I'm not interested in endlessly examing Obama or parsing

[cali]

his every word or gesture. My support for him isn't blind but it is pretty unshakable in the sense that I will be voting for him in November.

To me a John McCain presidency is fucking unthinkable. I can live with a Bill Clinton type centrist triangulator in the White House. I can't accept McCain's lunacy. Obama may surprise me. McCain will not. He'll push an agressive bushian foreign policy. I have no doubt that he won't hesitate to bomb Iran.

John McCain is dangerous.

Frankly, I believe that Americans owe it to the world to keep John McCain out of the White House.

[tekisui]

1. Yep. I agree.

knr.

McM$M should scare the shit out of every American.

[polmaven]

2. The sentiment

couldn't have been expressed better, friend! :hi:

[Catch22Dem]

3. For rational folks like you (and me) this doesn't even need to be said

However, we have our own extremists, as do the freepers, and they'd be much more content to ruin the country just to make an ideological statement over one issue or another.

K & R

[Marrah_G]

4. McCain would be an absolute nightmare

Obama is not perfect, but he is far, far, far, far better then McCain in EVERY way.

[EV_Ares]

5. I certainly agree with everything you have said especially the fact that

we owe it to the world not to send out another maniac guy. However, you mention parsing his every word or gesture, how do you get the media to stop that because it seems they do exactly that. It is almost like there is not even another candidate out there. Turn on your TV in the morning and it is nothing but critiquing Barack, parsing every word, his flip-flopping when McSame has flip-flopped and flip-flopped on many issues. They actually hardly even talk about McCain other then in the sense they are critiquing something about Obama.

The media is pretty dam dangerous as well but I think Obama is doing a pretty good job and has some good people out there doing what they can.

[cali]

6. you're absolutely right. The media does parse Obama's every word and gesture

while McCain is getting even more of a pass than bush got in either 2000 or 2004. The bias is unmistakable and utterly predictable, but as you say, Barack is doing a pretty good job of deftly handling the media's attempt to define him and stir up shit among the dem base.

[RichGirl]

7. OBAMA IS OUR CANDIDATE!

I wanted Clinton. But I have wholeheartedly and 100% accepted Obama. He's not only the best choice, but he is a very good choice and will make a great president. He's not perfect, but he is light years more perfect than McCain.

What can be gained from constant criticism from Democrats??? I'm serious. What do dems who criticize him expect to accomplish???? Are you trying to weaken support for him? Are you going to insist that he agrees with you on every point? You are not the only voter. There are millions and he needs ALL their votes not just yours. He needs to appeal to ALL of them, not just you. My suggestion is that if you can't add anything positive to the campaign then sit down and shut up until it's over. If he so offends your senses then DON'T VOTE. If you must complain, then save it for President Obama.

[Marrah_G]

8. There is a difference

You can disagree with a candidates view on an issue without being "against the candidate".

I disagree with Obama on a few different issues. But I still support him, because he is far superior to McCain.

[RichGirl]

14. Hey....I disagree with Obama about lots of things....

...but I don't find it necessary, helpful or productive to rant about them on the internet every chance I get. All I'm saying is this: when you find yourself wanting to complain, just ask yourself "how does this help?". If it hurts Obama, it hurts me and my family...because we can't tolerate another four years of Bush/McCain.

Is your "pointing out your disagreement with Obama" in any way helpful, or is it just the ego satisfaction of expressing your precious opinions and proving how progressive you are????

BTW...you can hurt a candidate without being against him. And you hurt yourself and our country in the process.

A mature person understands delayed gradification. Put you petty complaints aside and focus on getting Obama elected. Then, once he's in office you can write all your complaints on placards and camp out on the White House lawn. First step: get a dem in the White House. If we don't do that....we might as well just quit now.

[Marrah_G]

17. So when is it okay to say something?

After the votes are already cast for the Bill. After Policies are put in place?

After November it we will be told to shush because we need to get him Re-elected.

When is it okay for Democrats to tell our politicians when we think they are screwing up?

If your view of "hurting the Country" involves dissent and speaking out, then I will say you and I view politics AND the Democratic party from completely different angles. Republicans like to tell me I am hurting the country also, when I have view contrary to theirs.

[JuniperLea]

20. STFU = Hurting the country...

I think this has been established... which sort of freaks me out when people here, in essence, are telling someone to STFU.

[RichGirl]

23. Oh please!

I'm all for speaking ones mind and freedom of speech, but not voicing every inane opinion that crosses our mind.

There is a time to speak and a time to STFU! That time is now, in relation to dems criticizing their candidate.

You know...this happened in both Gore and Kerry elections. All the discontent among dems, because they didn't have a candidate that was PERFECT IN EVERY WAY kept them from winning by enough of a landslide to counter the voter fraud.

Ask yourselves...did all those complaints (wooden, bad campaigner, etc....)help in any way???? If so...then do tell! Oh yes...they enlightened us about our candidate and we proudly held our nose while voting. And that freedom of expression has consoled us these past eight years of hell.

[JuniperLea]

19. I think it is very healthy to voice concerns...

Especially when a DUer is hell bent on voting for Obama, come what may. It shows a firm resolve, and it also shows that the DUer in question isn't looking through rose colored glasses. There may be some people on the edge. I think it's a good thing to show that you can take issue with some issues, but still support the candidate. McCain is not an option.

[RichGirl]

24. It may be healthy in the short term.

In the long term...not so much. The same kind of negativity with Gore and Kerry got us long term misery. Enjoy your instant gratification.

[JuniperLea]

28. Not even close to being the same thing

Enjoy your holier-than-thou snark.

[woolldog]

37. pot calling the kettle black.

[woolldog]

22. they're defending us and the Constitution, by ripping Obama apart

Didn't you get the memo? :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

18. I do love a concise post...

You sum up my feelings on the matter perfectly.

[LVjinx]

29. If you supported Clinton, then you should know the dangers of squashing disagreement.

Or did you somehow not notice Clinton supporters being accused of racism, lack of an education, being republicans, just for supporting Hillary instead of Obama? Or the dozens of fake accusations leveled at the Clinton campaign right here on Democratic Underground? There is a danger in a group shutting itself off so much that all dissent is "helping the enemy." Not being crazy about Obama doesn't mean anyone wants McCain to win. As a former Clinton supporter, you should know that better than anyone.

[papapi]

9. I agree. I also wish people would stop suggesting Hagel for VP.

Hagel is a repugnantcan conservative who's only shared view is the Iraq war. We do not need HIM.

[pnorman]

10. Here's what I had posted on a related thread a day or so earlier:

The difference between the 2000 election and this one,

is that up till that year, there was absolutely NO precedent in our Nation's history for election-stealing of that magnitude! And by what we NOW know, it (that theft) was well-financed, well-organized, and coordinated from the very top! Voting for Nader in 2000 was a morally "safe" move in WA state, but even in Florida it shouldn't have been criminally foolhardy. The "point" was to register a principled opposition to the DLC program, without throwing it to Bush. That's EXACTLY what happened, but the top to bottom LARCENY in Florida STOLE that election! The SCOTUS (those "Felonious Five") were merely accessories, but it was the APPARATUS (Rove, JEB, Harris, and all the rest) that did the crime!

Once more: A "reasonable" voter had NO precedent on which to expect that. Had there been any, I (and probably almost all other Nader-supporters) would have taken absolutely NO chances with the vote. But that most definitely NOT the situation now! We KNOW! Moreover, we'll be facing a gang that will not only be facing being thrown out of office! Some may be LITERALLY thrown into jail! This Nation has never SEEN a gang that has such good reason for DESPERATE actions! Obama will need EVERY vote he can get. If it's high enough, they won't DARE to steal it!



In another thread, another poster had written something similar. It was more succinct than the above, and thereby better. But I can no longer find it. Even the appearance of "suppression of dissent", is something that pains me greatly (as no doubt with most here on DU). But I URGE all here to SERIOUSLY consider putting it on the Back Burner, until AFTER the election.

pnorman

[whatchamacallit]

11. 3 things

1. In my time no democratic nominee has ever reflected all of my personal beliefs or ideals
2. As a Kucinich (then Edwards) supporter, Obama has always been to the right of me.
3. Pretty much every presidential vote I've ever cast has been for the lesser of two evils, and since Republicans have been so consistently evil, I've been a life-long democrat.

I'll be voting for Obama.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. The MSM creates these stories out of nothing.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Agreed. John McCain has the possibility of being more disastrous than Bush.

I don't really give a shit about whether Obama's latest offhand comments on a tour bus might imply that he might someday consider moving a position rightwards.

[Blue_Roses]

15. k&r

:kick:

[SidneyCarton]

16. K & R

[jgraz]

21. My support for Obama is unshakable enough that I can see his faults and still vote for him

The choice is not between an uncritical treatment of our candidate or voting for McCain. It's between winning and losing the debate about where this country needs to go.

I came out for Obama in the primaries because I believe he's the kind of candidate who will listen to that debate. He's the kind of candidate who can take a little heat from his base and end up stronger because of it.

If he's not that kind of candidate, then we're all fucked no matter what we do.

[Solon]

25. Beggars can't be choosers...

I rail against some of his stupid ideas, but at the same time recognized that he is what we are stuck with. Oh well.

[depakid]

35. It's not people like us who we ought to worry about

Never has been.

It's people like the ones who wrote these LTTE's published in today's NY Times:

To the editor

There is something very important that Barack Obama and his advisers need to understand. Senator Obama could lose the election this fall if he squanders the support of people like us, who have high hopes for him and send modest and frequent donations to his campaign.

We realize that in today’s world, we may never see a real “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”-type candidate. But if the choice in November is between two different takes on same old, same old, there is a strong possibility that we may just not vote.

Mel Minthorn
Gail Minthorn

Wilton, Conn., July 4, 2008

To the Editor:

I share your disappointment with the “New and Not Improved” Barack Obama.

As a 60-year-old white woman who should have been firmly in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp, I eschewed her triangulating for the promise of a politician who promised to restore the Constitution and govern the country for the common good, not just for a wealthy elite.

It is particularly disheartening that on our nation’s birthday, a progressive Democratic candidate cannot find the courage to uphold the vision of the founding fathers against an overbearing state and instead feels moved to support warrantless wiretapping and telecom amnesty.

His disheartened supporters are beginning to see that “Change We Can Believe In” is really “Change When It’s Expedient.” Barbara Kautz

Tiburon, Calif., July 4, 2008

To the Editor:

Your excellent editorial was not strong enough. Barack Obama is in a process of betraying those who voted for him in the primary.

The Democrats have no one in leadership who genuinely leans to the left. Mr. Obama has been a little left of center on some issues, thus making him the only candidate that a good leftist could even consider.

We believed him when he talked about change. But he is showing himself not to be a man of integrity, but an opportunist, like the rest. Too bad. Hope springs eternal — but not in 2008.

Andrew P. Connolly

Manorhaven, N.Y., July 4, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/l08obama.html?hp

[crankychatter]

26. Nope - we should be up his ass with a mag light and a magnifying glass

in the last few months of the most important election in decades


:sarcasm:

sarcasm smiley added for anyone drinkin' this Kansas ground water

[Peacetrain]

27. I am quite happy with Obama

I have supported him since Iowa. I have nothing personal against McCain, he does not make my skin crawl like Bush Cheney, but I do NOT want him in office. That is a disaster we do not need! The neo cons have their claws so deep into his back (McCain) that it really will be a third Neo Con term. And poor old Lieberman has been sipping on that same tainted kool aide.

[eridani]

30. It isn't the specifics that matter. It's how they are FRAMED

Anyone, including Obama himself, who uses Repub framing is harming Obama's candidacy.

[NattPang]

31. Funny how we have so many experts

that know what it takes for Obama to win,
But none have ever ran or won anything.
I'm with you.

The media lets McCain Lie,
while the media lies about Obama.
How strange is that?

[hfojvt]

33. some of us have won some things

we have an elected judge on DU. I myself won my election to precinct man by a landslide 13-1 (it sure helps when you are the only name on the ballot).

Yeah, NBC news sorta made me laugh. First they had McCain saying "Obama will raise your taxes by a huge amount.". Then they had Obama saying "If you make less than $250,000, your taxes will not go up when I am President." Then they said "so who is right?" "Neither of them, according to experts."

Yet, from the clips they showed, it was McCain telling the fib and they could not bring themselves to say it.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I just watched McCain's "green screen" speech again

And every time McCain flashed that ill timed shit eating grin after making a snide remark about Obama I was reminded just how much of a disaster he would be as President.

[quakerboy]

34. Yup.

Not blind. Theres things I don't like. But of the possibilities before us, he has a pretty solid lock on my vote. I hope Obama will be better than expected, but I KNOW McCain will not. Taking it a step further, I think that things are going to get worse before they get better, and I seen enough promise in Obama to hope that that will force his hand in being far more progressive than he otherwise would.

[obamacon]

36. And I think it has to be seen for what it is...

No candidate- Right or Left- can win a Presidential campaign without paying tribute to the sentiments of the "great middle class" and working-class Americans. Clinton proposed a major tax cut to position himself as centrist, and it blunted a lot of negativity people held towards liberal candidates. In office, he pursued his own economic policy, largely to make taxes more progressive, balance the budget, and the 90s economic boom was so significant, people didn't seem to mind. Over 70% are Christian- so of course making an outreach to evangelicals now doubting their allegiance to the Republican Party makes sense (and it appeared Obama didn't vouch for Bush's version of FBP, but suggested how church-based programs could work with government programs, not receive direct funding). Bush in 2000, though its hard to remember, talked endlessly about how he united Dems and Reps together in Texas; and stood up for increasing educational funding and scoffed at Delay and others in the Congressional GOP for trying balance budgets on the "backs of the poor".

It has to be done. Perfection can't be the enemy of the good.