyone, for that matter) be able to repair or restore much of the astronomical clusterfux left behind by the Busheviks, but--being already either 'female' or 'black'--there'd already be a substantial "cultural (hegemonic) predisposition" to affix blame on them even if they didn't deserve it.
By the end of a single term by either HRC or BHO, they would be carrying so much baggage that the (white, Murkin proletarian) "majority" would not only reject them, but would also never vote for a 'marginal' candidate again.
With the consequence that the white, murkin proletarian majority would welcome with open arms whatsoever iteration of compassionate fascism the Pukes would care to offer 'em...