I sincerely believe Barack Obama would be on MY SIDE on this issue

[Political Heretic]

If Obama were to pop into GD:P today and read the debates between the "stop being so critical, why do you hate Obama, give him a break he's only been president 60 days, the people criticizing really never supported him" crowd,

And the....

"its our responsibility as citizens to pressure our leaders and critically scrutinize their actions, its a mark of respect that we even care enough to do so, its never too soon to talk about right and wrong policy, or demand that our leaders keep their focus squarely on social and economic justice issues" crowd...

....Obama would back the latter group and not the former. Nothing about what Obama has said has ever given any indication that he ever desired to be treated like a fragile flower, or that he wanted his supporters to spend more time defending him against questions and scrutiny that they do advocating for a better country.

On the contrary, he regularly described his desire to hear from critics, as well as emphasizing the need for both transparency and rigorous debate. Never once have I felt that Obama would be afraid of any scrutiny we might give our President, and I feel like anything else than my full attention and careful, critical questioning does him a tremendous disservice.

Obama has never once asked anyone to "wait" to question. It's people here who have invented the "its too soon to question" meme and started throwing it around. Its their feelings that are getting hurt. It's their emotions that are upset by the critical questioning, not Obamas and not this administration's. They do a huge disservice to Obama and everything he claims to represent by trying to suggest that people should stop or even "tone down" their criticism, or wait to give it.

The President can handle it. Not to mention the fact that this is a discussion forum, with no "red line" into the Oval Office as much as some people would like to think we have that. If we can't discuss our criticisms and concerns here, then where?

I'm sorry that I guess some people assumed our role for the next four years was to throw confetti and just be happy that we didn't have Bush anymore. But that's pretty ignorant. Our role is what it has always been, to be ever vigilant and active in pushing ALL of our leaders further than they might naturally go (given all the countervailing forces at work pulling them in many different directions, NONE of them progressive). This current explosion of populist sentiment - now is the time to capitalize on that and foster that to GROW. We should be demanding the behavior we expect from our government. And for those of us who are white middle class like the overwhelming majority of DU is, the way we speak about our years of frustration isn't always going to be "pretty." That's something you need to learn to deal with.

The time for pom pom waving is over. I criticize and I question precisely because I sincerely like Obama as a person (not that this should matter in politics AT ALL) and I believe that he will be a good president! I criticize and question because Obama is most likely person in that office in a long long long time to actually respond and listen to serious critique and feedback.

So I guess its this community's call in the end.... if all you want is a place to wave pom poms of happiness for the next four years, then welcome to pathetic obscurity. I would suggest however, that DU has a history that is much better than that, and hopefully a community that is still much more responsible than that. Perhaps we ought to to make this site a center of critical accountability for our administration. There are over 500 hundred campaign promises that the administration has made. Who better than this community to keep track of all of them, and to call, right letters, organize - protest if necessary - to ensure that this administration doesn't forget its promises in the midst of all the other chaos of the white house and the presidency.

How about that.

[polichick]

1. Have you made your calls yet??........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8272605

(I'm with you ~ some posters seem to crave endless choruses of Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows)

[Political Heretic]

2. Woot yes! I got my info from Coalition on Human Needs

Got letters in the works as well.

My congress people are miserable failures, so I call other senators and reps as well heh.

[Lyric]

3. Editing, since you fixed it. :)

I agree with you.

I don't mind if people choose to back off and give him "space." That's their choice to make. I just wish they'd stop trying to hoist THEIR preference off on everyone else as the only "right" thing to do. It doesn't work, and it just pisses people off.

[Political Heretic]

5. Yup thanks. So glad edit time had not expired

I hate mistakes like that :(

[balantz]

4. It's just simply our job to keep them on track.

And it's their job to deliver to us people what we need.

[waiting for hope]

6. He has said he welcomed dissent:

'This is your victory,' says Obama

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

I will never question others' patriotism

To make a point about how Americans can disagree with their government without being unpatriotic, the senator quoted Mark Twain, who famously said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

When laws or leaders in government fail to live up to the ideals of America, Obama said, the dissent of ordinary Americans "may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism."

Kick and Rec!

[ElboRuum]

7. You confused me, and if there's still time you may want to edit.

"....Obama would back the former group and not the latter"

I think you mean he'd back the latter group.

Now, let me get to the point.

As I've often thought about this oft spoken argument, those who make this distinction offer up this false choice to justify their latter group membership.

Firstly, the way you characterized the former group, in such a derisive manner, while respectfully characterizing the latter group sets up your strawman. And please don't do like everyone else does when they are accused of setting up a strawman... deny it. A strawman is a fragile and often overly simplistic construct of the opponent's position in an argument meant to be easier to tear down than one that was fairly observed. Strawman. You have it.

Secondly, as characterized, this former group does not exist. Support for the President, given the fact that he has done more well than poor, is justly warranted. This AIG exec bonus thing is definitely one of those mistakes, but look, he's taken ownership of it. He's accepted responsibility for it. Often, the measure of a person is not what they succeed at, but the manner in which they handle that which they failed.

Thirdly, as characterized, the latter group does not exist either. Criticism is welcome. Constant criticism means you're a pain in the ass. Very few that have wrapped themselves in the "just concerned and vigilant" flag and who have stated that they will be supportive if they agree with what the President is doing, oddly, have rarely actually been observed BEING supportive at those times. If we take them at their word, and that their particular view is the correct one, we could very easily assume that the President is doing a particularly sucky job. I can't imagine anyone here truly believing that the grand assessment thus far is "Bill of Goods with Failure to Deliver", so I am left skeptical of the supposed virtue and lack of hypocrisy which is being embraced by your characterization of the latter group.

If I had to be as equally devoted to strawmen as your argument predicates itself, I would say the following, "People preoccupied with the exposure of failure, possessing the gift of hindsight, and having little desire of fidelity to reality will invariably find all fault no matter where it hides... and also some where it does not." This is, of course, NOT how I would characterize the latter group, however, I would say that a modicum of support, to introduce balance in one's mind that a single failure should not erase a hundred successes, to understand that criticism without discussion of an alternative is just criticism, and not the ever-so-virtuous constructive criticism we so desperately want to think we're offering would be a welcome change from what I believe to be a relatively accurate representation of the latter group, people unwelcoming of the necessarily gradual movement of the political process to develop a LASTING change, not one that will be upended at the next changing of the guard, whenever that happens.

Edited to add:

Nearly forgot to put this in, it was what inspired my response.

I disagree in that I don't think Obama would back either group as the false choice you've presented would preclude it. I'm sure he'd see your attention to debate admirable, however, I would also see actual support of success among the base as instrumental to developing support for his policies across the wider political spectrum. This third bunch is here, stuck in the middle of two groups who, oddly, aren't here.

[Political Heretic]

18. I only want to respond to one thing:

"Firstly, the way you characterized the former group, in such a derisive manner, while respectfully characterizing the latter group sets up your strawman. And please don't do like everyone else does when they are accused of setting up a strawman... deny it. A strawman is a fragile and often overly simplistic construct of the opponent's position in an argument meant to be easier to tear down than one that was fairly observed. Strawman. You have it."

If you want to talk about strawmen fine, but we're going to do it in an accurate way, rather than just throw around the term as a popular catch phrase.

There IS a group of people accurately characterized my my first description. If you do not find yourself in that group then thats good for you. There IS a group of people accurately characterized by the second description. If you don't find yourself in that group, that's fine. Then as Jon Stewart, quoting Simon said, "this song aint about you."

This is not a strawman argument, this is an argument in which you don't identify with the two groups presented. But they both exist. Group one treats group two exactly the same way they would those who are nothing but "Obama haters" - they make no distinction between responsible criticism or pure opposition. And I have personally seen more than a few posts from group one types failing to make that distinction in the last 24 hours.

So I posted.

If this doesn't apply to you, swell. But a strawman would be if I imply that this binary categorization I set up were the ONLY two "crowds" that existed. I did not. They do, however exist along with other crowds.

[ElboRuum]

23. Sorry, I fully disagree with you.

The strawman is in how you characterized the first versus the second. The first are not "brainless cheerleaders", and the second are not "virtuously vigilant". The strawman is biasing the argument with a particularly easy-to-destroy construct of perception against the first while lionizing the second. Truth be known, I fully believe neither construct you've presented as being at all representative of anyone specific here but rather just divisive generalizations based upon your own perceptions of the situation, canted obviously due your self perception of second group membership.

A strawman argument is one in which you intentionally mischaracterize an opponent's position or a premise within the argument in such a way as to make your own case easier to make. It's in the name. A strawman is the opponent that does not fight back. Strawman. You have it.

[HopeOverFear]

8. It's called "humoring you"

Obama knows that he's not to blame for this situation, but he will give you permission to blame him, so that you can have something to do.

[Lyric]

10. *yawn*

Wow, that was a really pathetic straw man. Really. Mis-stating the OP as "blaming" Obama for the current mess and then attacking THAT with petty snark--just amateurish.

If you want to hang with us, you'll have to do better than that.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[HopeOverFear]

14. Oh no snark here, sweetie

Some people like to hide behind wanting to hold Obama accountable in order for them to unfairly blame him for things. He knows this.
There are some who are genuinely interested in challenging Obama in a constructive way, and there are those who do nothing but live for the chance to engage in strife but want to disguise it by packaging it and calling it "holding Obama's feet to the fire". It's a front. Yes it is true that Obama encourages dissent. This is very smart. Because it gives both him and us the chance to tell the difference between those who are genuinely interested in Obama's success by making constructive criticism and those who get off on petty bickering. And once Obama knows which is which, he knows who to avoid. :)

Thanks for the welcome. :)

[Starry Messenger]

15. Does he let you hold his towel?

You two must have been very close. "He knows this." How do you know what he knows?

[Political Heretic]

17. I'm not talking about the current AIG thing. This is bigger than that.

[noiretextatique]

9. well said...obama is a pragmatist

he doesn't need a bunch of mommies and cheerleaders or a bunch of doomsday naysayers. diligent vigilance is our responsibility as citizens.

[nichomachus]

11. Thank you n/t

[GOTV]

12. Absolutely. Some of his supporters are just a little overly sensitive ....

... poor darlings: "Stop picking on my president!"

[Political Heretic]

19. I AM one of his supporters - that's the whole point.

I believe that our responsibility as supports is tireless critical scrutiny. Not blind pom pom waving.

Someone elsewhere literally said "that's what the GOP is for." Literally argued that our job IS to be blind cheerleaders and not to question.

Thats what I'm standing up against.

[Runcible Spoon]

13. Amen.

:kick:

[Starry Messenger]

16. Thank you.

Great post.

[Mithreal]

20. There needs to be balance

When the President and his staff do well, praise them, and when they are avoiding Progressive choices, criticize their actions.

I agree that the President does not need every DU'er defending his every choice or holding back criticism.

Now, if one criticizes the President all the time to non-Progressive folks, I think that is a REAL problem.

[Political Heretic]

21. I DO agree with you on that.

And there are people out there who are what I guess I would call "unfair critics" I try not to be that. Some of the things that have happened since Obama, my President, became President have been GREAT!!

But some things haven't been great, and many things still need to be done, and I just want more people to be comfortable with tough honest conversations about that and not trying to quell the discussion.

[Political Heretic]

22. kick