"F*** staying positive! They're SAVAGING him! He has to go negative and hit back HARD!"

[jenmito]

Just a reminder for anyone who is now saying Obama is making a mistake by continuing his outreach to Repubs. Many people thought he was crazy NOT to hit back when first Hillary and then McCain started going negative on Obama. He stayed positive and he WON. Now, many people think he's crazy to continue his outreach/attempt at bipartisanship with the Repubs. I have a feeling, judging by past experience, that he knows what he's doing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Absolutely!

He's got the high ground, and that's the place to be...

I'm sure he knows what he's doing...

He knew what he was doing to get elected, and he knows what he's doing now...

Let's let him work!

[jenmito]

5. Exactly...

I trust his instincts on this, just like before. He should stay true to what he believes. He'll CONTINUE to have the high ground and he'll be rewarded for it.

[niceypoo]

81. Obama is doing exactly what he promised he would do

Let them savage him while he takes care of the country. Reminds people why they threw these bums out in the first place.

The republicans have absolutely nothing to offer this country and everybody knows it.

[Better Believe It]

149. I don't recall Obama promising to appoint the most right-wing extreme Republican to his cabinet

Senator Gregg.

That's not change we can believe in!

[NYC_SKP]

2. I think the same people who didn't "get it" then still don't get it.

That's what eight years got us, I reckon.

Shell shock, like beaten dogs; tails between legs one minute, gnarling teeth the next.

I'm with you, jenmito.

:patriot:

[jenmito]

6. Yup...

He knows exactly what he's doing to KEEP the Repubs. in the minority.

Thanks, NYC_SKP. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

157. Problem is, they don't *want* to get it.

They want blood. Eye for an eye and such. They don't really care about the future of this country and they damn sure don't care about actually trying to govern.

[BlooInBloo]

3. I don't listen to republicans because they're always wrong....

I don't listen to the "obambi" crowd either, for essentially the same reason.

[jenmito]

7. Does that mean you agree with me?

:shrug: :)

[BlooInBloo]

11. More likely it means *you* agree with *me*.

:P

[jenmito]

14. That's ok with me...

because, like Obama, I don't take pride in ownership. :D

[BlooInBloo]

17. He's a better man than I, no doubt.

[jenmito]

20. That's obvious...

:P

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. I recommended your thread because...

...anyone who is slamming Obama for ANY reason after 12 days after his inauguration needs to go fuck themselves..

Barack Obama has been President of the United States for TWELVE DAYS.

We elected this man to right the wrongs of EIGHT YEARS of a FAILED George W. Bush presidency.

Give the man a CHANCE.

:patriot:

[jenmito]

9. Thank you...

He seems to know what he's doing. And he's doing all the right things, it seems.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

18. We elected him because of our confidence in his ability to know what he's doing...

...eight years cannot be erased in two weeks. We need to give this man a chance.

:patriot:

[Two Americas]

166. I didn't

I don't think very many people did. I think people in the general public rejected the religious right and Reaganomics. Most activists work and vote for Democrats in the hope that they will fight back against the right wingers on behalf of the have-nots, and will be responsive to the grievances of the people. A small percentage of the activist community, which is a small percentage of the general public, is obsessed over this "competence" aspect. That is what matters to them, since they mostly saw the Bush administration as goofy and incompetent, and think that is what needed fixing. For most people that concern is very trivial when compared to what they are facing. They are looking for politicians who are first and foremost on their side, not that are competent. That is what has been missing. Besides, the Bush administration was extremely competent and very efficiently and effectively advanced the interests of the wealthy and powerful few.

Whether the people were "wrong" or not is not the issue - since we were all told that we had no other choice in any case - the expectations and needs of the people can not be safely ignored, whether or they are "right."

[Window]

130. K/R Jen.

:kick:

[jenmito]

135. Thanks, Window!

:hi:

[Number23]

29. You said it!

[MadMaddie]

34. Really it's like 30 years of Neocon Repug extremism

Let's not forget that the Repugs held Congress many years.

Obama is a stealth chess player in this game we call politics. The Repugs are too stupid to realize it. Their days of power are over.....

[CTyankee]

82. Judging by what happened this morning on Morning Joe, the right is scared to death

over Obama's popularity among the people and they are trying to claw him to death. They won't succeed.

My theory is that they are seeing this hideous decline in their fortunes with their party in a shambles and the Dems in ascendancy and they just PLOTZED! I see a few heart attacks among the older ones in the RW movement as they more and more unpopular.

We gotta hit back hard...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

132. But Americans have a short memory and the M$M hasn't allowed a

honeymoon period for Obama at all. They are controlling the message and the narrative. I don't see the president or Dems out there hitting hard on the message. I see a party that is NOT in lockstep; the Repukes, on the other hand, seem so united, it's so disgusting!!!

[laugle]

150. Remember how popular

Bill Clinton was and what the GOP did to him, it's an important lesson.

The more popular you are, the more they want to tear you down. But, I wouldn't worry about it, Barack has to show that he is willing to be bi-partisan, but that will get old very quickly. However, the rethugs cannot afford to be obstructionist's, or they will be out of office in two years. So some compromise will have to happen...........

And you better get used to them trashing Barack, that's what the GOP is best at, but this time, I hope, it won't work!!

People want results, not insults, and I hope that Barack will deliver.....

[Window]

129. I recommend your post because:

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!


:kick:

[treestar]

8. LOL, a trip down memory lane

All that concern.

[jenmito]

13. Just a reminder...

'cause "here we go again."

[JI7]

10. they want him to do like Blago

but look at where he has ended up.

[jenmito]

16. Yeah...

that won't work.

[MessiahRp]

89. Totally different circumstances though

I don't think we should be kissing Republican ass like Obama is doing but that really is an apple to orange comparison with Blago getting busted down for corruption and then fighting back and saying moronic things on his behalf.

Rp

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Boom.

The Clintons and McSame blew themselves up by going so negative. The Rethuglicans are now doing the same.

It's all good.

[jenmito]

19. Yup...

It's history repeating itself. Just like they chose Steele to be RNC chairman, thinking Repubs. will get more of the Black vote after McCain chose Palin to be his VP, thinking he'll get more of the women's vote. They never learn.

[Gregorian]

15. I have complete faith in him. It's inspring to watch. I'd say he can't fail.

And that's sticking my neck out. But I have lived most of my life doing what Obama does. Being positive doesn't mean he's nice. I've been nice while in the midst of battle. It works by keeping those around you (the enemy) calmer. It works by not giving them that extra spark with which to ignite more flame.

PS- Being positive and keeping your powder dry are not the same.

[jenmito]

22. Yeah...

I know how you feel. I think a LOT of people agree (according to his approval rating).

[Gregorian]

26. As an example.

I just started watching his inaugural speech again. And I realized something I've never realized before. Words can mean just about anything. Obama starts out saying "I thank president Bush for his service to our nation." Huh? Really? OK, he's being polite. Then he says "As well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition." Now anyone who was paying attention realizes that Bush was an ass during the transition period.

So here is Obama using kind words in order to deliver a slap in Bush's face. This is something my dad always talked about. He said a pro could do something like that. And now I know we have a pro.

[H2O Man]

30. There are times

that I am tempted to post an OP about what Obama practices -- which is known as "argumentation," rather than "arguing." There is a significant difference in the tactics of each, the timing, and the expected outcome. Some DUers might recognize what Obama is doing, if they are familiar with the teachings of David Zarefsky, PhD, of Northwestern University.

[Gregorian]

85. I think it's important.

It may warrant a post. I don't know. It seems so basic. But I think many people don't have the awareness to see this way of behavior. I am just able to recognize it. And I only learned how to use it as a result of being one of the smallest kids in school. I didn't dare get into a fight. So I learned how to be very careful in my arguments.

I think most people are operating on a very low level of social skill. These are the things that should be taught along side of math and history. But many people I've meet are working from a survival method rather than a context of mutual understanding and coexistence. It's hard to find words to describe this. I just know that I spend a lot of time in frustration over other people and their lack of skill and understanding.

What I saw Obama do in his inaugural speech was a highly honed skill. I guess one would call it a social maturity. That's it. We're a country of many socially immature people.

OK, now I'm off for my morning coffee. It's not a burn day. I was so looking forward to a raging bonfire.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

97. I for one, would LIKE to see an OP on this, from you.

I feel confidence in the President's philosophy and ability. It's as if I can sense it, even without finely honed political/historical understandings. Something just feels right, rational, aware of the big picture (plus he has an excellent track record demonstrating excellent judgement--always a good predictor of future behavior).

I've wondered many times about people who can't see this far reaching capablility he has. What is it that blinds some people to a better way?

[H2O Man]

24. "Being positive

and keeping your powder dry are not the same."

Right. Definitely right.

[H2O Man]

21. He knows

exactly what he is doing.

[jenmito]

23. Yes, he does...

he's proved that time after time.

[Radical Activist]

25. Yes. People burned out on nasty.

The public will rally around the leader who doesn't play the same old games.

[jenmito]

33. Yup. I'm glad he's doing exactly what he's doing.

The Repubs. look like obstructionist fools.

[mopinko]

27. the senate vote will be very interesting. and don't be fooled. good cop bad cop

don't think that because the pres is on the high road that nobody is on the low road. i am thinking that harry reid has a new set of marching orders and that things will look a little different this time around.

[madeline_con]

28. He's reaching, but they're dismissing his attempts.

That's cool, because we will remind them who didn't vote for the stimulus package when it succeeeds and they try to take credit.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. He's rope-a-doping them...

by refusing to play their game. And it's working, making them look dumber by the day.

Every one of them who's talked about being the "party of ideas" or "having solutions" has folded when asked just what those ideas and solutions might be. "I'll get back to you" is the usual answer.

Now, getting all in-yer-face with these guys will backfire bigtime-- note how that one Republican who dared to suggest they just sit down and talk reasonably instead of listening to Lord Rush was almost burned at the stake by his own constituuents and had to kneel before the mighty limbaugh to keep his job.

Fighting with these people will just cause more chaos, since they are irrational and on some sort of mission.

The true believers down there in the bottom 20% will just see proof that they were right in their belief in the right, while everyone else will get caught up in the side issues of the fight and set us all back. The way it is now, those asshioles are just greasing the slide they're heading for.

[Common Sense Party]

127. That was my first thought, too: "Rope-a-dope."

Time will tell.

[WheelWalker]

148. Rope-a-dope. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

[book_worm]

32. this same advice was given to Obama many times during the campaign

both in primaries and general. He knows what he's doing.

[Two Americas]

35. the country is in an emergency

The election is over, and the country is in the grips of a growing humanitarian crisis.

"Staying positive" is of no value whatsoever, and only encourages denial and complacency. It also discourages people from listening to the voices we most need to hear right now.

The success of the new administration is completely in the hands of the people in the White House now, not the right wingers. Move dramatically, quickly and forcefully to relieve the suffering of the people, and they will also succeed politically and the right wingers will be in the wilderness for a generation or more. There is nothing the Republicans could do to stop that.

However, we can slow it down with these calls for moderation, centrism, post-partisanship, suppression of dissent, and hero worship. Those ideas are the greatest threat right now to the success of the new administration. It is very weak and negative, and I wish people would stop doing it. It represents a great danger to the country, to the people, and also to the success of the new administration.

Here is my slogan -

"Face reality and stop cowering in fear of the Republicans."

[jenmito]

36. "Hero worship"?

I'm sorry I wasted my time reading all the way to that phrase. It renders your entire post worthless.

[Two Americas]

37. ok

I think a person would have to be blind to not see that there is an element of hero worship going on with the new president. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it can have a negative impact on the potential success of the new administration if it is used to suppress dissent and is presented as though it should take the place of real politics. The fact that people are resistant to looking at that is a worry.

I was not posting in the hope pf reaching or persuading you, because I believe your mind is already made up. Rather, I am writing for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be confused or on the fence, so that they can see that "get behind Obama and don't be so critical" is not the only way - or even the best way - to support the new administration.

I respect your view. There is room for a variety of approaches. All celebrities and politicians generate a fan club. That plays a role, but it should not be seen as the only way to be loyal or constructive or to contribute. That intimidates others, and deprives us of the full range of ideas and contributions that will be vital if the new administration is to succeed.

...

[FrenchieCat]

46. Anyone reading your posts since the Primaries would know that

Your support for Barack Obama has always been "iffy".

[Two Americas]

48. true

My support for all Democratic party politicians over 45 years has always been what you would call "iffy." That is how representative democracy and responsible citizenship works.

I have voted in over 50 elections, and always voted Dem. I have worked thousands of hours for Democratic party candidates. I have known many personally, and to this day know many and hundreds of staffers personally.

But you challenge my loyalty, and use that to encourage people to dismiss or ignore my contributions? That is shameful.

During the primaries, I was just as critical of Kucinich, Edwards and Clinton as I ever was of Obama - more so actually. In fact I have hardly been critical of Obama at all, whom I consider to be a brilliant politician and who I think may run a successful and exceptional administration. I have, however, been critical of the suppressive and authoritarian attitudes of some most zealous Obama supporters - a very small minority of those who supported him - because I consider them to be the greatest threat to the future success of both the party and the new administration.


...

[FrenchieCat]

51. Oh....I recall you loving you some John Edwards!

You even named yourself after his slogan.

In fact, I rarely remember you ever having anything negative to say about John Edwards.
Remember?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4025167&mesg_id=4035152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3922358&mesg_id=3928372

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4035942#4038477


What I know is that you have to force yourself to have anything good to say about Barack Obama, then and now. I'm not challenging your loyalty, I just know where you are coming from, and your posts consistently read that way, and folks who forgot who you are need to remember, because what you say has a lot to do with how you feel about our President....and it ain't never been unbiased or all that good.

[Two Americas]

53. politicians I have worked for

Over the years I have worked for my rep John Conyers, State Senator Jackie Vaughn, Robert Kennedy, David Bonier, both Sander and Carl Levin when they were starting out, Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, Jerry Brown, Walter Mondale, Dennis Kucinich, and many others. None of them, their staffers, or their supporters were ever this resistant to my input, and my input has not changed over 45 years - they saw it as valuable.

Why are some Obama supporters taking such a different attitude about this? That is the only thing that has changed.

I have voted for every Democratic party politician in every election through all of that time.

I was one of the people suggesting the "Two Americas" theme back a couple of years ago. Not sure if the idea came from me for Edwards, but it may have. He badly betrayed us, in my opinion, and I am reclaiming the slogan as my own - with your kind permission, of course.

Your persistent and under-handed attempts at portraying me as disloyal or a traitor or insincere are highly suppressive and authoritarian. I also think it represents part of a pattern that is very dangerous, and a threat to the future success of both the party and the new administration.

You keep attempting character assassination here. Why?

[Two Americas]

54. let's look at what I posted

Rather than just have some links posted, that we are to presume discredits me, how about we post what I actually said in those threads you are trying to use as evidence against me?

I would say the same things today - without hesitation - and have been saying the same things for over 40 years. If it makes me a criminal to have supported a candidate who did not win the nomination, or whom you did not support, then I am guilty as charged, but so are most people here by that criteria.

Care to debate the content of what I posted?

Democrats who see the plight of the bottom half of the population as by far the most important issue can hear what Edwards is saying, and know that the very fact that he is saying it represents something very powerful and important. Democrats who do not see the plight of the have-nots and the left behind as the most important thing judge him on other criteria and find fault with him.

We have a candidate talking like FDR and RFK. We haven't had that in a long time. Other than that, he is probably no better or no worse than the other candidates - he most certainly is not the savior that some few see him as, and he most definitely could not be as evil as others suggest he is.

But speaking out with the same ideas as FDR did - that is new and different, that is important and powerful, that dwarfs all other considerations by far.

Edwards could have a hundred times more flaws than his critics assign to him, but for those of us who think that the party needs to return to its traditional New Deal foundations and rebuild the strong pro-labor New Deal coalition - both for the sake of the millions of people suffering in the country as well as for the success of the party - that would not matter.

Our adversaries know precisely where the battle lines are drawn in this battle which they started. They recognize who their enemies are - all of us who are supporting Edwards. They know what is at stake, and they are not mired down in debate and niceties, but are free to go right for the jugular. They are very well-financed, determined and motivated, and they are very clear about their goals.

It is important to recognize that this is not merely one bad apple that is spoiling the bunch. This man is doing us a favor by revealing the agenda of our adversaries. I much prefer this to the usual nicey-nice platitudes and PR that is used to disguise and hide this agenda from us by more polished and suave spokespeople for the interests of those few who have such disproportionate control over our government and our lives.

The problem is systemic and pervasive, not isolated and discrete. Do not take this revealing and telling example that is so perfectly representative of a broad and omnipresent problem and crunch it down into a very small matter of one evil guy, or one bad organization, or one convoluted conspiracy of a handful of “elites.” It is the system that allows people such as this and organizations such as this to rise to power and prominence that is the problem—that rewards and protects the most anti-social and anti-democratic behavior imaginable.

Rather, take this example and broaden it into a universal and powerful statement of exactly what has gone wrong in this country, as a clear and coherent prelude to promoting the time-honored traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party, and the program that has always brought the party its greatest electoral success.

Our adversaries know what the battle is about and where the battle lines are drawn. So must we if we are to survive.

We can stand firmly on the shoulders of the giants who have gone before us, and we can use them as a model and as a guide.

FDR said:

“ Liberty requires opportunity to make a living — a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

“For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

"The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

"Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

"But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them."

Not sure what this one is supposed to prove. I defended Edwards from false and malicious charges, but I also did that with Obama, Clinton, Biden and others.

Yes! Let's elect a candidate who never gets applause. The less popular the better!

Who cares if what the candidate says is true or not? Let's just idly and maliciously speculate on some dark devious possible motives without any supporting evidence and see if we can trash the character of a Democratic candidate with innuendo and insinuation and get his supporters really angry.

[FrenchieCat]

56. You were a fan when it came to Edwards.

You supported Edwards' approach, his policies, and everything else about him. Yet he lost...and turned out not to be such a "gem" after all.

Meanwhile, you are and have been full of skeptism about Obama throughout....yet he beat both Clinton and McCain. Yet and still, you question his approach, and now warn us that campaigns are different from governing....as though you know something others don't.

My point is that you don't necessarily know as much as you think.

Just saying....

[Two Americas]

57. oh nonsense

Still trying to prove that it is a crime, that it makes a person disloyal if they supported another candidate in the primaries?

Yes, I supported Edwards. So what? I never thought he was "a gem" and always said that I supported his message. That is what I think you have a problem with. I have been extremely critical of him, and was the first Edwards supporter - against much opposition from his other supporters - to write him off. Unlike you, I have spent zero time thinking about him since.

Ad Edwards been elected, and did and said the exact same things that Obama has done and said, I would be saying the exact same things. Count on that. Your insinuations that I would not are, again, a matter of projection I think.

But let's say that I "loved me some Edwards" similarly to the way that you "love you some Obama." Still, so what? Does your argument then rely solely on the fact that your guy won?

I think that you "hated you some Edwards" and still "hate you some former supporters of any other candidate."

[Two Americas]

58. so...

What I posted on those posts you linked to did not prove my guilt after all? Why did you post them them? In the hope that people would just assume they indicted me, and not actually go and read them?

[Two Americas]

55. that is a laugh

"I rarely remember you ever having anything negative to say about John Edwards."

Ask Edwards supporters about that. Ask Kucinich supporters about my criticism of him, whom I also supported, as well. I have never supported any politician the way that you are demanding we all support Obama. Never.

I always stressed that I supported the message of Edwards and that I stood with his supporters. That is quite different than
"loving me some Edwards." That may be your concept for how one supports a politician, but it is not and has never been mine. Don't project that onto others.

So anyone who supported a different candidate then you did in the primaries is therefore to be presumed suspect and guilty of disloyalty?

[FrenchieCat]

59. Quit being in denial! You loved you some Edwards.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4264878&mesg_id=4283516

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4354414&mesg_id=4369193

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5325858&mesg_id=5333622

and dissed Obama every chance you have gotten:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5192735&mesg_id=5196411

[Two Americas]

61. LOL

Wow, have you been keeping track. Thank you for the opportunity to get wider exposure for the ideas expressed there.

Here is what I said there, folks.

There is no alternative. Does anyone think the battle will go away and be over if the Edwards candidacy fails? The opposition won’t quit. The two major candidates cannot stop the opposition.

We don't have any choice about this. Fight now, or fight later.

Did some Edwards supporters think that what he is saying is just some clever rhetoric to get elected, or that Edwards is some sort of consumer product, and that when the product fails to sell that message evaporates and disappears like last years advertising slogan?

The truth, the power, the validity and the inevitability of Edwards message have nothing to do with the outcome of any election.

There is no quitting this fight, even if you want to. The fight will just come find you.

Did some Edwards supporters imagine that this would be easy or painless? That we could just waltz in and win a rigged and crooked game?

20% or so support is an enormous victory given the reality of the situation. We can build on that. Or we can be discouraged, question our perceptions, shut up and quit. That is what our opponents hope we do.

This is so much bigger than the Edwards candidacy. It is not he who is being tested, it is us.

Again, I don't know what this one proves, but here it is:

John Edwards is one of the few politicians whom I have never seen show any anger. Has anyone else seen him angry? Has the word "angry" been re-defined, or something?

First, I want to say that I appreciate your posts very much, and have the utmost respect for your views and for the passion you bring to the board. I will give my opinion here for your consideration, and that is all I ask - that you consider my views. There is far too much heat and not enough light around here these days.

I think that we need to face reality and understand what politics is. Threats, horse trading, coercion, pressure, back-stabbing, back room deals, intimidation and power plays are not the exception in politics, they are the rule. In some ways, those things define what politics is. When Johnson was trying to get Civil Rights legislation passed, he called southern Senators and threatened to "cut their nuts off." There is no shortage of insider accounts of campaigns and administrations and Congress throughout history. Read about the deals that Humphrey made with Johnson to advance his career. Read about JFK's threats to governors in the southern states. And of course there was Nixon's heavy-handed politics - exceptional mostly in the sense that we know more about the inner workings there. When Lincoln was trying to get the amendment to the Constitution passed to outlaw slavery, he grabbed congress by the lapels and said I am the president of the United States, clothed in great power to help my friends and hurt my enemies, and everyone new exactly what he was saying: play ball, or I will f*ck you up.

We cannot know exactly how Edwards was forced out of the race. The politicians keep that stuff hidden from us, because they want to put a happy face on the whole mess for the sake of PR and keeping us docile and malleable. We do know that some very powerful interests wanted the Edwards campaign destroyed - and that should not surprise us. We do know that his speech was very contrived and forced and out of character. We do know that there was a dramatic shift in the way the two leading candidates presented themselves immediately after Edwards announcement.

We also can see the power plays mirrored right here in microcosm, since the maneuvering and power plays by the candidates filter down to the grass roots through a variety of channels, and people do the bidding and spread the messages that the handlers of the candidates want disseminated.

Powerful people wanted the Edwards campaign deep-sixed. Those people have tremendous leverage over all of our politicians. They can pick up the phone and accomplish more in five minutes than all of us working together can accomplish in ten years. To deny that this is the truth about American politics is to be completely divorced from reality.

I think the Edwards campaign was too risky for the party leadership, antagonized and provoked too many rabid and powerful attack dogs who could seriously damage the Democratic party politicians, upset the power balance too much, and a calculated decision was made among the party leaders that Edwards needed to go - "for the good of the party." Things were getting out of hand - Edwards was lighting fires that were a little too dangerous to those holding power, and that needed to be suppressed before things spun out of control.

I imagine that Edwards was told something like this - "look, John, you are doing a marvelous job, don't get us wrong, but this just can't happen. You have to play ball, and there is just not going to be support for what you are doing within the party leadership, and it is seriously upsetting corporate interests who can hurt us and everything we are trying to do. We need to compromise, John, you know how the game is played. If you don't cooperate, we will mess you up and you know we can. We need to look at the big picture. For the good of the party, we can't have you flying around like a loose cannon getting people's hopes all fired up. Do you have any idea what a massive change it would require for us to get behind your program? How many skeletons in the closet of ours would be revealed? And the Republicans would use all of that, and they might beat us and then where would we be? We appreciate your idealism, and the issues you are raising, but the reality is that we just cannot piss off the big money people. We might not like that, but that is the reality we have to deal with, and they are getting very angry and making threats to all of us in the party leadership. For the sake of loyalty to the team, and the jobs and positions of so many Democrats who have helped you in the past, you must back down. If you don’t we will bury you."

A conversation such as that would be entirely consistent with what we know about all politicians and how they do business - completely congruent with every back room conversation between every politician in every campaign and every administration throughout our entire history.

I think people are so wrapped up in...well whatever it is they are wrapped up in... that they don't know how to respond to anything that doesn't fit the script.

The worst thing about this all out smear campaign against Clinton - one of my least favorite politicians ever - is that I can't criticize her without contributing to that. And you can not criticize the other one. Hell you can't even talk about Edwards. He is defying the hope brigade by being a neutral and loyal Democrat and saying good things about both candidates and their supporters. We can't have that! This is all out war! Pick sides or else!

Pretty good stuff there, if I do say so myself.

Again, care to debate any of the content of what I said?

[FrenchieCat]

63. Quotes.....

He is defying the hope brigade by being a neutral and loyal Democrat and saying good things about both candidates and their supporters. We can't have that!

John Edwards is one of the few politicians whom I have never seen show any anger. Has anyone else seen him angry?

Powerful people wanted the Edwards campaign deep-sixed.

Edwards was lighting fires that were a little too dangerous to those holding power, and that needed to be suppressed before things spun out of control.

and it goes on and on in posts after posts.


We don't need to talk anymore about this. My point is that there are some politicians in your book that can do no wrong.....just happens not to be our President.

[Two Americas]

65. yes, and so?

I think you have failed to provide any evidence to support your attempted character assassination of me.

There has never been a politician I have not criticized. That does not make me a traitor or disloyal.

That "Our President" stuff sounds like you think we live in a totalitarian state. How is what you are demanding for Obama any different than what the Republicans were demanding for Bush when he was "Our President?"

[Two Americas]

62. mea culpa! here it is! the proof!

I "dissed" Obama!!!

here it is:

the problem with "hope"

It is not very well spelled out just what it is we are supposed to be hoping for.

Apparently, we are to hope for the destruction of those who disagree with us.

We will dash the hopes of all who refuse to hope along with us.

Those who disagree with us are hurting our unity, so they will be de-unitized.

All who refuse to be unitized, will be excluded from the unity.

Heh. That one is kind of humorous, if you ask me. It was humor, by the way. You would have hated Mark Twain and Will Rogers and Mort Sahl and Dick Gregory. Dr. King criticized LBJ far more harshly then anything I ever said about Obama. Was he disloyal?

Purge the heretics! Set up the gallows! He dissed Obama - months and months ago in the midst of the primaries!

Frenchie, I think you are proving my point.

[FrenchieCat]

64. You dissed Obama throughout the Primaries,

and general election, and since November 5th.

I think on November 4th, you had some nice things to say like....OK, you Obama supporters were right and I was wrong.

But it's ok.....really, it is.

[Two Americas]

66. not quite

I opposed him, and supported other candidates. So long as Edwards made poverty and class an issue, I supported him. Issues transcend personalities, and I was always suspect of Edwards skill as a politician. But you support the message - that is how politics work. I also opposed Senator Clinton. So what? I opposed Carter and Clinton, too, when they were running in the primaries. I supported a candidate other than Humphrey. I supported the message - the message, get it? - of RFK and Jesse Jackson and to some extent Dennis Kucinich the same way I supported the message of Edwards. I have that right. That is why we have primaries. I have consistently expressed the same opinions about Carter and Clinton and other Dems who have moved to the right that I am now expressing about Obama. I also have that right.

But I am much more positive and hopeful about Obama than I ever was about Carter or Clinton. He is a much better politician, in my opinion, and I think it likely that he will listen to the people and respond to their needs more so than Clinton or Carter did. He is an exceptionally brilliant and skilled politician. As I have said several times on this thread, I have objected to the way some of the most zealous Obama supporters have acted. That is not an attack on Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Zealous is relative.

And the reason that I had something to say to you about your lukewarm support of our President, is precisely because of the fact that you felt compelled to have something to say about "zealous" Obama supporters. What is zealous to you, may not be to others. The point is who are you to judge and why bother?

[Two Americas]

68. agreed

I am not objecting to your support of Obama. I am not "lukewarm" in supporting politicians. You work for them, you vote for them. That is supporting, in my view. I canvassed all over farm country for Obama. He was much easier to promote here then Gore or Kerry were. I have never been "lukewarm" or inactive. I think you win more votes over by being honest, and by not being a fan. That is my approach. We elect Democrats so we can advance the cause, we don't advance the cause so we can elect Democrats. People are much more willing to listen to criticism of Republicans if you are also willing to criticize Democrats. That has been my experience.

I like Obama more than I did Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or Carter. What else is required? I don't have any problem with your view of Obama. But naturally enough, I resent being portrayed as a traitor when I express the same opinions now that I have always been able to express and have always been expressing, and that out in the field help rather than hurt the party where it really counts - winning over votes.

Don't you realize that when the right wingers really get going with their attacks on the new administration, and they have not yet really started, that those of us on the Left who have been dissenting here and there will be his most fierce defenders? We will be here, steadfast and in for the long haul as we have always been, as various politicians cone and go, and we will be the strongest opponents of the right wing. That is how we support the new administration - by speaking out for the ideas that oppose the right wing, and exposing and refuting the ideas that enable them - even when those ideas come from Dems.

I know that it is a pain in the ass having us around, listening to criticism, and that you think we are not on your side. But we are.

[Two Americas]

71. I will be completey honest with you

Yes, I had great hopes for the Edwards campaign. I was never wild about him or his personality. However, he was talking about the have-nots versus the haves, and I have always supported any politician who does that. Was he a phony and a shit head as it turned out? That is what I think, yes. But so be it. So was President Clinton in many ways. I was disappointed in Carter, too, and I do admire him more than I ever did Clinton and much, much more than I ever did Edwards. I will defend any Dem who is being unfairly attacked - I even defended Senator Clinton and she was my last choice among the candidates - but I will also express dissent with any Dem politician on issues when I don't agree with them. To me, that is our job. I can't change my politics with the wind, and stay quiet just because we have a charismatic personality, or just because the Dems are "better than Republicans." Fire fighters are better than arsonists, too, but so what? I still am going to advocate that the idiots put out a fire once in while, and point out when they do not even get out of the fire house when the alarm sounds.

I supported Kucinich, but he is just about useless as a candidate and can't organize or run a campaign. That is all right. He contributes, and he strengthened the party by keeping issues in the discussion that would otherwise be ignored. The primaries are an opportunity for doing that, not for picking and siding with the winner.

I was probably most fired up over the years about Jackson. I came to think that RFK had changed and become a strong defender of the have-nots right before he was murdered, and I had hopes for him as well. I was caught up in the enthusiasm surrounding JFK, but that was crushed out brutally and the horrific memories don't fade.

I think that it is very much possible that Obama is a politician with skills beyond anything we have seen, and could become a great leader. As he defends the have-nots, I will defend him. As he takes on entrenched wealth and power, I will support him. That is the same position I have taken my entire life. It has nothing to do with Obama.

But I have never been emotionally invested in any politician over the last few decades, although I have occasionally gotten fired up about their message, as I did with Edwards message. The point of that is to advance the issue of the have-nots versus the haves, not to fall in love with a personality - and I can assure you that never happened with me about Edwards nor Kucinich, good grief they both have a lot of handicaps on that score - nor to pick the winning entry in a popularity contest, nor to root for my favorite and claim that he or she is a better person. Maybe that is because all of the leaders I admired as a young person - Malcolm, Dr. King, the Kennedy brothers - were all murdered. I just can't go there anymore. That sort of feeling about a leader is dead along with the leaders. If that is "lukewarm," then so be it. Nothing will ever fix that for me. I watched the poor people's campaign collapse, the Civil Rights and anti-war movements die, the unions start a long dismal decline, the war drag on, the right wingers build their power and gain more and more control over the government and our lives. The bad guys won. We have paid a terrible price ever since. My beloved home town of Detroit is collapsing into ruins, and the human misery there now is hard to fathom. I can't forget any of that.

Support Obama, admire him, defend him. Nothing wrong with that. I admire your hope and idealism. Just don't attack the rest of us because we have a different idea as to how to support the new administration. If Obama turns out to be an exceptional leader, we all win. Then you can say to me "I told you so" as much as you like, and I will celebrate right along with you.

Obama is the most charismatic, smartest, most popular, best looking, and strongest politician we have right now, and have had in a long time. I wouldn't argue with that. It is also a great thing to have a person of color in the White House as president - hard to believe, really. I didn't think I would live to see that, and I am very glad that I did. Now come the politics. There are going to be leftists, and we are going to have opinions, and we are going to express them.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Calling other Democrats "Obama Worshipers" then wasn't required

for you to make your point, now was it?

It is one thing to express your opinions...it is quite another to attempt to slam other Democrats
in the way that you did while you were at it.

What I read in your initial post, was someone who felt superior and had volunteered
for the job of judging other Democrats who are enthused and fired up,
and scolding them for it.

Calling names never ends well....that's what I'm sayin'.

[Two Americas]

104. I made an effort to avoid that

I have always made an effort to avoid that. I think I made it through 8 years of the Bush administration without ever calling Bush or his supporters names, when everyone else was doing that.

I often spoke about the attitudes and behavior of some of the most zealous Obama supporters, and will continue to do so. If I called anyone any names, I was wrong and shouldn't have done that.

But very often, I have seen people complain about being called names, when they actually were not. Recently we saw hundreds and hundreds of posts with people complaining about being called "bigots" over the Warren issue. I saw no epidemic of people being called bigot. I saw little if any name-calling at all. However, I did see a disgusting avalanche of bigoted posts. So "the wicked flee where no man pursues" may well apply there.

You complain of people "judging other Democrats who are enthused and fired up,and scolding them for it." I never scolded people for being enthused and fired up. You complain however about people who were enthused and fired up if it was for the wrong candidate. In fact, that is what your attacks on me are about, right here, right now. And what would you call what you have said about me right on this thread if not "feeling superior and volunteering for the job of judging other Democrats?"

I have complained about people being authoritarian and suppressive, and trying to supplant dedication to political ideals and principles with admiration and devotion to one politician and demanding that we all fall into line on that. That isn't name-calling.

[Two Americas]

116. my hope: I hope I am wrong

I don't care about being right. I hope I am wrong.

I care about housing the homeless. I care about bringing the troops home. I care about ending the tyrannical rule of Wall Street over our lives. I care about restoring the public infrastructure. I care about the millions of children in desperate poverty, the millions of young people languishing in prison. I care about the workers, and want to see the organized Labor movement revived and restored. All of that could happen and it could happen in the next 4 years - at the very least an aggressive start could be made on all of those and much progress could be achieved very quickly, once we have the will and the courage. I am very positive and hopeful about that. A dramatic shift is happening with the general public about this. That shift, and the historical forces it represents, dwarfs any personal loyalty to any politician, no matter how brilliant and talented that politician may be.

Bookmark this thread. I think it will take 4 years before we know. But at that time, if I am wrong, please come back here and tell me "I told you so." There is nothing that I want more that that.

Can't you see that if I am wrong, we both win? Can't you be positive about that, hope for that?

Until then I will continue to speak out, because no administration can possibly succeed on behalf of the people without pressure from outside. The best leaders know that, and they welcome such pressure. You betray a lack of confidence in a leader when you try to protect them from that, and also a misunderstanding about how politics work in a representative democracy. No amount of cheer leading and demands for loyalty will compensate for a lack of public pressure, nor will it replace what needs to be done.

[Runcible Spoon]

141. wow Frenchie...this is a little....creepy and stalkerish to monitor a poster like that.

:scared:

[FrenchieCat]

147. Stalking? You have a star! So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

It is as easy as Googling to see if the one calling other Worshipers may be somewhat of a hypocrite.

Beyond that, I'm had read and have had enough debates with Two Americas to know what Two Americas is about.....and did a quick search for back up. It's actually pretty elementary. :shrug:

[Runcible Spoon]

161. you went on a wild posting rampage trying to malign a fellow DUer.

Making it obvious you have been keeping tabs on this poster. What are you trying to prove?

[Lilith Velkor]

168. That she's a sore winner?

:shrug:

[donco6]

124. And that's relevant because . . . ? n/t

[Skittles]

76. I hear you, Two Americas

loud and clear

[LanternWaste]

144. One man's "hero-worship" is simply another man's admiration

One man's "hero-worship" is simply another man's admiration. I guess we all choose the term that best validates our preconceived notions and presumptions of what other people are thinking, and allows us to more easily supply back-handed compliments to those who don't agree with us and call it "discussion"...

[Two Americas]

165. yes

And I have no objection to either.

I object to the demands that we all must take the same approach, lest we be attacked as disloyal or worse.

[Cha]

167. I think you're blind..

and can't see past your bitterness. And, I'm not trying to reach you either.

[BlooInBloo]

40. Yup.

[Boomerang Diddle]

75. ""Staying positive" is of no value whatsoever"

Yes, I have always found that in times of trouble it's best to stay negative.............
:sarcasm:

[Two Americas]

109. confusion

Staying positive is valuable in one's own personal life. Projecting one's own personal emotional needs onto politics, and demanding that all do or else risk vicious attack, is not only of no practical political value, it can be very destructive and dangerous.

I ma very positive and encouraged about many things, and have often expressed that. I do not imagine that this should be important to anyone else, nor do I demand that all feel the same way that I do. Also, my feelings are not attached to and projected onto one personality, a stranger, a politician. That is intolerable to some, who insist that all feel the way that they do. That is a classic symptom of people who are yearning to lose themselves in a mob - all of those in the mob thinking and feeling the same things - and demanding that all join the mob or else be attacked. That yearning can lead to extremely ugly and dangerous politics.

[Two Americas]

111. notice this...

Right here on this thread I have posted some positive things. They get no response, because they are not the right things to be positive about. In other words, it is not about staying positive at all, it is merely a matter of differing opinions, and those demanding that we stay positive are really demanding that we agree with their opinions and do not express any opinions that they do not like. Clearly, that is about suppression of dissent, not about staying positive.

[K Gardner]

80. "staying positive is of no value whatsoever" - Well, at least you practice what you preach. n/t

[Two Americas]

99. you prove my point

It is not really "staying positive" because the people expressive that are not staying positive at all. They are staying self-righteous, angry, intolerant and hostile. They are demanding that all feel the same way they do, and then turn quite negative and hostile to any who are perceived to be outsiders.

That is more like "stay positive" - agree with me - or else. It means "agree with me, or else I will attack you."

"Staying positive" only applies in certain areas, and not in others. I have often posted about exactly what I see as positive developments - the rejection by the public of the religious right and Reaganomics, the growing militancy of organized Labor, and many other things. But those are not the right things to stay positive about - we must stay positive about one career of one politician. Unlike the people insisting on that, I don't fancy that my personal emotions, my positive attitude toward anything is of any practical political effect in the real world.

[Two Americas]

113. another point about staying positive

There is a difference between being negative, and merely observing and describing the growing humanitarian crisis.

There is a difference between staying positive, and denying and avoiding looking at the truth about what is happening in the country.

[donco6]

125. I agree totally.

And I *supported* Obama in the primaries. It has nothing to do with that.

While we water down our plans in some wrong-headed attempt to garner support from Republicans, whose help we neither need nor can we afford, we end up destroying the basic plan itself.

We know tax cuts for the rich don't work. That's what the Republicans want most of all. They'll talk a good game until it comes time to vote, and then they will stab us in the back every time unless they get exactly what they want.

No, I don't believe that Obama has all this planned out in advance, and that it's all going according to some plan-within-a-plan-within-a-plan. That's just naive.

[CakeGrrl]

38. The Super Bowl interview was proof. Lauer tried to hang the Repubs' assholery on Obama

by framing the stimulus package not getting a single Republican vote as a test of Obama's leadership. No surprise from the MSM 'ho.

Obama countered simply by pointing out that he's done a lot of outreach to the Republicans. He knows the MSM will spin things against him, so he took the steps to negate any claim that he hasn't been pulling his share of the "bipartisan" weight.

The invite to the congressional leadership for drinks at the WH and the trip over to the Senate to drum up support for the stimulus package were not naive, hopeful acts. They were proactive strategy.

[prolesunited]

39. I agree

When Americans see the negativity, the lack of effort to work together to help them solve their problems, repeating the mantra of "We need more tax cuts," they won't be voting for Republicans again in a long, long time.

[SKKY]

41. What did he say to that press board when they questioned his campaign tactics?

"Let's entertain the possibility that perhaps I know what I'm doing." Or something to that effect.

[cooolandrew]

42. Yes I agree , just because the GOP tried to dragthings into the mud >

doesn't have to mean we have to stay there. It's time to raise the bar of civility,not just for the nations sakes but to be an honorable example globally. As Barack says best himself " We can disagree without being disagreeable." I was surprised when Hartmann advocated for more aggressive tactics as his whole methodology has always been about civility, but still he's a great broadcaster and we all change our approaches every so often.

[depakid]

43. Obama very nearly BLEW IT -it was only our good fortune that the meltdown happened when it did

and that the Republicans nominated incompetents.

As you might recall, even with the Bush & Cheney's record unpopularity- and Republican brand not worth dog food, Obama was STILL behind in the polls in Sptember, thanks to the way the campaign went throughout the summer.

Those circumstances are unlikely to be repeated.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Well "nearly" ain't good enough. guess he nearly blew it in beating Clinton too,

but he did.

You forget the fact that this was a Black man winning anything for the first time in the fucking history of this country. Would be convenient not to make a note of that, but that would make what Barack Obama did to become President seem really easy....and some people might just forget.

[depakid]

49. The point of the post is that pandering to the right- and failing to define your opponents

doesn't work. Obama's campaign blew a big lead against the most incompetent Republicans candidate in many decades, so when people crow about "genius" or "brilliance" -one has to sort of sigh and give fortunate its due.

Moreover- using the same sort of "bipartisan nice guy" approach to Republicans in Congress isn't going to work, either- but it certainly will alienate the base, leave us with "compromised" public policy that won't acheive its stated goals- and would be a major drag on the party going into 2010.

Seems to me the battle cry should be: Remember 1994.

[FrenchieCat]

50. The only thing that happened is that the MSM pushed Palin

from the time she was picked on September 1st. 15 days later, the stock market took a dive, but in between, McCain's poll number were going down already.

Like I said, you must have forgotten that Obama was the Black guy running, not the war hero that the media had been pushing for decades. He won because he didn't become the angry Black man, and he doesn't need to be the Angry Black President now.

In otherwords, I have more faith that he will handle things, than I do in your armchair quarterbacking via the backseat.

[depakid]

52. If Five Thirty Eight still had its aggregate trends up, you could see that it was much more

than that.

The downward trend lasted from June until mid September.

You can have all the faith you want, but in the end, the American people like leaders who stand up and fight- as opposed those perceived as weak, and compromises principles and policies away (even if they're not enamored with those policies themselves).

Worse, adding in Republican "ideas" will make the stimulus even less effective than its going to be already, due to far too many tax cuts and not enough infrasturcture spending. If it doesn't work- Obama and the Dems will get the blame NO MATTER HOW MANY failed right wing policies they incorporate to garner votes (that they don't need).

Like or no- Obama and the Dems now own the outcome of the recession....

[FrenchieCat]

60. Well, you can ignore the fact that Obama was running while Black....

Since your posts continue to ignore that fact.

Apart from that, you do not know everything....you only have an opinion.
That opinion has been heard. Time will tell, not so much you.

[depakid]

70. How does being black have anything to do with blowing a big lead

over an incompetent campaign?

:shrug:

Kerry and Dukakis managed to lose by behaving nearly the same way- and Gore allowed an election to be stolen.

There's a pattern- and its been written about at length by political scientists and other acedemics who've studied it.

[Two Americas]

74. two separate issues

Black men cannot drive on the streets in this country without being targeted and harassed. Good grief, we are talking about a Black man who successfully ran for the presidency here. That is remarkable.

I agree with you on the centrism bs and the dangers of that. Just don't forget that we are a long way from being "post-racial" in this country, and people of color carry a much higher burden, all other things being equal, when striving for positions of power.

FC is saying that this gets far too little attention and recognition, and I agree.

[Two Americas]

73. agreed

People are insufficiently cognizant of this. He cannot appear to be the Angry Black Guy. Exactly right. He has been masterful on that - beyond perfection. Stunning job, really.

[Two Americas]

72. that is important

That is important, and you know I have always agreed with you about that without fail.

A Black person carries a much higher burden when seeking positions of power. That makes his victory infinitely more impressive than it would otherwise be, and speaks to his immense skills. It makes a big difference to elect a Black man to the presidency.

It is also extremely valuable any time that more people are brought into the process and participate in politics.

Those are great achievements, not to be diminished or dismissed, and represent significant change no matter what else happens.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

158. Except that was a bounced fated to subside.

You can look to nearly every modern election for evidence. And the evidence in the polls was indicating as such before the collapse anyway. Nice try though.

[On the Road]

44. I Believe the Bipartisan "Concessions"

in the stimulus bill were planned carefully.

The concessions like family planning should never have been part of an economic stimulus bill anyway, and can be passed separately. The added tax cuts are directed more toward the middle class than any Republican-designed tax cuts would have been. Obama can use them to fulfill his promise of tax cutting when running for reelection in 2012.

[Tim4319]

45. He's keeping his friends close and enemies closer!

[snowsman]

77. New York Times criticized his bipartisan outreach today

At the same time, it was distressing to see President Obama strip Medicaid coverage of family planning services out of the House economic package at the last minute in what turned out to be a futile effort to secure Republican support for the huge recovery bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02mon2.html

[damonm]

88. If the Times says he's wrong...

I take great comfort.

[Hellataz]

69. I agree, just because the other side can't act like adults doesn't mean we have to stop trying to

take the high road and work towards a bi-partisan country. Since when do we let one group's wrong behavior dictate how we ourselves behave?
The GOP shuns our open hand and we're supposed to just give up. That's not who our President is. He fights for what he thinks will make us better and i for one and with him every step of the way.

That's not to say I wont bash the GOP for the stupid crap they pull, but if there are some in that party that want to get with the program and stop being stubborn partisan tools, then why shouldn't we be welcoming to them? Obviously Obama thinks there are some that can be reasoned with and despite set backs he's gonna keep trying to reach out to them, in the long run he knows he'll wear them down.

[pampango]

78. Gotta be more like Bush. Campaign on bipartisanship, try it for a week or two, then

say "Hey, folks, I've tried for two long weeks to change the tone in Washington. No can do. It's back to politics as usual. The other side is filled with partisan hacks who don't have the welfare of the nation at heart.

And thanks for your votes. You didn't really take my "reaching across the aisle" pablum seriously during the campaign, did you? Many of you may actually think that politicians in Washington can work together to things done, even though they have different opinions. We politicians, however, are much more comfortable demonizing the opposition. It makes governing much easier, even if it makes you shake your heads on Main Street."

[jenmito]

86. Good point...

If Obama took the advice of those telling him to forget about the Repubs. since WE have the majority and don't NEED them, Obama would look just like Bush. And that ain't a good look.

[Vinca]

79. Good point, jenmito. Obama didn't get where he is by being stupid.

I've got a feeling I should lay in some bricks made of sponge to start throwing at the television though.

[jenmito]

87. Thanks, Vinca...

And good luck with your sponge bricks! :D

[Two Americas]

126. he is brilliant

We, on the other hand, are throwing marshmallows at a charging elephant, and then hiding behind Obama. We are not being so brilliant.

The fact that Obama is brilliant is no excuse for us to be weak and cowardly, and "I think I can" and "positive thinking" bromides are no substitute for speaking out strongly and fighting against the right wingers. It is also no excuse for waging a relentless campaign to suppress dissent and destroy our strongest allies.

It places a crippling burden on the new administration to fall back on "he is brilliant" and "he knows what he is doing" and to then badger everyone to get into line and demand that they be silent and then threaten people with being accused of being traitors or disloyal if they refuse to comply.

Turning OFF the television might be an idea. I think that TV watching is what causes this Hollywood script view of politics, and leads people to think that personal loyalty to a politician and super cheer leading partisan loyalty is somehow a blow against the right wing.

Much of the right wing propaganda is not so much designed to rally the base, as it is to paralyze the opposition by sucking us into taking a weak and ineffective political position. The right wingers are leading people to see the Left as the enemy. Doesn't that make anyone a little suspicious?

I think the brainwashing that the right wing propagandists are doing on activists and "progressives" is far more of a threat then any brainwashing they are doing on the general public. They are defining who we are for us, and defining that in such a way that we are led to attack dissenters among us and destroy the political Left. Whom does that serve?

[D23MIURG23]

83. Apples and oranges.

I agree that there is political benefit to be garnered from Obama's bipartisan outreach strategy. On the other hand I think its important that Obama and his congressional allies not buckle too much on their legislative priorities.

If Obama allows the Republicans to break the stimulus bill with a bunch of wasteful and ineffective tax cuts then we end up with bad policy at the end of the day, image and political benefit notwithstanding.

I've been mostly encouraged by the way Obama has operated so far, but I'm less than enthusiastic about the way the stimulus bill is turning out.

[jenmito]

90. Not really...

I don't think that working with Repubs., generating good will with them, is a long-term strategy, and also is not "buckling too much." Taking things out of a bill that really didn't belong in that bill isn't buckling. It's working to make a STIMULUS bill. And if the Repubs. continue to look like obstructionists, even when the bill is NOT full of "unrelated items," they will look even worse than they do now.

[SKKY]

84. Here's a message to some DUers from Obama himself!

[jenmito]

91. Thank you!

I love that "message." :D

[SKKY]

118. I'm almost positive he's said that at one point or another over the past 2 years.

[Prophet 451]

93. I'm torn

On the one hand, the antics of the Repubs make it very tempting to hit back at them. The insistent obstructionism is going to be a problem.

On the other, by making a very public show of seeking compromise, Obama is accumulating a lot of goodwill and exposing the R's as obstructionist bastards.

[AtomicKitten]

94. He ran against both Clinton and McCain for the last three months of the primary.

Obama proved unequivocally his new way in politics is a winner. Sometimes it makes me want to tear my hear out, but with deep breaths and a moment of zen that passes and I regain realization of the brilliance of it all. :)

[jenmito]

95. Yup...

What he did was unprecedented. He refused to stoop to their level and WON. Beating the "Clinton machine" while staying positive was a gigantic hurdle. Then beating the Repubs. (as well as the Dems. who still wanted Hillary to be the nominee) while staying positive shows us he knows better than we do about his strategy. I hope you still have all your hair. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

96. It was my maternal instinct kicking in.

Turns out he had this thing all along. :patriot:

[jenmito]

98. Well...

since I don't have any kids, I guess I don't have maternal instincts kicking in. Either way, he HAS had this thing all along. :)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

101. not only has he refused to stoop to the level of politics as usual,

he's beating the MSM too by sticking to HIS vision of what he knows is right.

Much more than I could do; constant attacks are too much for my lil' ol' ego.

I love this guy, because he's so inspiring!

(and I'm not a tv watcher. I prefer not tearing my hair out over their animality....heh heh, I'm aware of the MSM-world through reading here on DU!)

[jenmito]

105. Yup.

He doesn't let anything/anyone get in the way of his style of going about things.

[graywarrior]

100. No drama Obama.

Get it?

[and-justice-for-all]

102. Everytime Obama reaches across the isle...

repukes make themselves look like bigger asses then they already are. So, Obama is doing just fine.. Repukes will not sign onto anything unless it is 100% their way, repukes can go fuck themselves for all I care.

[backscatter712]

103. I'm with the OP here.

Some people only see Obama's outreach efforts, but bear in mind that Obama has sticks as well as carrots. One of the sticks is the art of making the Repubs look like monumental douches after rejecting Obama's overtures. Along with the invitations to cocktail parties and the high-profile attempts at including Republicans are ad campaigns being run in vulnerable Repub's home districts and states showing their constituents the millions of jobs they'd be missing if the stimulus was shot down.

Really, I think the Repubs shot themselves in the foot in the House when they voted unanimously against the stimulus. They're not making friends that way.

[damonm]

106. Indeed - he's PLAYING them.

See my thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8159814

for my take.

[jenmito]

112. Thank you...

Obama's "sticks" are covered in velvet.

[SKKY]

117. I mean, it's only been 12 days!

I'm glad I'm not the crazy one here. :thumbsup:

[bdamomma]

107. he knows what he is doing.

that is why he is President and we aren't.

[Life Long Dem]

108. No he's not crazy. Your sky is falling bit is a bit over played I'd say.

Take a chill pill will ya, and call me in the morning. :-)

[jenmito]

114. I don't think he's crazy. Other people here DO-THEIR sky is falling...

not mine. Maybe one of THEM should take a chill pill and call you in the morning. ;)

[Life Long Dem]

120. I did that? ...

Sorry for that. Yeah that's what it was, with some humor. :-)

[jenmito]

121. I think...

you just wanted me to call you in the morning. :D

[Sky Masterson]

110. I think he is doing fine.

I hope he stays classy and focused.
That is what this country needs.
Not the same ol same ol tit for tat of the past.

[jenmito]

115. So do I.

I wish more people here would feel the same way.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

119. Obama is a political genius-he makes Bill look average by comparison (and he's certainly no slouch).

[otohara]

122. Dems Rolled Over For Bush

Watching those fugly assholes in the GOP savage Obama is depressing the hell out of me.

And..once again the MSM is the voice of the GOP - I see more pukes on TV than Dems since Obama won. All they do is spew their opposition and tax cut philosophy.

I have yet to hear on TV that GOP governors are dying out there and need the money.

[Two Americas]

123. yes

The dramatic shift by the reporters and talking heads gets far too little attention. The contrast between the way they treated the previous administration and the way they are treating new administration is stunning. That is the real threat, and overcoming it is an enormous challenge, but one we must tackle. A handful of leftists expressing dissent is not a threat, and we on the Left are not the enemy. If we are going to tackle the right wing control over the national political discussion - and nothing is more critical to the success of the administration - we need all hands on deck, and the critics from the Left are our strongest players. There is no way that we could ever get everyone to pledge partisan loyalty, or to see the new president in an uncritical light, and even if we could that does nothing to stop the right wing. Obama and the Democratic party already have a massive mandate, and Obama is wildly popular. Those tasks are already accomplished. What they and we do with the mandate is what matters now.

[Cha]

128. Obama's right again..doing what he does best..

I knew there was a reason we all worked so hard to get him elected!

[jenmito]

137. That's right...

and for anyone who's angry that he's behaving this way, I guess they either weren't listening or they didn't believe him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

131. But how long will he and the Dems sit back and just take it and NOT hit back?

The Repukes are controlling the narrative. The M$M is helping the Repukes; they are on ALL of the punditry and news outlets, spewing their filth. I don't think Obama's message about the stimulus is getting through. Once again the Repukes are controlling that message and defining it on their own terms...to the point that very smart liberals are buying into the argument that "spending is bad" or that "the deficit is too high." WHAT??!?!?!?!?!

[jenmito]

134. It's not ABOUT "hitting back."

Obama should keep on reaching out to the Repubs. and the more they resist his attempts to work together, the better he looks and the worse THEY look. The Dems. will take out things in this bill that shouldn't really be in it anyway. And the people will see the obstructionism and start complaining to/about their reps. and FORCE them to work with the Dems. or get voted out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

145. When I say "hit back," I mean define the message. Hit back on the GOP's false message

and false narrative. Their ideas have been debunked, proven ineffective. Now, it's time for the Democrats to counter, rather than CAVE! They do that--not by playing dirty or being mean-spirited as the Repukes are doing--they do that by not allowing the Repukes to define the message or spread mistruths (with M$M's help).

[jenmito]

146. Please see my post #139 a few posts down. n/t

[RiverStone]

133. Bipartisan does not mean we concede power to the rethugs...

i.e. appoint Gregg to Commerce Sec.

It does mean they can sit at the table, but it is OUR HOUSE now.

Even Obama, as much as I admire him, can take bipartisanship too far.

[jenmito]

136. He's NOT conceding power...

he LIKES and RESPECTS Gregg.

Obama did not run as a partisan "my way or the highway" cowboy like Bush was. He ran as a POST-PARTISAN, with his famous line being, "There is no 'blue' America or 'red' America. There is the 'United States of America.'" What didn't you believe about that?

[RiverStone]

153. I believe it, but after Shrub's cowboy bullshit....

Combined with my faith that there is balance in the universe; I wanted and expect the pendulum to not swing in the center, but markedly to the left.

Yes, I do recall Obama's most quoted line (no blue/red) --- lets just say after 8 years of absolute disaster and considering Shrub compromised not a dang thing, I want some BLUE push back.

Ultimately, I trust Obama - but I still don't like seeing any rehug control anything in OUR HOUSE. But I'll defer the greater wisdom to Barack, even if I don't fully get it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

156. Say it again!!!!

[demo dutch]

138. Keep reaching out and make them look like obstructionists, then drive the stake! BUT the Dems

do need to do a better job in marketing their plans!

[jenmito]

139. Did you watch Hardball tonight?

Dem. strategist, Steve McMahon, said they're running ads in districts with vulnerable Repubs., that have the local reporter (someone the listening audience knows and trusts) read a script saying how the Repub. is against helping 95% of working Americans who need help right now (I don't remember the exact wording) but it's a great idea. Even the Repub. strategist agreed.

[jenmito]

140. Rachel Maddow doesn't get it...

She's one of those who think Obama should stop with the bipartisanship saying, "They're just not that into you," claiming he's not getting anything out of it. She's not looking at the big picture. This isn't a romantic relationship. It's a political strategy. He's doing the right thing. The longer he keeps reaching out, the worse the Repubs. will look.

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. This is about Rachel's ratings. Partisanship sells. I made the mistake

tonight of not switching immediately after Keith, and I heard her five minute screed about the dangers of "bipartisanship". We have to come to the realization that there are those on the left whose stock and trade is "partisanship". They sell lots of books, and get to make lots of guest appearances. Switch off Rachel, I did months ago, and feel much better for it.

[firedupdem]

154. Yep...I can't do her show either. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

155. No, YOU don't seem to get it. We want Obama to keep reaching out, but that doesn't

mean allowing them to frame the message. These are two separate concepts:

1. First, invite the Republicans to the table. Call for bipartisanship
2. DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO FRAME THE NARRATIVE!!!!!! Step up and define what the stimulus will do. Instead, the MEDIA is taking over Republican talking points. And I don't see Obama or the Democrats out there dispelling the myths.

You seem to be confusing the two issues.

[jenmito]

159. No, YOU don't seem to get it. This is not about letting them set the narrative, because

they can try to set all the narratives they want. YOU may not see Obama or the Dems. dispelling any myths, but they ARE. It's the PRESIDENT who has the bully pulpit, and who will, today alone, go on 5 networks to put the TRUTH out. Also, the Dems. are targeting Repubs. in their states with ads comparing them to Rush Limbaugh, asking the voters which side THEY think their congressperson should be on-Rush's (who said he wants Obama to fail) or the people's. And who looks better-the guy who continues to try to work with EVERYONE or the people who continue to obstruct everything, no matter how much the other side compromises?

[ShadowLiberal]

142. Remember when they said Obama had to be seen getting angry at something to win the election?

Remember when some of the pundits started to say Obama had to be seen showing some emotion by getting angry at something in order to win the election?

Well we all know how that turned out, he never had an angry moment that got televised all over the place, and he won in a landslide anyway.

In my opinion some people here are underestimating the value of appearing to be bipartisan and willing to reach across the isle. If you label yourself as the guy reaching across the isle then you leave the republicans looking like the extremists who will disagree with everything for partisan reasons.

[jenmito]

143. The "He's too cool for school" line and the "faculty lounge" line, too...

from the Morning Joe Zoo. Buchanan, Barnicle, Scarborough, Brzezinski, and all their guests...

[mythyc]

151. "Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

:fistbump:

[jenmito]

160. Awww...

Thanks, mythyc! :fistbump: back atcha!

[mythyc]

164. you're welcome

:fistbump:

[Az_lefty]

162. staying positive doesn't make one a door mat....

there's a fine line between the two that Obama seems to understand.

[jenmito]

163. Exactly.

:hi: