Are Democrats having trouble seeing their beautiful forest for the trees?

[Coexist]

A Life-Long Republican Weighs In On Your Ronald Reagan

by draylogan
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST

Barack Obama, if nominated as the Democratic Candidate will carry the most states in the general election since Ronald Reagan in 1984 (49 States). He will make historic changes that will fall slightly short of what most Progressives (Is that what you call yourselves?) desire, but will be far more sweeping then they could have attained otherwise. He will do this with great support from both sides of the "aisle."

The problem is, you may not elect him. He may not be your candidate. And it is because so many of you sit in your little liberal bubbles talking with each other so much that you can't see what you have in front of you.

Wake up Democrats!!!

<snip>
In conclusion, the thing that should wake ALL of you up is to realize that I will be voting for Barack Obama. There are many like me. I know of NO Republicans who would vote for Hillary. None.

Why? Is it because he isn't progressive? No, it's because of his message. He inspires. Don't discount words. I am pro-life and anti-gay marriage. But what is more important to me, is bringing this nation together with a message of shared responsibility. WE can do this. Not just Progressives. Not just Democrats. Not just Independents. We ALL can do this. We are the hope we have been waiting for.

(There is a listing of reasons in the Diary that you may want to read. Several have already been discussed here; one I really don't like, but it is the Diarist's opinion, not mine.)

I hear Republican after Republican echoing how they will be happy to vote for Obama over McCain.

IMHO, the serious Clinton supporters who may stay home over an Obama nomination will be swept away by the Independents and Republicans and newly registered Democratic voters standing in line to take their place.

This could be big - hell - this WILL be big! And we have front row seats, people.

[harun]

1. I thought it was "forest from the trees"

[Coexist]

2. no, it references not being able to see the big picture

because you are focusing on minute details.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/cantseethefo.html
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

can’t see the forest for the trees

An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”


Christoph Martin Wieland (1733-1813)

"Too much light often blinds gentlemen of this sort. They cannot see the forest for the trees."

[Yael]

3. Strong message

:applause:

Anti-Obama people -- if you want a shred of credibility responding to this, read the link first.

[OHdem10]

4. Thanks but as a Democrat, I am sick of the thought that the GOP

is selecting my candidate. I wanted change.

[Yael]

5. You didn't read the link, did you

[Coexist]

6. not selecting - supporting

Obama's politics are left.

The right is willing to overlook that to vote for someone they like.

Win/Win.

[Yael]

7. Which they would have known if they had read the link

I thought we wanted people to say, "we screwed up -- and admit it -- and are willing to try it YOUR way now".

*sigh*

[Coexist]

11. i know

[monktonman]

9. So be just like them and ignore the other half of the US population

Just like they ignore us.
Dare I say that I think most everyday Republicans are good people,
I just dont agree with their ideas.
If they want to support my candidate and do what they believe is best for OUR
country I say good for them and thanks.
After all, they're Americans as well... or did Bush make you forget?

[Skidmore]

8. It's more like they can't see the forest for all the

concrete and steel that has been built on the pillaged land.

[Coexist]

10. *sigh*

you are right.