Some of you are starting to really tick me off . One of the

[monmouth]

many reasons I voted for PE Obama is that I trust his judgment. I'm starting to get a little more than pi$$ed with the constant questioning of his appointments and decisions around here. FCS, he hasn't even been sworn in yet and already some DUrs feel they know more than the man does. IMO Emanuel was an excellent choice, keeping Lieberman is a tactical move, not one out of love. As another poster stated, keep your enemies close. There are many things on the immediate agenda that need to be addressed, getting rid of Lieberman would be a distraction. He'll be gone in two years, we can live with it.

The keeping of some of Bush's appointees for the time being is a good decision. Makes for a smoother transition. These appointees time with the Obama administration isn't carved in stone, alterations and fine tuning comes after the dust settles.

Getting back to Rahm Emanuel. I know his so-called negatives. One man's negatives are another man's high points. Smart, knows the game, knows the cast of characters, and suffers no fools. Gee, I don't know, but if I was starting a new job and needed someone to help pave a smooth path for me, Rahm sure is a guy I'd like on my team. I don't care if he's abrasive (I'm from Jersey, it's an appreciated art form)and if he tells someone "FU" and the guy deserves it, so be it. No one had a problem with Cheeney when he said it.

The PE is going to make appointments we will like, and some we won't. The PE is not an impulsive or knee-jerk person. This planning has been in the works for a long time (I would bet since August at the very least). Stop ticking me off people, I'm trying to wean myself from DU as it is, I have a headache and still need to put that vacuum cleaner to use.

[katandmoon]

1. And posts like this tick me off so we are even

[monmouth]

9. TS.....n/t

[1corona4u]

71. What an intelligent, and well thought out reply....

:sarcasm:

[Lint Head]

2. The only people that are questioning Obama's judgment are

the ones that have supported the criminals in the White House. I don't give a good damn what these lying assholes think.
Let them complain. Let them wither in there own hate. The winds of change will blow them away!
:dem:

[Captain Hilts]

5. Um, no. Some are purists who thought Obama was a progressive, and they're discovering...

he's not a progressive.

[dflprincess]

15. And some of us voted for him because he was the nominee,

knowing he was not progressive and not expecting much to change. Some of us have never been enamored by Obama and we never took an oath of obedience to him. Expecting people not to question a politician's actions is the attitude the Bushies have had all these years - and look how well that worked out.

[Captain Hilts]

16. I agree completely. nt

[hulka38]

49. Get real. Obama will advance the progressive agenda. Maybe not to an extent that keeps you happy.

But that sounds like it's a tall order. Name some Democrats on the national scene that have a significantly more progressive agenda than Obama's and who are capable of being elected President.

[Two Americas]

94. false premise

Being Democrats is not a matter of seeking that which would make any of us personally "happy" it is a matter of fighting for justice and equality, standing for what is best for all of the people, especially the least among us - the suffering, the homeless, the forgotten and the persecuted and abused. We speak out in order to be the voice for those who do not have a voice.

Being a Democrat means fighting for what others desperately need, not for what any one of us personally wants.

Politics is also not a matter of a "progressive agenda" that any of us "like." You are describing politics as though it were a personal shopping junket, and then claiming you are making more practical selections from the available merchandise and treating those who disagree with you as though they were little children making unrealistic requests for holiday gifts or something.

The people are suffering. The people need relief. Powerful entrenched interests will be battling against us and trying to influence the new administration. We need to be a counter-balancing force, a voice for the people, not merely sycophants to any politician. They represent us; it is not our job to represent them.

You misunderstand and misrepresent what it means to be a Democrat, as well as what it means to be a citizen in a representative democracy.

People are apparently feeling some sort of discomfort when they hear any critical analysis of politicians with whom they identify. This is not the fault, nor is it being caused by, those who are making the critical remarks. The discomfort is a result of people too closely and personally identifying with certain politicians.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

61. Exactly

[Dawgs]

77. Who did you support?

Was it a candidate that could actually get elected?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

86. Prolly Kucinich or Smoove Johnny. nt

[dflprincess]

90. Exactly

just like I supported Wellstone for Senate at the 1990 caucuses when the rest of my fellow hacks were saying there was no way he could win.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. That's great that Wellstone won.

But how did Dennis and Johnny do, again?

[dflprincess]

103. I support a candidate based on where they are on the issues

not whether or not the hacks think they can win. Wellstone would never have gotten the endorsement if his supporters had listened to the "he's too liberal" crowd. In fact, if people stopped listening to those who advise always going with the candidate that won't rock the vote, we might actually get some progressives elected.

I said that I supported the nominee - I was just never dazzled by him and I don't expect a lot to change. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

[Deja Q]

79. I wish I'd read your response earlier; you're absolutely correct.

[Fired Up Democrat]

35. realizing based on what...

damn...atleast give him a chance.

[moodforaday]

43. Now is the time Obama has his chance.

Every time a potential nomination is revealed, he's blowing it. Sorry.

For example, read here about Larry Summers, Obama's prime candidate for Secretary of Treasury, another "enemy better held close" (to use a phrase so often repeated on DU these days, for lack of a more convincing argument).

He's blowing his chances right about now.

[Deja Q]

75. Please take your generalizations and shove them where the sun don't shine.

There's a good fellow.

[liberalmuse]

3. I ignore those fuckers.

And I'm a late Obama supporter. Give the guy a fucking chance. He's not even been sworn in, yet the 'purists' are jumping his shit.

[moodforaday]

44. Ah, so now you are a purist

if you want all Bush-appointed Republicans out of offices of power? Give me a fucking break.

[Captain Hilts]

4. We don't need to like everybody. That's exactly why Emanuel is PERFECT...

for his job.

Hell, it's why it's a good idea to keep Gates - Gates has actually done a good job. Good idea to keep him.

We have to like our attorney general, but not the Chief of Staff and not the Sec. of Defense.

I don't like FDR's CNO, Adm. King...so what? It doesn't matter.

King on the far right -Actually, I think that's Leahy.

[Thothmes]

73. Believe Admiral King is the Naval Officer

Standing to just behind President Roosevelt. Believe Admiral Leahy is the standing officer in the Navy Dress White uniform. The General at the far left
may be Henry Arnold.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

6. It just wouldn't be DU without whiners and hand-wringers.

I, on the other hand, have seen enough of Obama that I know to trust in his judgment.

[moodforaday]

45. You trust his judgment

to the point of admitting that Bush-appointed Repugs are a-ok after all? My God, how could DU have been so wrong all these years!

[Demit]

7. Opinions, everybody has one. Like you know what.

Like yours too.

You don't have to read what other people want to post about. So go use your vacuum cleaner. By the way, I have an opinion on how.

[monmouth]

11. HA! Back atcha...n/t

[Kali]

8. I tend to agree to a certain extent, but

there is nothing wrong with hashing the decisions out on a DISCUSSION forum, after all.

Plus it is always good to question authority.

[progressivebydesign]

10. That's why my visits here are becoming more and more rare since the election.

Some people are never happy I guess. I suppose if those armchair presidents were so brilliant, they'd be running for office themselves.

[1corona4u]

70. Amen to that....

I can hardly stand to come here since the election.

[Runcible Spoon]

12. yes I will make sure to vet all of my posts for offensive content just for you.

:eyes:

jesus go take a walk or something if anonymous imternet posters get to you so much.

[JimGinPA]

13. Some People Would Bitch If You Hung 'Em With An Old Rope

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

14. Well, DUers second guessed every move he made from the day he announced

to the day he won.

Why should now be any different?

[mtnsnake]

17. Who skipped out of Dodge and left you the boss of DU?

Stop ticking me off people, I'm trying to wean myself from DU as it is

Since I have been nothing but supportive of Obama and have put all my faith in his judgment, I don't mind telling you that your post is one of the most condescending pantloads that's been dropped around here in a while.

And what's with the "I'm trying to wean myself from DU as it is" rhetoric? I love how some people always feel the need to announce it when they're thinking of leaving DU or cutting back. If you're gonna leave or gonna wean, just do it and save us all the drama. Good grief.

[monmouth]

21. Whoa, didn't mean to get you all drama-like. Just saying I've

spent way too much time on DU, as many others have stated also. I fail to see where my post was condescending but if you found it so....well, there ya go.

[mtnsnake]

28. My apologies

I guess I shouldn't have been so touchy about that.

Between you and me, as someone who is self-employed, I've got no choice but to cut down on the time I spend here, too, especially during the day when I should be out and running my business more...and posting less. Even at night it's easy to get carried away. So I can relate to what you're saying because I've felt the same way as you have more than once. It's not always the most productive thing here.

Again...sorry.

[monmouth]

32. No problem, it's all good...

[Whisp]

98. the extra touchy ones seems to have a certain common demoninator

it'll never be over for them.

[Gman]

18. the purists will never be happy with Obama

that's the way it is.

[Runcible Spoon]

19. oh yay the purist meme is back.

just as vapid and rhetorically lazy as it ever was, not unlike the people who pass it around like DU herpes.

[Gman]

31. as are the purists

[Runcible Spoon]

57. wow. great comeback.

way to defend my charge re: rhetorical laziness. fail.

[Dawgs]

78. Ouch.

[moodforaday]

48. In case you haven't noticed,

you are now a purist if you don't agree Repugs are competent and good guys overall, and keeping them in office will "ease the transision".

:sarcasm:, because I'm seeing too many posts that seem to miss this tag badly, only to find out they were actually written in earnest.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. yeah I've repressed my gag reflex

I understand some of the venom, but around here Nader is a bigger villain than McCain. The mind boggles.

[Two Americas]

47. no such thing

There is no such thing as "purists" and this is merely a deceptive way to marginalize and trivialize those who do not agree with you.

Your opinion is no more and no less "purist" than anyone else's. Being uncritically pleased and satisfied with whatever certain politicians say and do is a form of "purism" itself, often bordering on pure hero worship and cult of personality. The notion that we must always compromise with the right wingers is an absolutist and "purist" position, if anything is as well. "My guy can do no wrong!" If that isn't "purist," then nothing is.

It is a good thing that hospital emergency rooms are not run the way you suggest we approach politics. "Oh those emergency room people are such purists! Nothing will ever make them happy. They expect to save every person, and they are always finding things wrong with the patients!"

If personal happiness is your goal, and if you are going to demand that everyone else always "have a nice day" as well, then perhaps politics is not an appropriate pursuit for you. Even sports fans are willing to criticize the performance of their favorite team.

The "purist" charge is merely a covert and disingenuous way to attempt to suppress freedom of speech.

[Runcible Spoon]

60. posts like yours are what keep me coming back to DU

even if they are increasingly in the minority. thank you once again for taking the time and the patience to articulate reality so well. I really need to sit back and learn to temper my, umm, temper :evilgrin: I just get so frustrated watching again and again as progressives get ridiculed and marginalized.

[maryf]

66. fantastic analogy

"Even sports fans are willing to criticize the performance of their favorite team."

Wonderful, thanks!

[pollo poco]

89. Thank you

I have heard so many dissenters called purists here. Some people seem to come here only to be agreed with. This is a discussion board. Freedom of speech isn't just threatening to the other side. The same mentality is front and center here.

Myself, I supported Obama during the campaign, even when he said that "god" was in his marriage, but not in mine. It doesn't get much more hurtful than that. And it's a breathtaking flaw in the man's philosophy of equality and inclusion.

I do not agree with him. And I have already passed a loyalty test that has cost me a great deal-voting for a man who thinks god loves him more than he loves me. It is, frankly, difficult to pick him out from the other godly people who slammed the door in the face of our love, and shut us out of the big equality celebration. Oh- how it hurts! I hope no one who calls us purists ever has to feel this way.

We have the right and the duty to try to change his mind. On any subject we disagree with him on. I do not think he will pursue a particularly progressive agenda if we don't speak up. The other side will have no compunction about making their voices heard. That is not purism- it's realism.

The label "purist" actually fits those who are using it against others better than it fits the dissenters. The same Rovian semantics that we should all be tired of by now.

It is as much our duty to stand up to Barack Obama about torture and gay rights as it was our duty to stand up to George Bush. More so- because we voted for Obama.

[dflprincess]

91. Wonderful post

Thank you

[LWolf]

107. Party purists will never have integrity on issues.

That's the way it is.

[AspenRose]

20. It was predicted long ago

that Obama's administration would be picked and parsed to death.

[moodforaday]

51. As it should be.

As any choices should be.

[rucky]

22. If we didn't have anything to complain about...

we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

[monmouth]

23. You make a good point..LOL

[Upfront]

24. Oh Ya!

Well said, me to!

[DCBob]

25. Correct. Let Obama be Obama.

Criticizers need to back off and give him a chance.

[cooolandrew]

26. Exactly they seem very smart moves. The reaction to lieberman & rham seems emotional over practical.

[moodforaday]

46. Explain what "practical" good

comes from keeping Lieberman anywhere outside the toolshed. Explain how it's good and practical to have a warmonger in the second most-powerful office at the White House. (Just saying he can get things done doesn't cut if, because the things he gets done may not be the things you want done!) Explain how this guy makes a good candidate for the Treasury. Explain why any Bush-appointed Repug should keep his or her office and why DU has been so wrong all these years for chastising Repugs to hell and backwards, now that Obama doesn't think they're so stinky after all.

[secondwind]

27. I see what you mean..........I think the current "traffic" on DU will eventually

subside.

I think there are a lot of young people who have been "so energized" by this campaign, it's hard for them to stop!

[mokawanis]

29. What did you expext???

That everyone would just happily agree with everything Obama does? Anyone in that office is going to analyzed endlessly, even by strong supporters. To survive DU I ignore a lot of what's said and use the hide thread button frequently.

[Clio the Leo]

30. Any thread that says anything remotely positive about Emanuel...

... gets a kick from me!!!! :bounce:

[monmouth]

33. I really like him, I would also add I'm glad he's on our side and

not on someone elses...LOL.

[moodforaday]

53. Ah, so a warmonger bully is okay

because he is *your* warmonger bully?

But then, you know... he's not really *yours*.

[Two Americas]

34. this is a representative democracy

We have a civic duty to speak out.

Our elected representatives work for us. It is not our job, nor is it conducive to a healthy democracy, to act as unpaid public relations flacks for them.

You are free to express your opinion about appointments. Others are free to express theirs. There is no evidence whatsoever that one opinion is appropriate or constructive while other opinions are not.

We should not be supporting and promoting the unitary executive mentality, even if the particular executive happens to be "ours."

Failing to give our elected representatives feedback does them no favors and is not "support."

[monmouth]

36. Good points...n/t

[Overseas]

40. Well said. And this is a democratic discussion board.

We can all share our thoughts about how Obama runs things.

And we can share our thoughts about others thoughts about how Obama runs things.

And then if we really want to talk with Obama's team, we can comment at www.change.gov !!

(I'm still thinking about what to say on that site.)

[always_saturday]

37. Is it part of DU rules that we have to agree 100% with everything Obama does?

Because I don't recall that stipulation with any OTHER Dem candidate.

And I remember hearing Obama himself say in a debate that he wasn't going to surround himself with yes men. After 8 years of bubble boy Bush that was a BIG point in his favor with me.

So if Obama wouldn't have a problem with people disagreeing with him, I certainly do not care if YOU do, and I plan to state my opinion about his appointments however I please.

[bigwillq]

38. I think it's fair of us to have discussions

and even criticize some of his choices. We put him into office after all.

[ddeclue]

39. Well just get over it...

This place is like fantasy baseball camp for political junkies.

Everybody is going to armchair quarterback (pardon the mixed sports metaphor) what the pols do...


that is one of the basic underlying purposes here.

Doug D.

[leftofthedial]

41. he's made three high profile "people picks"

right-of-center, financial industry deregulator, DLCer Joe Biden

farther right-of-center, rabid hawk, DLCer Rahm Emanuel

right-wing Republican, who has opposed the Democratic party on every important issue since 2000




At what point do we start paying attention? At what point do his choices "count"?

[TheKentuckian]

59. Not to be antagonistic in the least

but what would you see as "center" in America?

What mainstream Democrat do you see as left of center or even center?

Can you accept that most people can be at least somewhat all over the board? You might think I was hard right based on my gun control beliefs and fairly hard left on most economic issues. Do those "rightist" gun beliefs automatically make me right of center regardless of how I might come down on 90% of issues?

The Biden comment seems odd to me, I realize he sided with the credit card companies pretty hard but I'd still have to say he is one of our more liberal Senators. I don't get the formula to make him right of the American center.

Remember, that if you go far enough along the spectrum either way eventually you will lose track of what the center is and decide it is you. Your universe goes static eventually.

[Two Americas]

62. miscommunication

Liberal and conservative are insufficient for describing people's political sentiments. The activist community and the online boards are dominated by a group of people who are a relatively small percentage of the population - they are economically conservative, but "socially" liberal, which is to say they are liberals on the culture war issues. Most of the public, incidentally, takes the opposite position - economically very liberal, and culturally conservative. That is the main reason that Democrats have struggled in recent years. A left wing economic program would be supported by 70% or more of the public. In the absence of that, we are left to battle it out over culture war issues, all of which were created and defined by the extreme right wing. This time around, the people are hurting so badly, have rejected Reaganomics so utterly, that they voted Democratic despite there not being much in the way of an alternative economic plan coming from the Democrats. The few, the relatively well-off gentrified liberals, are trying to spin this as a victory for their economically conservative - socially liberal viewpoint. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and we run the risk of discovering that the hard way over the next couple of years. What I heard in rural areas from people switching from the Republicans (that is how we won of course) was "we need another New Deal." That is far to the Left of the Democrats and liberal activists. The people remain relatively conservative on the culture war issues, but I have always thought that they could be quickly brought to support the liberal program there within a context of a left wing economic program.

Historically, before the right wing redefined everything as a cultural war, political was about power and economics, not personal choices and personal values. Some of us still look at politics this way, still define politics the way it has always been defined.

This leads to a lot of confusion, because issues such as gun control and abortion really have nothing to do with right versus left, at least they do not the way they are framed in the partisan cultural wars.

We would define "center" differently depending upon how we define politics and how we see the right left spectrum. For those of us looking at power and economics, supporting the Left means supporting the interests of Labor over those of capital, the desperate needs of the have-nots over the whims and desires of the haves, whether those haves are "liberal" or "conservative." By that reckoning, the Democrats are quite far to the right from the center, regardless of how much lip service they pay to the grab bag of modern liberal culture war causes.

[LWolf]

109. I like this representation:

It fits where I see Obama and Biden. I, on the other hand, am further southwest than both Nader and McKinney, putting me a LONG way away from the PE. Which I am in practice, as well as on this particular chart.

Not that you were asking ME, of course. ;)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

[Two Americas]

110. jumping in here

I am -10 and -10 on that chart. I think of the lower left hand corner as the actual "center," based on talks I give with poor people and the working poor around the country, in areas that activists never go and which are invisible to them. the rural poor, the inner city poor and minority people, the immigrant communities. They are almost all in the lower left hand corner of that chart. The center of that chart is the center for the relatively successful people, who are disproportionately represented in the activist community. The compass graphs the "winners," and the common people need not apply. Of course leaders and famous people are in th upper right, that is no surprise. That comes with the territory, because to get power and success requires a certain accommodation with the power structure. We can hope that some of them may be "go betweens" and advocate for the people from that position with the powerful. That is rare, but is the hope. We must pressure them for that to have any chance of happening.

[LWolf]

112. You make an important point

about the demographics used to determine the "center," regardless of whose model.

[moodforaday]

42. NEVER trust a politician

Do not be so attached to a politician that you forego your own thinking and opinions. So if Obama decided to keep some Repugs in office, DU will suddenly decide Repugs are not so bad after all? That some of them are competent maybe? That their goals are aligned with yours? That they are not scam artists for Jesus and big business?

Please.

[renie408]

54. All Republicans are not 'scam artists for Jesus and big business'...

Just like not all Democrats are ____________________. I am sure that some of them actually ARE competent and some of them aren't all that bad. You know what is really funny? That kind of all or nothing thinking is typically identified with Repukes. That's what they call eye-row-knee.

[cali]

69. Oh, but I do trust some politicians. I've even trusted repubs

I trust all my congress critters- Bernie, Pat and Peter. I trusted Jim Jeffords enough to vote for him several times. And I've got good reason to trust these folks. Now I don't have the same degree of trust in Obama- his track record is shorter and I'm still less familiar with him than I am with my own congress critters, but I do have considerable trust in his judgment. That's one major reason I voted for him.

[Two Americas]

87. New England

There have actually been some remarkably trustworthy and honest politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, over the years from New England.

[renie408]

50. First off, yeah, a lot of people had a problem with Cheney when he said it.

Second, the fact that Dick Cheney also did something isn't really a selling point for me. Thirdly, nobody gives a shit if you are ticked off. You have been here for two years so you have had time to figure out that people here are going to question EVERYTHING. And that is OK. Obama is a big boy. He can handle it. If you can't, wean yourself by all means.

[graywarrior]

52. Quaaaack!

:grr:
















:rofl:

[S n o w b a l l]

55. "Stop ticking me off people"

Right. You better go ahead and go cold turkey.

:crazy:

[monmouth]

56. I think you're right...n/t

[TexasObserver]

63. Why do you feel a need to be a nanny to every conversation here?

I cannot imagine why posters such as you get their drawers in a bunch over the threads here.

You have HIDE THREAD.

You have the IGNORE feature.

You even have the old reliable: Your eyes, and your ability to NOT click on a thread.

Fix yourself and you'll fix the problem.

[BlooInBloo]

64. You're starting to catch on to the fact that nobody hates Democrats more than DUers.

[monmouth]

67. That I am....Sad....n/t

[1corona4u]

72. It seems that way...

[Two Americas]

93. it isn't hatred

The only reason to elect Democrats is in the hope that we will then have representatives who will listen to us. We can't very well expect them to listen to us if we are not saying anything.

Powerful players, representing wealthy interests, now have Obama's ear and are trying to influence him. They are not saying "we trust Obama's judgment, and whatever he does is fine with us." Anything he tries to do for the people will be vigorously opposed. They are not "giving him a chance" nor waiting nor withholding their fire. They are the real threat to the success of the Obama presidency, not your fellow Democrats here.

[cornelio]

65. We are not being patient

We need to wait until Obama is appointed and even then we'd have to wait months to make some judgments about his decisions.

[Two Americas]

88. elected

Our representatives are elected, not appointed.

There are no right or wrong times to speak out. Decisions are already being made, and commenting on those as they happen is not only appropriate, but we have am obligation, a civic duty to speak out - at all times.

Thinking in terms of appointing executives and then trusting them fully is anathema to a representative democracy.

The politicians work for us, not the other way around. What sort of job have you ever had that the boss gave you a few months, paying you and giving you power over his or her business with no interference, with no feedback or correction or input?

People talk about Obama as though he were boss and we the hirelings. It is the other way around. Of course if we think and act as hirelings, we will soon become no more than that. If we think of our elected officials as though they were bosses, they will soon become just that.

[maryf]

105. Of, BY, and for the people...

"but we have an obligation, a civic duty to speak out - at all times."

Thank you for this, many in the citizenry would prefer to trust a leader then truly think out what is best needed for the people. Our vote is our voice to a degree, but in a democracy, Of, BY, and for the people, we have to take part in our governance, and the sole way we have to do this is to let our needs, wants, and beliefs in what is best, be known by our representatives and each other. We must use our voice always, and not just when voting...

Not that I was crazy about him, but John Kerry, when discussing abortion (an issue I think should not be on an election slate, but thats another discussion) said that, while he didn't believe in it, he had to represent his constituents wishes, he was acting correctly as the voted representative in that regard...(hope this is taken as a clear example and not an invitation to discuss either Kerry or abortion!!)

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

74. During the days of Bush, people claimed that it was patriotic TO question.

Nothing has changed except the person taking command.

In many ways I do appreciate President-Elect Obama. He has come across dignified, diplomatic, and mature. Has a stable family and monogamous relationship (definitely more representative of marriage than many on the Republican side until proven otherwise, good luck, so sorry folks!)

But when I made the post in GD about his views, albeit over a year ago, regarding offshoring, I don't think I was anything less than patriotic.

Please correct me where I'm wrong. Thank you.

[Alter Ego]

76. And so far we've only got a Chief of Staff, a Press Secretary,

and a Senior Advisor (Emanuel, Gibbs, Axelrod). Imagine what will happen when the Cabinet appointments start rolling in.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Hey, have you ever really listened to Obama's speeches?

I always wonder if the folks who desire a pep rally mentality even bother to listen to our President Elect, now or during the long campaign. Obama constantly says he does not just want our input, but that he needs it. He asks for it every chance he gets.
So what posters like you ask is simply not what PE Obama has asked, and frankly Obama is right. You think he wishes to have a cabinet free of yes men, but wishes a country of citizen yes men? In my experience, Barack Obama is able to say what he wants, and and thus far has not seemed to need anyone to run around trying to protect him from alternative points of view.

[Marrah_G]

81. Although I am supportive of Obama and have a good amount of faith in him- your post is disturbing.

When we stop questioning our representatives we become sheep.

We become victims.

We become powerless.

No leaders should be exempt from Questioning or Criticism.

The Democratic UNDERGROUND should never be a place where people are expected and ordered to march in lock-step.

Yes- All the critical posts can be frustrating, but YOUR post is down-right disturbing.

[Orsino]

82. We get government only as good as we demand.

If you stop demanding, government will never get any better. It's okay to feel satisfied, right now, with a new Administration that isn't even in power yet--but a few months or years down the line, if you notice deficiencies, remember that some began warning us early.

Please don't spend too much time fretting over the varied opinions you'll see here, though, especially if you are already aware of the negatives.

[GalleryGod]

83. Well I was just accused of being "one of DU's regular homophobes"

That would be news to my gay sister.
That would be news to the folks at AMFAR and the $5,000+ I've donated to them.
That would be REAL news to all my social friends in WeHo and P'town,where I vacation each Summer.

OH,WELL...This answers the age-old question:

"WHAT DOES DU BECOME IF OBAMA WINS ????

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. Lieberman gone in two years? His term expires January 3, 2013

[pipi_k]

85. Not going to label myself

as anything other than someone who voted for Obama, so I guess the only thing I can say is that whatever he does, I'm willing to wait and see how it all works out.

I even want to try and stay realistic about my hopes for real change. I do know that many people viewed him...maybe still do...as a "near messiah" who will change the world in four years. The sad reality is, he's not a genie in a bottle...he's not superhuman...he's an ordinary mortal man who has been given a monumental task. This country is in pathetic shape right now, and he may not be able to get done everything he wants to, even with a Democratic Congress behind him. I fear that the Republicans may try to stifle any real change by throwing lots of stumbling blocks in his way...but I do hope that he'll be able to focus on the real issues while ignoring those that don't matter to the survival of our country as a whole.

Anyway, I'm all for seeing what will play out in his administration...

:)

[Lumpsum]

95. I think people have some right to be concerned about Rahm

Or Gates. Or Summers. Or any other DLC Clintonite he brings on board.

I think most of us voted for him because of change. Not change circa 1994.

With that said, I'll reserve my "concern trolling" until he's actually president for a little while.

[acmavm]

96. GOLLY GOMER! Another new rule is you have to have permission

before posting anything about Obama or someone will come as be an ass and bitch about it?

Well, who's the all powerful shit-don't-stink DUer that you have to go to for permission? Because we really need that posted on the front page so someone who DIDN'T FUCKING HAVE to look at a thread went and did, and now they've got a big ass case of the whines because they don't approve of what others just may want to discuss.

[Lumpsum]

97. On DU, there's no such thing as "constructive crticism."

If the man or woman you're talking about has a "D" next to their name in parenthesis, you MUST agree with them on everything. Otherwise you're a troll, or a freeper.

[goclark]

99. Well said

Quarterbacking at it's best here.

How many have been in OBAMA's shoes --- none of us.

[Lumpsum]

100. Nope, but.

We've been around the block more than a few times. And we know that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, well, it probably is one.

[olkaz]

101. sorry boss.

We'll keep quiet, boss.

[BootinUp]

102. welcome to du?

seriously, what did you expect? This is the site that completely trashes our last 2 term Democratic President on a regular basis.

[Elidor]

104. Another board nanny is born

You have lots of company around here.

[LWolf]

106. Get as ticked off as you like.

As someone who never trusted his judgment, I'm not all of a sudden going to throw critical thinking out the window and start singing "don't worry, be happy."

I'm sure there are plenty of people who know more than Obama does. I think you could realistically say that about every single one of the adult 6+ billion population in the world; there are always people out there who know more than we do, no matter who we are.

He's not christ returned, he's not omnipotent, he's not Holmes. He's just a man, and his position, the position that he WANTED, requires the population to examine, evaluate, and hold him accountable.

Deal with it.

[Skittles]

108. get over yourself

this is a political board

[Samantha]

111. I agree with everything you say

for whatever that is worth.

Sam