He’s better than the alternative, because the alternative is the Republicans who are both irrational and criminally incompetent. They’re all corrupt. Good people simply don’t run for office.
Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken are good people, but not Republicans. Some Republicans at the state and local level are conservative by not irresponsible. I have no use for national Republicans of the current era, though in the 1980s and earlier things were different. Decent people don’t demolish the US’s perfect credit rating, just because they lack the guts to propose specific spending cuts or tax increases on their own. The debt ceiling fiasco is a cowardly dodge as is the newly established 60 vote requirement in the Senate: all national Republicans participate in this sort of nonsense. None deserve re-election. None.
This is just the break the Romney campaign has been waiting for!
What’s not transparent about telling people you are accepting corporate donations?
And saying who gave what?
“To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/09/us-usa-obama-inauguration-idUSBRE8B80HX20121209
I’m of the more optimistic opinion that while people running for office (any office) might start off good and straight, filled with noble purpose and righteous intentions, the process of running itself ensures they’re thoroughly corrupt by the time they’re elected.
Bastards!
I was adding to your inquery, not asking the question myself. 
Marley, I think you are mistaking nonchalance with an attack on Obama. I don’t care whether he did or didn’t, whether he lied or he didn’t. He has clearly been shown to “back track” on things that he has said. Is this bad? Is it different?
No, and I think that is the whole point. He isn’t much different than any other politician would have been or what they’d have done in his place.
Cites:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73606.html
In both cites you will find that his naivete in his ability to bring the hope that he wanted to bring was stifled by the beauracracy of the government. Maybe he had high aspirations but that simply isn’t good enough for the promises he made.
That is the conclusionary statement that should address the WHY
In my post above, hope should read change.
What does this have to do with the topic actually being discussed?
I’m not, no. I didn’t say anything about attacks.
It doesn’t address the why or the OP at all, and while it makes some points on the transparency issue (which not a topic the OP raised), it doesn’t do very much to substantiate the “he’s just like every other politician charge” except in the vaguest possible way.
Where’s the straw?
Uh, right there in the OP. The OP is talking about how undifferent our current President is and the fact that he was looked upon (by some) as a change from the “business as usual” crowd.
The OP is positing that he really isn’t all that different. I agreed and provided citations for the alleged non changes.
See, no straw and follows in perfect lock step with the OP
You mean the topic that you guys are discussing or the topic that the OP brought up?
Mine addresses the OP.
Which is supported by the inauguration thing how?
Well, every since Citizens United, corporations have been people to. And who’s to say that they don’t enjoy a good party now and then.
Seriously, I’m not seeing the outrage here. Unless you’re going to argue that Obama is going to be beholden to Exxon for the next four years because they sprang for canapes and ice sculptures at the inauguration.
I think it’s more along the lines of a “When will you liberals stop voting for Democrats and vote for a third party instead” meme.
Paul Simon was a very good man. The world would be a better place if we had more like him.