Why are people criticizing Obama for doing what Dean said needed to be done?

[EffieBlack]

In 2003, Howard Dean said he wanted to be the candidate of the confederate flag decal crowd. While I disagreed strongly with the notion of bringing that particular element of the Republican Party into our tent (since the only way Republican bigots would vote Democratic is if they believed that blacks and civil rights would be kicked to the curb), I did agree with him that Democrats need to reach out to and attract Republicans and independents if we wanted to be successful.

That seems to be just what Obama is doing. Yet some people here are attacking him for doing just that - accusing him of selling out or insisting that the fact that some Republicans are taking a good look at him and thinking about voting for him is somehow proof that he's a Republican-lite, DINO, etc.

Can someone explain to me: 1) why reaching out to Republicans is any different when Obama does it than when Howard Dean did it? and 2) how Democrats are going to be successful unless we broaden our ranks?

[Strelnikov_]

1. Well, let me try . . .

My first concern is . . . um . . ah . . . also, we need to consider . . . err . . .

[KittyWampus]

2. Clinton supporters can't answer. Their girl depends on the same fucked up Carville strategy

the loses elections consistently.

Try and just barely get by with just enough electoral votes.

Shrink the national democratic party to nothing.

[EffieBlack]

9. My OP wasn't directed at Clinton supporters.

There are plenty of people other than Clinton supporters who have taken the position I'm questioning.

Please don't turn this thread into another "Obama v. Clinton" foodfight. I don't engage in those games and would really like to discuss this question without going there.

[jasmine621]

30. I'll answer: Clinton has been doing what Obama says he wants to do.

Hillary has been doing that since her first term in Congress. Bill did that too. Both Clintons were and still are roundly criticized for "reaching across the aisle." You can ask any members of the Republican party who may even dislike Hillary, she is a hard worker and easy to work with to get things done. Even the hardest Repukes like Helms and Lott gave her praise for her ability to persuade and work with others. Of course, all that meant to the Clinton haters was that she is Bush-lite.

[ursi]

43. can't stand carville

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. The real issue is people who vote against their interests

There are plenty in the republican party who do just that. They vote against their economic and social interests because they believe the republicans will do something meaningful about abortion or similar issues. We need to show those voters that they are being played, and that voting Democratic will improve their lives along with everyone else's.

THAT is what Obama is talking about.

[madrchsod]

13. yes he is

what`s the difference between the poor black family and a poor white family...nothing...the white folks are told they are better and they believe it.

[MADem]

4. I liked Dean, but I thought that was an idiotic remark. He didn't make too many

idiotic remarks, though, so I gave him a pass.

We don't NEED racists, sexists or homophobes in our party, we just don't.

[EffieBlack]

6. I agree 100%

But there are plenty of Republicans who are none of those things. THOSE are the people who are taking a second look at Obama.

Not mad at them.

[MADem]

19. Obama is not going to get GOP votes in a big way. He just isn't.

He'll take Dems and some independents. Not Republicans.

[EffieBlack]

31. He doesn't need to get a huge number of GOP votes

He just needs to get some. Those, coupled with independent votes and substantially increased Democratic votes (likely in this energizing race), can make a tremendous difference.

[MADem]

40. He's not gonna get ANY, except from RINOs. Get REAL. NT

[madrchsod]

8. all the people in the south are like that?

gee no wonder they won`t vote for a democrat

[elizm]

14. NO, they are not! nt

[MADem]

20. Do you ALWAYS not read the posts before you shoot off a halfassed answer?

Do "all the people in the South" wave Confederate Flags?

Generalize much?

Why don't you try actually READING what is written before you make half-baked statements like that.

No one, save YOU, is talking about "all the people in the south." The subject matter dealt with those who display the Confederate Flag.

:eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

10. we won't be getting the 25-percenters, not to worry.

But 75% will do nicely. :)

[elizm]

12. ALL Republicans are NOT 'racists, sexists, or homophobes'...

I have a lifelong friend here in SC who is nothing of the sort, who has always voted Republican for the past 30 years, and who voted for Obama in the South Carolina primary. (She has supported him from the beginning, by the way). I am delighted that she has finally seen the light. I think you do great harm to Democrats when you make ridiculous statements like that.

[MADem]

18. Neither do I...some of them are stupid and don't know their own party's platform.

But the ones that DO know their party's platform? Pick one.

I "don't do great harm to Democrats" and how dare you fucking try to censor me? You don't like what I say, hit that ignore button. But don't EVER tell me I cannot express an opinion--that's a rather REPUBLICAN thing to say.

Oh, your "friend" who is a thirty year Republican, voting for Obama?

I don't BELIEVE YOU. I think you made that up.

[elizm]

22. You don't BELIEVE me....that is your problem. Keep your head in the sand then..

How does responding to your post equate with 'censoring you'? You seem a little touchy for some reason. And it is the arrogance of so-called Democrats like you who insist that all southerners are stupid that also does great harm to the Democratic party. I will however take your advice and hit the ignore button.

[MADem]

25. Go back and read what you wrote. I won't be scolded by someone

who comes on an anonymous message board with Thirty Year Republican pals who MIRACULOUSLY decide to VOTE OBAMA!

That's about as likely as Howard Dean endorsing Mike Huckabee.

And hey, elizm, why the fuck don't you TRY READING? I didn't SAY "all southerners are stupid." You TOTALLY made that up, to 'fire for effect' because you have no real response to what I ACTUALLY SAID. My remarks had to do with that CONFEDERATE FLAG crowd--are you inferring that ALL southerners wave that flag? Hmmmmmm?

Spare me. And DO hit that Ignore Button--you know, if you say it, you HAVE to do it.

I only get "touchy" when people are deliberately obtuse, post anecdotes that stink of horseshit, or flat out engage in mendacious discourse. If the shoe fits, shove your foot in it.

[madrchsod]

5. there is not any.

if the party,hillary ,and obama can bring more people into the party the better off america is.

[ginnyinWI]

7. exactly!

Obama makes some people on the left uncomfortable because he uses inclusive language and doesn't just recite liberal/progressive talking points. Liberal candidates usually go through a long list of social ills that they intend to remedy with government programs and the like. Obama knows that this tends to alienate the other half of voters who suspect government as a problem, not a solution. So he talks instead about the kind of America that would result of all of those same programs--which most people do want. It's not selling out or being false--it's framing the message so that more people will understand it and accept it.

[EffieBlack]

11. Wow - you summed it up beautifully!

You managed to explain Obama's whole approach on this issue - and why people are attracted to it in 4 sentences!

Nicely done!

[ginnyinWI]

21. thanks.

I come from a repub family and live in a repub county in WI. I know whereof I speak! ;)

[Ravy]

15. Not a Clinton supporter, but I think I know the answer.

Four years is the difference.

The country is radically shifting away from the republican ideas. They see what the borrow and spend republican policies have done to our economy, they see what the arrogant foreign policy has done to our standing in the world, they see that unnecessary war does not make us safer.

They know the republicans have been crying wolf, and politicizing our homeland security. They saw the cronyism that was responsible for people dying right in front of TV cameras in New Orleans.

They now know about the domestic spying, they know about phoney elections.

The republicans have given themselves a poor name. I suggest we let them keep it rather than forming "new bi-partisan coalitions".

[ProgressIn2008]

32. That's it for me as well. Too much has happened, the country swung too far right

We need to fight ourselves back to a place of sanity, not split the difference with extremists.

[mondo joe]

16. Reaching out is great. Pandering isn't.

:shrug:

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. He turns his back on the dems and sports anti-democratic ideals

It is all very hypocritical. And, when Clinton tried to reach out to moderate republicans, she was vilified by Obama who suggested she was running a general campaign.

He is very hypocritical in his attempts to win support of republicans hugging his anti-gay leaders.

[ginnyinWI]

23. do you have examples of those?

Anti-democratic ideals? Turning his back on Dems?

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. I gave you one

McClurkin.

Another: his attempt to attack Bill Clinton's presidency when he touted Reagan's greatness.

[EffieBlack]

26. I think it's counterproductive to cite such examples to "prove" that someone has turned their back

on principles - since every candidate has missteps or makes comments that can be misinterpreted (or twisted by others for political gain). If we are expecting our candidates to never have done or said anything that may seem problematic for anyone, the only viable candidate would be Jesus Christ. And He ain't running.

For example, the inclusion of McClurkin in the Obama campaign event a few months back deeply upset a lot of people. I did not react that way, but I respect the fact that other people were genuinely unhappy about that and I empathize with their anger and hurt. But by the same token, some things have been done or said by Hillary and Bill Clinton and some of their surrogates that have been just as hurtful to some other people, especially regarding the issue of race. Many, many blacks - and white, for that matter - felt betrayed and stabbed in the back by the Clintons by what they felt were calculated attempts to "play the race card" in South Carolina. Whether you or I agree with that assessment is beside the point - the bottom line is that there are many, many Democrats who were just as deeply hurt by that as those who were hurt by the McClurkin situation.

(And to anyone so tempted, please spare me the "McClurkin was worse or the race-baiting was worse, so my pain is valid and theirs isn't" arguments - that's not what this is about and I don't intend to participate in any such sniping)

Your claim that Obama attempted "to attack Bill Clinton's presidency when he touted Reagan's greatness" is another example of what I'm talking about. You have interpreted - and, in my view, misinterpreted - Obama's comment as an "attack" on Clinton and a praise for Reagan. Many, many people did not so interpret his remarks - I think it was clear that he was simply stating an historical observation about the transformational nature of Reagan's presidency. And I believe he was right. Transformational does not equate with good and saying that someone transformed politics is not "touting their greatness."

That being said, Hillary Clinton's comment about Martin Luther King and LBJ could be seen in the same light. Many people interpreted her as giving LBJ much more credit than he deserved while substantially diminishing Dr. King's work. I think that her comments were misinterpreted - just as Obama's comments were. But the people who were offended by what she said were just as offended as you seem to have been by Obama's comment about Reagan.

This is a political campaign. The candidates and their surrogates say and do thousands of things a day. Something is bound to come out wrong. Things occasionally get screwed up. The candidates sometimes say or do things that, in hindsight, they would not have done if they had to do it over again. It happens.

But I would never assume a candidate has "turned their back on their values" because a comment or action may or may not have been misconstrued. We all know - or should know - that Obama is not a homophobe and does not think that Ronald Reagan was a great man or a good president or that Bill Clinton was a bad president. We all know - or should know - that Hillary Clinton does not think that black people should be marginalized politically and that Martin Luther King was a minor player in the great change we saw in the 60s.

The attempts to inject great, overarching meaning into these incidents and then blow them up into evidence that a candidate has "turned their backs" on their principles is, in my view, naive at best, and, at worst, cynical manipulation for political advantage.

I advise that we stay away from such distractions and, regardless who we support, keep our eye on the ball.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. The issue for me is the double standard. Your reasonableness in this response

is not had by all. Indeed one of the major complaints here in DU and voiced in the media's attacks on Clinton

is that she is too moderate in some of her statements when she is reaching out to the other side.
is that she believes she is "inevitable" and therefor running a general campaign, taking the dems for granted.


Obama does worse than Clinton in embracing someone who represents HATE. And, suddenly it is unreasonable to look at Obama's actions.

Everything Clinton does is attacked. Everything Obama does is ok.

[EffieBlack]

29. I don't agree that "everything Clinton does is attacked/everything Obama does is ok"

It's understandable that you may see it that way because you support Clinton and are probably much more sensitive to and cognizant of attacks on her, while attacks on Obama may not be as obvious to you - even though you are engaging in it yourself by insisting that the McClurkin incident is worse than anything Clinton has done (even though I asked you NOT to go there! :-))

Because I support and admire them both, I really do try to stay back and observe as objectively as possible. And I see both sides. Both candidates are viciously and unfairly attacked in the media and by one another's supporters. It really does go both ways. And it's a shame, since they would both be excellent presidents and instead of fighting like cats and dogs, Democrats should be happy as hell to have two such outstanding candidates.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. I have not seen anything negative on Obama.

Clinton has been attacked by the media since the 90's. Nothing new there. What is new is that they are open about their hostility towards her and her husband. I am stunned when Morning Joe and Miki suggest that Obama has never done any negative campaigning...ignoring the press releases calling Clinton racist.

It is a sad. I am reminded of how I felt after Anita Hill. Another woman put in her place. America is not intelligent enough to get past the media hype. Obama will win, and America will lose.

[EffieBlack]

34. Then you're not paying attention . . .

You may need to expand your news gathering beyond Morning Joe and Mika . . .

But that aside, why are you so obsessed about whether anything or enough negative is being said about Obama and trying so hard to make up for that "dearth" of negativity by injecting as much of your own as you can into every discussion?

Why not just focus on YOUR candidate and why SHE should be president and why you think the rest of us should vote FOR her? You would do her infinitely more good by focusing on positive efforts than you are doing with your consistently negative sniping at Obama. Your attacks on Obama don't make me one more iota likely to vote for Hillary - and I'm sure many others feel the same way.

Your preaching to the choir. You might want to turn around and talk to the rest of us who are hav tuned out that sermon.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. Nice, smatass response.

The reality is that I get my news from a variety of sources. But, unfortunaly, most of Americans do not. ABC/NBC/CBS/MSN/CNN are constantly negative towards Clinton. And, if you disagree, you have your head in the sand.

Focus on my candidate? I am just responding on DU. I have to laugh at your response, as the majority of posts are attacks on Clinton.

[EffieBlack]

37. Everything you don't agree with is not "smartass"

I am offering you some constructive advice. But if you choose to ignore it and just continue sniping at Obama rather than giving anyone a good reason to vote for your candidate, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. thanks for your "constructive advice" but,

I am pretty dang smart on my own, I don't need your condescending advice, (that happens to be wrong).

[sandnsea]

27. Because they wanted their candidate

to be the one to do it.

[mnhtnbb]

36. Howard Dean was talking about reaching out to the Reagan Dems and

getting them to recognize that voting Republican was not in their economic interest.

Edwards was trying to reach this group with his economic message; my impression of Obama is that he's still trying to appeal to these people via their religion and bigotry against gays.

[EffieBlack]

39. Dean said he wanted the guys with the confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks

many of whom vote Republican precisely because the Republicans reflect their views on religion and gays.

I've heard many, many Republicans say they're thinking about voting for Obama. I haven't heard a single one say it's because of his views on religion or homosexuality. They're attracted to him for entirely different reasons.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. I wrote this post that I think gets to the root of the fundamental problem

people have with Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4336004&mesg_id=4337176

[Alexander]

42. Hint: these people never liked Dean or Obama.

Harold Ford is more to their liking.