What happened to trusting Obama?

[Tennessee Gal]

Barack Obama ran the most astoundlingly successful campaign I have ever seen. While I did not originally support him, I came to support him wholeheartedly mostly because of his overwhelmingly positive campaign. I came to trust his wisdom. So, why are so many here now questioning his decisions during this transition period? I don't question him. I am silently observing and trusting his abilities to make the right choices.

[Eric J in MN]

1. If we don't like one of his appointees, we should say so.

He's a politician.

We're the people of a democracy.

[Skittles]

3. hilarious how people on a DEMOCRATIC board don't get this

:rofl:

[Dawgs]

33. Fine, but most criticizing the appointees rarely give an example of who would be better.

Obama's job is not easy. It's certainly much harder than doing what many here are doing.

[NashVegas]

61. They Don't Have to Say Who'd Be Better

If they choose to, fine. Demanding a solution is so RW tactic squard.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Why is that expected?

When Congress votes on the appointees, they vote simple yes or no. They do not have to explain who they would think is better, they just say 'no'. So on what basis do you claim that a voter's opinion needs to come with a list of better choices? My Senators probably know the talent pool far better than I do, and yet they get to just say 'no thanks' without explaination. As do I. As do we all.

[meowomon]

2. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we don't support or trust him.

We are not sheep or mindless koolaid drinkers like the Bush followers were. I am way far left of Obama and I realize that certain "deals" have to be made and that we have to make progressive baby steps to get to this country out of the grasp of the right wing corporate vultures. I am not naive. I am sure the president elect can handle a little criticism. He is no George Bush and is a very smart man.

[Tennessee Gal]

9. He is a very smart man and is no George Bush.

So give him a break.

[TBF]

93. That means absolutely nothing.

No he's not George Bush, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a hundred times worse. After all he actually has a brain. Look up Rahm Emanuel for starters. Is that someone you'd pick for Chief of Staff if you were looking to exit wars in the middle east?

True leftists saw through Obama from the start, and other left-leaners have been hopeful for a dem candidate but very disgusted by the picks so far. He is drawing on experienced centrist Clinton appointees. So much for hope and change.

It is our duty as citizens to question our government.

[emilyg]

123. You bet. Always.

[Two Americas]

110. so am I

So are many others here - "very smart and no George Bush." So what?

[TBF]

129. I'd be more comfortable with you at the helm :) n/t

[lurky]

4. Marching in lockstep is for Republicans.

He is going to be under incredible pressure to put corporate interests ahead of the interests of Americans, and to keep the status quo in place. Speaking up and making our voices heard is the only chance we have of competing with those pressures. This is how we help him make the difficult decisions instead of the convenient decisions.

[Tennessee Gal]

10. He is making difficult decisions.

Give him the chance to make them just as he did during the campaign. He did not let you down then.

[bread_and_roses]

69. Sure he did. Several votes. (n/t)

[Skwmom]

25. I don't see why more people don't see this.

The Corporatists and Neocons will be putting plenty of pressure on the Obama administration. If they are trying to push him in one direction and the American Public is silent (b/c they trust Obama), it makes it that much easier for him to make the "convenient decision."

One of the truest statements ever uttered - the human mind has the infinite capacity to rationalize.

[lurky]

58. Exactly! Every corporate lobbyist in Washington is now

working 80 hours-a-week to get Obama and the new congress to protect the status quo. If we don't raise our voices high, we will be drowned out.

[scarletwoman]

80. Excellent response! We are competing with some heavy lobbies, we HAVE to speak up.

Elected officials are the servants of the citizens, not the other way around. I don't owe Obama anything, he owes US.

Our founding documents make it very clear: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

If I don't consent to something, I'm going to make it known.

sw

[TBF]

95. Exactly. The man works for us. We pay his salary through our tax dollars. n/t

[Breeze54]

5. You 'trust' politicians? Trust them at your peril... haven't the last 8 years taught you anything?

:shrug:

Obama is a smart man and politician but he's not perfect.

No one is... and it's your duty, no! Your moral obligation

as a citizen to let them know you are watching.... always.

More now than ever. That isn't a slap against Obama.

That's reality.

[Tennessee Gal]

11. Obama knows we are watching him.

He is making difficult decisions. Give him a chance.

[Breeze54]

13. He already screwed up... in my book.

look at his latest votes. They're NOT Progressive at all.

[Two Americas]

111. how would he know that?

The only way that politicians know we are out here is by us speaking up. Saying that he knows we are out there, so therefore remain silent is contradictory.

Do you think that the representatives of the corporations are saying "he knows we are out there, so let's remain quiet and trust him to help us?" All we do is vote for politicians. The corporations buy them, and that is very expensive. Yet they don't sit back and trust. Why should we?

[cali]

34. I selectively trust politicians

I trust my congress critters. I trust Ted Kennedy. Obama has earned enough of my trust for me to give him a chance to govern before I start bitching.

[Demi_Babe]

60. me too...he's already earned my respect and until he proves otherwise, it remains intact.

[TexasObserver]

6. I'm trusting my judgment that Obama is really smart, really capable, and in charge.

My approach is much different from many here. We picked this guy to do a job, and it's an overwhelming job. He's picking smart, competent people, and that's something I like.

I don't get hung up on ideology so much, because politicians vote their constituencies. They don't believe half the shit they say, and I'm glad.

I see Obama assembling a team of strong, competent players, and I like it. I am content to sit back and watch what he can do. I'm not going to think about criticizing him until he's been on the job at least six months.

So far? I give him an A+. He's Barack Obama, and we're not.

[Breeze54]

7. Huh? "because politicians vote their constituencies. They don't believe half the shit they say"

Who doesn't believe what and your glad that no one believes anything Obama says?

I'm not following you.

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

14. I'm talking about the hyperventilating here over a politician's history.

Such as Emanuel or Clinton.

How they voted in the past or what they said in a debate is of minimal interest to me when I am evaluating them for a top post. I like their competence and savvy. I accept that half of what they say in their elected official mode are things said for the needs of their constituencies.

Politicians do not believe half the shit they say. This is common knowledge. All the religious stuff, for example.

[Breeze54]

27. "What they did or said in the past is of minimal interest to me now"... WTF?!!!

Are you not only blind but also admitting stupidity?! :wtf:

Pull your head OUT of the sand!!!!!!!! Gheesh!

[TexasObserver]

45. You're unreasonable and there's no point talking to you.

Anyone who is already losing their shit over Obama's actions is mentally unsound.

You sound exactly like those ridiculous emails about Obama all the rightwing nuts send around.

[Breeze54]

47. Yeah right and from my pov, anyone who laps up the pablum, without questions, is a fool!

ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY !!!!!!

[TexasObserver]

54. more insanity

consider Abilify

[bread_and_roses]

68. Double and Triple that. But I consider it hopeless to try to convince

anyone who can't come to that realization themselves.

[JeanGrey]

126. This is how we end up with the politicans we deserve

instead of the ones we thought we wanted and voted for. I'm really astonished at your statements.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. I agree with you.

He is Barack Obama. We should give him the benefit of the doubt because he knows far more about what is going on than we do. We trusted him during the campaign and we should trust him now. Until he does something that indicates he is not doing what we supported by our votes, I will not question his wisdom.

[Breeze54]

15. He already DID indicate he is not doing what we supported

by the people (some) that he is choosing.

They all seem to lean RIGHT!!!! :grr:

[FlaGranny]

21. You weren't paying attention.

He has always said the was going to chose republicans and democrats and everyone in between - as long as they were people he considered the best in their fields. I don't know why so many people completely missed his message. His message was, in part, that nothing gets done without cooperation. To me, that always meant, he was going to listen to both sides and put both sides into his government.

[Breeze54]

22. I think maybe you weren't paying attention, actually.... I didn't nominate him. n/t

[FlaGranny]

30. ????

Of course you didn't. He was nominated at the Democratic National Convention. By paying attention, I meant if you had listened to what Obama was saying, he always said he would use people from both sides of the aisle in his government. We shouldn't be surprised at his choices. He's appointing people who know how to get things done. I don't have any fears that he's just going to sit back and take orders from his appointees. He'll be the one giving orders - after listening to every side of the argument. That's what he says he's all about. He has given no reason to doubt him so far. He's doing as he promised he would.

[Breeze54]

43. Yada yada yada... I did NOT vote for BO in the primary.

"he always said he would use people from both sides of the aisle in his government"? :wtf:

HIS government?! HIS Government?!

Sorry honey, but this is OUR Government!!! :grr:

[FlaGranny]

49. Yada, yada, yada?

What a great response. Geez, "honey."

[Two Americas]

114. so what?

Some of us didn't like that then, and we don't like that now.

[JeanGrey]

128. Well I guess they missed it because as the earlier poster

said, they don't pay attention to that anyway...................

[TexasObserver]

16. Yep, he's earned the right to have our confidence.

[Breeze54]

18. Not anymore.

[TexasObserver]

44. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[stillcool]

65. then not ever...

he has done nothing/said nothing that is in conflict with what he has said for the last 2 years. Be critical, dislike him, but don't lie.

[Two Americas]

117. don't blame Obama

The inconsistencies and hypocrisy are all coming from a small faction of Obama loyalists. Don't blame him, nor hide behind him.

[Two Americas]

115. never

No ruler ever has "the right" to "our confidence." Quite to the contrary, it runs the other way. We have the rights in a government by the people, not the rulers. The rulers serve us, and are responsible to us, we do not serve them. We get the benefit of the doubt, not the rulers. Anything less is an invitation to tyranny.

[emilyg]

124. He has not earned anything - yet.

[Two Americas]

113. lol

"He's Barack Obama, and we're not."

Good grief.

I guess we should know our place.

[lamp_shade]

12. There are some who never liked him and never will.

Nothing can be done about it. Such is life I'm afraid. Sure.. they voted for him.. but with their noses plugged.

[Breeze54]

17. And EYES WIDE OPEN.....

I wish the rest of you would open your eyes as well.

[Tennessee Gal]

19. Open our eyes to what?

[Breeze54]

24. LOL!!

That explains a lot...

Go read some history, votes, etc.

[lamp_shade]

32. Again... there is little that can be done about those who will never like (or trust) him.

... and that's such a shame.

[Breeze54]

40. He caused it. Take it up with him. and he's sealing the deal by a lot

of his choices. Such a shame. :(

[Tennessee Gal]

53. I did that long ago.

Obama won the primary and the GE. If you did not support him in the primary, you have a problem that you should have gotten over by now. Or would you prefer McCain/Palin?

[mmonk]

20. Trust is best exercised without blindness. It has little to do with Obama himself.

His motives seem pure enough. Not much to complain about in that area. But one can have questions about someone appointed.

[pampango]

23. We've been "out" so long, we don't know how to act when we are "in". n/t

[Skwmom]

36. Not like blind Bush Republicans who supported whatever he did.

[pampango]

59. Ouch, equating Obama supporters with "blind Bush Republicans". I am hoping there is a flaw

in that logic somewhere. If "blind" Obama Democrats simply replace "blind Bush Republicans", we are indeed in big trouble. Personally I find equating the two, at this stage, to be a bit premature.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Me too, though I sort of expected that the

"honeymoon" here at Du would last about two days, lol.

[FlaGranny]

28. An anology

for people to think about. How many businesses or even marriages would survive with a complete lack of cooperation. Life just doesn't work that way. Bush was running a near dictatorship. We sure as hell didn't like it and fought back and threw out many of the Republicans who enabled him. If we want to have the same thing happen to us, then we have an excellent model - Bush's - just follow a totally progressive agenda, ignore what the rest of the country wants, keep all the opposition out of the way, and get thrown on our asses come next election.

[Shiver]

50. Exactly

Obama is going to be president of the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just its liberal and progressive citizens. He can't do everything we want, how we want it, when we want it, damn what anyone else thinks. He's got some 300 million-plus people to think about.

Not to mention, we've seen less than a third of his picks for the Cabinet. None of them are my first choices, but competency trumps ideology, and so far as I can tell, these people know their business. If they can get shit done that benefits the country, I don't care what side of the aisle they came from.

Would I like to see Kucinich or Krugman or Feingold or any number of other people in the administration? Hell yeah! But have any of them indicated that they WANT a Cabinet position?

There's nothing at all wrong with questioning the President's decisions, and in fact should be encouraged. But I'd rather wait until he's governed for a little while before I start bitching about 'wasting my vote' or 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

[Deja Q]

29. He still has mine.

[dkf]

31. All during the primaries he told us his foreign policy judgement was better than

Hillary's and then he picks her for SOS?

Its contradictory.

Yeah it might be smart politically, but giving out mixed signals and confusing everyone is not what we expected from him.

He will get props when he does something good and criticism when he doesn't.

Even Michelle says he needs his mind changed sometimes.

Frankly, if either Clinton keeps up the circus I will consider his selection of her a failure. If he nominates her, he owns the Clinton problem.

[Skwmom]

35. It was reported that Team Obama thinks all of the Clinton drama will fade away after she's nominated

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

[dkf]

37. Well I hope his judgment is as good as he thinks it is.

Otherwise, it could be his first demonstrated failure.

[Junkdrawer]

38. Case in point: "Obama beats Hillary over head with Iraq"

Hillary Clinton thought she had driven a stake through it, but it turns out to be the issue that will not die: She voted to authorize the Iraq war, she refuses to say it was a mistake, and she refuses to apologize for it.

And Barack Obama continues to whack her for it.

Obama opposed the war early and was lucky enough to not yet be a senator when it first came up for a vote.

Again and again, he pressed this advantage Thursday night at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles in the first one-on-one debate between Obama and Clinton.

Obama exploits the issue in two ways: First, he says Clinton’s vote in favor of the war shows bad judgment.

“I was opposed to Iraq from the start,” Obama said, “and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.”

Second, Obama says that his opposition to the war is something he can use against the Republicans in the fall.

....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8248.html

Judgment so bad that he wants HER as Secretary of State.

[dkf]

39. Yup...I just don't get it.

Why would you want someone with bad judgment as your SOS? Beyond Iraq, her campaign was run awfully, which shows she isn't a very good administrator. She seriously overspent her budget.

Sigh.

I hate it when I doubt Obama. So far, he has come around to my way of thinking on things that really bother me(started fighting back and named his Treasury Sec), but he's too far out on a limb on this one to fix it.

[Junkdrawer]

41. The sad truth is this: Obama is still the captive of his advisers...

and will be until he gains enough experience to chart his own course.

So he's turned his presidency over to the Clinton-dominated DLC...

Here's hoping that he learns faster than the events that threaten to overtake him.

[dkf]

46. I don't think that is the case...I think he is so sure of himself

he thinks everything and everyone will do as he asks. I'm just not sure that the Clinton's are capable of just being in the business of executing exactly what he wants and not muddying the waters with what they want.

[LostinVA]

137. It was a CAMPAIGN

[Christa]

42. He was about 4 steps ahead of all of us

even before he started his campaign. I trust him 100%.

[Tennessee Gal]

51. Yes, he has been ahead of us all along.

I do not doubt him now.

I admire and respect Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama. If he believes in Hillary Clinton as SOS, who are we to doubt him? I say that somehow he and Hillary have found a way to make it work. I will be behind them.

[CreekDog]

52. Many of those who don't trust him never trusted him in the first place

and showed it throughout the campaign.

i'm not asking for blind faith but some realistic understanding of why he is choosing who he is choosing. i'm also asking for folks to not act like all the announcements are centrist, non liberal, dlc or whatever as a way to undermine them when it simply is not true (e.g. Rahm is NOT centrist and has not voted that way).

[NashVegas]

62. And Many Who Blindly Trust Him Are Demonstrating Reasons Why I Wasn't Too Keen In the First Place

I just hope that the people now outraged over Krugman telling the truth, will remember this moment the next time that Obama tells the blogosphere to shut the fuck up, which he has done several times. He must, because as a representative plutocrat, he not only must create a loud noisy ball of people, he must have control over them, and will crush anyone who attempts to swim in that environment and direct it. He has promised his backers control over that ball, and anyone who moves it in another direction will be seen as a threat. He's already done this, and therefore, I am sure he will do it again. - Stirling Newbury

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Trusting has nothing to do with open discussion and opinion sharing

[Tennessee Gal]

57. Open discussion and opinion sharing is different from criticizing.

No one here knows what is going on within the transition decision making team. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[quickesst]

63. You mean the actual reason...

Simple on a first-grade level. For many, there is only one thing stronger than support, and trust in the president-elect. Hillary fever. When Obama made the decision to appoint HRC to a cabinet position, the level of support he enjoyed became, once again, second to the real passion of many democrats, the villification, and downfall of anything Clinton. Any other claim is a lie. It may be a believable lie to those making it, but lying to yourself, using "concern" as window dressing, for whatever reason, is not a good thing. The window dressing, looked at through logic, and common sense, is so transparent, the only thing you can see is a half-hearted attempt at an outline, with the ugliness clearly visible to all. Watch the denial, and attempts at justification for this type of "concern" in reaction to this post. It will come as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Bottom line? The same people would be clamoring to justify Obama's decisions if those decisions did not include any role for HRC. As I've stated in a previous post, even the Clinton-era appointees would be justified as a brilliant move. The benefits of a successful, Democratic administration, but without the bitch. Window dressing. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Obama never asked me to trust him silently

so if you have a copy of that memo, send it this way. I remember Obama giving very clear requests for a vocal and active elecorate, in fact he tells my community that it is our job to make the noise and build the support so that he can deliver the signature. He says he can not do our part, that we must if we want results. That is what Obama says. Did he take that back? Has he issued a 'shut up and wait' request? No he has not. Obama knows that big change must come from the people, demanded by us.
I also think many of those who think trust is deserved are not thinking outside their own set of shoes.

[Condem]

67. I remember you being hard core Clinton, Tennessee

Thank you for moving on and realizing we're on the same team. A lot of Clinton folks on this site didn't and are long gone. Thanks, again.

[DrPresident]

73. Shit, she's just happy that Clinton is gonna be S.O.S., that's all

just kidding. :)

[wisteria]

76. I think you're right. If you intended it that way or not. n/t

[Jennicut]

70. Bickering on DU, we are like a bunch of old married folks

[Two Americas]

122. passionate, knowledgable, involved citizens

Could that not be what we are?

"Getting along" and "chilling" are overrated, especially when it means complacency and complicity, cowardice and compromise.

The people are out of practice, have forgotten how to think critically and debate vigorously and rationally. That means there are some rough edges as we come out of our anti-intellectual self-centered consumer automaton coma.

[Runcible Spoon]

71. scary ass post. it is your DUTY to remain involved in the political process.

Oh, and Obama has SAID SO repeatedly. Jesus.

[DrPresident]

72. paraphrase: "There will be those who will not agree with every decision I make as president"

Obama HIMSELF welcomes dissension. 'Nuff said.

[wisteria]

75. I haven't agreed with the big ones so far. It just isn't one little one. n/t

[wisteria]

74. I can honestly say, I never trusted him entirely. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

77. Many of those mouthing the words never really believed in him to any significant degree...

They're just bandwagon-hopping fair-weather friends who cloak themselves in the unassailable "it's patriotic to dissent you nazis!" strawman.

[scarletwoman]

81. What? Is he God, that I should "believe" in him?

I recognized that he was an intelligent, skillful candidate, and obviously the superior choice over McCain. I didn't think voting for Obama was an act of faith, I thought it was an act of logic.

It is our duty as citizens of a democracy to keep our elected officials' feet to the fire at all times.

sw

(edited for missing apostophe)

[BlooInBloo]

82. Thank you for following my remark up with a clear example.

[scarletwoman]

83. Whatever. It's true, I do not worship Obama. He's my employee, a public servant. (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

84. Curious: Can you name even just ONE person who worships Obama?

If not, then what's the point of mentioning it, if not to deliberately caricature a view you don't agree with far beyond recognizability?


Bonus points for the follow-up: Why in general are people motivated to caricature a view they don't agree with into something else unrecognizable?

[scarletwoman]

86. See, it's like this; I was just following up on the "belief" bit I had addressed in my previous post

Just riffing on the religious language thing.

You can keep your bonus points, I'm not interested in your frame.

sw

[BlooInBloo]

87. I just want to know why it was OH-SO-IMPORTANT for you to mention...

that you don't worship the man. SURELY for that fact to be important, relevant, and germane, you MUST know at least one person who DOES worship him.

Isn't that what contrast-phrases are all about? Without the other-side example, it would be rather like the sound of one hand clapping - totally meaningless. And I'm SURE you wouldn't say something that was TOTALLY MEANINGLESS AND WITHOUT ANY INTELLECTUAL VALUE WHATSOEVER.

But you're the one who mentioned it.

[scarletwoman]

88. Okay. I'll admit it. I did it just to piss you off.

Happy now?

[BlooInBloo]

89. Aw.. that's no fun (and wouldn't be, even if it had succeeded)...

Indicates a singular lack of imagination. (shrug) Oh well.

[scarletwoman]

90. Are you kidding? Did you not notice all the CAPS in your previous post?

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

91. Um... I'm actually the one who put them there.

[scarletwoman]

94. OMG! Stop! You're killin' me!

Sorry, but it's obvious that you and I are SOOOOOOOOOOOO not on the same wavelength.

I'm still laughing my ass off, though, so I have to thank you for this very entertaining exchange.

Wishing you a good night,
sw

[BlooInBloo]

96. Nitenite!

[always_saturday]

135. Well said. Sometimes this sounds like a fundie board.

[Two Americas]

100. "believed in?"

Is this a religion? Since when is "believing" in a politican the test for anything?

[BlooInBloo]

101. I am truly sorry that the only thing on your table available to be believed in is religion...

I feel very sad for all those who deliberately live in as small and stupid a world as they possibly can.

The rest of us, however, are more fortunate. We can believe in principles of various sorts. We can believe in people and their abilities, their intentions, their creativity, and a host of other things. Thanks for chiming in - it makes me appreciate my ability to believe in all sorts of non-religious things all the more.

[Two Americas]

103. sure

I believe in principles and ideals, your insults aside.

Belief in a personality is what I am talking about and comparing to religion.

[BlooInBloo]

104. Awesome! - I'm always happy to uncover hidden agreement!

EDIT: Of course, I'm now left utterly mystified as to why the only "believe in" option you presented to me was religion, since you went on later to claim that you acknowledge a large variety of things as candidates for "believe in". But since I'm pretty sure that branch of the convo is doomed, I'm happy to let it go.

[Two Americas]

108. here is what you wrote

"Many of those mouthing the words never really believed in him to any significant degree... They're just bandwagon-hopping fair-weather friends who cloak themselves in the unassailable it's patriotic to dissent you nazis! strawman."

So had they "really believed in him" their remarks would not be critical or would be worthy of consideration? What is the implication of I am hearing you wrong? What you are saying here is different then how you portray it later. You are contrasting "belief in him" with criticism of what he does, and saying that the two are connected in some way. Those whom criticize did not or do not believe in him, you suggest and then go on to use that to support your smear of this "they" of yours (oh the irony since that is so obviously a straw man) who are jumping on bandwagons and cloaking and not to be taken seriously.

If people "never believed in him" then they would not be hopping on bandwagons, would they, because they would have already been on that supposed bandwagon.

"Fair weather friends?" That describes many voters, perhaps most, and does not discredit what they may subsequently say. Obama was to at least some extent promoted as the "lesser of two evils" and many Obama supporters claimed we would be "holding his feet to the fire" once he was elected. That suggests conditional support, does it not? What is wrong with that? It strikes me as a feature of a healthy representative democracy.

"it is patriotic to express dissent" is an unassailable concept, for most of us, don't you think? That doesn't mean that anyone is "cloaking" themselves in it for devious purposes, nor is it necessarily a "straw man" argument. You could be right, of course - there may be some who are doing what you are accusing them of doing - but you have not supported your argument here.

[BlooInBloo]

116. ""Fair weather friends?" That describes many voters" - Once again, glad to see we agree!

I had to work to find it tho.

"So had they "really believed in him" their remarks would not be critical or would be worthy of consideration? What is the implication of I am hearing you wrong?"

Presumably the consequences would vary case-by-case, to be evaluated on their individual merits, of course. Duh. That's ok though, since the set of consequences are win-win.


"If people "never believed in him" then they would not be hopping on bandwagons, would they, because they would have already been on that supposed bandwagon."

The leading conditional is just plain false because of the well-known "everybody likes a winner" phenomenon, while the consequent of the claim is just plain nonsensical.


"(blather about the never-disputed omnipresent-and-therefore-completely-sterile theoretical possibility of being wrong snipped) You could be right, of course"

I'll take it!

"but you have not supported your argument here."

Nor do I recall claiming that I had.

Bah - fine - I'll explain that last bit. There's no point in arguing that claim, because it intrinsically involves the *interpretation* of certain critters' actions. In a nutshell, it's somewhat like the duck-rabbit picture. If you don't see the rabbit, you just don't see it. No amount of argument is gonna help.

[JVS]

106. Yes indeed.

[last1standing]

78. I do trust him to do what he thinks is best for this country.

But that doesn't mean I think he's 100% correct in what is best for the nation. I've always disagreed with him on certain policy issues and I'm not going to stop disagreeing just because he won the election. President Obama will be a very good leader but he won't be perfect. In my opinion, he will be far too centrist and will not do nearly enough to return us to a pre-bush* standing. I could be wrong - I hope to Hell I'm wrong - but his appointments so far tell me that I'm probably right. Barack Obama is a centrist, not surprising since he never hid that fact or claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean he'll be a bad president, Bill Clinton was a centrist but was also an excellent president.

I just can't understand why its so hard for some people here to understand that I can think the world of President Obama yet disagree with him on some policy issues. Yes, I trust him to do the right thing as he sees it. I just don't think he's going to do the right thing as I see it which means I am going to point it out. It doesn't mean I expect him to jump up after reading my posts on DU and change his entire philosophy of governance. He won that election, not me (in fact, there's no chance he could have won if he ran on my personal platform), and I respect my President-Elect. I respect him so much that I'm not going to pretend he isn't able to take criticism.

Too bad some others don't respect him that much.

[MarthaMyDear]

79. I used to enjoy coming to this forum...

...before the election...

Now, Tennessee Gal, it's become a chore with all the lack of support for our President-elect and complaining about any and all possible appointments.

I'm pretty disillusioned right now...thought that DU was the site for me, but maybe not...I've donated money to DU and posted what I thought were encouraging posts, but it's so ridiculously critical now, time for me to go, I think.

[jillan]

85. Many of us feel like you do.

I need to stay away from gdp.

[Starry Messenger]

97. I just "redecorated" it today with a new improved ignore list.

I was going to try to take all comers, but I just couldn't take the negativity. Now my blood pressure is going back down.

[Two Americas]

92. "I don't question him?"

We are not subjects living under a monarchy. This is a representative democracy. We have a moral obligation and a civic duty to question our elected officials.

[scarletwoman]

98. It's kind of mind-blowing, isn't it? So many people see themselves as either obedient loyalists or

humble suppliants.

It's going to take an awful lot of work to get people's heads straight about how representative democracy is actually supposed to function.

sw

[Two Americas]

99. it is interesting, yes

Have people been trained through the Bush years to see themselves as subservient, as mindless followers, as hero worshipers, and for them is the election of a Dem merely the replacement of one fearless-leader-who-cannot-be-questioned with another?

Maybe the worst damage the extreme right wing did was to people's thinking. You could take many of these posts we are seeing today, replace the word "Bush" with "Obama" and they would read exactly like the most virulent right wing ranting you could ever hear.

[scarletwoman]

102. "... merely the replacement of one fearless leader who cannot be questioned with another?"

Kinda looks that way in some cases.

I think one of the most salient points made in this whole painful thread are in the two posts by lurky; #4 and #58 above. We are in the fight of our lives against the corporatist/militarist/financial interests, and have been for years. That didn't change one bit with the election of Obama.

We have to make A LOT of noise to ever be heard over the sound of their money.

sw

[stillcool]

107. that has always been the case..

the right and the left..say basically the same things. The bickering stays between the little people repeating what they heard on tv, that supports their claims against each other. In the meantime the Government is frozen in time, somewhere.. hopefully close to reaching the bottom of the cliff. And Obama sucks.

[Two Americas]

109. these days maybe

It was not always the case, nor should it be.

Have we come to see that idiotic crossfire talking points style of debate as the standard?

[stillcool]

112. I don't know if there has ever been..

a time when people were informed enough to discuss governmental policies with any accuracy. Seems to me that is the problem with our style of 'Democracy'. While the little people bicker about inconsequential things, the people they believe represent their issues, take care of business, in every way possible. Hence the oligarchy by default. As long as 'we' can't get it together those in government never will. Why should they?

[Two Americas]

119. of course there was

I lived it, and it was even more the case farther back in the past.

Read the Lincoln Douglas debates. Hours and hours of complex and sophisticated debate, with huge throngs, people who traveled great distances often on horseback, attentively listening.

The talking point format is very new, and very unlikely.

[stillcool]

120. Yes..and at the same time..

unimaginable wealth was amassed by the few...the Morgans, the Rothchilds, the DuPonts, etc., the Saga of Hog Island, etc. Who was discussing there hold on government?

[Two Americas]

121. the battle has been going on for a long time

The late 1800's featured immense efforts at organizing and protesting, the beginnings of the Labor movement, the Populist movement and the Progressive movement. In the 30's there were large and strong left wing organizations to bring pressure on the government.

We have no equivalent movements today, and are extremely vulnerable as a result of that.

[always_saturday]

134. Bingo.

[JVS]

105. It became the mantra to quash any questions regarding some very questionable decisions

[Zombie2]

118. I don't trust Lieberman..... or Billary as SOS

sorry :shrug:

[emilyg]

125. What ignorance.

[Zombie2]

136. What ignorance?

ignore ance :cry:

[emilyg]

144. Further ignorance.

[JVS]

127. It's not him, it's them.

[LostinVA]

138. "Billary" is a RW term NOT allowed on DU

[Zombie2]

139. I just noticed that it said that.....

...too late to edit, I tried. :shrug: So sorry!

[LostinVA]

141. What do you mean, you :just noticed -- you WROTE it

[Zombie2]

143. Must have been a typo... ehhh?

Do you think this is possible?

[Forkboy]

130. Why does any thinking human trust any politician?

Does not compute.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

131. Maybe because some of us never trusted him 100% to start?

I voted for Obama because he was not Clinton and not McCain, not because he was Obama.

I have always said it was going to be a crap shoot with him. :shrug:

All I really know about him is he had the political wisdom/skill to take down first Clinton, them McCain.

What that says about how he will govern or his judgement about how to best help us (not his campaign), I cannot tell you.

I have very mixed feeling about what I am seeing so far -- he will have a long ways to go before I trust him enough to abandon my own wariness.

[LWolf]

132. I never trusted him.

It's true that he ran an astoundingly successful campaign. If I thought he would turn that energy, and that talent, into moving a liberal, left-of-center agenda in Washington, I'd be thrilled.

That's not where he stands on the issues, though, and that's not where his policy papers place him.

He's never earned my trust on issues. I'm not surprised to see him gearing up to move his agenda, appointing key centrist power-brokers to his cabinet. They will be a strong force I will have to oppose for the next 4-8 years, since that's not where I want to see the nation going.

I'm questioning him now, just as I questioned him with every breath from the moment he entered the primary race. Nothing different for me.

Others, though, were so inspired by his political sermons that they didn't examine his positions on issues closely enough. "Change" and "hope" can mean anything, and did mean different things to different people. Now that people are expecting those hopes for change to be realized, many are realizing that Obama's intended changes aren't what they wanted.

[always_saturday]

133. Because I think some of the people he's decided on are ASSHOLES.

That's why.

And if he chooses pro-torture John Brennan for CIA director, I will think Obama is an asshole, too.

[wyldwolf]

140. I trust him and like all his appointments

[prostock69]

142. I have a suggestion for all of you who want to criticize (Fantasy Politics)

all the appointments Obama has made before ANY of them have done ANYTHING to warrant your critizism. I feel you are suffering from arm-chair quarterbacking. You are coming accross that you can read into the future and how things are going to turn out by the picks he has made. This is why I don't watch commentary about sports BECAUSE the "know-it-alls" are ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG. Human behavior is impossible to predict. Obviously you think you know more than Obama and you have a clearer picture than he does of the problems we are facing as a nation and nevermind that he is getting bombarded by millions of opinions on who should have been given administrative and cabinet positions to. He is doing what he feels is right.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you create a Fantasy Politics league. That way, you can run your own "country". You can elect your own president, cabinent members, congress, etc. Each politician's stats could be how they voted on legislation, etc. This may help those of you who find the need to complain and criticize EVERY THING Obama has done and will do. Do all of us have a right to our opinions? Of course. But this is getting ridiculous. Why don't you hold your opinions and give these people a chance to govern. If you don't like how things are going after a year, THEN by all means let your voices be heard.