We DUers Who Criticize our President Want him to Succeed Just as Much as Anyone

[Time for change]

Criticizing a U.S. President can be a very sensitive issue. There will always be those who claim that such criticism is indicative of a lack of “patriotism”. From within one’s own party, such as here on DU, there are those who feel that such criticism is indicative of lack of party loyalty or lack of loyalty to the principles of our party. I don’t see it like that.

I assume that the vast majority of DUers – both those who criticize President Obama and those who criticize those of us who criticize him – have good intentions. We all want our nation to recover from its myriad problems and move forward. To the extent that that happens, then almost by definition that means that President Obama will have succeeded.

As a matter of fact, I won’t even say that conservative Republicans who criticize President Obama from the right want our nation to fail. I might believe that they do, but I won’t claim it. As far as I’m concerned, they have every right to criticize our president if they believe that he’s making wrong decisions – just like we had every right to criticize George W. Bush when he was president.

I’ll go further than that. When George Bush was president I wanted him to fail in certain ways. I wanted him to fail because I believed that his goals were very bad for our country and bad for the American people. For example, I believed (and still do) that the main purpose of his invasion of Iraq was to set up opportunities for his war profiteering friends to make billions of dollars – through access to Iraqi resources and to no-bid U.S. government contracts (which were never fulfilled) for reconstruction of the country we had destroyed. I hoped that he would fail in those efforts – so that he would be forced to withdraw our troops from Iraq, thereby putting an end to the violence and killing, the destruction of Iraq, and the drain on our national treasury.

Partly for those reasons I would never criticize anyone merely for criticizing a U.S. President, or any other elected U.S. official. I wouldn’t hesitate to criticize the content of their criticism, if I disagreed with it. But I would never criticize anyone just because of the mere fact that they criticized a U.S. president.

Another, equally important reason why I would never criticize someone for the mere fact that they criticized a U.S. president, is that criticism of our government is a crucially important American right and responsibility. It is such an important function of the U.S. citizenry that our Founding Fathers incorporated our right to do that in their very first amendment to our Constitution. Without that right our democracy could not long survive. Therefore, I will never criticize anyone for using that right.


REASONS FOR CRITICIZING A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT FROM THE LEFT

When a Democratic organization, or discussion board such as DU criticizes an elected Democratic leader, especially a president, there is a natural tendency for some people to believe that by doing so we are doing damage to our party, our party’s principles, or our party’s candidate. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that such an assessment could never be accurate. But I do see a two important ways in which such criticism could be worth while – for our party, our party’s principles, our candidates, and our country.

I’m not going to criticize President Obama in this post. I’ve done so in other posts. But in this post I just want to explain the general principle of why criticizing a Democratic president from the left, when justified, can be a very worth while thing to do.


Putting things in perspective and bringing a sense of reality to bear on the situation

One of the common criticisms of President Obama that we hear from the right is that he’s a socialist, or some similar poppycock, such as that he’s the most liberal person ever to run for the U.S. presidency. Charges like those have been repeated so frequently that many misinformed Americans believe them. Those charges are so ridiculous that I won’t even bother to refute them in this post. Barack Obama is a pragmatist, and on the political spectrum is in the center or somewhat to the left of center. I won’t argue here exactly how far to the left of center he is, but it certainly isn’t as far as some of the other Democrats whom he ran against in the Democratic primaries.

I am a liberal, and I believe so are most DUers who criticize President Obama on the DU. (I’m sure that some of his most prominent defenders are also liberals, but that’s besides the point that I’m trying to make here). When we liberals criticize him for taking positions that we believe are not liberal enough, that doesn’t hurt him politically. To the contrary, it helps to point out that the conservative Republican charges that he’s a socialist or whatever are absurd. If there was any truth to those charges it would seem highly improbable that most of the criticisms against him from Democratic voters would come from the left. In other words, our criticisms of President Obama help to paint him as the centrist that he is, which will generally tend to help him when it comes time for him to run for President again against Republican Party opposition.


Balancing out pressure from the right

President Obama is getting a great deal of pressure from the right to move to the right in his policy decisions. We liberals, and probably the good majority of DUers believe that it would be very bad for our country for him to do that.

To the extent that we on the left withhold our criticism when we see our president moving to the right in a manner that we believe will be bad for our country, the pressure from the right remains unchallenged and therefore more potent. This has nothing to do with how long he’s been in office. When we neglect to counter pressure from the right with pressure from the left, the pressure from the right is thereby made more effective, and our elected officials are all the more likely to move right. That is not good for our country. We’ve had many years of those failed policies, and our country can barely afford any more. Remaining silent comes at a very steep price to our country.

One of our greatest presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, recognized this. This point was made in a recent post by ms liberty. Here are some excerpts from that post, in which she quoted an article by Amy Goodman :

A. Philip Randolph was a legendary labor organizer and civil rights leader. He organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the men who tended to the overnight guests on the sleeper cars that Pullman built. While the porter positions were better-paying than many jobs available to African Americans at the time, there were still injustices and indignities…. Thousands of porters sought improvements through collective bargaining…

In response to FDR’s questioning, Randolph told him “what he thought of the nation, what he thought of the plight of the Negro people” and where he thought our nation was headed. FDR then replied to him:

You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it…

Barack Obama is well aware of this principle, and he apparently agrees with it. The above noted story:

was retold by Obama at a campaign fundraiser in Montclair, N.J., more than a year ago. It was in response to a person asking Obama about finding a just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After recounting the Randolph story, Obama said he was just one person, that he couldn't do it alone. Obama's final answer: "Make me do it."

AN EXAMPLE BY ANALOGY FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY’S PRESIDENCY

Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of John F. Kennedy’s presidency was his repeated refusals to invade Cuba with the full force of the U.S. military, despite intense pressure from his military and CIA to do so – on at least three separate occasions that we know of. So strong were the pressures and so catastrophic would have been the likely results of caving in to his military on this issue, that I have no hesitation in rating JFK among the top four presidents in U.S. history – right up there with Lincoln, FDR, and Washington. In my opinion, the only reason he has not been so rated is the strong current of militarism that runs through our country, which rates winning wars as more important than preventing them.

JFK would not submit to the pressure from his military because of his passionate commitment to avoid a nuclear war. The situation that he faced is not fully comparable to the point I’m trying to make about the need to criticize our presidents when justified, in that Kennedy did not feel the need for the support of the American people in his resistance to war. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he was a little less sure of himself than he was. Assume that instead of steadfastly refusing to commit his nation to war, he decided instead to leak his administration’s deliberations to the American people, with the intent of basing his decisions on their reactions. That would make the political decision that he faced then more similar to what we have today, in which the American people are free to comment and criticize President Obama regarding his decisions with respect to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Long before he became president, Kennedy revealed his thoughts on the importance of grassroots political support for peace (or war) in a letter to a former U.S. Navy buddy:

Things cannot be forced from the top… The international relinquishing of sovereignty would have to spring from the people – it would have to be so strong that the elected delegates would be turned out of office if they failed to do it… War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”

With that in mind, let’s consider the pressures for war that JFK repeatedly faced:


The invasion at the Bay of Pigs – April 15th, 1961

When Kennedy came to the presidency in January 1961 he inherited a CIA plan for an invasion of Cuba by about 1,500 Cuban exile troops, who were then being trained by the CIA. The plan, as it was related to Kennedy by CIA Director Allen Dulles, was that the landing of the Cuban troops in Cuba would inspire a nation-wide uprising against Fidel Castro, which would quickly overthrow him. The landing of the Cuban troops was to be preceded by bombing of the Cuban Air Force on the ground by a Cuban Expeditionary Force.

Kennedy was never enthusiastic about the plan, but he approved it anyhow, while making clear that under no circumstances would he introduce U.S. troops or air support, even if the refusal to do so meant the defeat of the Cuban exile troops.

The invasion began at dawn on April 15th, 1961, with air strikes by the Cuban Expeditionary Force, which were followed on April 17th by the landing of the Cuban exile troops at the Bay of Pigs. But there was no Cuban uprising, as the CIA had promised Kennedy. The Cuban exile troops were soon surrounded by Castro’s troops, they surrendered on April 19th, and 114 men were lost and more than a thousand were taken prisoner.

Prior to the surrender, Kennedy’s military advisors put tremendous pressure on him to intervene militarily. From Thomas Reeves’ book, “A Question of Character – A Life of John F. Kennedy”:

As the situation at the Bay of Pigs grew worse, pressure mounted on the president to come to the rescue. Members of the exile government were furious with… the administration for refusing to use its full military might… American military men on the scene and in Washington were enraged over the orders prohibiting them from saving the lives of brave men on the beaches…

At the time, it was believed that the CIA officials who drew JFK into the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs were merely incompetent. But it later turned out otherwise. James W. Douglass, in his book, “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, explains what we now know about this episode:

At his death Allen Dulles left the unpublished drafts of an article that scholar Lucien S. Vandenbroucke has titled “The Confessions of Allen Dulles”… In these handwritten notes, Dulles explained how CIA advisers who knew better drew John Kennedy into a plan whose requisites for success contradicted the president’s own rules for engagement that precluded any combat action by U.S. military forces… Dulles wrote that “the realities of the situation” would force the president to carry through to the end they wished… The assumption was that President Kennedy… would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots.

Operation Northwoods – March 16th, 1962

On March 16th, 1962, Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by their Chairman, General Lyman Lemnitzer, signed a plan that they code-named “Operation Northwoods”. The plan was a false flag operation, whose purpose was to draw the United States into a war against Cuba. James Bamford describes it in “Body of Secrets – Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency”:

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

The idea was shot down. Kennedy told Lemnitzer that “there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.”


The Cuban Missile Crisis – October 18-29, 1962

The Cuban Missile Crisis’ was a complicated affair that I won’t try to summarize here. Suffice it to say that Kennedy’s military repeatedly and strenuously urged him to invade Cuba in response to the discovery of missiles from the Soviet Union on Cuban soil, but Kennedy resolved the crisis instead through a combination of embargo and diplomacy. James Douglass describes the intense pressure that Kennedy was under:

In those days, when compromise was regarded as treason, U.S. military leaders were not pleased by the Kennedy-Khrushchev resolution of the crisis. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were outraged at Kennedy’s refusal to attack Cuba and his known concessions to Khrushchev. (Secretary of Defense Robert) McNamara recalled how strongly the Chiefs expressed their feelings to the president. “After Khrushchev had agreed to remove the missiles, President Kennedy invited the Chiefs to the White House so that he could thank them for their support during the crisis, and there was one hell of a scene. LeMay came out saying, ‘We lost! We ought to just go in there today and knock ‘em off!’”

The pressure that Kennedy was under was further elucidated in the memoirs of the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Dobrynin, who had engaged with Kennedy’s brother Robert in back channel diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Dobrynin quoted Robert Kennedy as saying to him:

The President is in a grave situation… and he does not know how to get out of it. We are under very severe stress. In fact we are under pressure from our military to use force against Cuba… We want to ask you, Mr. Dobrynin, to pass President Kennedy’s message to Chairman Khrushchev through unofficial channels… Even though the President himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will. That is why the President is appealing directly to Chairman Khrushchev for his help in liquidating this conflict. If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.

What would have happened had JFK given in to the pressure and invaded Cuba? A big clue to the answer to that question is given in Robert McNamara’s memoirs, in which he notes a 1992 article in the Russian press which revealed that by October 26, 1962, there were 162 nuclear warheads in Cuba that were ready for launching. McNamara writes:

Clearly, there was a high risk that, in the face of a US attack – which as I have said, many in the U.S. government, military and civilian alike, were prepared to recommend to President Kennedy – the Soviet forces in Cuba would have decided to use their nuclear weapons rather than lose them. We need not speculate about what would have happened in that event. We can predict the results with certainty… And where would it have ended? In utter disaster.

ON THE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENTS IN DOING THE RIGHT THING

As noted in this post, Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Obama have all commented upon the need of the American people to help their leaders to make the right decisions by putting pressure on them to do so. These observations rest on the knowledge that presidents can be, and have been on many occasions in our history, under tremendous pressure to do the wrong thing.

During George W. Bush’s presidency word leaked out on many occasions that he was planning to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. That information was met with a great deal of passionate negative reaction by large numbers of the American people. We don’t know to what extent that negative reaction influenced the eventual decision of the Bush administration not to attack Iran. All I can say is that I was very glad at the time, and I remain very glad today that there was so much negative reaction against the Bush administration’s plans to attack Iran.

We were very fortunate that John F. Kennedy was our President during a time at the height of the Cold War when our military and others were intent upon risking a nuclear war by invading Cuba. The American people did not know about this pressure for war at the time. But had they known about it, raising their voices against it could have made all the difference between peace and war. It would not have been appropriate for us to say, “Let’s give me a chance and see how it turns out”.

When a president’s base and allies fails to criticize him when justified, that is not good for democracy in my opinion. I’ll end this post with a quote from Bill Burton on this subject. Burton made this comment in the context of then Senator Obama’s support for George Bush’s FISA bill. But these words apply to any candidate, any time, any where:

This attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion – neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it – and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.

I don’t mean by quoting Burton on this subject that Barack Obama is in any way similar to George Bush. There is no comparison there. But I certainly do agree with the principle that Burton describes.

[MADem]

1. That was a very lengthy essay. I'll respond with something a bit more succinct.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with criticising President Obama, though I think he's doing pretty well so far. I do wish people would stick to the issues, though.

Loaded language, which I've seen here on this board (I haven't noted any from you, so don't take this personally), doesn't make the criticisms more valid. "Sold out" and "traitor" and "DINO" and "GOP lite" when used to describe him just don't cut it with me, and people who use those sorts of terms I categorize as inattentive nitwits at best, and trolls at worst.

[yowzayowzayowza]

17. +1

I'd add "war criminal" to your list.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

27. I also think the premise of the post is off

It's not the criticism, it's the vitriol that I thought was reserved for real knuckleheads like Bush that bothers me.

I often agree with legitimate criticism, but when a point is attempted using inflammatory language, well, the point is indeed lost and the poster becomes the issue.

[yowzayowzayowza]

31. Yea, it'd seem some really need to review the ...

rules:
Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

[HughMoran]

32. I keep waiting for Skinner to show up and comment on the recent situation

I can't quite figure out what is going on - perhaps we're being given enough time to see if we can work out a "truce" on our own. I did see one poster on another forum almost proud of the fact that they received a warning for breaking the specific rule that you've highlighted there. I suppose it's encouraging that someone is paying attention behind the scenes.

[yowzayowzayowza]

33. I suggest forwarding a link to said post...

to moderation as it could be evidence of a breach of this rule:

Do not publicly post correspondence you receive from moderators and administrators, and do not share it with other members of this message board.

:hi:

[Time for change]

34. My premise is not that all criticism of Obama is valid or well stated

It's that even when criticism is valid and well stated there is a lot of objection to it, based simply on the feeling that we should not criticize a Democratic president.

[HughMoran]

49. That is to be expected

You can't expect a Democratic site that's supposed to be a haven from the "everything goes" sites out there not to have some people who come here to be enjoy a certain amount of isolation from the "real world". In fact, it would be foolish to assume that everybody would react in the same even-handed manner to criticism of the party they come here to support. Also, most people have moods and may react differently from one day to the next to the same sort of criticism. Since I've been here for 5 years, I know some people's personalities (dozens, in fact) and I can tell when they are reacting emotionally versus on their core values. Sometimes we will have an influx of new people who will barge in like a bull in a China shop - you can imagine that this might upset the regulars. There are others who have never liked DU's charter/rules in the first place and who are like that person you married - you find out that they now think they can change who you are after they got that contract (familiarity in this case) in hand. Once again, to assume that everybody will react in the same even-handed manner to a post or poster is unrealistic. Add to this ongoing personality conflicts between certain posters and groups of posters (so called "cliques") and the first Democratic president since this place has existed and you've got a lively atmosphere where if you think you know something, there is someone here who's sure to remind you that you're just another "idiot". There is a reason that organizing Democrats is described as "herding cats" - if we keep this in mind and don't feel bad about culling those who are just too disruptive (i.e. ignore or banning), we should be able to have reasonably heated discussions again. Until then, I consider this place to be sick and in need of a doctor.

[Time for change]

51. I don't disagree with any of that

So how specifically do you think that the premise of my post is wrong?

[HughMoran]

57. I don't necessarily think it's "wrong" per se

I think my second post title wording "somewhat off target" was more "on" target. I don't disagree with what you're trying to say, I simply would have approached it from a more neutral angle, that's all. But my neutral and yours may be slightly different. Anyway, this is a good civil thread & you have been more than reasonable in keeping it that way - I think "lead by example" is perhaps the most important theme we all should probably focus on.

[Time for change]

52. Self delete -- Dupe

[Time for change]

53. Self delete - Dupe

[ihavenobias]

136. Amen.

K & R

[hfojvt]

66. it's not even the language as much as the substance

the OP said "when we criticize Obama for taking positions that aren't liberal enough".

Except that is not what is done. When the title is "Obama the flim-flam man" that is not just an attack on Obama's positions, it is an attack on Obama. Ted Rall is the same way. I just read three of his columns a few days ago. In one column he attacks Obama for using signing statements, but he goes much further than that. He brings up the primary saying "Some thought Obama was a pleasant speaker with no substance who would say pleasant sounding things to get elected". Again, not an attack on Obama's policies or positions, as much as an attack on Obama himself. Rall's other column was on the war in Afghanistan, which he strongly opposes. However, he went beyond a criticism of Obama's Afghanistan policy to a comparison of Obama with Hitler and the insinuation that America was a Nazi country because of our German ancestry.

No matter how pleasing the language may be, and admittedly it wasn't in any of the three examples, they went beyond using unpleasant language to attack a policy, to using the language to attack the man. His policies apparently suck, because Obama sucks.

[HughMoran]

76. There's a lot more where that came from

You know, I don't even care that inflammatory crap like that exists out there, it's when stubborn DUers post it here basically implying that any printed word is a legitimate source of criticism of this Administration. No, it's not. Fortunately, some posters have been warned to stop re-posting some of the inflammatory crap out there. It's amazing that people can't see the difference between "Obama is dumber than a bag of rocks" and "I think Obama's policy here has gone too far" or "I disagree with Obama on this issue and here's why". Why do some people believe that they are being picked on when they post inflammatory crap? How can supposedly intelligent people feign ignorance in such an obvious manner?

[HughMoran]

77. Here's a good one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x62670

"Is Obama even more Dangerous than Bush?"

From the Dissident Voice self-described as "a radical newsletter..."

[livefreest]

35. i agree that some responses become quickly personal.

but isn't it the essence of being progressive and or liberal to question and vehemently? but it's a shame that it's gone as far as to push some people to block threads from some people.

[MADem]

112. Nothing wrong with passion--it's the rudeness and the "personal insult" that are problematic.

People here can personally insult you, and go over the line, and you can achieve redress by hitting the alert button. However, when people insult Obama, there's less opportunity for redress, despite the fact that the rules (as someone else pointed out in this very thread) proscribe using language that our opponents would use when talking about Democrats.

If this does keep up, though, it might not be a bad idea to ask the mods to enforce that rule--that we use rational, not Freeperish, language to talk about Obama. You can be vehement and not call a guy who's been in office two months a "traitor," after all.

[bjobotts]

36. Those conservatives republicans who criticize him have different motivations than us

[bjobotts]

38. They do it for political gain not for love of country.They voted against ANYTHING for middle class A

Americans. Voted against min wage, 40hr work week, vacations, health care, S-CHIP, Medicare, SS, even recently for expansion of unemployment benefits. For 30yrs they've only voted for wealthiest Americans,...not one thing for Americans. They are the party of hypocrisy chanting USA, USA as if that explains their policies, and holding signs that say "Country First" while nominating Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. They've been caught cheating numerous times in election fraud and voted to disenfranchise minorities as much as possible being court ordered to stop "caging" tactics. It is "Party First" with these guys and they are detrimental to a democracy. They have been exposed for what they are and have been engaged in a full scale class warfare to maintain their wealth.

They don't want Obama or dems to succeed because it ruins their chances at election and they have outright told us exactly that on health care reform.

We criticize Obama with good motives...we want him to succeed...and accomplish his agenda.

Not so with the Party of Hypocrisy who's main goal is to prevent his success for purely political selfish reasons.

[niceypoo]

47. Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do

...and I find it funny that some of his previously most ferverant supporters short circuit over it. When you feverishly support someone, make sure you listen to what they say they are going to do.

Obama has to live in a world of political realities, given such I think he is doing a Kennedyesque job thus far. He reminds me a lot of Clinton, in that he is usually the smartest guy in the room and the reception he gets abroad.

[Reterr]

48. Same applies to *some* supporters who use loaded terms like "whiner" "hater"

"Troll" "Freeper" "Shit-stirrer", "Did you vote for McCain" etc. etc. against everyone who disagrees however minutely with Obama.
It is hardly one-sided....

[MADem]

113. That sort of back-n-forth falls into the "two wrongs" category, unfortunately.

Now, if someone calls you a "shit-stirrer" or a "Freeper" because you say, quite reasonably, "I disagree with Obama's approach to Issue X" then they're simply wrong to do that.

If they call you a Freeper troll because you say "That fucking traitor Obama is a goddamn DINO-GOP Enabler who is selling us all down the river, the bastard, over Issue X" then we're in "two wrongs don't make a right" territory. It's still not the right way to discuss an issue, but it's more understandable.

[Political Heretic]

63. I've never used any of those phrases yet I get trashed daily.

It really doesn't matter.

I've praised the president and the administration on many fronts from the time he was sworn in to just yesterday (that speech was god-tacular).

It doesn't matter.

When it comes to the places where I have strong skepticism of the Presidents men, and strong criticism of the administrative policy, no one cares if I also support the president and defend the president on other issues - they just trash and insult me just like they do plenty of other people who have never said anything like what you are describing.

So clearly there is fault on all sides. Some critics are trolls or idiots, and some people angry at critics are over-generalizing and attacking anyone who is passionate about specific issues.

[MADem]

111. I am not going to "trash" you for simple disagreement on a policy issue.

However, there ARE people who get overly dramatic and hyperbolic when it comes to anything the President does, and they don't hesitate to trash him (quite recently, Et tu, Brute? for example--comparing Obama to the traitorous Brutus--and that's pretty mild compared to other examples I have seen).

If others are behaving badly, and insulting you personally as opposed to objecting to your ideas or approaches to his policies, hit that button and check them.

See, if someone "personally insults" the President, there's no recourse here. If someone personally insults you, or me, there is.

[wyldwolf]

2. The criticism isn't the problem. The problem is the tone and manner of the criticism

You'd (not you specifically) would have a lot more credibility and people would be more receptive if your criticisms weren't laced with "FUCK that and this and Obama is fucking corporatist whore and his party is decaying and he's raping the middle class."

[rucky]

3. That goes for both sides.

Hillary and Obama supporters.

:wtf:

[wyldwolf]

4. the primaries are over

I'm discussing specifically those who criticize the President from the left (something Hillary supporters aren't often guilty of) and the same folks who slam the party as a whole in the same way.

I shouldn't have to remind people here but the image of the Democratic party many Americans have is the protests at the '68 DNC convention. The constant FUCK YOU'S from the netroots just reinforces that image.

[EFerrari]

9. The violence in 68 was police violence so I don't see how

your example applies. Maybe you should spend more time monitoring the language of LEO in Chicago.

[wyldwolf]

12. I'm not talking about the violence

I'm talking about the protests. The images of "hippies" and groups like Students For a Democratic Society and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Images like that glowing from the 6 o'clock news. The counter culture. And this isn't a discussion on whether they were right or wrong but rather how their motives effected middle American's view of liberals.

[EFerrari]

18. What shaped middle America's view of liberals more than anything else

was the right wing buying up our media and being more serious about marketing than the Democrats have ever bothered to be. Not hippies, not protestors, and not anything said on a website.

[wyldwolf]

41. nope, there was a massive flight AWAY from the national DEM party starting in 1968

Directly related to the counterculture movement.

[MessiahRp]

62. Someone should tell Jimmy Carter that...

And honestly I think the party lost a lot of it's members when Reagan became President and was able to communicate (and lie) to people that taxes were ripping them off. It was not true in the least but everybody wants more money and he was able to speak to the greedy side of Americans and nearly 30 years later look where we are.

Rp

[wyldwolf]

68. he knew it quite well, which is why he barely won running as a conservative...

... in a year where Water Gate had the GOP in the toilet.

The Dems lost in landslides in '68, '72, barely won in '76 on the heels of Water Gate, and lost landslides in '80, '84, and '88.

[MessiahRp]

79. '68 really shouldn't count though...

RFK would have won that election against Nixon, counterculture "backlash" or not.

Humphrey wasn't nearly the candidate RFK was and Nixon was a known commodity at that point.

Rp

[wyldwolf]

80. that was win it really began, though, and I'd like to think RFK would have won

..but there is really no telling.

[Enthusiast]

90. All due to overwhelming media influence

The media kneecapped every Democratic candidate. It was very frustrating as a supporter to see my presidential candidate characterized as 'weak on defense' and as a kook. Listen, they did exactly the same thing to Gore and Kerry. Hippies and protesters had nothing to do with it.

[wyldwolf]

100. overwhelming media influence in 1975 - 76? LOL! Try again!

[Enthusiast]

121. LOL, you try again.

I said nothing about 1975-1976. I meant in 1980, 1984 and 1988. Are deliberately trying to be unpleasant? You remind me of some reich wingers I've encountered, always laughing at another's post because they disagree.

[wyldwolf]

126. you blamed Jimmy Carter's narrow win on the media... from the 1980s??

[EFerrari]

73. There was flight because the Democrats were in total DISARRAY

but as usual, the left -- which was not in disarray -- is blamed. LOL!

[wyldwolf]

82. nope

People took one look at the counterculture images and said "bye bye" to liberalism.

[Enthusiast]

88. But it was right wing media influence

that caused the anti hippy-protester-liberal attitude. And it was this right wing that has redefined 'liberal' for America. This is as clear to me as it is to EFerrari.

Listen, I lived it, I was there. I passed my physical for Vietnam, my lottery number was only two off. A bit of escalation and I would have been there.

[wyldwolf]

101. In the 1960s and early 70s?? LOL!

[Enthusiast]

122. Anti-war protesters

were portrayed in the worst possible light in the media of the day. Or do you forget?

[wyldwolf]

125. really? Show me an example from the dreaded right wing media - 60s style

[EFerrari]

129. Richard Nixon's staff? From Safire to Haldeman. Go look them up. n/t

[wyldwolf]

131. show me examples of how they ruled the media in 1968

[EFerrari]

133. Or what, you'll stamp your widdle foot? Do your own homework. n/t

[wyldwolf]

134. when the burden of proof is on you, you dodge it. It isn't my homework to do

It's yours.

[EFerrari]

147. Nope. I've steered you in the right direction and provided names.

The spade work is yours. If you want to continue to log in here every day and bash the net, that's your inconsistency to deal with. Good luck!

[wyldwolf]

149. the burden of proof is on you to show those names mean anything

The spade work is YOURS. If you want to continue to log in here every day deny reality, that's your inconsistency to deal with. Good luck!

[EFerrari]

150. Nope. In fact, the left has been right since 1968

about the Viet Nam war, about civil rights, about women's rights, about labor, about allowing corporations to capture our democracy. Lately, we were right about Afghanistan, about the invasion of Iraq, about the 2004 election, about illegal wiretapping and about torture.

The left certainly hasn't been in denial for the last forty years. That would be you.

[wyldwolf]

152. no one has questioned that

:shrug:

The left's problem has always been their tactics as I've repeatedly said. One which you demonstrate quite nicely - believing they are so right they don't have to prove it.

[EFerrari]

154. So now you retreat to "tactics" ? You said the counter culture movement was to blame.

Whatever. Whatever hasn't worked for you for forty years will, apparently, continue to not work for you.

[wyldwolf]

156. I've retreated from nothing. I've complained about the left's tactics since my first post here

you, on the other hand, are still dodging and diverting.

The left is so weak because of their tactics

[Runcible Spoon]

94. You keep repeating that lie and it's WRONG EVERY TIME.

Once again, MSM thanks you for swallowing their Biggest Lie Ever!!! :puke:

[wyldwolf]

103. wait, are you saying there WASN'T a massive move away from the Dem party starting in '68? LOL!

[Runcible Spoon]

104. Your reading comprehension fails you yet again.

Or maybe you're just drowning in disingenuous-ness.

Anyone with half a brain knows your LIE was the assertion that the leftist anti-war crowd fractured the Dem party.

Once again, MSM thanks you for your continued patronage. I'm glad you're getting what you deserve on this thread. Not only are you being called on your lies, but you're being called out for your obnoxious behavior and general unlikeability. As I said before:

You're an EMBARRASSMENT.

Ciao!

[wyldwolf]

105. you're living in a fantasy world

Nixon's (1968) victory is often considered a realigning election in American politics. Before 1968 the Democrats had clearly been the majority party, winning seven of the previous nine presidential elections. After 1968, the Republicans won five of the next six presidential elections, and they won seven of ten presidential elections between 1968 and 2004. Many historians believe the reason for the Democratic Party's decline in strength was the bitter split within the party created by debates about civil rights, the Vietnam War and other "culture wars" of the 1960s. Notably, most white Southern Democrats (and especially their children) became Republicans in the next two decades, creating a fundamental shift of political power in the nation which favored the GOP. From 1968 to 2008 only two Democrats served as President of the United States, and they were both native Southerners - Jimmy Carter of Georgia and Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

:rofl: :rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968

You're an EMBARRASSMENT.

You'e not only an EMBARRASSMENT, you're a naive ill-informed basement dwelling EMBARRASSMENT!

Wait, there's more:

"A significant number of Democrats were so enraged by the War in Vietnam that they failed to see differences between Humphrey and Nixon. A Pennsylvania delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, who attended the 1968 Democratic National Convention with his parents (his father was a delegate) said that the disorder of the 1968 convention foreshadowed the long-term decline of the Democratic Party. "1968 was the year the conflicting idealisms of the Democratic Party collided with each other, and showed the importance of Democrats with differing convictions working together," State Representative Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia said.

http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/1/9/1968_Democratic_National_Convention.html

[mod mom]

65. You're correct, the Telecom Act of '96, which lead to consolidation of the media in

the hands of a few RWers, lead to a negative view of liberals. Of course, corporatists don't have a problem with this, or the disparity of wealth, or just abut anything else that gets between them and their "entitled" wealth.

[EFerrari]

67. And Nixon, iirc, was the first president who surrounded himself

with PR men like Haldeman to manage his image and message.

/oops

[mod mom]

70. plus he had such lowlife as rove working as political operatives for CREEP (aptly named)

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1303 (if you can stomach it)

[Enthusiast]

85. +1 EFerrari.

Constant anti liberal dialog by AM radio figures defined 'liberal' for much of America. This is a fact.

[wyldwolf]

109. starting in (snicker - and I can barely contain my laughter) 1968! Bwahahaha

[EFerrari]

151. Yes, starting then. It must be very lonely to snicker all by yourself.

[wyldwolf]

170. name five rightwing AM radio hosts from 1968... and tell us how much reach they had.

[mod mom]

179. You keep emphasizing '68 but much more damage was done w Telecom Act of '96

Media coverage has changed dramatically since '68 into control by few entities with a strong pro- corporatist agenda. Of course, you are aware of this fact but choose to select an event 28 years prior to concentrate on because God forbid Bill Clinton get blamed for his actions (mistakes). Few people below the age of 60 have a bad opinion of the antiwar riots, certainly people such as my husband who was coming toward the age when he might be drafted was happy that others were protesting. Current opinion has a much more positive opinion of those who take a stand against war, I just watched a movie this weekend that glorified the antiwar protest, "Across the Universe". BTW the demographic that you suggest defected, only makes up a small percentage of the electorate.

Senior Citizens

51% of over- 65's voted for McCain - including veterans - and made up 16% of the entire electorate.

-snip
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html

[wyldwolf]

181. that's because the point of the subthread I started deals with that time period...

C'mon. Read the thread.

[lostnotforgotten]

13. Just Because The Primaries Are Over Does Not Mean That We Have To Walk Lockstep With Obama Policies

eom

[wyldwolf]

15. no one has suggested that.

[lostnotforgotten]

172. I THink You Have Suggested It In Many Times On Many Threads

You are clear, people that criticize the president are not to post in your opinion.

[rucky]

44. yes, the primaries are over

long live the primaries.

this is the same shit, different smell. It's not going to end until there's mutual respect.

[MessiahRp]

61. I almost NEVER agree with wyldwolf on anything

And I chose and voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries and then have become very critical of certain positions and choices Obama has made...

But clearly this has NOTHING to do with the primaries and wyldwolf is right on that. Hillary and Obama are at the same part of the political spectrum. In fact I don't doubt that had Hillary had won, her decisions would closely mirror those Obama has made.

But that spot on the political spectrum is the center and the left needs to pressure just as hard, if not harder than the Right is. They own the media and they can make their pressure much more easily known. They have the ability to manipulate average TV viewers to believe their opinions whereas generally aside from a few examples (Keith, Rachel, Maher) we do not.

So our grassroots needs to be loud and active for things we believe in. We need to push and make sure that Obama does not take us for granted as most centrist Democrats do. They believe the base is safe regardless of whatever decisions they make because we will not vote for the Republican in the next election. But we have to make the critiques known and loudly or they won't listen. We don't have the airwaves that the Right does to promote their message.

Rp

[mod mom]

64. "the image of the Democratic party many Americans have is the protests at the '68 DNC convention"

Maybe if you are a senior citizen, but even then I would think the literal F-U's of the past 28 years, (You know the selling out of the middle class by the greedy, corporatists who put the bottom line before what is best for society as a whole) is a much stronger image than the '68 convention or use of the word fuck.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

83. roll your eyes at yourself

'68 was the beginning of a disasterous period for the party. It's amazing how the left today tries to deny this well established fact: The 60s counter culture, equal rights movement, anti-war movement,etc., caused a massive move away from the Democratic party in 1968 - the the images played out on TVs from the DNC convention that year cemented it.

The entire backlash against the party, the demonization of the the world "liberal," began right there.

[Time for change]

84. How do you know exactly what caused the movement away from the Democratic Party?

You're lumping everything together, as if anything that was done during that period of time caused a movement away from the Democratic Party. Anti-war movement, equal rights movement, etc. Is your point that we shouldn't protest against immoral wars or in favor of equal rights?

[wyldwolf]

98. How do we know anything from history? What an odd question

Hey, just because you don't want it to be true isn't going to erase decades of research on the subject.

It's also amazing that you and a few others are (apparently) hearing this for the first time.

And please don't try to divert from the point. If you'd been reading the thread, I said quite plainly in post 12 this isn't a discussion on whether these actions were right or wrong.

[Time for change]

106. You didn't answer my question

"How do we know anything from history?" is not an answer.

[wyldwolf]

108. Sure I did, unless you can't grasp the meaning of it

But if you insist on being talked to on the elementary level:

The counter-culture and "New Left" movement of the 1960s doomed the Democratic party for decades"

-------

Nixon's (1968) victory is often considered a realigning election in American politics. Before 1968 the Democrats had clearly been the majority party, winning seven of the previous nine presidential elections. After 1968, the Republicans won five of the next six presidential elections, and they won seven of ten presidential elections between 1968 and 2004. Many historians believe the reason for the Democratic Party's decline in strength was the bitter split within the party created by debates about civil rights, the Vietnam War and other "culture wars" of the 1960s. Notably, most white Southern Democrats (and especially their children) became Republicans in the next two decades, creating a fundamental shift of political power in the nation which favored the GOP. From 1968 to 2008 only two Democrats served as President of the United States, and they were both native Southerners - Jimmy Carter of Georgia and Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968

... for example...

------------

"A significant number of Democrats were so enraged by the War in Vietnam that they failed to see differences between Humphrey and Nixon. A Pennsylvania delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, who attended the 1968 Democratic National Convention with his parents (his father was a delegate) said that the disorder of the 1968 convention foreshadowed the long-term decline of the Democratic Party. "1968 was the year the conflicting idealisms of the Democratic Party collided with each other, and showed the importance of Democrats with differing convictions working together," State Representative Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia said.

http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/1/9/1968_Democratic_National_Convention.html

...for another example.

[Time for change]

115. "Many historians believe the Democratic Party's decline in strength was the bitter split..."

Well gee, that proves that demonstrations against the war, etc. were the cause of the decline in the Democratic Party. That plus the fact that a Pennsylvania delegate said so. Great explanation.

[wyldwolf]

117. I'll wait patiently for any link to the contrary (your imagination doesn't count)

[Time for change]

119. You were the one making assertions of why the Democratic Party declined during those years

Yet all you could come up with when I asked you how you knew that (following snarky avoidances of my question) was a quote about historians that didn't even address your assertion, and quote from a single person who stated an opinion on the matter.

[wyldwolf]

120. And I've shown two sources. Sorry they didnt meet your approval. Your turn.

[Time for change]

128. Do you have any doubt that the corporate news media has grossly slanted

the "news" against liberals in the past several years?

If you do I'll provide some references for that. If not, I don't see how anyone could think that that wouldn't hurt the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

132. show me examples of how the "corporate media" was slanted in 1968

Let's see how evil Walter Cronkite was...

[Time for change]

135. The defining catastrophe for the Democrats was the presidential election of 72, not 68

The 1968 election was a virtual tie in the popular vote. 1972 was a landslide.

One big thing that the media could be faulted for during that election was the utter failure to cover the breaking watergate scandal. That simply was not news to them. That barely got coverage until after the election.

[wyldwolf]

142. sure it was. '72 was a result of the happening of '68 through 72

:shrug:

'68 was the catalyst year.

By '72 there was probably no Democrat alive who could have won.

[LiberalLovinLug]

124. How do we know anything from history?

If you actually answered the question: in the modern age, it would be the news media.

How did those southern former Democrats get the impression that "dirty commie hippies" were at the heart of the Democratic Party? Hmmmmm, what entity is in control of which images get on television and how they are framed in the discussion?

Just from my experience, post '68, is that the corporate news shows have an agenda at every protest march. It is to bring back shots that 'prove' the long stoked myth that only the lazy unemployed rebels and ignorant youth out for a bit of fun go to these marches. "Rent-a-crowd" has been used, although I'd like to know who pays them. Even though the majority of the crowd is made up of all walks of people, families, union members, church groups etc.. what gets on the evening news?...the pockets of angry punks in blue hair mohawks studded with metal. In the late sixties and early seventies it was long-haired bell-bottomed tied-dyed hippies.

I have to add that I have nothing against 'angry punks' they have a lot of reasons to be angry. And it is one of the Democratic party's crosses they bear. It is wrong to ignore concerns of the disenfranchised and minorities, if for no other reason than that the 'other' party will never stand up for them. But the news media, their owners to be exact, could make a choice to spend the time to explain the actual concerns of the protesters in a respectful manner instead of simply replaying the one or two moments when some hot-headed multi-colored anarchist shouts obscenities at the camera.

So, those links you gave are all true, but you cannot argue that in a vacuum. The right wing press is much more at fault for the staining of anything 'left', including the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

127. it's always the media's fault, isn't it

:sarcasm:

I mean, the TV images come across of protestors calling servicemen babykillers, drug use, clothing and hairstyles way out of the mainstream... and it's the media's fault people got the wrong idea because they dared broadcast it. :eyes:

Hey, many people joined the civil rights movement because they saw what was going on on TV. I guess the media was a good then.

[suzie]

182. As I recall, the civil rights demonstrators wore coats and ties.

The women wore dresses and hats. The images that came across on television were of police dogs and police with batons attacking people who were demonstrating for their equal rights.

That was a totally different image than came across from the 1968 convention.

[jonestonesusa]

97. So what part of equal rights would you like to take back?

It is true that LBJ, RFK and company took a big political risk to support policy changes such as equal protection under the law for all, Head Start, War on Poverty, etc. I admire their courage in doing so, and I fully support their choices. Do you?

Something called Vietnam also had a big impact on the Democratic Party of those years. The war split the party, and there were good reasons for opposing the war. Do you agree?

I also appreciate the Clean Air and Water legislation circa 1970(liberal Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson was a champion of that), assisting women to gain a better voice in health choices (congressional hearings on the efficacy of the Pill, Roe v. Wade), and many other pieces of legislation. Many of these issues were pushed by the left that you paint here with a broad brush, even as your man Clinton was burnishing his resume on the McGovern campaign. I agree with their stances. Do you?

And actually, the demonization of liberals began earlier, nationally at least by 1964 with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater speaking against fair housing legislation and every other initiative to bring equal protection to all citizens. If the American people as a whole weren't savvy enough to support the expansion of civil rights, they needed to be led, and we were lucky enough that many citizens and politicians stepped up. Many of them were demonized and killed. I hope you have as much outrage for the soulless killers who murdered movement leaders as you do for "the left." And I hope you share how important that era's legislative changes have been for creating a more just society.

[wyldwolf]

99. you're not reading the thread, obviously... I've said quite plainly...

in post 12 this isn't a discussion on whether these things are right or wrong. Don't try to divert the point.

[jonestonesusa]

114. But it isn't just the counterculture or its tactics that "sullied" the liberal image

for middle America. It was the real fact that Democratic policy positions shifted left during the 1960s/1970s on issues of racial equality, women's issues, the war, etc., and many in the middle (i.e. white middle class voters) were not comfortable with those shifts. Past a point, the Democratic Party had to make a choice between accommodating white middle class fears of equal rights for all and being on the progressive side of these important issues. Tactics notwithstanding, it was inevitable that the Democratic Party would lose some fence-sitting voters if it embraced policy positions which were, in my opinion, the right ones.

It seems that you're trying to make the argument that the "left" was wrong in its tactics and right in its policy positions, but I'm not sure, since you want to avoid discussing the policies themselves (which is a similar problem to what's raised in the OP - broad brush criticisms against "Obama critics" and not enough policy discussions). We could have a long discussion on the tactics of the "left" (if we're to lump many disparate groups together under that label), and on the political strategies of Democrats, but I do think that some of the aggressive tactics were helpful for dramatizing the need for change on things such as the 400-year oppression of African Americans, the historically enduring oppression of women, and the moral bankruptcy of wars of aggression. Sometimes, both major political parties can be wrong on these issues, and the "left" is often helpful for pushing for change.

I know Paul Krugman can be a persona non grata at times here, but he has a really succinct discussion of the rise of the New Right from Reagan/Goldwater forward in _Conscience of a Liberal._ It's worth checking out for one stop shopping on these topics.

[wyldwolf]

116. of course, but that wasn't my point

If you go waaay back to when I first started this subthread, I plainly stated the image of the Democratic party many Americans have is the protests at the '68 DNC convention. The anti-authority tactics displayed on their TV screens.

It seems that you're trying to make the argument that the "left" was wrong in its tactics and right in its policy positions/

Well, that is what I believe, but I haven't made the argument nor have I tried to. I've gone to great pains in this thread and have stated it at least twice: I'm not making a judgement as to the right or wrongness of the policies. I am stating as a historic fact that the TACTICS sent many long-time Democrats running and screaming from the party.

The rightness and wrongness of the policies is an entirely different topic. My point is the visual perception.

[jonestonesusa]

175. So, your point summarized is that...

the "left" of 1968 deserves criticism due to its anti-authority tactics, a few weeks after witnessing the murders of two of the greatest progressive movement leaders in human history, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, at the cusp of not only success in moving the legislative process forward but a possible electoral victory for Kennedy, at the cusp of a historic turn toward economic justice for MLK, the Poor People's Campaign, that didn't take off in the wake of his murder. Thus, in the face of Vietnam escalation, assassination, and segregationist fervor, even with about 10% of Americans preferring George Wallace over any progressive candidate, the "left" erred in not showing a better public face to the media, and as you say downthread, the "left" has continued its self-importance long after its self-inflicted wounds via countercultural protest in 1968.

So what kind of tactics would have convinced those Wallace and Nixon voters stretched across the nation from Orange County, California to Birmingham, Alabama and Cicero, Illinois to stay home and vote for Humphrey? More politeness among war protesters? Or no protests at all? A nice orderly Democratic convention in Daley's Chicago with plenty of media images of Eugene McCarthy voters in ties?

Needless to say, I'm not feeling you here.

[wyldwolf]

177. almost

the "left" of 1968 deserves criticism due to its anti-authority tactics, a few weeks after witnessing the murders of two of the greatest progressive movement leaders in human history, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy

That was a tragedy for everyone, not just the left. And, yes, the left should he criticized due to its anti-authority tactics.

the "left" erred in not showing a better public face to the media, and as you say downthread, the "left" has continued its self-importance long after its self-inflicted wounds via countercultural protest in 1968.

Yes. The media of the day reported what they saw on the ground. And the left continues there self destructive tactics even today which is why you've never gained any meaningful power in this country. People like the left's policies, they just don't like YOU (to paraphrase Michael Moore.)

So what kind of tactics would have convinced those Wallace and Nixon voters stretched across the nation from Orange County, California to Birmingham, Alabama and Cicero, Illinois to stay home and vote for Humphrey?

Revolution takes place at the ballot box in this country. Why did the left sit out the '68 and '72 elections?

[MADem]

19. I was a Clinton supporter, and I fully support President Obama. I do

give him a little room to move, I don't nitpick every call he makes, and I think, overall, he's doing a fine job.

Some of the worst offenders, who today are the most angry with Obama, I've noticed, are the very people who were griping at me for supporting Clinton, and who supported Obama (or said they did) during the election process. Now that he's in, they're pissed off because they didn't get their box of chocolates and their new puppy from him, or something.

:shrug:

[Time for change]

26. I don't believe that many people are pissed off because they didn't get

chocolates or a puppy from him.

This post makes that point:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5366113&mesg_id=5366113

[MADem]

30. As I said previously, I don't object to "issues-based" complaints.

However, there are plenty of people here who are absolutely bullshit about what he's doing, for example, in Afghanistan, or Iraq, when, if they bothered to LISTEN to him during the primaries, they would know that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

The people I speak of are the ones who tut-tutted and said "He's only doing that to get elected," when he made very specific policy speeches. Some of these people are now the ones screaming "Traitor!! DINO!!! Dark-sided!!!" because THEY painted THEIR desires on the man, and now they are pissed off because he's not behaving in the way they "figured" he would. They're shocked, shocked--because he actually meant what he said. How dare he?

There are a lot of people here who did NOT listen to Obama when he spoke about his plans and goals for both Iraq and Afghanistan. They ass-umed, and now they have no call to (using that classic, tiresome and overused internet phrase) "hurl invective" at the guy because they didn't clean out their own waxy ears and flat-out LISTEN when he spoke.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him, but the people who are playing the "I didn't KNOW" game and behaving as though they've been "betrayed" in some fashion by the "traitor" are full of it. Hell, I wasn't even a supporter of his in the primary phase, and I knew his Afghan and Iraq policy backwards and forewards, because I bothered to sit my ass down, listen to his and other's policy speeches, and "compare and contrast" how all the candidates regarded that and other issues. See, THAT is where the "poutrage" gripes come from--not from people with honest disagreements with Obama, but from people who thought they had an inside track, that they were smarter than the average voter and "knew what he REALLY meant," that the guy was doing the old "Nudge-Wink" and faking it, when he wasn't doing that at all. He was speaking plainly, and when he said it, he actually meant it.

Gee, who knew? He actually says what he means when he opens his mouth! Makes for a change...!

[Time for change]

5. There is a lot of truth in that

If we want our criticisms to mean something and be taken seriously, we should avoid obscenities, stick to the issues, and avoid character attacks.

I do believe though that there are a lot of people who get upset even when we do all that.

[wyldwolf]

7. at that point it becomes a matter of who has a better command of the issue(s)

[HughMoran]

29. You've hit the real point here. The premise of the O/P is not quite on target

It's not the message, it's the vicious destructive nature of all too many of the messengers. I agree with many of the criticisms, yet several posters tend to ruin it for all those who can express an opinion without the "Bush like" language. Don't use the sorts of words we used to describe Bush - Obama has done nothing to deserve the lack of respect some show him.

[redqueen]

56. Yep. Spin-loaded M$M so-called articles are posted

in such a way as to invite that kind of nonsense... it's predictable, disappointing, and lately downright infuriating. I keep hearing that there are those who say that we should brook no criticism of Obama of any kind, ever -- but I haven't seen such demands myself.

I have, however, seen lots of stuff about how Obama hates workers and loves bankers and how unforgivable it is that he dares to send more troops to Afghanistan and how he's covering up fraud. I don't know how emotional language like that is constructive at all. Forgivable? A lot of that kind of stuff just seems like shit-stirring to me.

[stray cat]

6. Not everyone agrees on what is considered successful or how to get there

so sometimes people disagree with the criticism, disagree that it is a life or death issue and we have been fatally betrayed, disagree with the way to reach a final solution.

[Time for change]

24. I have no problem with that

What I object to is the idea that we should not criticize our president, period, simply because he's our president or because he's a Democratic president.

Or the idea that we should give him more time before criticizing him. Most of our criticisms have nothing to do with our disatisfaction with his results so far. We almost all agree that it is way too early to expect to see significant improvements in our situation. Our criticisms are about some of his decisions or statements, not lack of results.

[leftchick]

8. you make waaaaayyyy too much sense

and I LOVE it! Thank you!

:)


k&r!

[Time for change]

43. Thank you leftchick

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

10. tl;dr. Nevertheless, I try not to criticize Obama I try to criticize the President. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President ... "

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

President Theodore Roosevelt, Editorial to the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918. The essay was in response to "patriotic" efforts to stifle criticism of Woodrow Wilson's handling of affairs during World War I.

[Time for change]

153. What great quotes by TR

Too bad more people don't know about that.

[Mojambo]

14. Most deserving of a recommendation.

Fine work indeed.

[Time for change]

162. Thank you

[upi402]

16. true. patriotic duty. he needs to find his heart where his roots are

and he'll end up okay i think. he's trying to play a game with those who know no rules. he is doomed if he doesn't knock the media out and play smash-mouth dirty evil JE Hoover politics with these crooks.

[bleever]

20. The "center" is mis-defined if those of us to the "left" of the president

don't take our seats on the teeter-totter.

The importance of the "left" having an intelligent, cogent center of gravity can not be underestimated.

Thank you so much for your contribution to the discussion of this critical topic, Tfc.

[bertman]

28. I second your comments, bleever.

As a citizen whose responsibility it is to be informed and actively engaged in trying to influence the decisions of those whom we have chosen as our representatives, I consider it my solemn duty to express my opinions fully and freely, no matter what others may think.

Another excellent and thoughtful post, Time for Change. Thank you.

[Time for change]

159. Thank you bertman -- We need to speak up while we still have the chance

[Time for change]

158. Thank you bleever -- Damn right, if we remain silent the radical right will get to define

the political center.

[BlooInBloo]

21. (shrug) If it's patriotic to criticize for YOU, then it is so for all. Expect pushback.

[BeFree]

22. Two things

If Bush followers had been honest and criticized their president it might have kept him from being such a miserable failure - maybe. Couldn't have hurt. As it is they hardly dare show their faces they are so ashamed.

We won't be like them in that way either,

And.... It shows that we Dems are not partisan, that we are patriots and that we aren't swayed to silence by power. It sets a fine example for the rest of the world. And it is something we need to advertise.

[Time for change]

161. Those Bush followers who stuck with him all the way are authoritarians

who don't know how to think for themselves.

Yes, criticizing our leaders does set a fine example for the rest of the world.

[OldTimeHippie]

23. Most liberals I know are antiwar

How can an antiwar liberal do anything other than criticize
war?  Or is there a new party for those of us who are antiwar?

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Most liberals I know are for equal rights

How can a pro human rights liberal do anything other than criticize inequality and disprairity in the law?

[wroberts189]

25. knr n/t

[Quantess]

37. Obama inherited a lot of problems that are none of his making. G.W. Bush is the WORST PRESIDENT

IN HISTORY!
Have you forgotten?

[Time for change]

130. No, I havn't forgotten at all

What does that have to do with my OP?

[SlingBlade]

39. To DUers Who Criticize our President ......

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.



:kick:

[spoony]

40. I don't see anything relevent to your subject line in your message

Where are "DUers who criticise our President" mentioned in there?

[SlingBlade]

71. If relevancy is what you are looking for ...

Try reading this piece by by NanceGreggs
entitled "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"

It might help "clear" your thinking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8323480

:kick:

[spoony]

137. do you have anything to offer besides off-topic

veiled admonitions, as if you were a mod or something, and spamming for DU's Mitch Albom? I'm not interested in either.

[SlingBlade]

139. Great, I'll take that as acknowledgment, End of story !

[spoony]

140. I acknowledge that I'm talking to a breathing non sequitur

And that I'm now done.

[SlingBlade]

141. Save it Spoony, Your Intelligence level is showing

If not your politics

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Do you have permission to speak for the admins?

Because I tell you this, their rules say nothing about not criticizing the President. Not a thing. And it is basically hard for me to buy into the concept that people who make a living and feed their kids by selling discussion have any desire at all to tamp down discussion. Debate pays their rent, Billy Bob, so my guess is that they support full tilt, multi posting discussion above all things.
Coming to a bar to preach temperance is just daft. And also rude to the barkeepers.

[SlingBlade]

74. WTF ? "Do you have permission to speak for the admins?"

Didn't realize that I was !

Try reading this piece by by NanceGreggs
entitled "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"
It may help you understand a few things

And on a side note reply, Democratic Underground does a hell of a lot more
than simply, " Selling Discussion".

For a D.U.er to reduce this site to the whoring multitudes out there is surprising, But
from anyone here D.U.er or not who thinks after some 70 days that President Obamas administration
deserves this kind of criticism, Then, No, I'm not surprised at all.
It follows a typical pattern that I've seen elsewhere, Specifically, Freeper Land.

[spoony]

138. Are you from the nineteenth century?

I'm just wondering because of the randomly capitalised words.

[SlingBlade]

143. Spoony, I think they call this "Stalking"

Your treading on VERY unstable ground here

[spoony]

145. ...it's the same subthread you nutter...

Your grasp of definitions is as bad as your ability to properly deflect. And it's you're, not your. Get your ass to a style guide, asap. Then learn to convey coherent thoughts in complete sentences. Then you might be ready to post again.

[lamp_shade]

42. k&r

[1776Forever]

50. I just posted a post on the PMC issue that some might think was "against" Obama but it isn't.

I think he is doing a fantastic job but I would like to hear more on why he thinks he needs PMC's like Triple Canopy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Read about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8324416&mesg_id=8324416

[Time for change]

160. So would I like to hear his explanation

These PMCs are giving us a very bad reputation -- and for good reason.

[Beetwasher]

54. Not Entirely True: There Are THOUGHTFUL Well-Meaning Critics And OBVIOUS TROLLS And DISRUPTORS

You fit into the first category, I believe (well-meaning).

However, it is obvious there are a few (loud) people on this board who have never and will never support anything Obama does and are not our friends and they don't mean well. They are merely "clever" enough (honestly, it's not that hard) to skirt the rules and still retain their posting priveleges.

[Time for change]

55. Of course -- We will find those kinds of people on all sides of any issue

I didn't mean my OP to apply to them.

[defendandprotect]

58. The president is head of the party . . . that's the way we should think about this --

people who think of this situation as a PERSON, IMO, are making something of a mistake.

This is all about this party and its politics -- and the directions it chooses to go in.

Believe it or not I still haven't gotten to looking at the Democratic Party Platform.

But that's what it should be about.

Keep in mind that Pres. John F. Kennedy in 1960 ran on a Democratic Platform which called

for the NATIONALIZING OF THE OIL INDUSTRY!

Further, JFK was going to end the oil depletion allowance.

Yes -- we do like to LIKE our presidents -- but that has to be secondary.

Obama certainly has a great sense of humor, a wonderful family -- and a lot going for him.

But, again -- THIS IS ABOUT A PARTY AND ITS DIRECTION/POLICIES.

[Time for change]

163. Some say that JFK died because he was going to end the oil depletion allowance

There were a lot of reasons that he could have been killed for, and probably a lot of them were relevant.

You're right, it's about the decisions he makes, not about him.

[defendandprotect]

176. A long line of oil presidents . . LBJ, Poppy, W,

Gore also had oil company backing during his political career --

And, once you're talking oil, you're talking organized crime --

And, as we can quite clearly see, oil industry has a lot of power over
government now rather than the other way around.

Additionally, I recently read that the CIA was funneling money to right-wing
Senators/Reps -- Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerald Ford are two mentioned.
They were keeping the right-wing going and in place here in US as they had done
around the world!

When Nixon came in people feared he would be bad for Israel because it was quite
well know he was anti-Jewish -- but he armed right wing religiously fanatical
Israel! Obviously, that's provided our first real foothold in Middle East.
They say you can't tell the difference between Israeli and US weapons production
because it is so closely intertwined that you can barely tell them apart!

Then there is computer voting which came in during mid-late 1960's . . .
around the time they passed the Voting Rights Act!
IMO, every Republican "win" since then is questionable --!!

[WI_DEM]

59. I would say that most of you do, but there are some who have always disliked Obama

and have never said one good thing about him and continue to do so and as for them I don't think they want him to succeed. They can't wait until 2016 so that there favored candidate might run.

[Fire1]

118. I think that's my biggest concern and it should be Obama's,

as well. I listened to his speeches and thought I listened pretty well. Maybe not. Alot of us have expectations that may or may not be realistic.

[SlingBlade]

144. Agreed

[redqueen]

60. How about this? "Is he a Manchurian Candidate? A puppet?"

Is that constructive criticism, to you?

That's the kind of crap I'm sick of. Not honest criticism about policy... just the mindless BS.

[Time for change]

69. We should stick to the issues

We should not resort to character assassination.

[Kajsa]

78. I agree, Redqueen.

There are those who never supported Obama and who harbor
an intense dislike of the man to this day.

One person was a regular contributor here and has her own
website with daily news and commentary.

Her rabid, anti-Obama vitriol got old very quickly.
I along with many others, asked to be removed from her
mailing list.

It's a damn shame, as her website ( outside of the Obama bashing)
offered a great summary of local and international news.

According to her, he can do no right, no way, no how.
Obviously, I'm not talking about disagreeing with Obama,
in case anyone mistakenly thought I was.

What a waste of a great talent!

:(

[Echo In Light]

72. If only it were so simple as to suggest "he" could succeed, or that it has to do with one "leader."

It doesn't

I'm as hopeful as the next guy tho that biz as usual might not be quite as evil as it usually is for America. That's the only upshot to voting dem ... even tho I'm an indie.

[geek tragedy]

75. People who accuse him of 'raping the middle class' want him to fail

Those people--and there many, many many of these assholes here at DU--by definition want him to fail as much as Rush Limbaugh does.

Or, should we be expected to believe that they want him to 'rape' successfully?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Two Huge Flaws In Your Post.

First is your assertion of criticism. You seem to be broadbrushing the supposed attacks on those who criticize as equal. Your flaw is that you are mistaking legitimate and productive criticism with outright zealotry and closed minded irrational knee jerk ignorance. By far the attack on those who 'criticize' are being done towards criticism rooted in the latter, than criticism rooted in the former. Writing a lengthy essay that essentially puts all the 'criticizers' in the same honorable boat is patently absurd and flat out false.

The second huge flaw in your OP is stating that those who 'criticize' do so with honorable intentions and with the hopes that Obama succeeds as much as anyone. Hogwash. Many of those who criticize are knee jerk irrational ignoramuses with one track minds and with a complete lack of critical thinking skills. Many are green party or third party advocates who will NEVER agree with almost anything either of the 'corporate controlled parties' do. They are ignorant in premise and ill intentioned often. They are incessant whiners and complainers and that's all they know how to do. It's their livelihood. If we took away their reasons for complaints they'd be lost. They NEED to complain, because that's all they know. They are not honorable in intention whatsoever. Instead, they are obsessed and impulsive, and simply refuse to think logically or pragmatically.

[Time for change]

87. Obviously my post is not meant to apply to EVERYONE who criticizes Obama

I was speaking in general terms. Most of us who criticize him here at DU want him to succeed just as much as anyone else.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. Again, No.

'Most' here do not do so under such terms. You might, but 'most' do not. My reply was accurate, and your 'general terms' were too simplistic and inherently flawed.

[Time for change]

107. I've seen a great deal of intelligent, well reasoned, and well intentioned criticism of

Obama's policies.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. No Dispute There.

But there was likely very little attack on the well reasoned, intentioned and intelligent criticism and likely not very frequent of an attack in the style you mentioned. The majority of those are hurled (appropriately so) at the 'criticisms' that fall into the category I previously mentioned; which despite your seeing of many otherwise, probably trump them in number 10-1.

[nashville_brook]

110. is it possible to link to examples of this fake critique so we know the difference?

that would be prolly be helpful. don't know it's against a rule, but it would be nice if we could do that in a way that's constructive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

146. Sure.

I'll give ya two:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=132

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=389

[spoony]

148. I'm just getting board views with those n/t

[TBF]

86. Excellent OP - and interesting to read the replies of all the nannies

on here who have rigid guidelines for what they consider appropriate speech. Freedom? Not so much on here from the looks of it. K&R

[Time for change]

168. Thank you -- Yes, this has been very interesting.

[Enthusiast]

91. I agree with your post. K&R

Well written.

[jonestonesusa]

92. Thanks for your hard work on the OP - great job!

I appreciate the historical perspectives on why thoughtful criticisms of policies are indispensable for a functioning democracy.

I admire your good spirits in responding to the usual content-free criticisms of "Obama critics," "DU trolls who post vitriol," etc.

I hope to walk with you in working for good governance.

p.s. I'm not sure if you're a resident of Wisconsin, but tomorrow is the big spring election to keep a Democratic leaning voice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge Shirley Abramson. Turn out and support her, please!

cheers,
jonestonesusa

[Time for change]

164. Thank you -- I lived in Wisconsin from 94 to 99

But not any more, sorry.

[antimatter98]

93. FDR said 'make me' re social programs. And corporatists, bankers tried a coup against FDR.

However, I don't think that Obama is of the same mindset as FDR, but he might
turn around, and we have to 'make him' in the FDR sense.

Today, the banks and corporations have executed a coup d'etat against the
United States in my view. They are in power, and that Obama and his people
seem to be going along is very worrisome to me.

"Watch what they DO and not what they SAY," is what I urge upon all
DU'ers. "Believing is seeing," is a very dangerous thing, by contrast.

[Time for change]

167. Good advice -- always watch what they DO

[leftstreet]

95. K&R

[CAcyclist]

96. Awesome nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

102. K&R

[lamp_shade]

155. Change your title from "We DUers" to "Some DUers".

[Faryn Balyncd]

157. Obama needs us (& probably wants us) to help him out by holding his feet to the fire.....

K & R

[iandhr]

165. I agree with the President...

... on about 85 to 90 percent of issues. On those issues I will stand firmly behind him. On those where I disagree I will state my disagreement.

[iandhr]

166. I agree with the President...

... on about 85 to 90 percent of issues. On those issues I will stand firmly behind him. On those where I disagree I will state my disagreement.

[liberation]

169. Be careful, you are using waaaay too much common sense.

I am still getting a chuckle about the Obama die hard supporters complaining about character assassination by anyone who dares criticize Mr. Obama... by... wait for it... engaging in a no holes barred campaign of character assassination of those who dare say anything remotely critical of the president.

Some of us believe in giving credit where credit is due, and criticism when granted. Not really that hard of a concept to understand, and a vital characteristic of a working democracy. We have a president, not a king. If you can't answer any criticism of Mr. Obama with logic and facts, and instead you have to resort to protective measures involving calling names to those who dare "soil" Mr. Obama's name with criticism... maybe it is time to rethink some of the positions you are being forced to defend sans the backup of logic?

The more things change....

[lostnotforgotten]

171. Thank You For Your Carefully Considered Thoughts And Opinions

eom

[puebloknot]

173. K&R "Wait and see"; "Keeping our power dry"; all examples of "Justice delayed; justice denied."

We were told to give Nancy Pelosi, et al. a chance, too, and we waited and we waited, and we're still waiting for the Democrats to do the Democratic thing(s) to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. Obama, being a constitutional scholar, was going to have his AG look into the crimes of the Bush Administration. But now there are more pressing issues, and we need to look to the future, not wallow in the past -- or so we hear!

It is not the right of those of us who have been warm and well fed while others have gone off to unjustified wars and, in too many case, come "home" in body bags, to advocate patience while the rule of law goes begging. After WWII, our tired leaders and our battered people, in consonance with European governments, held the Nuremberg trials while administering the Marshall Plan. How hollow would have been the cry to wait a while to hold to account the Nazi leaders, then; how hollow a similar argument sounds now!

Criticism of President Obama is our duty as citizens, and we should resist mightily the voices that speak, the fingers that wag, in counsel against the very ideas and efforts upon which this country was founded -- the voice of the people in support of freedom against tyranny.

Great essay (again), TfC!

[Time for change]

180. Thank you puebloknot -- What makes the Nuremberg trials all the more significant is that

one of the main criticisms of them was that it was "victor's justice". By failing to prosecute our own, we're just proving the critics right about one of our otherwise proudest achievements of that time period.

[Zhade]

174. ...but only where it's the right thing to do.

No warrantless wiretaps. No further escalation of war. No Universal Insurance Care. No continued denial of GLBT equality. No trillions to bankers. No failing to do his FUCKING JOB by holding war criminals accountable.

[democracy1st]

178. K & R