"The Two Obama's and Me" ......(Chris Bowers' (MYDD) personal Experience)

[KoKo]

(Chris has an interesting piece up with snips of comments from the "New Obama" that he thinks is using Repug "Straw Men" to triangulate us Dems. You need to go to the link to read the Obama Straw Men quotes and what Chris says to get the full picture in context....but here's a snip of his comments)

-----------


The Two Obamas and Me, Part One
by Chris Bowers, Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 10:22:27 PM EST

Unlike, say, Ann Coutler, I don't actually believe that Obama thinks he is referring to the entire left when he makes statements like this. However, since he never actually says who he is referring to, I simply have to assume that, like Ann Coulter, he is referring to the entire left, and therefore also to me. And yes--call me naïve, or call me thin-skinned--but that hurts me. He could clear this up by stopping any use of these left-wing strawmen altogether. There is no need for Obama to use these strawmen in order to make himself look more like a "uniter." (Of course, I don't even see how insulting your fellow Americans makes you a "uniter" in the first place). In the end, all his use of these strawmen does is obscure the great Obama that I quoted at the top of this post. I like that Obama. Everyone in the netroots likes that Obama, as his favorables from the BlogPac netroots survey shows. Like I did in Illinois, I imagine virtually everyone in the netroots would be willing to work, bleed, and walk through the fire for that Obama. There is no need, before revealing the first Obama, for him to indicate that he isn't one of those shrill lefties who you heard about from Ann Coulter. There is no need to throw your friends under the bus while saying what you believe.

This man has potential for all-time, worldwide greatness for the first half of the 21st century. However, if he insists on continuing to use left-wing strawmen to describe himself and what he believes then, to use his own words, he will just become another "DLC-type commentator" more worried about being "tagged as a liberal" then about doing what "people need." I mean, is there a reason you differentiate yourself from left-wing strawmen before stating your opposition to the war unless you are worried about being tagged as a liberal? I can't possibly imagine one. This can't all be the media putting words in Obama's mouth and trying to form this triangulating narrative around him. Part of this problem starts with Obama himself.

more...with Obama Quotes:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/4/222227/496

[blm]

1. One thing I can't abide from Dems is when they ACCEPT RW talking points against

the left and other Democrats - Biden pretends he is the chief voice on national security and criticized Kerry as soft on defense, even though he knows damn well that Kerry can outpolicy him on defense and beat his ass man to man in just about every area.

Those like Lieberman who portray themselves as religiously superior to other Democrats is a path that I see both Hillary and Obama taking. This "Democrats need to embrace religious folk instead of excluding them from the party" is a LOAD OF CRAP, and I resent it MIGHTILY.

I am an atheist who has high regard for the religiously influenced charitable workers I know and support.

[ripple]

3. Just look around DU

There are a LOT of dems who bristle at the slightest mention of religion, and there are a lot dems who tend to label and dismiss people with strong religious leanings. As an agnostic, I've been guilty of that myself.

All Obama is saying is that religion plays a very powerful role in American society, including at the ballot box, and that democrats should do more to set the tone for the discussion by applying religious principles to common democratic values (eradicating poverty, world diplomacy, health care, education), rather than allowing rethugs to frame the discussion in divisive terms(gay marriage, abortion, etc.).

[blm]

5. they have been doing that as long as I've been a Dem, they didn't ALLOW the GOPs

to make value issues their mantra against the Dems, the corpmedia was complicit in pushing it every step of the way while they were distracting the public from crucial financial and regulation issues that were benefitting them.

Obama wasn't in that arena and stuck having to fight it especially with Clinton siding so often with the fascist agenda - to blame Dem PARTY is to take heat off media and the fascists who demagogued these issues while consolidating their own power and fortunes.

[ripple]

9. Obama didn't *blame* the dem party

Those were Bowers' words, not Obama's. Obama simply pointed out something that would be helpful in reframing the debate. It's a way to improve our strategy, not an attack on democrats. Dean and a lot of other progressives share their own insights and suggest party strategies all of the time. I don't hear Bowers or anyone else complaining that they're somehow "blaming democrats". :shrug:

[wisteria]

6. We are the party of the people, supporting and caring for the people

should give us the moral high ground to begin with. Our party is large enough to envelope and support all kinds of people of all kinds of faiths. it shouldn't be necessary to point this by exhibiting certain behaviors or talking up certain points. I too resent it when a politicians thinks it is necessary to criticize the party and other politicians in order to build up their resumes and convince people they are better than the rest.

[ripple]

10. I agree that our party does a lot of wonderful things

How do you suggest we win elections if we don't speak about our strengths? And what "behaviors" do you speak of Obama exhibiting? How, exactly, did Obama criticize the democratic party?

And isn't proving one is the best candidate for the job the whole point of campaigning? It's often necessary to at the very least point out why one is better-suited than one's opponent. Your criticism of Obama could apply to virtually any politician.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post, but your argument doesn't strike me at all as unique to Obama. Remember the 2004 primaries?

Sorry for so many questions, but I'm honestly perplexed by your post.

[lwcon]

15. The slightest mention of religion!? This is bullshit.

Because a few of us in this forum have the balls to speak up about the absurdities and hypocrisies of religion -- and its increasing stranglehold on the United States -- indicates nothing about the mainstream of the party, nor does it mean that anyone is "bristling at the slightest mention of religion."

It's as inaccurate as it is insulting.

Jimmy Carter is an evangelical Christian. Does anyone bash him for that? No. But he sees such a growing problem with mixing church and state that he published a book about it called "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis."

Ex-GOP Senator and Episcopal priest John Danforth just published his own book on this topic. Last night on "The Daily Show," he said this: "Throughout history, religion has been used to divide people."

Nixon and Reagan admin figure Kevin Phillips wrote a book called "American Theocracy," where he says this about the Right's radical religious agenda and related misdoings: "...the national Democrats have their own complicity. Their lack of understanding and moxie has contributed to the mutation of the GOP. Without that weak and muddled opposition, both before and after September 11, the Republican transformation would have been impolitic and perhaps impossible."


And as to your comment...

First, there isn't a single Democrat in the House or Senate that speaks or acts that way. They can't because it's too dangerous to criticize religion in this country.

Second, it's not "bristling at the slightest mention of religion" to mind when your party's candidates throw your party -- and realists -- under the bus:

Obama: Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

Biden: "I think the problem with a lot of elites in the Democratic party, quite frankly, is they communicate they don't respect people's faith."

So, you have Obama saying that liberals discount moral values, and Biden saying that a lot of Democrats are heathen elitists.

I guess that is pretty slight, isn't it?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Radical Activist]

17. There are many people who think religion should not be discussed

as part of public discourse in any way. Some of them are serious people in the political world. I bet it wouldn't take me long to find some posts from DUers who get angry whenever Obama or another Democrat discusses religion.

[lwcon]

18. Obama and Biden have proven themselves to be facile about religion...

...therefore, some people may react quickly if they seem them playing that card.

The chance that you maybe possibly might find a person or two who is kneejerk outspoken about this issue in an anonymous forum does not mean it's right for Obama and Biden to fluff up the rightwing straw man of the amoral Democrat that disrespects religious people.

It's a carnard that's bad for the party, and it's bad for a country that once honored the separation of church and state.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[jefferson_dem]

19. How ironic. You allude to the supposed straw men Obama sets up to knock down - one regarding

the apparent religious intolerance of some on 'the left' - then go about suggesting that a public figure who expresses his own personal (liberal) faith perspective does not respect the separation of church and state. Not sure about Biden, but when exactly did Obama criticize "amoral" Democrats?

EDIT: Ok. I see your posts above regarding Obama and "amoral Democrats." We read that differently, i guess. From my perspective, he is challenging Democrats to appreciate, indeed to tap into, the cultural or "moral" foundations of public policy. This is not at all about the self-righteous condemnation of "non believers" we routinely hear from extremists on the Right. By the way, I just finished the wonderfully illuminating "American Theocracy." Great read.

[lwcon]

21. It's just wanting to be an Obama apologist

Why should he "challenge" Democrats to do something they do anyway -- i.e., being tolerant, moral, and concerned for those less fortunate.

It's the Republicans, who despite their sanctimoniousness, are immoral, amoral, and the last kind of people Jesus would ever want to be associated with.

But the media persists these myths, and Obama's "challenge" plays right into their hands.

What he and Biden are doing is cheap grandstanding, saying other Democrats are heathens, but I'm a good Christian like you, dear Ohio soccer mom and Georgia bible-thumper.

Otherwise, I think Obama is promising, but he's being a real sleazebag on an issue that is of vital importance for America to turn around.

This country was founded on religious freedom, and people's laissez-faire attitude as that gets chipped away could be our undoing.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Radical Activist]

23. I remember

when Obama suggested Democrats talk about religion more. There were more than a few DUers who contributed to a slew of very angry threads about that. I also remember liberals who criticized Bill Clinton for quoting the Bible in speeches. It happened.

He's also right. Democrats have the values expressed in the Bible on our side and it is very, very rare for any major leader to come out and say that. We don't and we should. I agree with Obama 100% and I agreed when I heard Dick Durbin say the same thing several years ago.

[eridani]

24. They aren't just "discussing religion"

They are triangulating away from discussing ETHICS, which does not in any way rely on faith. Faith is inherently divisive--ethics unites.

[ripple]

22. I said nothing that isn't true

I recall some pretty nasty stuff being said here when Mel Gibson's movie came out- a lot of posters unfairly pounced on other posters who voiced religious leanings. Maybe that sort of dialogue is an indicator of "balls" to you, but I view dismissiveness and downright nastiness as unhelpful to the overall discourse.

Here is Obama's statement again:

"Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems."

If you have ever heard him speak at length, or read his writings, you will find that he is speaking about poverty, the lack of health care, environmental protection, education, war, and other obstacles that WE ALL HAVE IN COMMON.

Perhaps you disagree, but in my view, progressives have inadvertantly ceded a lot of religious isues to the other side. Why? Because we've allowed the rethugs to take a couple of social issues(gay marriage and abortion) and use those issues to define religion in the overall political arena.

Obama is merely pointing out that we need to tap into peoples faith in order to achieve goals that are both consistent with religious teachings AND that help to solve some of the problems our society faces today. There are a lot of good and true religious principles that have been forgotten in public policy over the past six years. It's time for progressives to bring out the best of religion, rather than allowing our opponents to continually bring out the worst.That is what Obama is talking about.

Oh, and Jimmy Carter rocks! He speaks about faith much in the same context that Obama does. If you read them both, I think you'll find they have a lot common ideas when it comes to religion, morality, and how it all fits into the political spectrum.

[lwcon]

26. No, Obama isn't merely doing that

Jimmy Carter, who indeed rocks, merely does that.

But Obama takes it a step further, and despite saying many great things, he also indulges in grandstanding on religion, which is ironic because he confesses that his faith isn't actually that strong.

You can appreciate Obama's impressive charisma and smarts and much of what he has to say, but it's simply denial to ignore that he is throwing the rest of the party -- as well as atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists -- under the bus with some of his comments.

Likewise, it sounds like you're happy to throw gays (who should have marriage rights) and women (who should have abortion rights) under the bus, because those issues energize the bigoted religious base.

It's not a question of whether Obama and Carter have a lot of common ideas-- they do. It's a question of whether Obama will curtail his embrace of sanctimoniousness and become the true leader he seems born to become, rather than a triangulating hypocrite.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[ripple]

27. Believe me, I have no interest in throwing myself under the bus

How, exactly, is Obama “grandstanding” about religion, simply by talking about it?

As an agnostic and as a lesbian, I would have little patience for any politician whom I felt was throwing me or others like me under the proverbial bus. Similarly, I have little patience for those who claim to be on my side of gay issues, when they are actually doing more damage than good. I’ve seen first-hand how respected members of the gay community have suddenly become viewed as members of some sinister club plotting to attack the traditional family. I know the sort of division the pimping of religion has caused- I know who has benefited from it, but I don’t think any of us can fully appreciate the costs to our society.

I’ve come to realize that the people vehemently opposed to gay marriage have been sold a bill of goods, plain and simple. Their religion has been grossly exploited in an effort to divide the electorate and bring us all down to the lowest common denominator- fear, bigotry, and hatred. The way I see it, we can deny all of that, we can fight back using the same divisive tactics, or we can try to make inroads by talking about the issues we can at least agree about, and then move forward from there.

Believe me, I would love it if we could have a secularist society, based solely on common moral and ethical principles, exclusive of faith. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the reality we’re faced with. I forget the percentage, but an overwhelming majority of people in our nation either practice or identify with some form of religion. As we’ve seen in the last couple of presidential election cycles, that religious influence makes itself known in the ballot box, whether we like it or not.

Personally, I don’t believe religion is inherently bad. A lot of religious organizations do a lot of good for a lot of people. The fact is that religion is a part of our society and it isn’t going to go away. We can either encourage people to use their faith to make worthwhile contributions to our society, or we can continue allow our opponents to exploit the worst. Divisive politics will only produce more of the same result and personally, I’d like to reverse the trend of the past six years while there are still at least a few states that don’t treat me as a second class citizen.

[lwcon]

28. He's grandstanding when he fluffs up the GOP's straw man

But what I am suggesting is this — secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.... To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

There isn't a single person in a position of power within the Democratic party who says that believers have to leave their religion at the door, and it's completely inane and completely untrue to say that anyone is asking politicians to leave out their "personal morality."

Obama is helping validate the Republican lies, in order to establish himself as holier-than-thou.

WWJCD? Jimmy Carter would not and does not play religion this way, and he shows that you can be an Evangelical Christian -- someone committed to recruiting new Christians -- and still respect the separation of church and state. Doubting Christian Obama, in contrast, overplays his hand because he thinks it's good politics. It may prove to be a good vote getter, but it's a cheap-ass move, and I don't respect it in the least.


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Radical Activist]

13. Well...

Democrats will lose if we don't get the votes of sizable number of voters who go to church. That's an electoral reality whether or not if offends you. We need a majority in this system.

[blm]

14. There are ways of talking about it without saying that "for too long Democrats have ignored

the voices of the religious faithful" or however they want to word it.

Is it any different coming from Obama, Clinton or Lieberman? The whole thing is a calculated LIE drummed up by GOP operatives a couple decades ago.

[ripple]

2. Bowers' article is the most ridiculous piece of spin I've seen from our side

in a long time. Bowers is the one talking in straw man terms, not Obama. Obama gave examples in the quotes mentioned. Not once did he indicate he was speaking either for or about progressives in general, or that he was speaking to or on behalf of progressive leadership. By implying that Obama was doing just that with his statements, it is Bowers who sets up the straw man.

I do agree with this statement from Bowers, though:

This man has potential for all-time, worldwide greatness for the first half of the 21st century. ;-)

[rinsd]

4. What's a matter Chris? Obama didn't hire you yet?

Or is he already on someone's payroll?

[wisteria]

7. I think it is constructive criticism and should be addressed.

Obama should not be excluded simply because he is popular right now.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. silly article

I don't think those are appropriately straw man, and in none of those quotes is he attacking anybody, he's simply making certain things clear about how he sees things.

[Radical Activist]

12. I didn't see him attacking the left either.

The writer needs to stop being so sensitive or be up front about what his real problems with Obama are.

[Radical Activist]

11. How about a quote where he actually does that?

I just read the post on MyDD. I'm waiting to see evidence of Obama using the left as straw-men in some kind of odious manner, because there are no examples at the link you post.
All I see is Obama saying that he doesn't think Iraq was only about oil, and yes, there are many who believe that. So...that makes Obama hate liberals now? WTF?! This post is petty bullshit.

[lwcon]

16. See my post #15 n/t

[Catchawave]

20. Other than DU...I do MyDD and Kos....

meh...rather DU the DU, same sh*t, less wordy stuff :)

[izzybeans]

25. I'm not sure the points being made in this piece are valid.

This is a poor attempt at utilizing evidence to make one's point. The author is providing no context to those words and interpreting them in ways the speaker did not intend. I'm afraid the point is lost in the presentation.

[Bullet1987]

29. Not only that...

I just read the post on MyDD. I'm waiting to see evidence of Obama using the left as straw-men in some kind of odious manner, because there are no examples at the link you post.
All I see is Obama saying that he doesn't think Iraq was only about oil, and yes, there are many who believe that. So...that makes Obama hate liberals now? WTF?! This post is petty bullshit.

Not only that, but he doesn't say the invasion WASN'T about oil either. He just says he doesn't think it was JUST about that. Which is what many Progressives say. That's all he was saying. I agree with the above poster that Barack's statements are taken out of context to prove a point.