My Obama fears.

[Ravy]

I was one of the last Gore holdouts, and I decided to support Edwards when I finally gave up hope for Gore.

I contributed to the Edwards campaign, voted for him (in Florida) and encouraged many family and friends to do the same.

Now, I don't really care who wins, as long as they win in November.

That being said, I find myself responding mostly to Obama threads in support of Clinton. I admire Clinton, I admire Obama. Am I a closet Clintonite?

No. After much thought on the issue, I think I have found out why I would appear to be rooting for Hillary.

It has to do with being a Democrat all of my life. A former candidate and elected official myself, I am uneasy when Obama attacks other Democrats, which he does with regularity. Whether it is talking about the excesses of the 60s and 70s, the failure of the baby-boomers, the fact that republicans have been the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years, or the railing on the IWR vote, which in my view, mis-characterizes the reason that the Democrats who voted for the IWR did so... to the half of the problems today are because of Democrats...

It makes me uneasy. It makes me mad at times. I generally post in an attempt to correct some of his mis-characterizations.

There are lots of things about this that concern me. First, by whacking on Democrats, he is biting the superdelegate hand, and if he *should* win the state by state voting, and the superdelegates go for Hillary then this tremendous movement he is building is bound to go back into the woodwork (best case) or turn against the Democratic party (worst case). I would be *grand* if he had focused more of his energy (and theirs) against the republican principles that have gotten us into this mess, but to win the primary, he is attempting to point out the failures of the Democrats far more (imho) than he is the republicans.

I truly wonder how long his coattails will be when a good percentage of the Democrats running for re-election indubitably fall into these slams against "old politics", and I suppose "not the party of ideas". Is he really bringing in new voters to the Democratic party that will be loyal enough to the principles to vote Democratic all the way down the ballot?

I don't know the answer to this question. But, with the numbers greatly favoring Democrats this year, the "out with the old" is not playing well with me. Also, the divisiveness within the Democratic party of his message will not help him get support from "traditional" Democrats, and I don't know how many of his supporters now are pro-Obama vs anti-Clinton. There appears to be a significant number of the latter, and if Hillary leaves the race, they may, too.

I see a lot of positives with Obama. A whole lot of positives. But the negatives he injects brings him down to "Ho, hum" in my book, about even with Clinton.

Such a loss of potential.

[dkf]

1. Well if you are satisfied with everything the way it is now...

then out with the old does nothing for you and I can understand that.

On the other hand, I think the country is messed up in a myriad of ways and I'm worried that if we don't get our act together soon then we are screwed.

My problems: The Economy, Peak Oil & Global Warming.

If these politicians are going to take denunciations of "old politics" personally then there is no hope for us anyway. That means they are more concerned with their egos than they are in doing what we need to do to keep this country decently healthy. I hope Obama can get people to see beyond themselves to the greater picture.

[mutant80]

3. Clinton is the workhorse

if you're done your homework, you'll see that she is going to get things
done the first minute she gets into office.

This is exactly why MSM and the right wing are doing everything possible
to kill her off.

[sniffa]

11. Ready to organize focus groups on DAY ONE

[blm]

28. Baloney - she'll do exactly what Bill did and continue the coverups for BushInc.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/21045/9822/688/446786

[Ravy]

5. Of course I am not satisfied with the way things are now.

There is a republican administration and enough republicans left over to stop much of the legislation.

If we get a Democratic administration and gain more in the House and Senate, things will be far different than they are now, and you don't have to bash the current Democrats to get there. In fact, that may be counter-productive.

[dkf]

15. By old ways I'm talking about our politicians lining up according to party

voting party line and blocking legislations simply so that the other side doesn't win or about creating legislation so repugnant to the other side that can be used to bash the other side and spin.

All this stuff is meant to score points, not to get things done.

[Ravy]

16. Democrats in congress have always been like cats.

They are tough to herd.

However, when the numbers are rapidly swinging Democratic, I kind of like the idea of us actually using the majority to get things done.

[dkf]

18. But sometimes using the majority in congress gets pet projects and unpopular stuff done.

That is using power to do what those people in power want done.

I'm more interested in looking at the needs of the people, which are universal really, and getting those things done.

None of this pet project deals please.

[Ravy]

22. Well, the number of those "pet projects" you speak of explode when

you are essentially bribing some congressperson to vote the way you want because it cannot get enough votes otherwise. Having a bigger group of Democrats will help that.

[OzarkDem]

8. Both candidates are a change from the current system

Where do you get the idea that Clinton doesn't represent change? Her agenda is far more ambitious and visionary than Obama's. So what is the standard you use to define "change"?

[Recursion]

48. Methods and character, not issues

Her agenda is far more ambitious and visionary than Obama's.

Frankly I'm starting to realize that Clinton's supporters are incapable of seeing past the issues. We all want a national health policy but the way I think Obama would do it is better than the way I think Clinton would do it. I don't want something created behind closed doors.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I'm not comfortable either, Ravy,

with either candidate, but I'm probably going to be pretty much keeping my own counsel from here on out. It's too disheartening to express honest concerns and then get insulted and shouted down.

I was always an "anybody but Clinton" person, too, but I don't know now -- I've been seriously put off by some (emphasis on SOME) Obama backers. SOME Clinton supporters are not much better.

All I know for sure is that I will vote D in November, for the sake of the Supreme Court.

[AX10]

4. Obama is too dismissive of the past battles and wars...

that were fought, the same battles that made it possible for him to run for President today.
I cannot respect him for being so dismissive.

[dkf]

19. I want a clean slate. Wipe away all the anger of the past

and start fresh.

Being mad and bitter never got anybody anywhere.

That makes Revenge the end game, not unity.

[Benhurst]

20. It's not a matter of being mad and bitter. High crimes have been

committed and God only knows how many Billions of Dollars have been stolen.

You don't sit down under a tree and sing Kumbyyah with such people. You indict, prosecute, convict and imprison them in the name of justice to put a stop to their criminal behavior and deter others from following in their footsteps.

[Ravy]

21. My point is that he is not removing anger, he

is redirecting it towards Democrats, in some cases.

You cannot force people not to be angry given what the republicans have done to the country. What you can hope for is enough Democrats to vote for your new agenda.

[Hobarticus]

33. Know your history...or you're doomed to repeat it...

The Dems who struggled through hard-fought battles of the 70's-80's-90's are people to admire, not scorn.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. You're joking, right? Still planning on taking that knife to the gunfight, eh?

The repukes don't want to play nice. Why do you think we're in the position we're in? They brought the guns to the gunfights while the dumb ass Democrats still held their knives just blowing off everything those harmless repukes would say or do. Meanwhile, the repukes were plotting and planning on how to take over the Government and they succeeded! They lined up all their churches, they stacked school board with their church people and local offices. They organized hundreds of think tanks. They started stacking the courts. They started stacking the schools with all their religious freaks...principals, vice principals and teachers. They've connected to corporations. They've connected to the defense industry. They have organized and plotted and planned while the Democrats just sat by acting like they were harmless and look where it got us. And you actually believe they're going to "play nice" just because YOU and Obama want to?:eyes: Unbelievable. No wonder this country is so fucked up. It's still full of a bunch of bright eyed, naive people who haven't seen the light. People who STILL TRUST repukes after what they have done to this country. Geezus.

Wipe the slate clean and start fresh? OMFG!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. I see "potential positives" with Obama beginning in about 8 years. At least.

[DJ13]

7. As our economy now demonstrates, unrestrained free trade isnt a good idea anymore

The Clintons are big on free trade (NAFTA..etc) at the expense of the average American, and our nation cannot afford another 4 to 8 years of that type of pro-corporate leadership.

[Ravy]

10. Well, I haven't viewed Obama as better on trade. Educate me. nt

[OzarkDem]

13. Again, Obama is very vague on trade reform

[Mudoria]

17. He's vague on pretty much everything

except "change" and the "audacity of hope".

[paulk]

41. this is such bullshit and sad that's it's come to be expected

first of all, Obama is no different than HRC on this issue.

second she has said that NAFTA is fucked up and needs to be fixed

she voted against CAFTA

why don't you make a real argument one of these days instead of constantly spamming this board with nonsense?

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. you have to remember a key fact about how people view congress

voters are more likely to have a much higher approval rating of their own representative than they do congress as a whole.

"Throw the bums out" usually applies to someone else.

[OzarkDem]

12. Obama's demagoguery and fear mongering on health care reform

is very, very disturbing.

He continues to not only misrepresent Clinton's plan, but also his own. He appears willing to destroy any efforts at health care reform just to score points against Clinton.

His campaigns attempts to paint the first Clinton administration as a failure are also very bizarre and GOP-like.

Obama uses too many GOP talking points, a form of triangulation he's using to lure young voters who don't know better and who grew up hearing that BS from the conservative news media.

[goldcanyonaz]

14. My biggest fear is all the Dem for a day to keep Clinton away votes that will go Repug in November.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

23. If you don't believe his criticisms are valid, don't vote for him

You are correct not to do so.

But many of us agree with his criticisms of the party, and our party leaders, and that is why we support him. We believe it is time for a huge change in the party.

[Ravy]

34. I believe his criticisms are overstated.

Particularly when his voting record is nearly identical to the people he is directing his criticism at.

Like I said, a sad loss of potential.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

35. so, its not that you disagree with his criticisms, but you think

he overstates them? You won't vote for him because he overstates criticism that is valid?

Dont let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

[Ravy]

38. I think he overstates them to the detriment of the party.

He will need Democrats to affect any change he can get planned, and if he pisses so many of them off, or hurts their re-electons with his overstated criticism, then it won't bode well.

[frogcycle]

24. You put it well

something about his demeanor in all that you describe just rubs me the wrong way

I can't really put my finger on it, but he comes across as if he thinks he is the messiah or something. All who went before him got it wrong; he has the answers; all will be well if we just fall in behind him like the children of Hamlin behind the Pied Piper.

[Eurobabe]

29. Yeah, I'll give it to you that he is a little cocky sometimes

But he's got the cajones to take on the Clinton machine. So :shrug:

[ginnyinWI]

25. Should any party be above being questioned?

How can a party be improved unless it can stand a little scrutiny? The trouble with the GOP all of these years is that they refused to question themselves. Blind loyalty was demanded of them and received. A party that won't examine itself, criticize itself and change is doomed. Just watch the GOP topple over from dry rot this year and you will see what I mean.

Another thing that might be bothering you is simply that Obama has adopted a new campaign style, and change always tends to take us out of our comfort zone. The lines are drawn less clearly, on purpose, so that the Indies and Repubs won't feel alienated. That's a strategy for winning, but Obama is still a progressive, don't worry about that. Just look at his record and his policies going forward.

[chimpymustgo]

26. Should any party be above providing some answers? Obama's vagueness angers me.

Is he playing us for fools?

[ginnyinWI]

27. in the last two elections, Bush drove us crazy.

He was vague on the issues, while our candidates (Gore, then Kerry) spent their stump speeches explaining their policies and plans over and over in as much detail as they had time for. They tried to cram it all in. (And Hillary is still campaigning this same way--it's Democratic boilerplate.)
Bush would just step up and bowl over his people emotionally, and they were his--he owned them. And it drove us nuts. Why are people so stupid, we would cry. Why don't they use their brains?

But what happens is this: people get attached emotionally to a candidate by identifying with them. The policies and plans come later. We now have a candidate who can do that--can appeal directly to people's hopes and dreams and show them a vision of what could be.

That's why some of us on the left ask, "WTF?" Because Obama is doing it a different way. Now he's not Bush--far, far from it. He's a progressive in his policies and plans. It's all on his website and in his books, and he does discuss them in debates and interviews. But on the stump he does a new way. We should be glad that a politician that is this gifted at drawing people in is on our side!

[FirstLight]

30. Ravy, you are sooo

close... I too, was a Gore Holdout, and still consider myself an Edwardian. (I'll be sick if he endorses Obama)

The folks who suport Obama here and elsewhere keep accusing Clinton of being no better than Bush... I can't stomach that either. Bill Clinton was a good president, sure, like everyone in the office he has made compromises that maybe weren't the best policy...but nothing like the absolute dissolution of our Civil Liberites that Bush has taken (quietly, without our even knowing it)
THAT is something to fear.

I am tired of all the old Ken Starr Era attacks on Hillary that have surfaced over the past months, because it's happening on multiple levels and multi media... Barack is not diretly responsible, I won't go there...but his suporters and even the pundits who adore him are quick to dredge up those past issues to make a point about present or future policy in the Hillary White House.

But there IS more... I "almost" fell for him last night...almost
He sounded like he was adopting alot of Edwards talk and point, he was definately at his oratory best, and he even quoted JFK and almost looked humble, instead of the arrogance and love of the spotlight I usually see...
Then, I get online for a reality check and find more info about his own backhanded dealings and such (I could find them if I tried, but I'm not so good at this yet so it isn't right at my fingertips...) one article tht stands out that I did bookmark is this http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
(this was on another DU thread, I bookmarked it because it really does speak to my own gut feelings)

I have been telling my teenage son that I can't swallow the kool-aid for one reason,
because I think he is a republican in sheeps clothing....
and the Messianic stuff is even scarier considering the times we are living in.
I honestly did not think he would get this far, so there may be something more sinister afoot...but to elect someone with virtually no experience compared to someone who has fought the wolves and lived to tell...?
I choose She-RA the Warrior Princess, and pray that Bush will not succeed in taking THIS election away from us too...

[Ravy]

31. Thanks for the link! It was a good read. nt

[Tennessee Gal]

32. Bravo! Very well stated.

You describe the process I have been through.

[goldcanyonaz]

36. My fear is that the Republicans who turned out to vote for Obama in the primaries

will vote for McCain in the general election.

[Ravy]

37. I think that is a valid concern.

Even the "anti-Hillary" independents may be suspect, and the "anti-Hillary" Democrats may stay at home.

It may work out well for us, but I don't like the strategy the campaign is using.

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. That's EXACTLY their plan. Get Obama in and then destroy him in the GE.

I guarantee it.

[Gloria]

39. His version of "Harry and Louise" was the final cut for me...

I'm thinking he's just about Obama and doesn't give a damn about much else...

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. No. He's about Barack, Michelle and their girls....and not much else. n/t

[paulk]

44. he's running a scorched earth campaign that's focused solely

on splitting the party so he can win the nomination. It may even work.

But what does he do then?

Do we all get in a circle, hold hands, and sing?

And that's not even mentioning the Republicans.

[Armstead]

45. It's a primary on two levels -- Obama is making valid points

The uppermost and most obvious level is how to get the damn GOP out of the White House and weaken their hold on Congress.

Beyond that, though, the primary is about what the Democratic Party will become.

Obama is right. It has become stale, and weak and bland and basically spineless and defeatist.

Bush has gotten his way even when his party has been in the minority in Congress.

The economy has gone into the dumpster -- and it's not only GW's fault.

The Democratic Party has to reenergize itself, which also requires some honest soul searching and self-assessment.

[Ravy]

46. Yet, he votes the same as the others.

And his proposals, although close, are probably a little weaker (health care and trade, at least).

I don't think an influx of republicans is a good way to re-energize and redirect the party.

I really like him on a lot of levels, but he seems to be pushing many of us away to make room for republicans. I don't think that will serve us well.

[judaspriestess]

47. Obama is all about change but he's still a member of the two party system

If he was truly for "change" then he would have started his own party. How can someone talk about making changes when they are part of the political machine? And he talks like this change is guaranteed. The repukes are just going to shit in their parts from sheer joy in committing to a "New America". Yeah right.