Here's even more WTF has Obama done so far?! We certainly can agree, he's done quite a bit. http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.co…

I love it! I myself can't stop clicking on "Go Fuck Yourself With Dave Franco".
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f211d50…

The hardest working and cleverest president in sixty years!

So Gitmo is closed? Wow, someone should tell the inmates who have been there for years that they aren't being held anymore.

@1: That site talks about increasing funding to nuclear power plants like it's a bad thing. What, do they cause autism too?

@2, that was great (Dave is possibly hotter than James), but OMG NSFW at the end.

Dan, you can stop after 47 clicks, that's when it starts repeating.

And, unfortunately, a lot of these accomplishments are the kind folks on the Right would point to as problems, not solutions...

@7 - but that's not a bad thing. In fact, it might even earn the man more credibility.

@6, sorry about that...

These are good, but they're not the kind of things that will get him re-elected. And as a progressive, I'm not really impressed. This list is 1/10th of what he should have gotten done by now.

@4 Agree, that Gitmo one is a red herring. Obama walked that one all the way back. One of those complex reality trumps campaign promises issues methinks.

What the list should do is parse out all the positives of the ObamaCare law as separate line items. Most people I know bash the law because of negative advertising, not because they know what's in it. Not saying it's all "gold" though.

Agree with @11. And about ten of the things listed haven't actually started yet (most of the items to do with the ACA, e.g.).

Anyway, failing to even try for a bigger stimulus when it was widely known that $789 billion was nowhere near enough, and failing to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 completely cancel out the 47 bits cited.

The list isn't complete, far from it: for example, nowhere does it mention giving more tax breaks to the uber wealthy or increasing military intervention in Asia or putting SS and medicare on the chopping block. You guys should really be proud of these accomplishments as they are sure to win some votes .. for somebody not named Obama.

Let me know when accountability for GOVERNMENT APPROVED TORTURE makes it on that list.

@2 ... *thud*

I would think "Killed Osama Bin Laden" should be on that list.

@5: I dunno, maybe you should ask the people of Japan?

@5: The main problem with it is that once you take into account all the government subsidies, including catastrophic risk that the government assumes responsibility for, it's a ridiculously expensive form of power. But we could make it cheaper by building lots of modular plants if it weren't for paranoid people like #19. (Even looking at Chernobyl, the ridiculously worst case scenario which won't happen again, the number of deaths and illnesses makes nuclear much much safer than, say, coal mining.)

@18,

In your experience, do you find it necessary to use actual tin when constructing your tin foil hats, or does aluminium work just as well?

@ 8 - Oh yeah, he's just been totally kicking back, not doing anything at all:

http://obamaachievements.org/list

Ignoring @1's link...

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.co…

...is an amazing, though thoroughly predictable, act of willful ignorance, driven by reflexive political tribalism.

Obama is a conservative who regularly destroys the lives of innocent people. Supporting him is a conservative act.

@8: And thanks to people like you, we'll have 8 years of Rick Perry, who will be worse than W. Bush, but at least he won't be as horrible as Obama ("The WORST President We've Had In Recent Memory"--TM).

@20: That's the thing. It may be fairly expensive due to the safety precautions necessary, but it's a lot cleaner than coal energy. It's a necessary source of energy if we want to clean up our act; we don't have fusion yet, and solar/geothermal/hydroelectric/wave/wind energy won't supply our needs alone without a hell of a lot more infrastructure.
@19: You do realize that it's been less than half a year since Fukushima Daiichi had that accident? You don't actually know Jack Squat about autism, do you?

@16, I know, right?

Looking at "view page source", he's done 46 things since taking office.

All you "progressives" and negative commenters here are gonna get what you deserve when Perry or Bachmann is President. Be very careful what you wish for.

Obama hasn't done everything I want him to do exactly the way I want him to do it, and he didn't do all of it instantly.

Therefore, I am staging a write-in campaign for Gloria La Riva and Roger Calero as Co-Presidents in a Coalition between the Party for Socialim and Liberation and the Socialist Workers Party (I'd invite the Greens, but they only show up every fourth year)

Sure, the campaign will go nowhere, but think of the moral outrage I can inflict here on slog. Who's with me???

I even have a campaign slogan for my new coalition party:

Naïveté today. Naïveté tomorrow. Naïveté forever!!!!

But you forgot the most important thing. He prevented Sarah Palin from holding an elected office with access to national power.

@25: Oh that's right, it's been half a year since Fukushima, the media has moved on and everything's been wrapped up in a neat little package.
Oh, except it's been confirmed that radiation levels are 29.6 times of that released by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and currently the nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels. Not to mention the nearly averted disasters this year at Fort Calhoun and the Cooper facility, or the14 'near-misses' in 2010.
Don't forget to take your flu shot this year, asshat.

@31: Spindles is hereby confirmed for not really knowing anything.
Radiation levels are not 29.6 times that caused at Hiroshima; rather, the total mass of escaped radioisotopes from Fukushima Daiichi is 29.6 times that released at Hiroshima (source). This is not surprising; Little Boy contained 64 kilos of uranium, whereas the Fukushima Daiichi plants each contained about 86,000 kilos. The statistic you misquoted actually doesn't mean that much.
I looked up those 14 near-misses you also mentioned, and you know what caused most of them? Lack of maintenance and insufficient worker training. They're not the result of the inherent dangers of nuclear power; they're the result of insufficient funding. And you want to fix this by taking money AWAY from nuclear power?
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/3…

@32: Wow, you're right. Nuclear power is great! Radiation is good for you. Yum yum yum. What's a little China Syndrome between friends? Let's build more plants, especially if their right next to a major water source or a fault line! As human-industrial civilization collapses, the 432 nuclear power plants in 30 countries are sure to be well-maintained and just as safe as mother's milk. Stupid countries like Germany who are shuttering their nuke plants are stupid. Fucking stupid krauts!
I also love war, torture, corporate welfare, and the private shareholders of the Federal Reserve, plus I really hate the Constitution. That's why I am voting Obama 2012!!!

@33: Notice the absence of any facts in your tirade. Rather than confronting the points I make, you appeal to the reader's fear. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
Nuclear power is actually much safer than, say, fossil fuels. Here is a nice visualization for you, since you don't seem to really speak English. And if we lose the resources necessary to safely operate a nuclear power plant, it can be shut down entirely within hours. (The only reason this was not done at Fukushima Daiichi was that the shut-down failsafes were damaged by the earthquake, resulting in simultaneous failure of systems across the board.)
Spindles, you operate solely on irrational fear. You can be an irrational idiot if you want, but don't try to enforce your delusions on the rest of us.

@28
"All you "progressives" and negative commenters here are gonna get what you deserve when Perry or Bachmann is President. Be very careful what you wish for. "

To the contrary Obama's likely only chance to win a 2nd term is to respond positively to a surge of progressive challenges to his policies. Like for the mid-terms, center right policies (at best considering he wants to cut SS) won't bring many of those who elected him in 2008 to the voting box. Those who argue to chase the mythic independents in the "middle" (who according to polls appear to be on Obama's left) are asking for another GOP extremist elected thanks to low voter turnout.

@33: You know, I haven't forgotten how smug little shits like yourself and the other chowder-heads of the slog endlessly piled on Goldy when he was the one person who was actually reporting on the true scale of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in the days, and weeks after the tsunami. People like you claimed there was no real risk of a meltdown. People like you said there was no way this could ever be as big as Chernobyl. People like you called Goldy an alarmist and a fear monger, all while the crisis continued to spiral out of control. Well guess what? You were wrong. Your Schick was wrong. As it turns out, even Goldy was wrong because it's now known that three of six damaged reactors actually suffered meltdowns within days after the tsunami. Even TEPCO announced that the accident probably released more radioactive material into the environment than Chernobyl, making it the worst nuclear accident on record, and it's not over by a long shot.

As for the Chernobyl death toll figures, a 2006 report, commissioned by Greenpeace involving 52 scientists, estimated a death toll of about 93,000 from related cancers. Even the WHO estimated up to 4000 deaths among the higher-exposed areas around Chernobyl. The New York Academy of Sciences have put the number closer to one million.

As for the cold shutdown of a nuke plant, if every fail safe at Fukushima failed in the wake of a natural disaster that was an inevitability, and with a predominant amount of nuclear facilities built next to water sources, fault lines, or both...do you want to play those odds. Russian roulette? I guess we just throw more money at them? Or maybe...we shut them all down! It only takes one plant to catastrophically fail to cause irreversible global repercussions.

If you add in power production from methane to the solar, wind, geothermal equation you add quite a lot to the non-nuke possibilities of electricity generation.

Also, add in buildings that are totally energy independent. We have had the capability of building these buildings for over twenty years. It just isn't done because the up front costs are very high.

People in third world countries are generating power with methane. Granted, they don't use as much power as the average person in the U.S., but they also don't generate as much methane in their societies.

If megafarms processed their cow-shit in biodigesters, they could generate enough power to run their operation, and also provide power for the surrounding areas. This would also take care of the shit running off their fields and into streams and rivers, that eventually makes it to the Gulf and creates dead zones there.

Venom, you are making me wonder if you work for the NRC.

That has to be the most ridiculous site I've seen. If I were a liberal, I'd beg whoever owns it to shut it down.

"Signed an act closing Guantanamo"? "Spent trillions of dollars in stimulus"?

Don't liberals ever care about results?

Venomlash: you're wasting your breath. That nuclear power kills and maims and is "obviously" way worse than coal, etc. is an article of faith among people like Spindles. He will never be able to provide any actual stats to back up his position, because his position is a kind of religion.

@36: You're making a fool of yourself, Spindles.
I did not "endlessly [pile] on Goldy" during his coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and neither did most people on the SLOG. Do you think I'm trying to orchestrate a coverup or something?
I don't really know why you're talking about Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster was the result of undertrained employees circumventing safety devices in order to perform unauthorized tests on a primitive reactor. Using Chernobyl as an example against nuclear power is like using the Hindenburg as an example against air travel. We have better and safer plants now.
Under normal operation, coal plants in the United States cause approximately 13,000 deaths every year. The worst nuclear accidents in the USA have resulted in how many deaths? Oh, that's right; probably in the double digits.
@37: I'm not saying that fission power is the ultimate answer. I'm saying that it's necessary for the time being, since our current infrastructure is insufficient to fully harness other clean energy sources.

The only money we should be sinking into nuclear power is to maintain the ones we've already got going, not to fund new ones.

I'd love to see a companion site of all the things Obama's been blamed for. Examples: Limbaugh declaring the "Obama recession" 2 days after his election and Jan Brewer complaining the she can't finish her autobiography because of Obama.

Seriously Dan, I know he did an IGBP vid, but with your intelligence I'd expect you of all people to see how flimsy these "accomplishments" are. Wow, he issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER to close Gitmo, nothing actually happened. "Increased minority access to capital" and others are clearly reaches for the truth of hte matter is, not only does Barack Obama not care about queer people, but he has been oversold as being proactive and progressive overall. Wake up!

Furthermore: http://bit.ly/pw6XTv What makes you think that the lesser evil is really anything better? It might make you feel good to believe that Obama is anything other than a centrist tool who encourages complacency, but it doesn't change reality.

@46: "What makes you think that the lesser evil is really anything better?"
facepalm

@37: "Buildings that are totally energy independent"? How does that work? Solar panels on the roof give enough power to operate everything in the building?