Those who try to stifle deserved criticism of Obama do our party a disservice.

[Joe Fields]

That's right. How do you think we got into the mess we are in, to begin with? A big portion of the blame lies within the ranks of common Americans who, for whatever reason chose not to hold their representatives accountable.Party affiliation seems to mean much more than vigilantly holding politicians to their oaths of office and safeguarding our American rights.

If we don't voice our displeasure when our leaders act expressly against our interests, then we have just given tacit approval of their inexcusable behavior. Our silence affirms to them that they no longer are bound to act in our interest, and are free to pursue their own agenda. If we don't scream loud and long at Barack over war funding and flip flops on FISA, then really, what can we expect of him if he becomes president?

Dissent is not an option, nor should it be looked upon with disdain by fellow democrats. It is not the fly in the ointment. It is, in fact a necessity, an obligation that each and every progressive needs to adhere to. It is the only way we have ANY chance at all of being heard or being taken seriously, instead of being taken for granted.

Personally, indications are that it may already be too late. But we cannot give up trying. By staying silent and acting in lockstep we will surely lose the battle for any meaningful representation.

For the record, I am not a serial Obama basher with an ax to grind. I am simply an American.

[rodeodance]

1. K and rec.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Uh huh.

I just love how people who supported the most centrist, warhawkish Democratic candidate in the primaries all of sudden turn into such "concerned" liberals.

Glad to see you got your principles back. Just in time to trash Obama. :eyes:

[hokies4ever]

49. Preach it thecatburglar!

Well said! :patriot:

[Catchawave]

142. How did you get all that from a simple K&R ?

:rofl:

rodeo is one of the best researchers on DU, I always enjoy his/her posts.

[newmajority]

186. Your post was backwards.

Should have put the :rofl: after your obviously sarcastic statement. ;)

[Catchawave]

192. It wasn't sarcastic n/t

[newmajority]

216. No, I guess it wasn't.

Considering some of your own recent work, I'm not surprised you find the Rodeo Clown so "inspiring" :puke:

[Catchawave]

229. Your link didn't work....

:shrug: :eyes:

...and why are you dissing a fellow DUer/Democrat? I thought we where supposed to be slamming McCain/McSame/McLame ?

[newmajority]

237. You're accusing me of dissing Democrats?? Oh that's a good one....

May I add...."if you don't vote Democratic, you're an idiot/unpatriotic/troll/REPUBLICAN/ ad nauseum"

That's why I'm glad we have this site....as for DU "you can't fix stupid"

Seems to me that YOU are the one dissing Democrats, not I.

Furthermore, you so called "PUMAs" are deliberately trying to destroy the nominee of this party. That means you aren't Democrats any longer, as far as I'm concerned.

The sane Hillary supporters did as Hillary herself asked, and they support the nominee. The "Party Unity My Ass" crowd has NO excuses for continuing this bullshit, but if you must do so, don't do it HERE.

[dionysus]

89. if you had ever done anything *except* bash Obama here, you might have a tiny shred of credibility..

:rofl:

[youngharry]

139. criticism based on fact

If the criticism of Obama is based upon fact and understanding of his position it is one thing, but criticism as a knee-jerk reaction to a vote that has several complex issues is totally another.

THUS, IF OBAMA HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR HIS VOTE ON FISA, IT IS TOTALLY MISPLACED AND IGNORANT.


FACT:

The FISA Bill is very complex, and while on the surface, it gives "civil" immunity to the telecoms, it DOES NOT GIVE "CRIMINAL IMMUNITY" to them. Obama said he would fix the immunity clause, which he can, but right now the important thing is to restore and put FISA back under the Constitution as it has been removed for the last year. That does npt mean that the 4th Amendment has not been violated for 7 years. IT CETTAINLY HAS BEEN. It means that FISA wasn't covered by the 4th Amendment for a year. The current Bill restores it rightfully where it belongs.

Remember--Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and he knows there are lots of ways of indicting the telecoms if they have violated the Constitution.

MOREOVER, importantly, If Obama votes "no" on the current Bill, he will look like he has been responsible for another false-flag attack on the US if one takes place between now and the election. THAT WILL SURELY DEFEAT HIM IN THE GENERAL ELECTION BECAUSE HE WAS "SOFT" ON DEFENSE OF THIS COUNTRY.

The FISA Bill is a poorly drawn Bill and can be fixed at a later date.



WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

[lligrd]

2. How About We Ger Him Elected First

and then criticize away. He might even listen. Do you think McCain will?

[Diamonique]

3. What lligrd said. Keep your eyes on the prize, folks. n/t

[Shoelace]

181. ah, some folks will bitch, moan and groan till Hell freezes over

no matter what Obama does. If he didn't support FISA, they'd bitch about something else. These chronic groaners need to take a long, hard look at the real harm they are doing. What other choices are there really? McCain? 100 years of war?

[bertman]

193. Please tell me what REAL HARM we are doing by saying we don't like Obama's stance.

Are the folks on this site such a bunch of sheep that they cannot tolerate some dissent from fellow Democrats?

Personally, I find it obnoxious and condescending that you would accuse others of being chronic groaners because they differ with you on their evaluation of OUR CANDIDATE'S STANDS ON ISSUES OF GREAT IMPORT TO US ALL.

I've been a Democrat for 40 years and have campaigned enthusiastically for Obama PLUS have sent him lots of my hard-earned money. But, I am more than outraged that he is treating this FISA/telecom immunity vote with such apparent disdain. SO YOU BETTER DAMN WELL BELIEVE I'M GOING TO SAY MY PIECE IN HOPES THAT SOMEONE WILL LISTEN. Yes, I have emailed the Senator several times about this.

I learn a lot from this site. I just read youngharry's defense of our candidate's position on FISA and find it to be compelling; although, it differs greatly from the positions of others who are at least as qualified to comment on the chilling effects letting this legislation pass will have. So, I disagree with youngharry but I don't accuse him of being a bad Democrat for expressing his views.

Now, if Obama is so sure that this bill is not going to compromise Americans' constitutional right to freedom from illegal search and seizure MAYBE HE OUGHT TO GIVE A SPEECH OUTLINING EXACTLY WHY HE FEELS THAT WAY. Can't we expect that from our future President? We have gotten nothing from any of the other Democratic party leaders except "we are willing to compromise". Maybe if I had even ONE other example of Democrats standing up to Bush on an an issue of Congressional oversight I would be reassured.

[Shoelace]

199. you have some good points but still, the criticisms provide much fodder for the media

that has not only jumped on every word on the netroots written by Progressives about his stance on FISA, they have expanded it, taken it all totally out of context and now it's an Obama bashing orgy via the corporate whore media.

Obama is damned if he does or does not support FISA. On the one hand he comes under criticism from the Left, on the other hand he becomes a target for the opposition for being weak on defense. That is the trap they set for him intentionally. They knew this from the get-go.

Yes, it's important to discuss these issues but not to the point that the talking points are used by the talking heads to further their "business as usual" support of the present right wing, corporate autocracy.
They know exactly how to play us to their own advantage.

[bertman]

224. No one can disagree with the Party line so the talking heads can't use that against us?

That is a very scary mindset.

[eridani]

56. I think we are all capable of farting and chewing gum at the same time

Being pissed at FISA has not stopped my voter registration efforts this week.

[bjobotts]

68. He'll win but then you'll say how about we get him reelcted first or wait until

he's settled in office or gets popular with the press. This is what they did with Bush.

[bjobotts]

69. How about we get him elected by making him stand up for what is right

[lligrd]

83. Apparently You Don't Know Me Very Well nt

[mrbluto]

104. Why not? That's what the Republicans did for Bush.

And we can see what sort of success that has been.

We all enjoyed the benefits of a Bush administration for these past years.

And look what "elect first, ask questions later" has done for rank and file Republican.

[RaleighNCDUer]

126. Huh?

Are we trying to elect republicans, now?

focus on the conversation, please.

It is about not undercutting OUR nominee, even when we disagree with him, in an effort to prevent THEIR nominee getting elected. Obama IS our nominee, and whatever missteps he may make he is head a shoulders better than McBush.

Focus.

[mrbluto]

136. Small words - Just for you.

I love the creative mis-interpretation, But it's not going to work.

I didn't suggest electing a Republican.

Focus? You'll wish I didn't.

I'm so focused that I'm going to persist where you wished I'd get exasperated and drop the subject.

So I responded to a poster who said this:

How About We Ger Him Elected First and then criticize away. He might even listen. Do you think McCain will?

Sound hopeful to you?

Elect first, then criticize? That's basically asking for trust with no proof. A pig-in-a-poke. "Voter Beware" I say.

So now, if you can hold that context in your mind I'll give you the line-by-line of my post - translated for for the irony impaired, or the willfully thick.

Why not? That's what the Republicans did for Bush.

In that sentence I assert that Republicans elected Bush in an "Elect first, ask questions later" sort of way.

Let me know if I'm going too fast for you here, okay?

And we can see what sort of success that has been.

See - I do a little trick here. The critical phrase here is "sort of". Read this with any sort of attention to context that a high schooler can bring to bear and you understand that I don't think the Bush administration has been a success.

We all enjoyed the benefits of a Bush administration for these past years.

Very similar here - I don't think many of us enjoyed what Bush has done, nor do I think there have been net benefits.Oh, sorry when I say net I mean, after matching good things to bad things that neutralize each other, whatever ends up unmatched and left over.

And look what "elect first, ask questions later" has done for rank and file Republican.

Again, irony going on in that sentence. I know it's a difficult thing to deal with, sorry if I'm demanding too much, but read on and maybe you'll learn something. That last sentence, if read with an understanding of "Irony", suggests that the regular folks (the "rank and file") didn't gain much with an "elect first, ask questions later".

If you look at my whole post with this strange new concept of irony you realize that I think it's a bad idea to "elect first, ask questions later".

So now that we've walked through that there's some things I'd like to know and your response, or lack of response is going to let me know this one way or another.

Here's the questions:

How did you ever pull out of my post the fucking idea that I wanted to elect Republicans?

Do you seriously think you have a shred of the competence required to merit you telling me, or anyone, "to focus"?

I personally think you get what I was saying much more than you let on and you're playing dumb as a tactic. You think you're cute, but I'll leave you with this little thought that will occur to you every time you try that tactic again, or when you wonder why you don't feel as clear on things as you used to:

Keep thinking that way and your brain is gonna get stuck like that.

And you'll have done it to yourself.

Now what are you going to remember, at least on a subconscious level, the next time you type "Huh?"

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. OK, asshole, my turn.

"How About We Ger Him Elected First and then criticize away. He might even listen. Do you think McCain will?"

The fact is, there are only two viable candidates now - McCain and Obama. If Obama does not win, McCain wins. I'm sorry to have to spell it out in such simple terms, but you don't seem to grasp it. IF OBAMA DOES NOT WIN, MCCAIN WINS. Obama may or may not be strongly liberal - I do in fact doubt it, though he does appreciate his liberal roots. McCain is the antithesis of liberal. There is NO way he would be better than Obama.

Our choices are 1) criticize Obama now, undermining his campaign for the GE, thus empowering McCain who then wins the elections using OUR talking points against Obama; or 2) get Obama elected first, then hold his feet to the fire.

Which is be more effective Democratic strategy?

Now to your reply:

"Why not? That's what the Republicans did for Bush."

Do you imagine the Republicans didn't know exactly what they were getting? I certainly knew, which is why I worked against Bush and the republicans. Was there EVER a suggestion that they intended to elect a moderate, and would hold his feet to the fire to be sure he worked well the national Democrats? Of course not. They elected him to exact vengeance upon the Democratic Party in retribution for the Clinton years. So, no, that is NOT what the Republicans did for Bush. What they did was elect him for exactly what they wanted him to do.

Your next two lines, "And we can see what sort of success that has been." and "We all enjoyed the benefits of a Bush administration for these past years." are based on the initial flawed premise that the Republicans had any intention of questions W's action in office - a premise not borne out by subsequent events.

"And look what "elect first, ask questions later" has done for rank and file Republican." It has done nothing to them that it hasn't done to the rest of us - again, the flawed premise: do you really think that if they had found out he was not a moderate they would have voted for the Democrat in the race?

The time for questioning is in the primaries - that's when we figuratively separate the wheat from the chaff. When the nominee is decided on we must suspend criticism because we have, collectively, decided that that is the person who will take the fight to the Republicans, and if he loses we all lose. Then, once in office, he hold his feet to the fire.

"How did you ever pull out of my post the fucking idea that I wanted to elect Republicans?"

If you are criticizing the candidate in the period between before the GE, you are giving the other side ammunition. That, as an example, is why he should never consider Hillary as VP because of all the ammunition she has given them during the primaries - all they have to do is play her campaign ads against him to make him look weak and her look foolish. She knows this - that is why they had the Unity meeting the other day - she will not criticize him now that the primary is over.

So, if you are criticizing the nominee, you are enabling the Republicans. It's as simple as that.

I've wasted enough time on you. You are clearly in one of three camps - the Naderite radical who is insistent on purity, even at the expense of the party; the unrepentent Hillfan who cannot follow Hillary's gracious lead; or a troll who wants to simply undermine our candidate. Your glib reply to to the person you answered suggests any of the three - your asshole reply to me leaves me unable to say which I believe.

[rhett o rick]

222. Well put. Criticizing our nominee will only help his opponent. There are only

two choices. The Democrats have decided to go with Sen Obama.

[mrbluto]

233. Diagnostic complete.

Thank you for your response.

<Diagnostic log>
<analysis completed in 18.3 seconds; 96.2% confidence in diagnosis>

• 001.- Swears inside of 20 characters of post......CHECK
  
• 002.- Presents false choice (paragraph #03).........CHECK
  
• 003.- Believes opponents can be lumped into a single monolithic group.....CHECK
  
• 004.- States obvious as if it supports Argument (paragraph #08)....CHECK
  
• 005.- Does not recognize that nominee is PRESUMPTIVE (para #10)....CHECK (modified by term "viable" in para #2)
  
• 006.- States analog of "If you're not with us, you're against us." (para #13).....CHECK
  
• 007.- Detection of Irony.....FAILED
  
• 008.- Faintest understanding of History.....FAILED
  
• 009.- Faintest mention of principles involved.......FAILED
  
• 010.- Haphazard identification of opponent as villain caricature........CHECK
  
• ...
  
• ---> Numerous similar instances within text omitted for brevity and to forestall nausea
  
• ...
  
• Result A. (Respondent has "clue"): FAIL
  
• Result B. (Respondent has chance of getting a "clue"): LOW (06.3%)
  
• Result B. (Respondent is worth corresponding with):
  
• EPIC FAIL

<End-of-Log>

[Joe Fields]

244. OMG, priceless!

best response of the week.:toast:

[comradebillyboy]

178. cruel, the way you twist the knife in that naive fellow

I like your attitude

[comradebillyboy]

176. very perceptive, but out of step with the required

reverence for our dear leader. fall in line, shut up and give money. trust, you need to simply trust Obama to do the right thing. Somebody whose name I forget told em in a similar thread that "Obama's campaign is above criticism". That appears to be du policy.

the primaries are over and DU is still as nasty a place as it was 2 months ago.

[rhett o rick]

223. Yes "fall in line", you see, there are only two lines. So pick one and criticize the other. nm

[RaleighNCDUer]

240. Only nasty because assholes continue to attack the Democratic

nominee.

And yes, since he IS the nominee you do have to trust the collective will of the democratic party in that choice.

Making cute reference to N Korea's dictator does not indicate that you support our nominee, so WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Or do I have to suggest you are a fucking troll, bent on undermining the Democratic nominee, against the rules of this board?

You've had your 7 days to vent - now you can get on the bandwagon or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Joe Fields]

241. Spoken like a true ostrich.

[LWolf]

124. If you don't hold him accountable now,

it will be too late to do so when he's elected. He will then have a "mandate" for all the center-right positions he campaigned on.

[jgraz]

182. Yeah, cuz that worked so well with Kerry. And Gore. And Clinton. And Dukakis.

Note that only one of those actually made it into office. And he turned out to be another Repub-lite DINO.

[Donnachaidh]

206. the operative word here is *might*.

And some of us are NOT willing to wait until he is elected to see if he *MIGHT* listen. Especially now that he's opened his options up to take anyone's money for the GE.

The SAME was said about Pelosi before she got her seat. Waiting to *see* on her response to us was one big fat fucking MISTAKE.

Four more years of ANY corporate controlled government is NOT what is wanted - regardless of the color of the team jersey.

[lligrd]

208. Then Go With McCain Who Won't

That is your choice!

[Papa Boule]

217. Do you think politicians listen AFTER they're elected?

How well does history back that touching little sentiment up, hmm?

Remember what Jon Stewart said in his conversation with Bill Moyers. Politicians believe they have one moment of accountability every four or six years. Just one. Once they're elected, they do whatever the hell they please.

The time to get them to listen is before, not after.

[FrenchieCat]

5. And what are you doing to speak out against McCain?

Anything?

Could you point me to those threads where you are expressing your displeasure about McCain, cause I'd like to read what you say on that.

Thank you in advance.

[Joe Fields]

9. Point yourself to them.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I have made a request.....from someone preaching vigilance

in respect of our rights.

I'm asking for your threads on McCain.

Do you have any to show.

Otherwise,

[grasswire]

16. could you people stop disrupting discussions?

Let it go.

[FrenchieCat]

19. This is the discussion that poster promoted....

He said, and I quote, "If we don't voice our displeasure when our leaders act expressly against our interests, then we have just given tacit approval of their inexcusable behavior. Our silence affirms to them that they no longer are bound to act in our interest, and are free to pursue their own agenda."

and so, I ask....where is poster's voice in reference to John McCain who acts expressly against our interest?

It is a fairly easy question.

although I have yet to see the answer.


Do you have some light to shed on poster's words in reference to John McCain? Cause I'm interested.

[TBF]

70. "you people" Which people would that be? Care to be more specific?

Because I'm sensing you have a problem with people who are supporting Barack for president.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Breeze54]

40. " I'm MORE patriotic than YOU are, so there!!!!!! "

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

You have a star... do your own SEARCH!

[FrenchieCat]

43. I did......which is why there's no there, there. Just silence.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. The people who isn't on cult of personality worship are all the same, no matter who their candidate

is.

It's like watching bush supporters in 2003.

Only the names have been changed to protect the uncritical and unthinking.

[defendandprotect]

157. Hey . . neither do I have any threads on McCain . . .

but it is understood that he is met with total disdain.

Do you see any one here celebrating McCain or complimenting McCain?

Let me know if you do ---

Meanwhile, we have a thread up about his tax payments --- is it mandatory

in your thinking that we comment on that ????

McCain is disgusting and I'll always be happy to confirm that ---

HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with telling the truth about our own candidates --- !!!

[BlueStater]

57. He doesn't need to prove anything to you

Get over yourself.

[Skittles]

88. lol

exhibit number one

[bjobotts]

71. Yeah he's helping turn us into a police state but look at what that guy

is doing. Criticize him 1st.

[Joe Fields]

6. You don't scold a puppy the day after he shits on your carpet.

[FrenchieCat]

7. So what about the McCain puppy? You know, the one our candidate

is running against.

Could you shed light on your "vigilance" against McCain? I'd like to read those posts of yours on McCain.

Could you post them please?

Thanks! :hi:

[MadMaddie]

13. FrenchieCat you even asked please!!

I agree with FrenchieCat...and I won't be so cordial.

Obama is our Democratic nominee, this site is to support the Democratic party and it's candidates.

Do you support Obama or not?

What are you doing to SUPPORT the Democratic nominee?

If not and you support McCain...ummmm....

[Breeze54]

41. LMFAO!!!

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

108. Like I said - Cult of personality. It isn't political support. It's pathetic fixation.It hurts

whoever the target of their affection is.

And not one of them will tell me about how their Unite for Change meeting went.

I can only guess that they are all talk and little action.

[goclark]

160. Frenchie Speaks For Me

[Faygo Kid]

14. I'm with you, FrenchieCat. We've seen this before.

I'm an American, too. One that wants to kick Republican ass from here to infinity. My "concern" is to do so, not to trash the nominee.

[chriswallace112]

24. We should focus our energies

on going toe to toe with the McCain machine... we don't have too much time to be introspective at a time when the reps war machine is going full throttle... they just vandalized 60 cars in Orlando with anti-Obama hate messages... they're not playing around!

I think we have all looked at Obama to know where the man stands and he stands for hope, change, and a way out of the "bushes." So what if he has to be pragmatic here and there... he's a senator who needs to vote the best he can using whatever legislation they present under pressure from real world events (I'm referring to the FISA thing). Better we start thinking that our candidate, who may have a couple flaws, doesn't need his supporters to turn around and start firing at him... let's keep firing back at the reps... I wonder if this is truly a concern about political accountability or otherwise, because the suggestion to start questioning every minute detail looks like a conservative trojan horse.

[Marrah_G]

120. There is a difference between trashing and critizising a position on an issue.

[pollo poco]

122. not in fascist america...

where all parties love lockstep.

[pollo poco]

128. john mccain sucks

There. Now I haven't said anything bad about Obama. And I have criticized McCain.

Moving on- I'm not talking about either of them. I'm talking about people who can't handle difference. Today, that means most Amerikans.

I hate McCain. But he is not my guy. When I get a petition from some liberal organization to give Mccain a piece of my mind, I do not respond.

McCain is not even supposed to be listening to me. Why would he? He's not my guy. He should be listening to his side.

Who's my guy- OBAMA?

He is SUPPOSED to be listening to me. He is not showing me a lot of that.

It is my duty to let him know how I feel.

And, it is my right. Opinions telling me I don't need my right to free speech because we are in a war for our freedoms sounds like so much of what I hear in our country since the Reichstag burned. oh sorry- I meant, since the towers fell.

I say- these days Americans tend to sound alike. Warlike. Bellicose. Intolerant. Disrespectful.

[unapatriciated]

93. Here is my husbands "vigilance" against McCain"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRlG_6Bk-8

and we both are upset with Obama's position on Fisa and other issues. You should be able to criticize or disagree with your candidate without fear and should not have to wait until after the election to do so.
I am not as creative as lame so I spend my time encouraging young people to register and vote for Obama in the real world and might I add in the very red state of Georgia.

So give it a rest already stop asking us to prove our loyalty if we should disagree.

[DeeDeeNY]

101. Excellent video

I am constantly amazed by your husband's talent!

[Cherchez la Femme]

100. The number of critiques against McCain

has NOTHING to do with this person's right, indeed duty, to voice what I feel is a valid and yes, common concern regarding so many self-described 'rational' and 'reasonable' Democrats blind obedience to or subscription of the cult of personality or outright holiness of Sen. Obama;
which, I do not believe, is in no way his deliberate fabrication nor fault.

The OP need not say one single thing against McCain to validate his post.

In no way should Senator Obama be treated as some kind of saint, should he be considered hands-off;
nor what the OP says should be compared to or tallied up with any number of negative McCain comments (well-deserved as they may be, from anyone!) in order for Joe Fields' observations to be credible!

Too many believe that if a person dares to criticize Mr. Obama they are anything from crazy to traitorous, from racist to Republican!

And everything in-between!


Senator Obama is our Democratic candidate, he's a good man, I feel, in an historic position; but he is far from saintly nor is he perfect.
Some actually consider him an equal to Martin Luther King, Jr.(now THAT would be insane!) --an incredible and historically ill-informed opinion.
With some of the rhetoric I've seen, one could legitimately wonder if they think he could be the Second Coming Himself!


Support him. Be proud of him. Love him if you so desire. By all means VOTE for him! I have no problem with that and will certainly cast my ballot accordingly

BUT
hold him as accountable for his words, actions and positions as you would any other human being; and above all don't kowtow to the alarming cult of personality springing up all about him!

Don't let others cow you or be afraid to speak up and out when you feel he's erred!
This thread alone seems to prove how popular that has become.

When he messes up I tell ya I'll be DAMNED if I don't protest and speak out, and I'll be double-damned if anyone of any political party tells me what views I can or cannot express!

To put it colloquially:
FUCK THAT!


To quote Dr. King, we should work for the day where a wo/man is judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character
--and that includes, even conversely, ANY skin color

and any gender.


No offense to Senator Obama, but he is NO Dr. King; not in any way, shape or form. He is bound to make mistakes and bound to have certain opinions that are not completely what most would call Left -- what I call Fair; especially when he is trying to be more centrist to "reach across the aisle" and, let's say, accommodate those who have willfully and with malice aforethought harmed and in many cases ruined we mere working people these past years/decades.

Fuck the 'other side'! Senator ...PRESIDENT Obama, I beg you: DO WHAT IS RIGHT, DO WHAT BENEFITS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AND TRULY UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION!

...mind you, I'm not saying Mr. Obama doesn't,
but, and again, believe it or not Barack Obama is NOT perfect.
How COULD he be? He's a politician fer Christ's sake; and speaking of which, he's unabashadly AMERICAN Christian (if that doesn't instill the fear of Gawd --pardon the usage in this context-- into Democrats and Liberals, I don't know what will!) whose 'Liberal' stance on abortion and gay,
nay: HUMAN rights/marriage (for just a few) are decidedly and deliberately tepid if not downright sycophantic to 'the Right'
--who are wrong.


Sorry to drop some 'Shock and Awe' upon some of you people, but it certainly appears as if a much needed reality check apparently is long past due; especially considering that this thread has a mere third of the recommendations that the one berating those who dare "bitch" about Obama!


Believe it or not --and I'd put this in a huge font if I knew how-- people who care for this country, its laws and its future more than they care for any one man or any one faction or group --political or otherwise-- have every gawddammed right to express their opinions

even if it's NOT politically correct or approved by some
or most

[jgraz]

219. .

:applause:

[jumptheshadow]

135. The difference is...

Obama is OUR candidate and he has made promises that he is breaking. We can still hold him accountable. There is still time to ask him to have the backbone to run on the positions he has given us his word he will stand for. There is also still time to lobby for positions he has (healthcare coverage for one) that could be improved.

In fact, it's important to raise our voices because we want him to WIN, not to look like all the other weak Democrats who have caved in and lost public respect.

Great OP. K&R

[JVS]

26. You don't accuse a puppy of destroying your house when he tracks mud from outdoors either.

And even if he were to shit on your carpet, you don't scold him for a fucking week about it.

[bridgit]

96. No you don't, you lead him to the pile (believe me he'll have a sense of what's coming)...

show it to him, then gently push his nose into it...thence forth puppy will be requesting without hestitation another venue upon which to 'do his business'

[defendandprotect]

158. And this means what to you . . . ???

The first Robin doesn't make it spring --- ???

Whaaat . . . ???

[Ikonoklast]

11. Concern noted.

Myself, I don't bash the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE.

And they don't have to pass a personal purity test of my own making.

[mrbluto]

146. You don't bash the nominee.

But you're doing damage in your own little way.

And whose test for purity should anyone use to decide?

Maybe one given to me by my employer? My church? The DLC? The DNC?

Maybe no test at all - just obey?

What you call a "purity test" I call judgment.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Your concern is noted.

[wurzel]

15. "If he becomes president". Says it all.

[Skittles]

86. says he is being a realist n/t

[Marrah_G]

143. You must make a fortune with that crystal ball

[H2O Man]

17. Context is everything.

[Joe Fields]

18. Agreed.

[hokies4ever]

50. Really? You agree?

Enjoy the flaming that you deserve.

[Joe Fields]

55. I can't tell you how much I enjoy your reasoned debating skills.

The reason I can't tell you, is because I've seen no evidence.

[JVS]

20. Those who promulgate unceasing attacks on our candidate are doing a disservice to our party, our...

country, humanity in general, and have revealed themselves to be in league with evil.

[FrenchieCat]

21. And if those same folks are silent on McCain, while shouting about Obama.....

then they are doing a double disservice to our Democratic party,
to our Nation and to humanity in general.

[JVS]

22. Yes you are correct. And the only logical conclusion is that they are affiliated with Satan, who...

works great evil upon all people.

[Joe Fields]

30. You assume way too much,. I don't do other people's research.

If you want to kiss Obama's picture before you go to bed each night, then fine by me. I will remain skeptical of all politicians and worship none. You have a lot to learn.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Here's a place for you to start.

"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want." --John McCain

I welcome a thread from you on this. Because as you say, silence is really not an option.

So please demonstrate your skeptism fittingly and equally....and If I dare not ask too much, moreso on the Republican McCain agenda than on Obama's....since you are here at Democratic Underground.

I thank you in advance for the great job you will start doing on McCain, as soon as you get your foot off Obama's throat, which you have been stepping on for 9 days now, and actually, I'm not sure you have ever had anything good to say about Obama, ever. Have you? :shrug:

[Joe Fields]

35. And here's a place for you to start.

"I don't believe that the actions of this administration rise to the level of impeachable offenses." ---Barack Obama.

Here is YOUR chance to demonstrate your displeasure equally.

I thank you in advance, for taking your blinders off and your earplugs out.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I don't have a displeasure. I'm in this to elect a Democratic President

what about you?

[Joe Fields]

47. No displeasure? You're not doing your homework.

Me? I can sum it up in one word - accountability.

[TBF]

72. You didn't answer her question, Mr. Fields. But then I didn't expect you to.

[RaleighNCDUer]

175. Is that relevant?

After all, do presidential candidates initiate impeachment proceedings?

Did he say anything about opposing impeachment, if the House initiates it? Did he say, as a Senator, that he would vote against conviction (before hearing any evidence)?

No.

It is a simple statement which lies in a wide range of possibilities - one of which is "I'm not going to throw people into the McCain camp by pre-emptively saying I am going to put a Republican president in jail".

As a sitting senator, he CANNOT come out in favor of impeachment without it appearing to be a crass political move because he is the Democratic candidate and the administration under threat of impeachment is Republican. In fact, insofar as he would directly benefit by a successful impeachment, I suggest he would have to recuse himself from voting on the impeachment if it came up.

If he were a Governor, rather than a senator who would be obliged to vote for or against conviction, you might be hearing something different from him. As is, he needs to keep himself out of the impeachment argument.

[LWolf]

131. Reading down this thread,

I see that this is the third time you've brought this up. You must think it makes a point of some kind.

It doesn't.

I can't speak for the OP, but I can speak for me. I've been critical of Obama since he started his primary campaign, for many good reasons that you are welcome to search for if you care. I know you don't.

My opinion of him didn't change when the field was narrowed, and it hasn't changed now that he's the last one standing. It appalls me that a Democrat would hold some of the positions he does, and I will not stop saying so.

You won't find me criticizing McCain. That doesn't mean that I excuse him. It means that, here at DU, it would be redundant. I assume that DUers already know that McCain is a fool and a Bush tool. I'm not worried about DUers voting for McCain. When I talk to somebody who might, I will be sure to point out the many reasons that he is unacceptable.

On DU, my concern is focused on the evidence that people are willing to let Obama get away with anything, including taking right-wing positions, in the interests of partisan politics and "winning." I don't think people "win" when they don't hold their party, or their elected officials, or their candidates, accountable. I think it's in the best interest of all of the above to voice dissent and to hold them accountable. In those best interests of party and people, I will continue to do so.

I can think of a few times I've had something positive to say about Obama. Yes, even here at DU. Since I'm an issues voter, and am not inspired by rhetoric, it doesn't happen often. I'm sorry that there aren't more opportunities to do so. I hope to see him do things I CAN support at some point, and I'll be sure to say so when he does.

Meanwhile, if I'm expected to vote for him in November, you'd better believe I'm going to hold him accountable for that vote. Now.

I realize, having read many of your comments about Obama over the last year, that this post is futile. I realize that you think Obama stands with or above MLK, JFK, and Christ himself, and that you will never consider that he might do things that don't actually bring about the change we wish to see. I'm sorry about that.

The bottom line, though, is that holding Obama accountable is more to the point on DU than attacking McCain, who isn't worthy of the bandwidth spent on him.

[stubtoe]

168. Good post. Obama is a fine candidate, but he's still a politician.

I support him, but it's silly to put him on a pedestal.

[LWolf]

174. Thanks. I agree. n/t

[bjobotts]

73. Standing up for the rule of law is above party. You can do both

[rodeodance]

106. I believe we can do both also.

[defendandprotect]

159. But "Democrats" who destroy the party from within should go uncriticized...???

Comment on the criticism . . .

try to be brave enough to do that --

Your party and your candidate is doing a disserve to citizens, country, humanity when

they destroy our Constitution.

And, as for name-calling, you're trying to label those who tell the truth about wiretapping

as "evil."

Get a grip on the right-wing childish comments ---

[Median Democrat]

23. Still A Lot of Critcism Is Presumptuous - He Is Just A Senator And...

Oddly, we give John McCain and the GOP a free pass in much of these posts. The problem with focusing on just Obama is that it misleading suggests that Obama is the President, because there is no appraisal offered of John McCain.

This is an election. We have a choice. So, a helpful criticism, or at least the criticisms that I find helpful, are the ones that also let me know what my choices are. Otherwise, a crtique of Obama in a vacuum is not helpful. If I disagree with Obama, should I stay at home? Write in Kucinich? Vote for John McCain, since there are fewer DU criticisms of McCain than Obama?

The irony is that while we criticize the MSM for giving McCain a free pass, the fact of the matter is that many on DU also give him a free pass while focusing their angst on Obama because he is not liberal enough.

[chriswallace112]

25. I second that.

[Joe Fields]

32. I feel you have missed the point of my post.

Deserved criticism. That is all I am talking about. Does silence insure that he will act in our interests if or when he becomes elected? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Breeze54]

42. All politicians should be scrutinized and I've seen plenty of anti-McLame on DU

those who claim they haven't are flat out fibbing.

[defendandprotect]

161. In your imagination, DU is giving McCain a free pass . . .

what expectations do you possibly think we have of McCain???

Do we expect McCain to stand against wiretapping --- !!???

Anyone who does has to be congratulated --- !!!

I think we need to remind ourselves that small "d" democracy is more important

in the end than large "D" Democrats who have helped get us where we are now --

[johnaries]

27. "Deserved" criticism is one thing. The criticism I've been seeing

has been decidedly undeserved, or at least misdirected. As I have explained to great extent in other threads.

Informed dissent is a great thing. Uninformed dissent is a dangerous thing.

[Joe Fields]

33. I couldn't agree with you more on that point.

Which is why I stayed completely away from this mud wrestling party during the primaries. During that time, there was no such thing as reasonable discussion or debate.

[defendandprotect]

162. Are you saying we misunderstand Obama on wiretapping/FISA?

... in fact, I think it would be helpful if insteand of these "sensitivity" threads

we actually had comments on what you're avoiding --- the issue itself!

[Fleshdancer]

28. For me personally....

My plan is to always get my candidate into office and then be as critical as I want once s/he has the job. I'm not going to tell others to take this stance, but this is what works for me.

[elizm]

29. Doing the Republicans work for them, huh? nt

[Life Long Dem]

34. Don't you think Obama should get elected...

before you scream loud and long at Barack over war funding and flip flops on FISA? Just curious why someone would want this type of behavior right before your chosen candidate gets elected POTUS.

[Joe Fields]

37. We seem to have a fundamental point of disagreement there.

[Rowdyboy]

36. So we need to tear down our nominee to make him purer so McCain can beat him more easily....

Hope that works out for you. Personally, I think the time for dissent is in the primaries. Once the nominee is selected then its time to come together and work to beat the Republicans. JMO as an American who wants to see the next few Supreme Court Justices appointed by Barack Obama not John McCain.

[Joe Fields]

44. It would be nice if no important legislation were to come up for vote

during the presidential campaign season. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. So, when my candidate flip flops on an issue as important as FISA, I'm calling him on it. As I said, and I honestly believe, criticism, when it is deserved is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary. The timing is unfortunate, but it is of Barack Obama's doing, not mine.

[bjobotts]

74. Bullshit.McCain couldn't beat a one eyed monkey. Support O but make him do what is right

[bjobotts]

75. Stop with the "don't be critical or McCain wins" crap. Tell Obama to stand up for the rule of law.

And do what he claimed he believes in. It isn't a sign of non support it's pressuring our candidate to stand for the principles we believe in.

[Rowdyboy]

115. Enjoy your l;ittle fantasy world....Gerald Fucking Ford got 49% of the vote....

McCain could easily get 55%. Obama is in for the fight of his life and anyone who doubts it is whistling out their ass.

[bjobotts]

177. After this republican disaster no Repub will win the WH. Not Bush III

To say different is just fear mongering. Even senate repubs are running for cover. they know the next president will be a dem. MOre wars, no healthcare, attack Iran, permanent tax breaks for the wealthy, flip flopping McCain will be defeated overwhelmingly. He's just the least embarrassing candidate the GOP had to offer.

[defendandprotect]

163. Do we need to LIE about our nominee in order to make him "purer" ...???

This is nothing but paranoia and fear-posting ---

try addressing the issue of wiretapping -- our Constitution ---

the need for total "change" even in the Democratic Party --- !!!

[Breeze54]

38. Proud to be the 7th Recommend!! And Thank You for your wise words!!

:D :patriot:

:kick: & Happily Recommended!!

[Joe Fields]

39. Thank you, Breeze.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. 100% agree!! If one is a paid employee of the Obama campaign or even a volunteer representing the

Obama campaign or a consultant of some sort, whether paid or unpaid who was providing service to the Obama campaign - proper form would perhaps require that one defend every aspect of Sen. Obama's positions and every decision of the campaign - unless Sen. Obama himself or the senior managers of his campaign changed their position and issued an appropriate statement.

But as an amateur and a private citizen who supports Sen. Obama, it would not just be unrequired of me to support things I don't support and say things I don't believe - it wouldn't just be disingenuous of me to support things I don't support and say things I don't believe - it would be down right unpersuasive and ineffectual.

NORMAL PEOPLE tend to get quite turned off by true believers spouting a narrow partisan line when they know the person spouting this drivel doesn't even believe what they are saying.

When I can sincerely tell people why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President of the United States even though I don't agree with every word he says or every position he holds or every action of his campaign - that certainly in my experience, is a hell of lot more persuasive than mindlessly repeating a bunch of prefab lines that I don't believe.

[butterfly77]

48. WRONG!

[bjobotts]

77. Yeah, my Obama,right or wrong, even if he says maybe we should torture

[bjobotts]

78. Or even attacks Iran, just as long as he gets to be president.

[dionysus]

90. why do you reply to yourself?

[dionysus]

91. why does he reply to himself?

[dionysus]

92. dunno he must be antsy...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[fascisthunter]

125. I Don't Know but he Made Fine Points

of displeasure that rub people the wrong way. Must be some truth to it all and that's what people are trying to stifle. I say we pressure Obama to do the right thing.

[dionysus]

138. pressuring obama to do the right thing is fine, but don't confuse talking about it on DU with action

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

141. Oh... I'm not confused

talking about doing stuff on DU is what leads DUers to action, or have you forgotten why people come here. Afterall, everybody is trying to have a voice in what direction the party goes in. That's why people bother to talk to each other.

Now what to do dionysus, what to do... :hi:

[bjobotts]

185. I know several reps offices read DU to get ideas of our opinion.

[defendandprotect]

164. Beautiful . . . !! Thank you!!

[hokies4ever]

51. "I am simply an American."

There's a fine line between America and Hannity's America if you're opposing the Dem nominee.

:rofl:

[Breeze54]

52. Wow..... imho, you're getting very close

to breaking the rules against a long time Democrat and trusted DU member.

Civility

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper,
or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor,
click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell
someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

[Marrah_G]

133. Hey Breezy !

Not sure who you are arguing with, but I am going to assume I made a good choice in ignoring them.

[BlueStater]

59. So constructive criticism equals opposing the Dem nominee?

In my opinion, Obama deserves the criticism he's been getting for supporting this FISA garbage.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

53. I completely agree. best post of the day!!

:thumbsup:

[hokies4ever]

54. The 'best post of the day'?

No attack on McCain? No obvious help to Obama?

In my opinion, a post must clearly push Obama closer to the presidency or McCain further away from it to even qualify for this award.

[Larkspur]

127. Ditto

I refuse to donate any more $ to Obama's campaign as long as he is willing to cave into the politics of fear used by the Republicans and betray our 4th Amendment rights.

[sniffa]

58. This concerns me.

[bread_and_roses]

60. Some seem to think this site is "democraticpolitboro"

Why should anyone on this site - at least anyone beyond their first few posts - be presumed to be uncritical of McShrub if they do not post long screeds denouncing him? I don't come here to denounce that R Retread running as Little Worn Boots; I can read good analysis of McSame on any number of Progressive sites. I take it as a given here that most posters are well-informed about McCain, and that all genuine DUers are fervently on the side of getting the illegitimate junta - of which any R candidate is by definition a part - out of power.

I come here, among other reasons, to read exactly those legitimate criticisms of Democrats that you don't get from the MSM. Criticism based in a Progressive world-view.

Since when is legitimate criticism of Democrats against the rules here? Since when are posters required to post an anti-McSame comment if they write a post critical of a policy/statement made by Obama? Is that supposed to be some kind of "balance?" Did I somehow replace DU in my drop-down list with Fox news?

I am extremely relieved that Obama won the Primary. I will be devoting endless hours, from here in safely Blue NY, to phone and door -to -door in PA for Obama over the coming months. I will not be voicing my criticisms while engaged in those efforts. Rather, I will be focusing on those aspects of Obama's campaign that I can genuinely support.

But within the fold, so to speak, among those I expect to be working themselves into an exhausted stupor for Obama's victory, I'll be as critical as I feel justified in being. Because it isn't Obama who is our real hope - it is us. It is building momentum among the voters to expect the kind of change we want. We'll get only the change we demand with the voices of millions of voters.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. What kenzee said!!!!!

Yes sirrie bob! That is the boiled down T of tall of this, the T-ruth truth.

I notice you are also working full tilt for Obama and our Party. Everytime I read these demands for line towing and bobble head nodding, I tend to wonder what these would be censors actually do, in the real world, to help us win this election. Precious little is my guess.

The hysterical style and shrill keyboard shouting these folk employ wouldn't get them very far out in the neighborhoods, making votes out of nothing. There are a few of these Politburo types who I can tell have not so much as phone banked or knocked on a single door, not just in this cycle, but in many cycles. The Obama campaign trains people to be far more effective than that. The Obama campaign wants to win, not get a ticker tape parade each day on DU.

I wish all of the 'shut up and praise him' folk would tell us about what they do each day for Obama and especially for the other vital Democratic races going on nation wide. We need the Oval, and a strong bi-cameral majority, if I am not mistaken. What are you all doing? I tell you this, time spent here whining is not going to win it. No time to loose. If we wish to win.

[Solon]

81. This needs to be an OP, oh my God, a sane response to the insanity!

I wish we could recommend comments.

[Phillycat]

Excellent post.

As is the OP. :thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

166. ABSOLUTELY . .. !!!

Why should anyone on this site - at least anyone beyond their first few posts - be presumed to be uncritical of McShrub if they do not post long screeds denouncing him?

It's really humorous how people take off on these posts which simply signal how confused they are!

And, further, they DEMAND that their confusion be satisfied --- !!!

[Catherina]

211. Kenzee!

"Because it isn't Obama who is our real hope - it is us. It is building momentum among the voters to expect the kind of change we want. We'll get only the change we demand with the voices of millions of voters."

Thank you :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[DaveJ]

62. K&R... Criticism doesn't mean defeat.

America has a choice between an administration that will listen to the public, and one that will not.

[TBF]

76. Do you believe Mr. McCain will listen to the public? I don't think he will -

and I base that upon the fact that he has declared that he supports "100 more years" in Iraq, while the overwhelming majority of Americans want out of Iraq. Barack Obama has been against the war from the start. I can't believe I have to defend him on this website.

[bjobotts]

80. But we must make sure Obama does.You can support hinm and still stand up for your rights

[shagsak]

134. You don't agree with every decision Obama has made,

he is not making decisions that you want him to make across the board, so what do we do now coach? Should we abandon him and vote McSame?
To some people on here, that is how you are coming across. Relentless criticism to perpetuate skepticism, is that your goal?
Not that I disagree with your right to be a skeptic, but repeating over and over your issues with him sounds petty. Starting one discussion about FISA would be good, then we can all debate the issues. But beating a dead horse after the issue has been around for weeks, that sounds like you don't want him to be elected and for your own personal reasons.

[bjobotts]

183. Nonsense. I support Obama and campaign for him but trying to make sure

public opinion sees the danger in any candidate who goes against the constitution. Obama needs to get the message one person at a time that siding with Bush on FISA doesn't make him look strong on National security, doesn't support the constitution and is a policy of trying not to lose rather than a policy of trying to win. At DU some people lose site of standing for their principles over standing for personalities. If we criticize Bush for doing it why would you not expect us to criticize Obama for doing it? So when I see people doing that here I respond to them. Criticizing Obama does not equate to supporting McCain. You use the word skepticism instead of awareness and as long as Pelosi and Obama spin this compromise deceitfully it is not an "Old Issue" (that's what Bush says about his crimes).

Excuse me but when I hear someone ignoring reality in favor of personality I try to make a stand for principle and truth which is never petty.

However if I'm getting on your nerves by posting on this topic so often it is because I've followed this issue closely donating often for it's defeat and am very passionate about it more than any other topic. The implications from this decision has not even been disclosed and is a major ordeal worth fighting for...the fourth amendment is all that's left to stop a surveillance police state. I trust no leader of a police state even if they decide not to abuse it

[DaveJ]

82. Wow I guess I really have to work on my communication skills...

...if anyone thinks I'm a McCain supporter. :sarcasm: Apparently, what I consider obvious, others have to work on to acknowledge....

[bjobotts]

187. I never thought U supported McCain.Yr communication skills just fine

[Major Hogwash]

63. Because crying and whining and bitching will get the job done! U-S-A, U-S-A!

Or not.

[bjobotts]

67. Obviously you have no understanding if you think rejecting a police state is merely bitching

[mrbluto]

105. Sounds familiar...

Your post sounds just like Republicans did circa 2000.

You purposefully mis-characterize dissent with whining.

[bjobotts]

64. Finally some intelligence beyond blindeyedliberal authoritarian condescension

[bjobotts]

65. You can support Obama as bette than McCain and still call him out when he fails

to stand up for what he says he believes in. These people who swear my Obama right or wrong are just blind to the dangers of blindly supporting someone even while they do just the opposite of what you expected them to do. You'd think they would have learned by watching the republican party fall apart after doing that same thing with Bush.

[bjobotts]

66. Principles before personalities. He's better than McCain unless he turns into McCain

[Duder]

79. Those who try to stifle those who try to stifle criticism of Obama do our party a disservice.

Kind of an endless circle, eh?

[Skittles]

84. THANK YOU

all goose-steppers PLEASE TAKE NOTE

[madfloridian]

87. It worked on me. I sure won't post criticism of Dems here anymore.

I learned that very well.

[chimpymustgo]

98. Madfloridian, Skittles, Joe Fields, and others - we so need your clear-eyed intellect. Don't give

up or give in. We know what is right, and we must do it. THAT is the democratic, patriotic way.

[mrbluto]

234. Hey! I'm a clear-eyed intellect too!

I am!

Just google my brilliance!

Hmmmm. That didn't sound right.

I mean to say....oh...never mind. Don't think I can recover my decorum this post.

[John Q. Citizen]

111. We need folks willing to stand up to the cult of personality types. They come in many

candidate flavors to worship , and from different parties to venerate. Heck there are some who are independents.

[defendandprotect]

167. Someone is trying to teach us to "shut up" --- Don't do it . . . !!!

[Catherina]

212. Don't you ever shut up. I come here to learn and talk to people who genuinely care

about the mess we're in.

The day you shut up MF, a large reason for my attraction to DU will be gone.

We can get sycophantic crap elsewhere.

[emilyg]

94. k/r

[autorank]

95. You're a good man Joe Fields. k*r

This is the statement of a free citizen.

[Guava Jelly]

97. I think we should trash and bash until he is simply unelectable

Then we can Have President McCain :woohoo: :sarcasm:
I am getting sick of the concern..
I'm sorry Mrs.Clinton didn't win the nod.(honestly not really)

[bjobotts]

188. Pointing out FISA support as wrong is not bashing Obama. It's accountability

[natrat]

99. thanks for this-some of the other posts about this were really creeping me out

[Danger Mouse]

102. Meh...it's kinda like...we should be critical of Obama but...

eventually we should move on to something else.

[JVS]

236. Gee, that sounds reasonable.

It will never fly!

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theFrankFactor]

109. As if the Democratic Party Doesn't Need Self Criticism...

Yeah, things have really been going well for us haven't they? That FISA vote was a real confidence builder. BULLSHIT!

Obama's playing to the center right now but NO DEMOCRAT should be above reproach. They need MORE PRESSURE from us not less.

Wanna know how I really feel?

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cPI-bFx-D0

[barack the house]

110. Everything on FISA has been said though. Dwelling on it only hinders us which isn't why the site was

created. The main purpose of the site is to get Democrats elected as stated in the rules.

[madfloridian]

144. Way to go....silence is golden.

This is an amazing forum...silencing out voices through intimidation and humiliation.

[Shoelace]

179. doesn't appear to be silencing you

or others who post endless diatribes on FISA, etc. What do we not understand about winning elections, getting in the door then doing the hard work AFTER we've won the chance for changing what Bushistas have done?
It's time to grow up, face political realities and move on, start bitching about something besides Obama!!!

[bjobotts]

189. The senate hasn't passed it yet and many are still fighting it and you say sshhh

[Shoelace]

201. not saying sshhh, just not shouting it from the rooftops

understanding as I do that Obama is between a rock and a hardspace with FISA.
I think that this was an intentional setup by the Republicans who knew the Left would holler like wolves if he supports it.
Yet, if he doesn't he will be perceived as being weak in defense. ITMT, the Media is having a field day with the fodder we feed them to further divide us.

[madfloridian]

218. The posts of mine are before I woke up and realized I had to be silenced.

Sweetie if I grow up much more I will be too damn old to post here.

Geez...what a bunch of rude people here now.

[midnight]

112. What you said.....If we don't scream loud and long at Barack

over war funding and flip flops on FISA.

[frickaline]

113. K&R - as a candidate or even a president, anyone should have to continually work for support n/t

[NoFederales]

114. K&R

NoFederales

[janet118]

116. Sure . . . when Obama's in office

we can hold him accountable. Right now, he is just a Senator from Illinois and the Democratic nominee. The primary is over. It is time for working, not carping.

Constant criticism of Obama's lack of perfection will only give McCain a leg up.

So is it McCain or Obama? Pick your guy.

If it's McCain, then you should go complain about him not living up to your expectations on the Republican blogs. You'll be doing all us Democrats a favor.

[Marrah_G]

119. But then the arguement will be " wait until after he is Re- elected.

There is a difference between bashing and letting your candidate know when you think he has made a mistake.

[John Q. Citizen]

118. Not just our party but our candidate also. Just pretend it's all OK isn't healthy.

It will cause far more damage in both the short and the long term.

[fascisthunter]

121. K and R

pressure him to do the right thing. Email, write or call and apply pressure.

[LWolf]

123. Keep talking, Joe.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

129. How do people expect to get "change" if we don't demand it when it's needed?

This is the opportunity that an Obama Presidency represents. CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

[sudopod]

130. It isn't stifling

to point out that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.

[mtnsnake]

132. Well done, Joe

In my own case, my biggest priority is protecting the environment and our wildlife, and if Obama compromises one iota on that issue to Republicans or Independents, you can bet that I'll be expressing my displeasure about it, too.

If we're supporting candidates based upon what they're supposed to stand for, then we need to hold their feet to the fire. Otherwise what's the point of it all.

K&R

[rhett o rick]

149. Who are you supporting for president mtnsnake? nm

[mtnsnake]

151. If you are sincerely interested in finding out, then read these 2 threads that I started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6318252

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6308477

After you get done reading my two posts, how about you reply to this post and let everyone know exactly who I support, since you seem to be questioning my loyalty.

[rhett o rick]

171. mtnsnake supports Obama for president. I appreciate your loyalty and I am sincere.

However I will not apologize for questioning your loyalty. I see that we are in a war for the restoration of our democracy-republic. While I strongly believe in "holding feet to the fire", as I did, along with you, in the primaries, I feel that now is not the time. Any questioning of our candidate at this time only helps get him defeated. We are committed to him now. After he is elected, all bets are off. And I will be in the front of the line "holding his feet to the fire".

Peace mr. mtnsnake, and I am sincere.

[mtnsnake]

190. Thank you....

However I will not apologize for questioning your loyalty

No problem. I didn't ask you to apologize. I just wanted to make my loyalty clear after you posed your question to me, and I appreciate your subsequent reply in kind.

As far as people here who are holding Obama's feet to the fire, I don't see why anyone shouldn't do exactly that, especially in cases where they think he's straying from his original premises that appealed to them in the Primaries. While there are plenty of people on this forum who wouldn't be happy no matter what, nobody likes to feel like they've been duped, and apparently some people think they have been. I'm relatively happy with Obama overall, so I'm not one of those people, but if I see Obama backing away or compromising on his positions on the war or the environment, for example, then I'll be speaking up, too. Even if that were to happen, it doesn't mean I would ever consider not voting for him. He will have my vote, regardless, because I just can't stand what Republicans stand for and what they get away with. I have never voted anything but Democrat all my life, and until there is a better alternative to Republicans that could actually stand a chance of beating them, Democrats will have my vote. In a fair and perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be our president. If Obama sticks to his principles, he'll be awesome, though, in his own rite. Let's just hope he sticks to those principles once he's in.

peace

[akbacchus_BC]

226. I'll reply, you are democratic to the core and I know you will...

vote for Senator Obama. You were the first person to welcome on here when you were supporting Senator Clinton. I admired both Senators Clinton and Obama and either one will be great for the US and the world. I am so happy seeing Senator Clinton on the same stage with Senator Obama and then President Clinton will campaign for him. Go Dems, you all need to take the White House back and restore democracy to the US.

[mtnsnake]

235. Much appreciated, akbacchus_BC

Your post is a breath of fresh air, and you are so right that we need to take back the White House. I hope Obama will restore the dignity to this country that Bush has taken away.

[Seabiscuit]

137. Now look what you've done. The McCarthyites came out of the woodwork saying

you're not allowed to dissent until he gets elected, and meanwhile, prove to them that you've done something to take on McCain.

Bleeeaaaagggghhhh!

[rhett o rick]

147. I am disappointed in this manner of argument. Starting off calling those that

you don't agree with "McCarthyites" isn't a good way to open a good dialog. If that's what you are interested in. But clever that you use the word "dissent" because you know that good progressives embrace "dissent".

We are in a battle to save our democratic-republic. There are only two choices, Sen Obama and Sen. McShame. These are our choices. No Nader and "not voting" isn't a different choice. Either Obama or McInsane will be elected, so one way or another you will be voting for one of them. If your choice is McInsane then by all means you are free to tear down (or dissent) Obama, just don't do it here. If you wish Obama to win or even if you wish McStrange to loose, you need to help Obama. "Dissent" as you call it, is destructive at this point. There is a place for it, either before the primary or after the election.

Obama wasn't either my first or second choice but he is my choice now. Who is your choice? I mean it, please tell me your choice for president.

[Seabiscuit]

184. In case you hadn't noticed,

there are a lot of misguided Obama supporters here calling for the stifling of all dissent. That's McCarthyism at its purest.

Dissent is *never* "destructive". It's what keeps our democracy alive, and the only check on misconduct by government officials, because the press stopped doing its job many years ago.

As for your facetious questioning about my "choice for president" it sounds like you're questioning my patriotism. That's a well-known and failed right-wing tactic.

Of course I support Obama and I will support him best not just at the ballot box, and just by speaking out when praise is deserved, but also when criticism is deserved. I refuse to follow your "yes-man" brigade.

[rhett o rick]

221. Well I hope your "dissent" benefits our candidate.

I am not a McCarthyist and to suggest such questions my patriotism.

I believe that dissent is important to our freedom but attacks on Sen Obama are not dissent.

And I am not a yes-man thank you very much.

As long as you name-call, I think further discussion is senseless.

[Joe Fields]

210. roflmao!!!

Thanks. I needed that.

[Catchawave]

140. K&R.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

145. K&R

I agree. The STFU crowd is who needs to look at the big picture.

[rhett o rick]

148. Who are you supporting for president, Joe? nm

[redqueen]

152. Timing is everything.

This is not the time.

It really is that simple.

[katandmoon]

153. Thank you. I see little point in electing another Bush, Republican OR Democrat

And if Obama keeps taking Republican positions and flipflopping like McCain, what's the difference? How can we trust Obama's word on ANYthing if he doesn't stick to it consistently? I want to know what he really stands for and how really stands for it -- or not -- BEFORE I vote for him. I see no benefit to our party or our country to wearing blinders. It will hurt us in the long run.

To those who insist on getting Obama elected first, I think that is backwards. I want to make sure he is somebody I WANT to get elected first. Obama has positioned himself as a candidate of change, but too often when he is put to the test, he acts more like a weathervane who points backward as well as forward. At this point I don't trust him not to keep caving to Bush's interests even if he gets elected. Exactly WHY did he cave on FISA?

If the occupant of the White House is going to be somebody who is going to screw us over, and I really don't trust Obama at this point not to do that, since he already HAS, I'd just as soon it be a Republican whom I DIDN'T vote for.

[slipslidingaway]

154. Totally agree, you do not wait to speak out after the deed is done.

[defendandprotect]

155. Agree . . . it's an attempt to shut up criticism . . . which is wrong . . .

and frightened people do that ---

[slipslidingaway]

156. And who will want to speak out on the next issue? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

165. Just suck it up and let's get him elected

It's how the game is played. You appeal to your base to win the primaries, then you need to move to the center to win the general election. The repukes do it too.

So- compromising on FISA? Just suck it up and elect him. Tough talk on Iran? suck it up and elect him. Wanting to make free trade and NAFTA work? Suck it up and elect him.

Why waste time criticizing Obama when everyone here is going to vote for him anyway? And if you really want to criticize Obama instead of McCain why do it here, and run the gauntlet of hostile "Thank you for your concern", "Your concern is noted", and "Who are you supporting for president?" responses, which, while somewhat snarky and unimaginative, do convey a valid message.

[defendandprotect]

169. I'm not playing other people's "games" nor drinking DLC Kool Aid . . .

the Repugs play games --- ma ybe you should go play with them --- ?

Bomb Iran . . . . ? Suck it up and elect him?

Why waste time discussing FISA/wiretapping . . . and Obama's position?

Try to think about small "d" democracy . . .

[Nye Bevan]

170. At this point Obama's positions are pretty much irrelevant

because whatever happens he will be a better president than McCain.

Also we should not necessarily read too much into what he says at this point, bearing in mind that he has an election to win. As an example, I am convinced that Obama personally favors gay marriage, but I accept that he has made the decision to publicly oppose gay marriage in order to win the presidency. While I wish that he could openly support gay marriage I am fully aware that we are not in a perfect world, and politics is a messy business, so his stance is fine with me.

[bjobotts]

191. Irrelevant? Never. Better than McCain hell ya. But we can support him but not his FISA stand

[defendandprotect]

194. Evidently you don't understand that this will cost Obama liberal votes---????

There will be Democrats totally turned off by this who will perhaps not come out to vote
at all ---

Also evidently you haven't read one word counter to what you are pushing that anyone
has posted here --- ???

I'm sure gays will be comforted by your suggestion that Obama probablly supports
gay marriage, but is merely cowardly in standing up for what's right --- ??? !!!

How you can consider Obama's positions "at this point" IRRELEVANT is shocking . . .

Where are you getting these ideas?

[Nye Bevan]

197. Well- maybe "irrelevant" wasn't quite the correct word

but politics is messy. Now that he has the nomination Obama needs to concentrate on winning a majority of votes across the whole country, not just of DU. And people should not get their panties in a bunch if he feels that he needs to step back a little on some of his positions in order to achieve that. He is a gifted politician and knows what he is doing.

And BTW it would be utterly *stupid* of any Democrat not to come out and vote for Obama. Given the current ages of the Supreme Court justices, the next president will probably get to fill 2 or 3 vacancies, which will affect our country for the next 20-30 years or so. On this issue alone it is essential that Obama wins.

[defendandprotect]

203. Try this . . .

Government works best when voters aren't lied to --- for the sake of "politics."

As I pointed out to you, Obama will LOSE Democratic voters by not standing up against wiretapping.
He will lose liberal voters by not standing up for gay rights ---
How late is it in this civil rights issue when many of our states are approving these
same-gender marriages --- ???
The right wing can only stop this progressive movement with martial law.

It also bodes ill for more "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- another nonsense program put afloat by
Clinton's failure to stand up for what's right.

Obama will also cause many liberals to stay home and NOT vote if he supports more war ---
especially in Iran.

Re this . . .

Now that he has the nomination Obama needs to concentrate on winning a majority of votes across the whole country, not just of DU. And people should not get their panties in a bunch if he feels that he needs to step back a little on some of his positions in order to achieve that. He is a gifted politician and knows what he is doing.

I'd highly recommend to you that you try to watch some JFK film ---
Civil Rights for African Americans in the days when we had Segregation wasn't a small issue.
Nonetheless, JFK spoke to the nation and told the nation that we had to change!
Do you think that took some courage---???

Again --- there will be liberal candidates who will be turned off by a Democratic candidate who
is not protecting us from government spying. There will be other third-party liberals who may
not cross over to the Democratic Party if Obama joins the right on the FISA issue.

And again here . . .

And BTW it would be utterly *stupid* of any Democrat not to come out and vote for Obama. Given the current ages of the Supreme Court justices, the next president will probably get to fill 2 or 3 vacancies, which will affect our country for the next 20-30 years or so. On this issue alone it is essential that Obama wins.

We're already direly effected by these judicial criminals ---
we need to toss them out with elections.
It's a rather old idea ---

This is certainly an issue important to liberals --- and they are watching.
But will they trust Obama if he backs government spying to appoint the next SC justices?
Or heaven forbid if he supports an invasion of Iran????

[Imagevision]

172. Actions do speak louder then words... GOBAMA!

[LSK]

195. your alternative is?????????????

Peaceloving McCain???????

[defendandprotect]

198. Your hysteria???????????????

get a grip --

[bvar22]

173. Rec. # 99.....

....do I hear 100?

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Myrina]

180. I thought I read somewhere once ...

.... oh yeah, THAT was it ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459


"With this in mind, here are a few issues to consider:

Now that Senator Obama is our presumptive nominee, he holds a special position in the party, and on Democratic Underground. Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November we're not going to cut you a great deal of slack.

You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama. But if your criticism smells like a partisan political attack designed to tear down our candidates and help our Republican opponents, we're likely to conclude that it is."

[defendandprotect]

196. Evidently, you didn't read the part you didn't like . . .

You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama.



Now . . .

But if your criticism smells like a partisan political attack designed to tear down our candidates and help our Republican opponents, we're likely to conclude that it is."

You're evidently focused on this ... but with poor powers of judgment which lead you to think
that supporting our Fourth Amendment is subversive.

Let me also remind you that "spying on citizens" was one of the Articles of Impeachment in the
case of Pres. Richard Nixon . . .

If you think that the FISA/wiretapping issue isn't important, I will point out again that it will
lose liberal votes for him. It may keep other voters connected to liberal third parties from
crossing over to Democrats.

Or, perhaps you think that all Democrats post on DU --- ???

Again ... nice to be part of a big "D" get together here . . . but from the highest perspective
we have to protect small "d" democracy.

[Nye Bevan]

200. "it will lose liberal votes for him"

Who are these "Liberals" who are so pissed off about the FISA compromise that they would rather help McHundredYearWar get elected than vote for Obama? I don't believe that they exist.

[defendandprotect]

207. If you could lose a bit of the . . .

emotionalism, you would understand what I am saying to you ---

There are many Democrats who are turned off and who haven't been coming out to vote.
I'm sure you understand that --- ?????

Not only is the vote suppressed by the GOP . . . it's also suppressed when Democrats
take right-wing positions, when they don't clearly adopt liberal/progressive messages.
Gore was an example of that.

The more liberal/progressive the candidates message, the more Democrats who will come
out to vote.

Additionally, other LIBERAL voters . . . Greens, Socialists, etal who may be thinking
of voting for Obama and cross parties, may not do so because they are turned off by the
FISA deal.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catchawave]

231. I never get *pissed* by the Obama critics....

Otherwise, this forum wouldn't be any different than Free Republic's :shrug:

Read the threads, then you decide :hug:

[Damian the LHP]

204. All guns inward!

Ready? Fire!

See you in McCain's America.

[Papa Boule]

209. BS. Won't work.

I can't believe how transparent and obvious these efforts to shame, threaten, and silence critics of FISA, far-right centrism, and loss of rights are becoming.

[fascisthunter]

213. It Would Be Different if this were more Begnign

but not up for our rights for political expendiency? And we are told to shut up about it here.... not a chance. These posters do not make the rules. They can try as they have to convince the Mods to ban us, or to make this criticism of Obama against the rules, but until then, I will speak my mind here... they are hurting the party and the campaign more than any criticism will ever do.

[Papa Boule]

205. Damn right I'll K & R this one

A big portion of the blame lies within the ranks of common Americans who, for whatever reason chose not to hold their representatives accountable.Party affiliation seems to mean much more than vigilantly holding politicians to their oaths of office and safeguarding our American rights.

I'm really starting to think there are people "working" this site who have a vested interest in keeping the pressure off compliant politicians so as to preserve the entrenched plutocracy and its agenda of depriving citizens of their rights, their power, and, of course, their money. Their business is to make sure business as usual goes on unchallenged and unhindered.

[Catherina]

214. The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.

The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.
- Frank Kent

Recommended

If "Yes we can" is to remain believable, then I'm not shutting up.

[Joe Fields]

230. Well stated. Thank you, Catherina.

[Steely_Dan]

215. Could Not Agree With You More

Wasn't it Edward R. Murrow (sp) who said: "Never mistake dissent with disloyalty."

-P

[musicblind]

220. Wow, 112 recommendations. That's astounding. It makes me think very highly of DU.

While I want Obama to win first and foremost, and I would never left FISA keep me from voting for him... it is nice to see that DU still believes in some form of free speech. It is important to both criticize and to be CONSTRUCTIVE in that criticism. Never criticize for the sake of doing so, but always do it when circumstances compel you to do so.

[defendandprotect]

238. You may have missed it . ..

but as far as I saw all the posts I read criticizing Obama for FISA also made clear that
he would get their vote.

[musicblind]

242. I never implied that he wouldn't. He will have mine as well. I don't know where you got any other

message from my post :shrug:

I totally back Obama.

[qwlauren35]

225. That's the kind of talk that costs us elections.

Republicans understand the basic reality. If they don't want A to be elected, they vote for B.

And people like you, who are busy voting for their "conscience", are the reason why the Democrats haven't won the last two presidential elections. Frankly, I don't consider sacrificing WINNING for "principles" to be an acceptable compromise when the alternative is having McCain in office. For 8 years, I've wanted the Republicans out of office. So my blinders are on, full force. If it was Edwards, Richardson, Clinton, etc. I'd be out there campaigning my butt off for them, just as I am now.

As far as I'm concerned, if you feel that it's more important to criticize Obama than it is to support his candicacy, then I have to assume that you want McCain to win.

And if that's what you want... I think you belong on a different website.

[akbacchus_BC]

227. Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against a Dem and it

seems as if the Dems supporters need to eat their own. Come on you guys, get a Dem elected and then hold his/her feet to the fire. You all had two great candidates running, yes the primary was brutal but that is over, one Dem is now backing the other and her husband is showing his support. Get a dem elected, the world is on your side!

I love the Clintons, I truly do! But keep your eyes on the prize, get a Dem elected!

[defendandprotect]

239. Again . . . Gore won 2000 . . .and Kerry likely won 2004 . . ..

you must have some awareness of Diebold and stolen elections?

Fascist rallies, the Supreme Court putting Bush in the Oval Office?

The press recount reporting that GORE WON no matter how you count the votes?


Additionally, we haven't only had computer steals since 2000 --
we had them LONG before . . . going back into the mid-1960's when the computer
counting began.

If there were any losses by Gore in 2000, it was the DLC telling him to quit the
populist message. Same with Kerry.

Criticizing Obama doesn't mean that we aren't supporting his candidacy . . .
it simply means that you ASSUME a lot of nonsense.

[avaistheone1]

243. DITTO

This bears repeating...

"Criticizing Obama doesn't mean that we aren't supporting his candidacy . . .
it simply means that you ASSUME a lot of nonsense."

Thank you.

[Neshanic]

228. Thank you. That was excellent!

[AmyCamus]

232. "Dissent is not an option, nor should it be looked upon with disdain by fellow democrats."

We are Democrats after all, not sheep. Good post.