After having read "I am sick of all the enablers under "General Discussion" by Joe Fields, I have

[Cal33]

now just read "Obama is already one of America's greatest presidents" by ProSense here
under "General Discussion: Presidency."

I must say that there are some excellent and true points to both messages, yet they
are the exact opposites of each other. These messages help one to see how Dems become
divided. A lot depends on which points are more important to the individual reader.
There are also some points I have never known anything about.

For those who haven't yet made up their minds, these messages could bring up points to
consider. They might even help one to understand oneself better.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Some folks are focused on actual policy

while others are more focused on an individual who gives a great speech.

Some folks think unquestioning support for the President is the best way forward while others think it's important to make sure Obama pursues a Democratic agenda.

It's no surprise that people have different opinions on a message board.

[Skinner]

2. Is that the difference?

Some people care about policy while others care about speeches.

Some believe in unquestioning support while others believe in promoting a Democratic agenda.

Gosh. Which side of the differing opinion are you on? It's so hard to tell from your post.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. I didn't say they care about speeches

I said they are focused on the individual who is giving the speech. Some folks think President Obama knows best and he deserves unquestioning support while others think it's important to ensure he pursues the right policies by holding his feet to the fire. I agree with the latter.

[johnaries]

27. You don't get it. We are not focusing on "Obama the person".

Obama has accomplished some amazing things. Does he deserve criticism? Yes. Any President is just a man, after all. And no man is going to be everything to everyone. Many of us also recognize that real, lasting change does not come overnight, and a President's power is limited - on purpose. It's called "Separation of Powers". Many of us realize that progress comes out of compromise. We realize that often progress is 3 steps forward and 2 steps back - which means you're still 1 step forward.

I agree that we should hold Obama's feet to the fire - but most of the criticism I have seen on DU has been derisive and divisive rather than anything constructive. Further, most of the criticism I have seen is based on rumor, spin, and sometimes outright lies.

This whole "personality cult" theory is baseless and shortsighted.

[Vattel]

34. Depends on the poster.

Some defenders of Obama will engage in serious debate about his policies and behavior while others are completely biased and blind to anything that is critical of his policies and behavior. I never put anyone on ignore, but I have learned to pretty much avoid debate with the sort of Obama apologist who is too biased or too stupid to see any flaws in Obama.

[stevenleser]

47. I've never seen anyone like you describe here on DU. Everyone of us who support him have issues with

some of his policies, just as we would with anyone. There is no such thing as a perfect President.

[Divernan]

8. Good to see you post. I've been wondering

how much pressure, friendly of course, you are personally receiving from the DNC, the administration and/or employees of theirs who may be friends of yours, regarding the upcoming campaign season and how DU will handle the split as referred to in the OP. DU has a huge audience - I don't believe you are being ignored by the DNC/Obama.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. There IS a middle-ground between pom-poms and pitchforks, but this IS about dichotomy

Yes, this poster seems to be of the mind that Obama is more about Obama and seeking personal approval than he is about policy, and that the supporters tend to cleave to hyper-defensive hero-worship, rather than being swept away by his actions. Personally, I don't see how anyone COULD be swept along with enthusiasm about the policies; it's been a nauseating bit of middling shomanship except for a few moments like the credit card legislation.

You seem to intimate that this person is trying to be mealy-mouthed about personal stance on this divide, but I don't think the person is being sneaky at all; it also seems to be a pretty obvious and fair line of criticism.

There's also a broad middle of people who are neither fer or agin him, but partisans always get more attention.

Yes, there's a element of ridicule here, but not only do I see it as VERY warranted, it's hardly as if the cheerleaders aren't a bit snotty and rude as well. To criticize our president or his policies is to be met with all sorts of haranguing, unreccing, intimations of racism, accusations of destroying the party, epithets of spoil-sported pony-disappointment, tarring as having closet reactionary beliefs, sneerings that people weren't listening to his evasive promises and blizzards of ludicrous cut-and-pastings of skewed "achievements". The mantle of virtue worn by many of the stalwarts is sickening.

Seems to me that this poster is being a bit barbed, but hardly coy about affiliation. Personally, I'm trying to be gentle with the pitchfork, but I'm sick to death of the pom-poms and the sanctimony of the purer acolytes. We're playing for keeps here, and I don't give a fuck about "the coolest guy in the room"; we need a leader who will stand up to the reactionaries and call them out for who and what they are, rather than becoming some mythic figure of greatness who can bridge the divide. The divide cannot be bridged; the reactionaries must be fought with the same zeal they have for destroying him.

Many hopes and dreams poured forth for this man, and being exhorted to toe the line so we won't hurt the tender feelings of those whose needy egos can't accept having been a bit mistaken is galling at a time of serious financial, ecological, military and religious trouble.

As for the suggestion that that poster was being nasty, that's just a bummer.

[Melinda]

22. Ah POE, you're one of my new DU hero's...

How nice it is to read a statement that cuts to the point without withering personal insults. Would that pro-Obama supporters wearing that "mantle of virtue" would stop and listen to what you've just said.

Appreciated,

Melinda

[PurityOfEssence]

28. Yikes!

Thank you; that's very nice.

In all fairness, I'm sure many of the stalwarts are rather conflicted. The problem with political greatness is that it attracts seriously flawed people, and hell, most people are pretty much a mixed bag.

Sadly, though, the term that gets lost in the shuffle is "public SERVANT". Anyone ascending to the heights of elected power has to realize that there's a mission they were sent to fulfill, and supporters have to realize that being "right" about someone is not in the public interest, especially when one has to shout down others and skew things to prove oneself "right".

This man did not just seek to appeal to people as this year's model, he went into the loftiest of hope-filled and spiritual rhetoric, promising a new kind of politics. People bared their souls and opened their hearts, and disappointment following that is the worst kind of disappointment. I don't want to see a nation of opt-outs and scofflaws, and I don't want to see the reactionaries enabled by his continual pursuit of some kind of ridiculous chimera of bipartisanship. They don't play fair, and that's the core of conservatism: it's anti-pluralist; other views aren't just unpleasant, they're sinful threats to civilization itself that must be literally destroyed.

Those who snipe and rage at anyone who criticizes our President don't have my sympathy in the least, but those who still truly believe that some day he's going to change his ways and turn back into the fight do. I think they're completely incorrect in the character assessment, but I feel for them and don't want to bait or goad them.

Those who demand fealty to the greatness of character need to get a grip, and those who need to quash all dissent so their fragile egos won't be damaged by their being shown to be wrong are doing us all a HUGE disservice. Things are what they are, and subjective though life is, some things get rather clear after a bit. This man is not a fighter. This man is not a leader. This man practices classic old politicking of the worst kind: being on both sides of all issues that he can't simply duck. The difference between Barack Obama and John Kerry is that Kerry was for things before he was against them, while Obama is for things WHILE he's against them.

Maybe he wants to be the transcendent leader who can bridge the divide out of a true moral desire, and maybe he's just on some glory-kick; like most things in life, it's probably somewhere in the middle, with a few other impulses thrown in.

I don't really care, though; I don't think we owe this man so much that we must risk our future on a blind faith in his character and genius. Both have shown to be rather lacking of late.

Here we are, though: we're stuck with him and we need to make the best of it. Hopefully enough voices of leftist reason will penetrate the yes-men echo-chamber and influence him, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ProSense]

29. Wow!

Those who demand fealty to the greatness of character need to get a grip, and those who need to quash all dissent so their fragile egos won't be damaged by their being shown to be wrong are doing us all a HUGE disservice. Things are what they are, and subjective though life is, some things get rather clear after a bit. This man is not a fighter. This man is not a leader. This man practices classic old politicking of the worst kind: being on both sides of all issues that he can't simply duck. The difference between Barack Obama and John Kerry is that Kerry was for things before he was against them, while Obama is for things WHILE he's against them.

Nice RW talking point!

[Jakes Progress]

35. Confused?

You can disagree with the post. You can point out where you think it is wrong. But calling it right wing is just an indication of not understanding politics.

See. You have a post that condemns Obama for not being left-wing enough, for not battling against the right-wingers. Then you complain that the post is right wing.

What shows is that you don't understand right wing and left wing. Now you might want to call Obama left wing. Go ahead. But to call a post that want's him to stand up to the right wing a right wing talking point is kind of silly.

Unless you don't really care about policy or principle. If you want to just label some person as the standard for left wing or right wing. Then you could snark on anyone who disagrees with your icon of leftness as a right winger without regard to definition or principle. Sort of like how one high school football team will call another their enemy. Hey, if it's all just a game to you, then you can go ahead and ignore what is written or what is said. Just pump up the volume and don't try thinking. Just be true to your school.

[ProSense]

37. Ridiculous? n/t

[Jakes Progress]

41. Busy?

You didn't reply to my post with anything remotely resembling an answer. Do you need further clarification? Is the term right wing and left wing still a bother?

Think of them as adjectives that determine political leanings rather than bogey names that have no meaning. Then my discussion of your post will be clearer.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. I criticize Obama from the left; it's so obvious that anyone suggesting otherwise is either stupid

or deceptive.

Stupid or deceptive. Stupid or deceptive.

My history on this board is long and clear, for over ten years. Tarring me as "right-wing" is either gross stupidity or deliberate deception.

If you don't like the joke, then dispute the basis of it. Kerry was trying to distance himself from previous positions by stating that he saw both sides of an issue and changed as the legislation changed, although he was woefully unclear about this; Obama IS both sides of issues. As everybody's friend, he's nobody's friend. All things to everyone is really nothing to anybody.

Obama is not on the left. Ire directed at him is NOT exclusively from the right; to many of us, he's suckered the left and now holds us captive to his grander designs, which are to drag the country ever farther to the "third way" rightist corporatism of pure crap and claim the laurels of being somehow a transcendent genius of the ages.

This is another attempt to shout down any dissent as evil monarchic dissembling.

Please explain how, with the very obvious language brought to bear that this criticism comes from the left, that this is the parroting of "RIGHT WING" talking points. That's deeply offensive and pathetically ludicrous. Please state your case, rather than just doing a drive-by attempt to attack an individual and drive that person from the common forum.

Defenders of privilege are enemies of pluralism. Besides all that, this is just laughable.

[Jakes Progress]

42. Left. Right. Liberal. Conservative.

It's all the same to them. There is but one standard by which they judge all. And it isn't principal. Nor policy.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

49. "For it before against it" is a RW meme

and was used to portray Senator Kerry as indecisive when DUers (aka Kerry supporters) have posted that his record is actually consistent, only to be distorted by the media and the left aiding them and the RW.


Interesting these attacks always come out whenever President Obama and/or Senator Kerry do something positive or open their mouths.

[politicasista]

48. Bush, Rove, and Steele are ltao.

:boring:

[noiretextatique]

24. recommend

excellent post.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmm?

<...>

Seems to me that this poster is being a bit barbed, but hardly coy about affiliation. Personally, I'm trying to be gentle with the pitchfork, but I'm sick to death of the pom-poms and the sanctimony of the purer acolytes. We're playing for keeps here, and I don't give a fuck about "the coolest guy in the room"; we need a leader who will stand up to the reactionaries and call them out for who and what they are, rather than becoming some mythic figure of greatness who can bridge the divide. The divide cannot be bridged; the reactionaries must be fought with the same zeal they have for destroying him.

Many hopes and dreams poured forth for this man, and being exhorted to toe the line so we won't hurt the tender feelings of those whose needy egos can't accept having been a bit mistaken is galling at a time of serious financial, ecological, military and religious trouble.

<...>

Signed,

The Persecuted, with a ton of irony and name calling.

Evidently, name calling isn't a smart strategy, that is unless you're wishing for a primary that will never happen or advocating the President's impeachment. Then it's smart, intelligent, called for, progressive!!! "We're playing for keeps here" and only an imaginary leader will save us? Where is this leader? The teabaggers are being marginalized, Boehner and the Republican Party have lost whatever advantage they had a few months ago. That's the reality.

Also, who is asking you to "toe the line"? Seems a bit egotistical. Maybe you could allow people to have their own opinions without believing that their opinions prohibit you from forming your own.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. Well said, PoE...

a side note, though- every time I see your name, the line "Hurry up Mandrake, the redcoats are coming" goes through my head

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Ever see a commie drink a glass of water?

Sadly, Tom Lehrer denies the quote, but when asked why he gave up his stage career to rejoin the profession of being a mathematics academic, his line was "political satire became obsolete once Kissinger won the Peace Prize."

These are hard times for thinkin' folks, and although I know that's a self-aggrandizing statement, I'll stick with it here in the trenches.

Skewing one's mind to think that Obama is a friend of the left is a more nimble mental contortion than I ever want to try...

[woo me with science]

40. Love your posts. Thank you. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

43. "political satire became obsolete once Kissinger won the Peace Prize."

How very true.

[Whisp]

31. I know. I was going to PM someone to find out which side that comment came from!

good thing you asked.

:rofl:

[Cal33]

3. Well put! Of the four tendencies you mentioned, I think I personally find "actual policy" and

"pursuing a Democratic agenda" of more importance.

[banned from Kos]

6. actual policy - stuff like

START/Russia
Food Safety Bill
strong FinReg (unless you are a "nationalize the banks" fool)
Health insurance reform
Managed GM and AIG back to profit thus saving many billions
SCAP
managed TARP repayments
Stimulus of $787 billion
turned 8.9% GDP loss into consistent GDP gains
two excellent SCOTUS appts
took the Student Loan process from the banks

stuff like that?

[Cal33]

9. Yes, "stuff like that," even though I don't like his habit of giving in to and appeasing the

Repubs. so much.

[zipplewrath]

16. Let's talk about these

START/Russia

I actually don't remember him campaigning on this. I don't remember it particularly being part of the "democratic agenda". It's a good thing and all but hardly a core issue. This is to the original posters observation. Ones position seems connected to what is deemed "important". This is a valuable accomplishment, but hardly a core issue.

Food Safety Bill

This also falls into this same category. It is an example of how Obama is not "just like Bush", but isn't exactly a "core issue" especially for the past two years.

strong FinReg (unless you are a "nationalize the banks" fool)

"Strong" being the observation of contention. And expressing it as a false dichotomy of that bill or "nationalizing the banks" is again the basic point of contention.

Health insurance reform

The core issues of the democratic agenda was more specifically seen to be health CARE reform. The ultimate bill was light on CARE and heavy on INSURANCE. It also included many components which were contrary to "core democratic agenda" positions such as mandates and the public option. The process was even more objectionable to core democratic principals, and contrary to positions upon which he campaigned. Secret negotiations with Big Pharma, exclusions of single payer, and starting with a 1995 GOP plan as a focus. Even Obama asserts that the primary basis of much of the publics reaction to the bill was the process more than content

Now, ones point of view on all of this, as the OP suggests, will have as much to do with "what is important" to the observer.

Managed GM and AIG back to profit thus saving many billions

GM is probably the one item to generate little to any controversy around here. AIG, and the other banks however, where Geithner spent so much time and effort protecting bankers bonuses, might again generate some discussion about being "contrary to core democratic principals".

SCAP
managed TARP repayments

And much of that TARP is either uncollected, or unaccounted for (or both). The treasury department still resists disclosing where the money went in foreign banks. Again, hardly a core democratic principal. One can argue the significance or import of these items, but ones point of view won't be based upon IF it happened, but why.

Stimulus of $787 billion

Which was heavy in tax cuts, short of actual direct job creation, and far too small by almost any measure. In negotiations with the GOP, for which he acquired no actual votes, he agreed to cuts in the aid to states, so he saw huge decreases in state employment at a time he wasn't able to replace them in the private job market. Again, what one sees in this "accomplishment" will depend heavily upon what was important. Getting unemployment below 6% was probably vastly more important to many democrats than achieving any sort of "bipartisan agreement" (which he never did).

turned 8.9% GDP loss into consistent GDP gains
two excellent SCOTUS appts

The excellence of which is another point of dispute.

took the Student Loan process from the banks

Again, a nice little accomplishment, but hardly a core democratic principal or campaign focus. It was tacked on to a health insurance reform bill that was suppose to be a health CARE reform bill and took 9 friggin' months to pass. Many are not going to see student loans to be worth that kind of resource commitment.


All of this basically supports the original posters position which is that ones view of these are going to be based upon what was important to the observer.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

15. So you're suggesting that those of us who like the President don't care about policy? Really?

Man...

[TrainToCry]

17. Bull. You show little to no attention to the facts. Opinion is your trade.

And an extremely biased one at that.

[Uben]

7. So we have enablers and disablers....

.....monikers, that's all they are. We can't call people names so we come up with these soft terms. Actually, it's supporters and non-supporters, more monikers. The vast majority here are true democrats who will do the right thing next November, whatever that might be.

[leveymg]

10. If you don't allow a big tent, the circus is going to split up. e.g., look at '48, and '52

for an example of what happens when the RW of the party,(the ADA and the Truman regulars), starts imposing Loyalty Oaths and purges -- the Left formed its own Progressive Party. Actually, it was a 3-way split with the Southern segregationist Dems following Strom Thurman into the Dixiecrats, and eventually into the GOP.

We got a decade of "I Like Ike" and another decade or two of Richard Nixon (Bushes, Ford, Rummy, Cheney) out of that.

I certainly hope the Democrats don't make the same mistake again and push the two ends out of the middle. We'll end up a Dead Duck Party in minority during another Cold War -- one which the U.S. would probably lose or enjoy a victory of ashes. Our march into Syria and Iran worries me.

[ProSense]

11. Here's what

I took away from that OP:

I believe that the people, most of whom call themselves good progressives, have it ass-backwards.

<...>

This country, and most of you here voted for Obama with their eyes wide shut. And now I'm hearing and reading about a hell of a lot of buyer's remorse. And, true to form, I'm reading a lot of posts that are telling me that if I don't back Obama, then it's my fault that a heathen republican, cloaked in Jesus' bloody garments will become the next president. How about chewing on this: Obama doesn't get my backing because he hasn't done anything to fucking deserve it. Call him a Blue Dog, A new Way, Third Way or whatever kind of name you want, but in my opinion, he is not a democrat, has no business leading the democratic party, and is really the poster boy for what I say is the "Corporate Party," which most of us ain't members of.

<...>

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."

Other Democratic Presidents, including Carter (who addressed the COLA), have discussed ways to strengthen Social Security. Other than that, not much about policy in the OP. Basically, it's about blowing up the country because of who Obama appointed and a policy discussion.

I'm a progressive for progress, always. Big steps when possible, but I'll take baby steps over devastation always. I'm just not a "kill-the-bill" progressive. On edit: I'm glad we got health care and Wall Street reforms. I'm extremely disappointed the climate change bill failed.

[DevonRex]

12. Note which post treats DUers with derision and scorn for supporting a Democrat.

[great white snark]

13. +1

Duly noted.

[MissDeeds]

14. I think the post you are referring to

raised the possibility that not everyone who runs as a "Dem" and is elected, governs along Democratic party lines.

[DevonRex]

19. As I said, note which post treats DUers with derision and scorn

for supporting a Democrat.

[Hydra]

23. Which Democrat would that be? n/t

[scheming daemons]

18. Some of us are "enablers" of Obama... some, like Joe Fields in GD, are enablers of the GOP

I know which one I'd rather be.

[Little Star]

32. I don't think either should be enabled!

[Jakes Progress]

36. So you admit to enabling

the rightward movement of the Democratic party?

You do know what the term "enabler" means in this context? Right?

Look up codependency. It will help.

[blkmusclmachine]

21. Legislation VS. personality:

Which is more important?

[gateley]

25. I think many of us, on both sides, are more elastic than it seems, but

a snarky post by someone who is definitely promoting the other agenda tends to make us knee-jerk react in kind.

Both kinds of posts, regardless of what the opinion, don't accompish anything except a food fight. Sigh.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

45. Be sure to read ProSense's new OP too, on the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x751914