Leftwing Cynics NEED Obama To Fail. Winning Would Invalidate Their Core Philosophy

[KittyWampus]

Cynism= inertia.

And insisting a candidate win every battle without calculating odds is the perfect way to mask your cynicism.

[geckosfeet]

1. Thanks for keeping it short.

[roguevalley]

33. don't blame the left wing. blame whiners. this radical leftie has her

eyes on the prize.

[polichick]

2. Well, the country and world NEED him to win - so fuck the cynics on both sides!

[midnight]

3. The Democratic parties core philosophy should aim to elect

those who will create a fair system for all to live in. The elected Democratic Candidate should be supported by all and the goal should be the White House.

[Fovea]

4. I agree

And when the party starts trying to live up to that goal in a consistent manner, I predict the cynics may continue to rail, but who will listen?

The best way to start is to re-establish constitutional government in the US.

Until then, they have the problem of too often being right.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. This leftwing cynic wants Obama to win.

That does not mean that I have to agree with everything he says or does. I recognize that he is a centrist, which from my perspective makes him a center-right politician. I am not hoping at all that he will fail, I am hoping that an Obama administration will be drawn somewhat to the left by events and popular pressure.

[roseBudd]

7. Obama realizes that only grass roots pressure from the people can achieve our goals

[KittyWampus]

11. I think a healthier Media climate is necessary too.

[KittyWampus]

8. you sound more like a Realist than Cynic :-)

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Anarchocynicalrealist

I think I just invented a new leftist splinter group.

[Cha]

14. That sounds like more than

a few of us on this board.

[DevonRex]

17. Hmmm....

If you follow the way medical terms are combined, that would be anarchocynicorealist.

What a great word!

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I like that better!

I nominate JeniiferZ as First Speaker of the DU Anarchocynicorealist Faction!

[Radical Activist]

24. Obama is the first left wing movement activist to get the nomination.

Its something new in American politics. I'm sure he's centrist by European or socialist standards but otherwise his record is solidly liberal.

[elocs]

6. Not only cynics, but a kind of left wing elite who believe they are the guardians

and priesthood of protecting our constitutional rights because nobody really loves the Constitution as they do. They have a devotion to doctrinal purity that supercedes winning an election. The trouble is that when you lose an election such as the presidency, you lose the ability to attain any real measure of doctrinal purity (in the Democratic sense) or protection of core constitutional rights even if you "control" Congress. Then, of course, the cynics and left wing elite get to criticize the Democratic representatives for not jumping through their hoops of doctrinal purity when these people do what they need to do just to get along.

So if we have another 4 years of a Republican president with John McCain, let's see how well our constitutional rights fare then.

[bowens43]

10. oh please...not the 'left wing elite' crap

you sound like a bushie you do that

[johnlal]

32. Right on.

The liberal ideals and principles are all fine and good until our guy runs afoul of them. Then we become the "purists" or elitists, and they become blind apologists for Congress's misdeeds.

[Mz Pip]

12. Very well put

I have heard numerous proclamations from supposed liberals that they will work to elect Dems down the ticket but will either leave blank the bubble for President or write in someone. I have no idea of the Dems down ticket are any more 'pure' than Obama, but I kind of doubt it in most cases.

So we end up with McCain and his bully pulpit and power of the veto pen and will end up taking even more step backward.

Doctrinal purity only exists in textbooks and in dinner party conversation. In a country as diverse and spread out as the US it's damn near impossible. We can even get Constitution experts to agree on what it all means.

[AllentownJake]

13. Exactly

I'm reminded of a scene in the west wing where Josh's ex-girlfriend Amy is asked by Santos to join the administration and she intially refuses. He tells her its time to grow up and stop throwing rocks and build.

If we take power we have to grow up and take responsibility and implement and support policy instead of just throwing rocks. It will be a test because some policies will be great some medicore and some will be just plain bad. Adjusting to things that we have taken as doctorine that will work when evidence may show otherwise may be difficult. For alot of us that will be difficult to do is seperate our own good ideas and bad ideas.

[madfloridian]

15. Please stop that. We must question what they do.

The GOP turned to the dark side because no one questioned, no one called them out on it.

I am sorry, but we give monthly to the DNC, DFA, and to Obama....and we have a right to say they are selling out the left to win over the far right.

And that is exactly what they are doing.

[dana_b]

25. nicely stated

without insult. I like that. Insults seem to be making a comeback.

[ulysses]

16. what "core philosophy" would that be?

[retread]

18. OP is probably referring to FISA. So in this case, adherence to the Constitution? n/t

[Radical Activist]

19. It would kill them to be part of a winning team.

They maintain their coolness and superiority be being the righteous martyr and "in the know" with something obscure like Kucinich or the latest underground indy rock band. Supporting Obama with a majority of Americans would take away their ability to look down their noses at a majority of Americans.

[blondeatlast]

22. "Radical chic" is neither, when you get right down to it, but it never goes away. nt

[KittyWampus]

28. funny thing is, with today's Marketing, they know how to reach such niches. Radicals and Indys

end up being sold to as well.

[blondeatlast]

42. Very true, as RA points out below. The Ron Paul "Revolution" was pure guerilla marketing

to born and raised Republicans dying to be "radical."

[Radical Activist]

40. The coolest had to be with Ron Paul this time

because Kucinich was getting just a little too mainstream.

[woolldog]

34. lol

you summed it up perfectly.

[ecstatic]

20. So true. Sometimes people are terrified of progress--or maybe of getting hurt

again.

[retread]

21. Yeah, that whole Constitution thing is SO left wing! n/t

[Overseas]

26. Please don't buy into Right Wing spin by attacking lefties

Give it a rest! Don't join the corporate media's relentless push to the Right. The phrasing of the argument sounds very much like a David Brooks type statement. Or even Bill Kristol. Because it buys into the image of Obama they want to promote-- that he's a scary left winger, so if he won those old school lefties just wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

None of the lefties I know would feel their core philosophies invalidated by an Obama win. Obama is fairly moderate. He's doing a good job at uniting a whole range of Democrats, disaffected Republicans and independents.

The Right Wing is far more cynical than the left, IMHO. They are very dog-eat-dog while professing to uphold family values. They talk "right to life" and still support a president who sends soldiers to war on false pretenses. They lie through their teeth with smug smiles.

And let's not forget that there are always a few casual critiques slipped into our discussions by concern trolls who are from other political persuasions. They enjoy seeing Democrats divided.

[NorthCarolina]

29. Well said

eom

[starroute]

27. The left needs to learn more about playing politics

Being out of power is great for fostering a culture of pure ideals. But once you have power -- or even the promise of power -- you have to deal with the messiness of reality.

It isn't wrong to express our displeasure with Obama. It isn't wrong to test our strength and find out if we can exert a degree of influence comparable to that of the Democratic establishment. What *is* wrong is to start threatening to take our bat and go home if we don't get everything we want.

I think our chances are very good in the long run. I've just been reading Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, and he offers a very convincing line of argument that formal organizations (like corporations or political parties or churches or governments) exist because of the problems inherent in coordinating large numbers of people to get things done, but that they also have major limitations and inefficiencies.

The Net is now making possible groupings like DU, where just a handful of people putting serious time and attention into keeping it going -- plus thousands more contributing only as the mood strikes them and without anybody giving them orders or trying to make sure everyone does the same thing at the same time -- can manage things it would once have taken an elaborate hierarchical organization to accomplish.

That's real power, and I think it's ultimately going to make political parties obsolete -- or at least reduce them to a sort of caretaker role, overseers of the machinery rather than wielders of power in themselves. But it's going to take a while, and meanwhile there's going to be a lot of arm-wrestling and deal-making and horse-trading until everything settles out. And if we want to be part of that process, we need to learn how the political game is played -- which is something we never needed to know as long as we were without power.

I also recommend checking out Shirky. He has a website at http://www.shirky.com that seems to be packed full of thought-provoking essays. I know I've read a few of them along the way but never really focused in on his overall message. I expect I'll do so now.

[Adelante]

30. Thank you for an interesting post nt

[Two Americas]

31. is that so?

If that were true, the best way to accomplish that goal would be for us to be quiet and let y'all keep going the way you are going. I don't think you need any help from the left in order to fail.

I would say the opposite is true. Some are willing to wreck the party's chances for the sake of their crusade to purge leftists from the party. That is pretty cynical on your part, wouldn't you say?

By the way, madfloridian for one is about as far from the slanderous characterization of the left that you and your cohorts are portraying here as could be. If she is on the wrong side of this line in the sand you are drawing, the party is in deep trouble should your viewpoint prevail. If her thoughts are not welcome, God help us. Whose are?

You say "insisting a candidate win every battle without calculating odds is the perfect way to mask your cynicism." For one thing, what is wrong with cynicism and who is "masking" it and why would they do that? What does cynicism have to do with right and left?

What could be more cynical than caving on one battle, and then claiming that critics are asking that we win every battle? What could bed more cynical than calling for "calculating odds" to justify compromise?

I think most of the cynicism is happening with you and your sycophants here who are cheer leading you on this divisive and hateful position you are taking.

Your post is one of the most cynical I have seen here.

You are also slandering and diminishing the nominee with your post. Is he that weak and frail that in order for him to have a chance to win, all dissent must be stamped out? Doe stampoing out dissent even help him win? Again, this is pretty cynical on your part. I guess your rah rah true-blue candidate loyalty makes for a good mask for your cynicism, not to mention your lack of faith in and loyalty to the party and your fellow Democrats.

Why do you feel compelled to damage the nominee with these supposed "defenses" of him, and hurt the party while you are doing so? Why tear the party apart, just so you can prove that you are right about this? Is this so you can "validate your core philosophy," at all of our expense and even though that puts the party and the country at terrible risk?

These vague and malicious charges about some vague group of "them" are always more revealing about the person making the charge than anything else.

[KittyWampus]

38. I "AM" the Left and I am not a sycophant nor a cheerleader. And stop attempting to project

your own cynicism onto me and those of us committed to electing a Democratic POTUS and Congressional majority.

[Two Americas]

39. guess I hit a nerve

No response then to my points other than that?

How does enforcing conformity and suppressing dissent represent being "committed to electing a Democratic POTUS and Congressional majority." The two contradict each other.

Merely claiming that you are "committed to electing a Democratic POTUS and Congressional majority" is no defense of the way you are going about it, nor does it tell us that you truly are "committed to electing a Democratic POTUS and Congressional majority."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. What philosophy is that? Losing at all costs? n/t

[Peacetrain]

36. I think some find a great deal of comfort

in losing.. seriously.. if you do not win an election..then you do not have to stand up .. some seriously like not having to bear the burden of being the winner and putting into reality all the things they love to discuss.. This is why I am very much an Obama supporter.. time for action.. not reaction..

[Trajan]

37. Needless antagonism ...

Cant get over losing GD:P ?

[Forkboy]

43. And not even very thought out, at that.

I give it one finger out of five. :)

[eridani]

41. No, we just need to remembet that getting the presidency is just one step in a long haul

--and that real change will come from pressure from below.