Progressives who want to keep Obama progressive are NOT the enemy.

[Ken Burch]

There's been a real effort of late to shout people down here on DU just for defending the idea that Obama should stay as progressive as he was in the primaries when running in the fall. You'd think we were calling for the forced collectivization of the Ukraine, for God's sakes.

This is not true and it's not fair to us.

We aren't traitors.

We aren't calling for Obama to do anything that could possibly hurt him.

What we ARE doing is calling for our candidate to avoid repeating the proven useless "run left in the primary-run center in the fall" strategy.

We don't oppose this because we care more about principles THAN we do about victory. We oppose this precisely because we DO want to win.

The only thing that could stop Obama in the fall is to abandon the base(workers, the poor, activists, the young)in a futile pursuit of the sort of uptight, life-hating suburbanites that we all know we aren't going to get anyway.

We aren't calling for pie in the sky. Just leadership and strength. And the best way for Barack Obama or any other Democrat to show strength is to defend progressive ideas under fire and make a case for why progressive politics is actually a GOOD thing.
This can be done in pragmatic language. It can be done in terms of speaking up for the little gal and the little guy. We just need to get in touch with our inner Harry Truman(and it was Truman's domestic swing to a progressive position that won it for him in '48, not his hawkishness, which voters weren't THAT interested in).

Our ideas have strong support. We are at our best and most popular when we fight the power and when we say to those who are left out, those who have no voice "the other side is against you...we're FOR you".

We ALL want to win. We are all working hard to win. We don't need to run a fear-based campaign. Optimism and confidence in our dreams can carry the day. This is a country ready for change. We need to embrace that and build on it.

Have faith. Have Hope. Don't silence people who are only trying to help.

We're all on the same side. The side of the people.

OK?

[mix]

1. amen

eom

[fascisthunter]

2. K&R

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Uh huh.

Sure.

[Ken Burch]

21. What's with the contempt? Those who are attacking people like me

Are endorsing the Shrum/Cahill/Brazile brand of sure-defeat politics. You guys want us to run like it's 1988, 2000 or 2004 AGAIN. In the name of God, why?

We CAN win by being true to ourselves. The country isn't conservative anymore.

[Bake]

128. KB, just consider the source.

That says it all. Really.

Bake

[geek tragedy]

4. Of course people who want him to move left aren't the enemy.

However, those who are urging other people to stop donating time and money sure aren't helping things.

And the mountain lions yelling "We told you so!" are definitely not on our side.

[Ken Burch]

16. I agree with you about the first group

But who the heck are these "mountain lions"?

[TahitiNut]

23. I think that means "mounted lyin's"

:silly: :dunce:

[geek tragedy]

30. Mountain lions are also known as

cougars and, ahem, pumas.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

22. Bingo!

By all means, speak out - but don't stop HELPING to get Obama elected.

[JuniperLea]

5. Don't silence people...

Democracy 101!

[sandnsea]

6. I thought we were trying to win an election

Why can't you work on the progressive issues after he wins.

[mix]

7. How is keeping silent

going to help Obama?

How is disagreeing with him on certain issues, while supporting him, how does this hurt him? Inversely, how does this help McCain?

You are well intentioned, but wrong about how our democracy works.

[Ken Burch]

11. We ARE trying to win an election. Don't assume the path of blandness is the only way.

Anyway, the "move to the center" thing is what blew it for us in 2000 and 2004. Why stay with what DOESN'T work?

[TooBigaTent]

13. Because there is NO LEVERAGE once/if he is elected. The vote (and dollars to get that vote)

are the only things he is interested in getting from us.

Once in, the SOP of only listening to those who eat high on the food chain comes back.

What makes you think there is any accountability once he (or anyone) is in office?

[elkston]

18. So you don't trust Obama, then.

Because your statements suggest you are buying into the Republican line of attack that he is "just another lying/opportunist politician".

We don't need this kind of dissent here.

[Ken Burch]

27. It's more about not trusting Obama's advisors(especially any who worked with Kerry)

We are reacting because it looks like they're drinking the 1988/2000/2004 koolaid AGAIN.

Why SHOULD we just "shut up and do what we're told"?

[skooooo]

31. 2000 and 2004 "Koolaid" ?????

WTF?

It's comments like this that make me question the integrity of your claim that you're being "mistreated" here at DU.

[Ken Burch]

38. The term "koolaid" is not tied to any particular ideological strain.

It was used(and I denounced its use)by HRC supporters who refused to accept that Obama deserved the enthusiasm he received in the primary.

It was used(and in this case I agreed with its usage)to denounce the media for backing Bush on the war until it was too late for their switch to critical coverage to matter.

I was using it, in this case, to invoke the uncritical acceptance of a failed axiom of conventional wisdom.

If you actually want to make a coherent case against my position, fine, you have every right to do that.

But it's not your place to just tell me to shut up. You have no right to do that.

[skooooo]

42. I didn't tell you to "shut up"

Why don't you calm down and quit reading things that aren't there.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

113. Ahh ...

Not here you are not ... but MANY are on many threads all over this board, about any position taken that in any way doesn't agree with our candidate or even "conventional wisdom". I don't think it was meant as a personal stab.

[sandnsea]

53. Kerry has been the key leader on progressive issues

You're nuts.

[skooooo]

54. He doesn't want Obama "to lower himself" to Kerry's standards.

Ouch that hurt his credibility.

[Ken Burch]

65. ON THE IRAQ WAR...not on the other stuff.

You know I meant on the war. And you know Kerry was wrong to not be antiwar on Iraq.

[skooooo]

73. Ok, but tha'ts not Obama's position...nt

[sandnsea]

81. He had a plan to end it in 2005

His plan to end it was faster than Obama's. You were doing the same ranting during his election as you are now. Don't learn very quickly, do you.

[TooBigaTent]

36. Answer the question. What leverage is there after the election? nt

[scheming daemons]

45. How much leverage is there after the election when you've helped elect McCain?

[merh]

93. there is no leverage before the election

when you are stuck between a rock and a hard place - back Obama or back McCain, seems like we have on shot at making things better and its not by voting for a kooky guy with a bad comb over.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. You do not hold the keys to the kingdom; this is a tiresome claim from the "get in step" crowd

Some of the issues raised are from sheer frustration and best left alone, but some of them have a great deal of bearing on electability.

There's a "given" here among many of the zealots that everything he does is golden and that moving to the center guarantees election. Neither is true in my opinion, and THEIR opinion doesn't outrank mine. If he keeps changing positions and sucking up to the right, he's going to get more and more flak about being a glad-handing appeaser or worse. That's deadly, especially since reactionaries love to paint us as dishonest stealth communists.

As for the religion issue, which has ALWAYS been my greatest trouble with this person, it's pernicious, and any foothold gained will be exploited. I strenuously resist this. It's not necessary. It's dangerous.

There are a lot of believers on the left who are playing a shitty little snickering game of putting one over on the secularists and the actual non-religious, and this is as underhanded as it is dunderheaded.

He's going to be slagged for loyalty, as he jettisons more and more unseemly associates, and this is something that'll resonate with people: people LIKE those who stand by their friends, and we judge people by those with whom they consort.

More than anything, the commissars of lock-step acquiescence to whatever idiotic tack Mr. Obama sees fit to take are full of shit. The premise that blindly going along is best is NOT a proven fact. The act of tacking to the right DOESN'T always work. Democracies have an inherent strength that top-down republics don't: the power of parsing out what course is best, based on the insights and wisdom of individuals working together. This cult of the personality schtick has gone WAAAAY to far.

Those of us with problems with this candidate have been continually shouted down and slathered in patronizing homilies about the superhuman wisdom of this person, and many of us don't see it; we see a typical risk-averse maneuverer who's gotten VERY lucky and not hit any big snags so far.

Much of the premise of what the blinkered followers propose is that he's effectively deceiving on subjects of religion, trade, lending policy, civil rights and that he'll pull a fast one on the monarchists and then fuck them. Great. We're presuming outright deception and proud of the man who'll do it. Personally, I don't think he's being all that deceptive, and I don't think he'll cheerily tack back to the left on many of these issues.

His feet should be held to the fire on certain issues, otherwise the disillusionment could grow. There's already enough soft support on our side of the aisle as it is.

He's not always right, and those who demand debasing subservience do nobody any favors. Criticism and policy suggestions aren't necessarily damaging; sometimes they're a big help.

[wyldwolf]

8. I'm asking, based strictly on the netroots definition of "progressive," in what ways...

..was Obama "progressive" in the primaries (or more so than the other candidates)?

[scheming daemons]

9. What do you mean "keep Obama progressive".... you should say "MAKE Obama progressive"

He never was one... and didn't pretend to be.


For some reason, you netroots folks thought he was Kucinich with a tan.


He's not... and never has been.

[Ken Burch]

15. "Kucinich with a tan"? sheesh....

NOT AT ALL racist, are you?

:eyes:

[scheming daemons]

34. I'm the biggest Obama supporter going.... and I'm of mixed race.....

...but thanks for playing.



The comment was meant to imply that you Kucinich supporters thought that he and Obama were exactly alike except for their skin color.


Obama is NOT Kucinich politically. He's a left-center politician and ALWAYS has been.


Your comment about "keeping him progressive" assumes that he was progressive in the first place. He is in some areas, and he isn't in others.

and he's always been that way.



You were looking for another Kucinich.... and you're upset you didn't get one.


America doesn't want a Kucinich. Get used to that fact.

[Ken Burch]

55. I never thought Obama was just like Kucinich.

And you don't know what I was looking for when I switched to Obama.

And it's not YOUR place to pompously declare what "America doesn't want". Who died and made you Ben Wattenberg?

[scheming daemons]

59. Maybe not... but you want Obama to BECOME Kucinich....

And you're right that it is not my place to say what "America doesn't want".


America said that themselves during the primary season. They don't want what Kucinich was selling... not all of it, anyway.

[Ken Burch]

67. I don't want Obama to BECOME Kucinich.

I just want Obama to be who he was when he ran for the Senate.

Just like I wanted Kerry in 2004 to be the man he was when he testified before the Senate on Vietnam in '71.

Neither was too much to ask.

[scheming daemons]

75. Obama IS being that man.... read his books

FISA is the ONLY issue where he has moved away from his original position...... and even there, only slightly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Hey, I'm a huge Kucinich fan - he was the first guy to get a donation from

me this time out - and I never deceived myself that Obama was a far-leftie. I never expected him to be Kucinich.

He is, and always has been, a left leaning centrist with roots in community activism. And I have no problem with him trying to expand the base.

(for that matter, kucinich isn't kucinich enough for some people)

[AtomicKitten]

10. It's backseat driving any way you slice it.

I absolutely agree with much of the dissent expressed here at DU, however, it is beginning to be used as a cudgel and that doesn't help on a number of levels.

I just spent 3 weeks working in the field on the campaign and needless to say it is disheartening to come back to these boards. We've waited eight long-ass years for this election and nobody, and I mean nobody, is entitled to continue to try to hamstring the nominee. The alternative is unthinkable.

Not winning isn't an option.

[Ken Burch]

14. I agree that "not winning" is not an option.

All that I've done and said is about trying to HELP us win.

We can win by galvanizing the outsiders and the powerless. We can win by bringing in new voters.

We can win by having faith in our dreams.

The path of blandness and cowardice isn't the only way.

You need to accept that we CAN win the argument on the issues.

The choices aren't silence OR defeat. 2004 proved that silence doesn't work.

[skooooo]

12. The horse you keep beating in your OPs..

...is dead already.

Next.

[Ken Burch]

17. It's not your place to take this tone of lofty, arrogant superiority.

You have no greater handle on how to win an election than anybody else.

You have no right to try to silence debate and discussion. And "leave it to the grown-ups" is what cost us a sure win in 2004. You and I both know that if Kerry had run in the fall as an out and out dove and the enemy of the Patriot Act, he'd have kicked Bush's ass.

Centrism means defeat. So does blandness and silence. Why can't you see that yet?

[skooooo]

20. Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over again..

That's what I'm getting at.

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

25. It's not exactly the same thing. It's part of a continuing line of argument

And as far as that goes, why are all of YOUR posts in these threads variants on the theme of "shut up and know your place"?

Why SHOULD we trust the Beltway hacks on how the campaign should be run?

[skooooo]

29. Just saying it's funny...

...that this is the only topic you ever post on.

Unless I've missed something :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

46. I've posted on lots of other topics. You can search under my name and find them.

This is what I've posted about a lot recently because The Week Of Reversals made the discussion permanent.

And(other than FISA)I could actually live with his other statements of that week. I just want to make sure it stops there. It won't be worth even trying to elect him, for example, if he actually lowered himself to Kerry's "we can do it better" position on Iraq(he won't, but I assume even you would see that as a deal-breaker).

We have to have some standards, some "this far and no further" points. Is that too much to ask?

We can't lower ourselves on foreign policy, for example to "bear any burden, fight any foe", since we all know that can lead to nothing but more Vietnams.

[skooooo]

48. It won't be worth even trying to elect him....if he actually lowered himself to Kerry's "

That line tells me pretty much what I need to know.

You wanted Kucinich and he didn't get it. Time to move on.

[Ken Burch]

62. If he lowered himself to Kerry's Iraq position...which was stay in the war forever.

I did work for Kerry that fall, but that position guaranteed that Kerry would be able to do nothing progressive domestically. That's why "mainstream pundits" are so adamant about insisting that Democratic presidents be hawks...because they know it means that those Democratic presidents won't be carrying out Democratic DOMESTIC policies.

And Kucinich's ideas(single-payer healthcare, getting out of Iraq now)were and ARE popular. So is absolute opposition to media consolidation.

[skooooo]

71. "that position guaranteed that Kerry would be able to do nothing progressive domestically"

I don't know how you reach that conclusion.

At any rate that's not Obama's position, so it shouldn't be a problem.

[Ken Burch]

77. And I'm glad it's not.

BTW, you owe me an apology for implying that I was talking about EVERYTHING Kerry stood for. I wasn't and you knew it all along.

My point was that, if Kerry had got in and(in accordance with his Iraq policy)had kept us in the war, the expense involved would have made any progressive domestic programs impossible. Since you can't do anything progressive without spending, I assume you'll concede my point. (Tiny middle-class tax cuts aren't progressive, for example, since all the lead to is more cuts in social programs and don't help the middle-class in any meaningful way.)

[skooooo]

78. I don't "owe" you anything.

Now I know why Dylan ran from the far left dogmatics.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. You are not Dylan

and you don't know what he thinks. You have a Dylan icon, yet everything you post is 'shut up and be like me'...the antithesis of Mr Bob and his works.
Speaking for others not present in order to co-opt the respect they engender as you own is the sign of a person who has nothing to say. And you say it over and over and over and over and over.

[skooooo]

114. ppbbbbbbtttt...

get a life

[Ken Burch]

115. That response hardly rebuts BlueNorthWest's point about your tone.

You can't base your whole approach here on trying to silence people. You are not the Official Obama Commissar or something.

[wyldwolf]

26. "Centrism means defeat."

[Ken Burch]

32. The truth is, Mondale ALSO ran as a centrist.

Mondale supported continuing the embargo on Cuba and imposing a similar one on Nicaragua(even though it was already clear that neither idea had or could have any positive results)

Mondale supported raising taxes NOT to restore Reagan's massive cuts in social services but only for the useless, Republican goal of a "balanced budget".

Mondale refused to connect with the overwhelmingly popular nuclear freeze movement that was sweeping the country at the time.

Mondale was indifferent at best, hostile at worst, to the Rainbow Coalition. So, no Mondale was no liberal.

Finally, Reagan was charismatic and Mondale was boring. If they'd switched platforms, Reagan would still have carried 49 states.

And you know as well as I that Mondale would have lost 49 states on Clinton's platform too. There weren't THAT many voters in 1984 that would've voted Dem if only we'd backed the death penalty and denounced those mythical "welfare mothers". In fact, there weren't any at all.

Finally, Clinton was to Mondale's LEFT on health-care and LGBT rights(although he sold out on both after the election). The people supported and still support universal health-care and that's what helped turn the tide after '88(does the name Harris Wofford mean anything to you?). Clinton's proposal only failed because it was too confusing and bureaucratic. You can't seriously argue that he'd have done better to support the status quo on health care.

So enough already with the historical lies.

[wyldwolf]

39. for the sake of arguement, I'll agree.

Although I could easily make the case Mondale's biggest blunders were "progressive" in nature - a call for increased taxes and pandering to every single issue advocacy group in the Dem column.

But there has never been a "progressive" elected to much of anything beyond a US Rep.

Centrists win constantly.

The make-up of the US Congress, the US Senate, and the Democratic presidential record proves you're wrong.

As for historical lies, your contention Obama is a "progressive" takes the prize.

[mix]

28. no, it's not dead

...when there still remains a faction of Obama supporters who practice deferential personality based politics while calling for people who want him to move forward to shut up.

There is no proof or foundation to the claim that criticizing Obama will split the party or lessen his chances in the GE. It's a gutless nonsensical claim.

Eight years of Bush-Cheney has not dampened my enthusiasm for democracy.

[DinahMoeHum]

19. Just remember, though: POLITICS IS ABOUT WINNING. . .

And this year, WE MUST WIN - PERIOD

http://www.grannyd.com/speeches/sub-speeches/dont-stand-in-the-way-4-30-03.htm

(snip)
There are many among us who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely.
(snip)

:kick::kick:

[DaDooRonRon]

87. Politics is most assuredly NOT about winning

That is what gets us nowhere.

Thunk back - we HAVE to beat Bush, we HAVE to take the Senate and the House, we HAVE to get Democrats elected in the South, and on and on and on.

That gets you/us NOWHERE. It legitimizes pandering Democrats who have NO desire to move anything to the left, for they are perfectly comfortable in the one giant Purple Party they share with their "opponents."

As long as you/we think of politics as some kind of stupid game where there is a winner and a loser instead of a full and complete equal and unfettered examination of ideas then we have no chance. Both parties want no part of an open exchange - you know it, I know it, and the hordes of people who stay home on Election Day know it.

Every time someone votes for someone because they think they can "win" (knowing full well that said candidate is nothing more than "not the other guy")vs. voting for someone who best represents them it is another knife in the back of anything resembling democracy.

Fact is, those who vote based on "winning" do more harm to this country than those who refuse to play in a rigged game and who vote their conscience.

Feel free to show me the civics lesson that says "vote for they guy who think can win instead of the one who truly best represents your beliefs."

Some of us don't play Faux Democracy anymore - if you do, don't try and tell me you're making a difference.

You're really not - you're just hoping you "win."

[endarkenment]

24. Carry on with your poutrage.

Yes the shouting from the base helps the flip-flop narrative, but it also helps Obama claim the center from McBush. Obama can handle the lurch to the center bullshit: it is demonstrably false. Meanwhile it seems like the FISA bill has enough poison in it to push the criminal creep in the white house to hissy-fit veto it. Great! Win-win for our team!

[wyldwolf]

33. the perfect are always the enemy of the good

[mix]

37. and followers are always

the enemy of the wise

[wyldwolf]

41. so I guess Obama followers are the enemy of the "wise" progressives.

[mix]

49. don't flatter yourself

you represent only one faction of Obama's supporters. As I wrote elsewhere, "there are the thinned skinned Obama supporters who practice a naive, deferential personality based politics, then there are the other Obama supporters. I am in the latter group."

[wyldwolf]

57. Just seeking clarification on your statement.

[Ken Burch]

52. People like us are wise enough to want to make sure there's never another Vietnam

Why don't you think another Vietnam would be a tragedy?

We're just saying "learn from the past". Is there a reason you want to avoid ever learning?

[skooooo]

61. So if we don't agree with your approach, we want another Vietnam?

Wow quite a leap there don't you think?

[Ken Burch]

72. Wyldwolf wants us to stay with the JFK/LBJ foreign policy tradition.

That's the same thing as wanting more Vietnams, since that's all hawkishness can ever get us.

[wyldwolf]

79. You mean the Wilson /FDR/ Truman/JFK/LBJ/Carter/Clinton foreign policy tradition

Yep.

[Ken Burch]

99. The one that, except for World War II and the UN, brought the world nothing but misery

10 million people died for nothing in World War 1.

Korea and Vietnam were useless wastes of human life(including, as has just been disclosed, the massacre of at least 100,000 leftist Korean POW's as documented here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/1042128,korea070608.article

a massacre that probably did a lot to create the hard-line mentality of the North Korean regime).

Lyndon Johnson(who admitted in 1964, on tapes released by the LBJ library a few years ago, that Vietnam was an unwinnable war) forced the Democrats to lose in 1968 rather than let us break with it.

There was no excuse for his decision to send the Marines into the Dominican Republic in the name of "fighting Communism" since the Dominican Republic didn't HAVE a Communist Party.

Jimmy Carter's worst and most unpopular moments as president were tied to his decision to back the Shah of Iran to the bitter end. This pointless intransigence was directly responsible for the hostage crisis that made Reagan possible. And I assume even YOU, Wolfie, won't defend Carter's willingness to look the other way while the Korean government massacred innocent students during the pro-democracy Gwangju uprising in 1980

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement

And there was never a moral defense for Bill Clinton's decision to keep the School of the Americas/Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
open, a "school" which strongly encouraged Latin American militaries to view the poor as the enemy and trained them to torture the poor, workers, activists and the occasional priest or nun). Nothing that school taught actually enhanced this country's security, and it's lessons may actually have increased the numbers of guerrilla wars we've ended up facing.
Without that school and the state of terror it encouraged in Colombia, would there even BE a FARC, for example?

It's time to give up being the world's policeman.

It's time to stop betraying our principles as a nation of the people by globally fighting for the rich.

It's time to stop ignoring John Kennedy's warning that "those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable".

It's enough to protect our territory from external attack.

The path to true strength and influence lies in working for social justice and a decent life for the dispossesed, not in staging an endless series of wars.

[wyldwolf]

104. No, the one that put down tyranny the world over.

[Ken Burch]

106. The U.S. made it's fatal mistake(one you likely supported)when it treated GORBACHEV

As a leader that had to be "put down".

Gorbachev should've been given the aid he needed and helped to preserve a reformed system in his country. It's because the U.S. insisted on "winning" that one that we're stuck facing down a lunatic like Putin.

It was the hard-line that screwed everything up on that one.

[skooooo]

58. Don't you know?? The more left-wing you are..

...the more "right" you are according to some here.

[Ken Burch]

63. Dylan would never support the kind of left-bashing you do.

Why are you a Democrat if you hate progressives this much?

[skooooo]

66. Hey the left wing can be jsut as closed minded

and fascist as the right wing. No doubt in my mind about that.

Besides that, I'm not sure Dylan is so "left wing." He got pretty sick of the old left wing telling him what to write and sing in case you didn't know.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Hey

You are not Bob nor do you have any right to speak for him. Vulgar, cheap, and naff. In case you did not know.
You might be happier with the other Party the one that also whines about liberals using terms like 'left wing.'

[depakid]

35. Of course we're the enemy!

at least to the sycophants who would throw any and everyone (the latest being Bob Herbert) under the bus for daring to criticize the campaign.

Not to worry, though- there are always (and always have been) a certain percentage of people in groups who behave like this. It's basic sociology.

[scheming daemons]

40. Alternate subject title: We progressives are upset that Obama turned out to NOT be Kucinich

......and we're going to keep stomping our feet and pouting like toddlers until we get our way.


Obama is a slightly-left-of-center politician.


I'm really sorry that Kucinich didn't win the nomination for you. Now get over it.

[skooooo]

44. ..

:popcorn:

[Ken Burch]

47. None of us have done anything to deserve that kind of contempt.

The message of the primaries was NOT that progressives were obligated to shut up and settle for crumbs.

Who are you to act to superior, anyway?

[scheming daemons]

56. Your "demands" that Obama be something he's not are examples of "acting superior"

Obama is what he is.


You're upset that he's not what YOU want him to be.


You're demands that he BECOME what YOU want him to be are arrogant.




Obama won the nomination being what he is. Kucinich lost the nomination being what HE is.


Your demands that Obama start acting more like Kucinich are counterproductive to winning in October. Obama has already shown that Kucinich-ian Progressivism will NOT win in this country.


You're on the fringe. You may be 100% correct in all of your political viewpoints.... but you'll never win with them. Not at this time in American history.


Obama is doing what he needs to do to win. You want him to do things that are antithetical to winning.



Kucinich-ian Progressivism lost in the primaries. Accept it.

[leftynyc]

50. I'm sure others have already pointed this out

but he was never a progressive. He was always a moderate. People really should have looked at his record and read his books.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Only problem with that is you can't KEEP what ISN'T.

Obama is, and always has been, a left leaning centrist. He has never been Kucinich.

He has to be what he is, because there is nothing that people will pick up on faster than a hypocrit. If he 'stays' progressive when he is really a center-left, people will be screaming "Phony" all the way to November.

He will not abandon the base. He's not a Clinton.

He will expand the base.

Support him.

[wyldwolf]

60. Looks like these kinds of OPs are becoming less popular on DU

[skooooo]

64. Now now, he just doesn't want Obama to "lower himself to Kerry's standards"

:eyes:

:wtf:

[Ken Burch]

70. You know I meant on IRAQ. You know I DIDN'T mean on anything else.

Stop twisting my words.

And you know Kerry was wrong to fudge on Iraq in 2004. Why not admit it?

[TexasObserver]

68. The time and expense Obama has to spend catering to you is a LOSS to our effort.

The ammo you give every rightwing attack dog hurts our effort.

The ammo you give every news wonk hurts our effort.

You may not see yourself as the enemy of our party's nominee and our party's effort to gain the presidency, but you are hardly helpful. You are being a drag on Obama and his campaign. And for what? So you can say "we're keeping him progressive!"? No, you're not. You're helping the GOP by constantly bitching about everything Obama does.

I hope you're not still fighting the primary, because that's over.

[mix]

74. baseless claims

There is not a shred of evidence to the above assertions. We agree on our candidate, but practice a different form of politics.

[skooooo]

76. Well you and Ken agree.

Seems like most others on here are getting a little tired of this whole dance.

[mix]

80. yeah, "seems" that way

eom

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Most others!!!

You speak for 'most others', then for Bob Dylan, for the mods of the site, my God! You lack the spine to stand there on your own, and speak your mind.
Dull and tired. If this website bothers you, leave it. If your fellow Democrats bug you, go join that other group. Or you could make a case for your position. If you could. But your position seems to be that others should not speak what they think, rather join you in repeating what Obama thinks. Sorry but I'm all grown up now. Don't need Bobby or Barack to be my sheild or my dictator.
Hey, while you are at it, why don't you tell us Joni Mitchell's opinion on immigration?

[mix]

112. "most others"

weasel words...

[Ken Burch]

116. On immigration, Joni supports the right of everyone to be a "Free Man In Paris"

n/t.

[TexasObserver]

82. Sure they are well based.

You're free to be whoever you wish to be, but please stop denying the truth. The whining of some on the left in the Democratic party has been news on the news channels the past several days. The opinion writers are opining about it.

Say you don't care, but don't say it isn't happening. Don't be a truth denier. Argue your position, but don't make things up.

[mix]

83. this is a fantasy:

you claim that the left/progressive wing of the party is tearing Obama down and giving fuel to the media...you are fighting the wrong battle, progressives are not the problem here.

I am glad you support Obama, but abhor your style of politics.

[TexasObserver]

89. No, it's fact, it's not fantasy.

You are kidding yourself.

Yes, the Kamikaze members of our party are doing what they always do - trying like hell to lose!!

I've been putting up with you guys for nearly forty years, and every four years, you spend the entire general election run up bitching about our nominee and how he isn't keeping you happy.

I don't care whether you abhor my style of politics or not.

[skooooo]

91. ..

:kick:

[mix]

97. hyperbole

eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Baseless claims?

All you have to do is watch Faux News shouting about "Dissension in the Obama Camp!", creating the impression that Obama can't control his campaign, and if he can't control his campaign how can he run the country?

Obama has NEVER been a leftist. If you want him to pass a leftist agenda, you need to put leftists in CONGRESS, who will give him leftist legislation to pass.

He is a center-left Democrat who respects the base, and who will pass a progressive agenda if presented with one. But don't expect him to be something he is not.

He is the candidate we have. Support him and let him be what he is.

[mix]

86. What Fox News reports

has nothing to do with progressive criticisms of Obama. You're confused about causality here. I do support Obama, but not in the style you do. Too passive, to deferential, too easy.

How is being against Obama's support for FISA, by the way, leftist? Your language, like your views, is hyperbole.

[TexasObserver]

90. CNN and MSNBC have both run the story many times, too.

[mix]

94. you're looking for a scapegoat

to explain the corruption and dishonesty of the MSM, not offering correct analysis.

The intransigence of so-called Obama defenders like yourself towards those who support him, but recognize him as flawed, does more to divide us than loyal opposition. And by loyal opposition, I mean that when it is all said and done, he's my candidate; I do however oppose him on certain policies.

[TexasObserver]

96. No, I'm simply looking at politics the way it is.

This is where I put you on ignore, having determined I don't need to read anything else you have to say. I can't read everyone, so no sense reading the ones I know I won't find worthwhile.

[mix]

98. stumble off, into the dark

while the rest of us labor on

[DaDooRonRon]

92. "you need to put leftists in CONGRESS"

Even third party ones? :bounce:



'Cause we sure as hell know there ain't enough in the Democratic Party to make a dime's worth of difference.

Pelosi was supposed to be one, wasn't she? At least I thought so, as most of this website was doing backflips when she got elected Speaker.

Just a guess here, but I bet that the fact that she isn't has something to do with money, power and connections.

Hell, you find me some of them there "leftist" Dems and I'll run so damn fast to the ballot box I'll trip over my own shoes. :)

[Ken Burch]

102. Oh puhleeze....if there was NO dissent, like you'd prefer....

Fox would be describing the campaign as "run with ruthless, Stalinist effeciency".

The only way to run a campaign Fox won't bash is to run a Republican-style campaign(like Wyldwolf wants).

[depakid]

95. Yep- progressives are to blame and the campagn has no responsibility

to manage its own message.

:crazy:

[TheWraith]

85. No, suicide doves and concern trolls are the enemy.

And if you're not willing to admit that there's a lot of that going on, then you're blinding yourself.

[mix]

101. easy targets

such folk are transparent...learn to tell the difference between good and bad faith.

[depakid]

105. I guess there are a LOT of enemies on progressive sites and in newspapers

including many experienced observers, commentators and academics.

I guess all of them are wrong or misguided.

[MarjorieG]

88. Obama just publicly claimed he's a progressive, with other issues not a shift.

Wishful thinking he'd be more symbolically heroic, totally agree with you, still means he's what he claims to be.

Giving any more grist for the New York Times to say he's shifted for political reasons is damaging and untrue.

With friends like our own circular firing squad, who needs enemies?

[NorthCarolina]

100. Well Put

eom

[BigDDem]

103. .

:popcorn:

[Ken Burch]

107. Glad to have given you some entertainment during your busy day.

n/t.

[Geek_Girl]

111. Um... Obama is a centrist always was always will be

If Dems wanted a progressive they should've elected Kucinich.

[scarletwoman]

121. It's like shouting into a tornado to get any of these "progressives" to hear this.

I've been shaking my head over these delusions for months...

[scarletwoman]

117. Obama never WAS a progressive. It's not HIS problem that so many of you projected your desires

on him. Obama was NEVER anything but a liberalish centrist with some new fancy rhetorical footwork.

He's always been firmly in the camp of the Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment -- never has he EVER said one thing that would have placed him outside that boundary.

He has re-framed a few issues -- like religion/faith -- in a skillful way, and I totally admire that skill. And I think he has a decent take on economic issues -- but I certainly don't expect him to address the Class War head on, like Edwards was attempting to do.

The fact is, Obama won votes in the primaries because he WASN'T an obvious leftist. If Democratic voters had wanted a Leftist they would have supported Kucinich.

Obama can't be what you want him to be because he never WAS those things.

What he is is a damn good Democratic presidential candidate. I want him to do whatever it takes to win the election.

I'm sick of people looking for instant gratification. If you want this country to move toward progressivism, then please get it in your head that this is going to be a long-term process, a work of years if not decades.

Trying to put it all on one man, and one election is just utterly stupid and destructive.

Just elect the damn Democrat already, and then commit yourself to years of hard work in the trenches. Quit looking for a fucking easy out.

sw

[KurtNYC]

118. Progressives are not the problem, Obama is not the problem

the American media is the problem and they will continue to make trouble for Obama. Unfortunately they will be helped by many who continue to believe their BS headlines in spite of the facts.

The only move Obama is making is to the White House (not to the right or left).

[sourmilk]

119. Many of us are merely asking that he honour his promises.

Sure, he's a Democrat and we want him to win. If he has to bend a bit, it's not the end of the world. We all want a Democrat in the White House, don't we?

As long as Progressive ideals espoused by Obama during the primaries aren't COMPLETELY betrayed in favour of a Centrist-DLC agenda, he should be OK - I have found that most Progressives are capable of a bit of pragmatism...

[scarletwoman]

120. Please enumerate these "progressive ideals" that he espoused.

Really. All I ever heard was standard mainstream positions with some occasional clever re-framing.

I appreciated the re-framing, because it's sorely needed. But I never heard anything that differed significantly from mainstream consensus assumptions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite enthused about working to get Obama elected. Once Edwards -- my 2nd choice after Kucinich -- was out of the race, I had no choice but to pin my hopes on Obama. But I NEVER considered him a "progressive", or anything other than an exceptionally talented mainstream centrist Dem.

sw

[sourmilk]

122. FISA filibuster, Universal Health Care. Force Redeployment.

Certainly, he's no Kucinich. During the primaries, I felt that I literally had NO OTHER CHOICE when Kooch bowed out. I never considered Obama a Progressive, either - more Left-Centre.

He has borrowed heavily from the Progressive Democrats as well as the Populists among us. He is a pretty gifted speaker who has the ability to inspire voters. That's important, too, if one wants to get elected.

And he has wa-ay more in common with us than McThuselah...

[scarletwoman]

123. Obama never called for "universal health care", his plan -- as published -- was for expanded health

care for children. He never actually advocated a "single payer" health care plan.

Yeah, FISA is a tough one. But we're so far into the rabbit hole on the National Security State and corporate collection of data that it's going to take a whole lot more than a presidential election to unmake THAT bed.

As for "force redeployment", he hasn't changed what he's said all along, so I don't see why that's even an issue.

What we're really up against is the entire SYSTEM. Obama isn't challenging the System, he's just trying to make it work a little better.

That's fine. Revolution isn't going to happen from the top down, it has to come from the bottom and work its way UP. While we on the bottom attempt to get our shit together, it behooves us to vote for those who won't make things WORSE.

That's my slogan -- Vote for Obaman -- at least he won't make things WORSE!

sw

[LVjinx]

124. Universal Health Care was Hillary's thing. Never something Obama has supported.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

125. and in her case it was universal health insurance, not universal health care(unless i'm wrong) n/t

[JI7]

126. it's Obama or McCain

we are trying to win an election.

[Ian David]

127. Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening (‘I am someone who is no doubt progressive’)

Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening (‘I am someone who is no doubt progressive’)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3390982&mesg_id=3390982