A word to the Unwise on Obama-- Stop pretending to know What Obama is about when haven't got a Clue

If you haven't read Obama's book. I you haven't watched the entire 50 minute interview that he gave (which is the interview coincidently that got him the Reno Gazette Endorsement), if you haven't read his policy position paper, then commenting on what and who Obama is, is your fool's errand.

I have never seen so many folks pretending to know so much without doing any homework. Picking up on a 30 second portion of an interview, pulling excerpts out of a book, and willingly jumping to conclusion makes those that do it look ignorant. You can think of me as arrogant, smug or whatever other name you think up for me, but at least, I can say....I READ THE FUCKING BOOK, I have read the policy papers, and I watched the entire interview (and a few others, like the SF round table he did today with 4 young women.

As an thoroughly informed (cause I do my fucking homework) 49 year old individual, I will clearly say that Obama can deliver us from the evils that this nation now represents. You don't have to take my word for it, but at least, please, educate yourselves.

Once you have done the proper research, then we can debate.

As of today, I will no longer debate uneducated fools. It is an exercises in futility to believe that debating someone who doesn't know what they don't know is meaningful or valuable.

One can talk about the ills of Reagan all one wants to...but what cannot be denied is the man won two elections. That's a fact. In addition, the evil in Reagans' policies that have led to our current decay is exactly what Obama proposes to change. You don't have to believe me, you just have to do your due diligence. And if you don't do the work you need in order to be informed prior to making comments, than know that you are participating in a game called, "there is no justice, and I am partially the reason why".

Good nite.

Gobama!

Or they just ignore information they don't like. The fact is Obama likes some of what Reagan did. It is clear from his book and his recent comments should come as no surprise to anyone who read his 2006 book.

we can have a conversation....specific to what your "theory" is about what Obama represents.

I will leave by saying (food for thought for our next conversation) that I didn't interpret that Obama "liked" what Reagan "did" in terms of Reagan's policies, and so you will have to give me some concretes by listing clearly the things that Reagan did that Obama liked.

Good nite for now.

But it is obvious he thought Reagan "corrected" some of the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's that occurred under progressives. The question is which things did he object to? Those were the halycon days of "change" for progressives.

Obama represents Bill Clinton 2.0 except the upgrade is not as good as the original.

You know the one where he's sailing along and then makes a noise of ear splitting anoyance that makes Democrats sit up and go What the Fuck just happened.

Sorry but this thing seems to be gather pace like a hurricane. No matter how you spin it, this is bad.

You know I'm no Obama supporter but i just cant believe anyone could be this stupid.

Bottomline is that he wasn't supposed to win anyways.

We've got the royal couple on stand by waiting for their cue with their political machine and their free traders (dlc) behind them, so they can give you more of the same minus the Dot.com boom that they had little to do with.

Have fun with that.

Obama is young. He'll survive.

I think its bad with us, it certianly makes me roll my eyes, but i DON'T think it is really that bad with most Americans. In fact I think the statements might actually help Obama.

If they take this the wrong way, he's in major league trouble.

True wool Dems are better informed than you think. Some even read.

this party are a guarantee that he's gonna lose. Because a lot of us are sick of it.

It's fine that you're defending your candidate. But your attitude and the attitude of other supporters like you is gonna sink him like a rock.

AND I'M NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER SO DON'T WHIP OUT THAT TIRED OLD LINE.

If Al From and Bruce Reed were better writers, "progressives" would love the DLC. "The Audacity of Hope" - the best DLC policy manual I've ever read.

how about 4th way?

I can't fathom how anyone could read that book and then vote for Obama because they hate the DLC and the Clintons. Obama is Bill Clinton 2.0, only the original was better.

(with the part in which he praises Bill Clinton's policies as progressive being a close second).

Pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

He makes the argument the DLC made about the size, role of government. When people talk of expanding the pie rather than slicing it they are using smokescreens for talking about cutting back on social programs.

I can recall some really bitter "FUCK THE DLC" threads on DU for the mere suggestion of this.

this upstart Obama is kind of an asshole. All he has thats different is a fresh untested face.

The "progressive" movement, since 1988, has dogged the DLC. The vitriol has gotten particularly shrill since 2000. The hate the DLC for welfare reform. The hate the DLC for stressing the free market. They hate the DLC for it's stance on private investment accounts to compliment social security. The hate the DLC for suggesting the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals. They hate the DLC for finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts. They hate the DLC for suggesting public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers. They hate the DLC for it's concept of public service, believing it to be a back door draft. The hate the DLC for wanting a strong military.

Yet here comes Barack Obama who...

... believes in welfare reform.
... believes in the free market.
... believes in private investment accounts to compliment social security.
... believes the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals.
... believes in finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts.
... believes in public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers.
... believes in public service.
... believes in a strong military.

So I can't for the life of me see the difference between the DLC and Barack Obama, policy wise. So where is the attraction for "progressives?" He's a good speaker? So is John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. If they want a good speaker who pushes DLC policies, they should love Bill Clinton, but they hate him.

So where is the attraction? I contend the desire to elect the first African-American president, for whatever reason motivates that, trumps any policy concerns.

Not all 'DLC hating' progressives have fallen for him. Those are the ones I respect. At least they're honest and consistent.

First I would like to thank you for posting a detailed list of issues. I have been seeking clarity on one in particular, any Hayek/Friedman stuff. Here is an example of where I put my finger in my network port. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4102243#4103196

I don't want to do it again (or open a subthread here, if that annoys others). What I would like, and urge others to seek the same, is to avoid the 'you suck' or 'your candidate sucks' stuff. Readers of 'Reagan sucked' or 'Republicans suck' may attribute varying levels of 'suckage' but it seems safe to assume that the value of 'Republican suckage' is much greater than 0 here on DU, so I don't want to pick that scab in public. Too much noise, not enough signal.

If anyone would like to write about Obama's interpretation of free markets (or corporatizing SS) I would like to read it. If it contains anything that seems inspired by 'polling shows an age differential, this will drive a blind rage wedge into that gap' my suspicions will grow much faster than my agreement.

BTW, I am on Team (D), not Team Candidate. :patriot:

Obama says he believes “in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised….” The Audacity of Hope, P. 10

"Former Clinton economic advisor Gene Sperling has suggested the creation of a Universal 401(K), in which the government would match contributions made into a new retirement account by low and moderate-low income famlies. Other experts have suggested the simple (and cost free) step of having employees automatically enroll their employees in their 401(k) plans at the maximum allowable level; people could still choose to contribute less than the maximum or not participate at all, but evidece shows that by changing the default rule, employee participation rates go up dramatically. As a complement to Social Security, we should take the best and most affordable of these ideas and begin moving toward a beefed-up, universally available pension system that not only promotes savings but gives all Americans a bigger stake in the fruits of globalization." The Audacity of Hope P. 183

It isn't that I disagree with Obama here, but rather, words like these from any other candidate would get howls of protest from the left. Interestingly, the second quote could have been lifted right off the DLC's website.

One is from 1999 and the other is from 2005 and written by Will Marshall.

Here is the 1999 one. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=165&contentid=695 Compare that to what Obama said. It is longer but in their essence they are the same.

The intent and reality of Social Security. It is insurance.
Living only on social security was meant for poverty protection. So that people who had no pension or retirement had some sort of fallback.
Despite that, people of means collect SS because they believe the money is theirs as if they have saved it in a savings account rather than contributed to an insurance pool. We are really paying for that marketing scheme.
It is also used as our national disability insurance.
Yet, people still want to pretend it's money they are saving in a bank account.
He seems to be very smartly thinking of ways to get people weaned off of that idea.
When it comes to people who are poor or disabled or retired, I wonder how many DUers have considered the possibility that maybe they might want to be more than a line item. That's what he is talking about when he talks about the excesses of the 70s. People don't just want to be bargaining chips. Obama seems to get that.

:applause:

makes me sad. me and my whole family were just about sold. but after the statement about hillary and katrina and now this thing with ronald reagan..i don't understand him anymore.:(

Obama had been my second choice, though there was always a nagging doubt that it doesn't feel quite right...something is off. But I remind myself that none of them are perfect.

The arrogance and smugness of many of his supporters have enabled me to see what's been off. You very, very sadly assume people don't do their homework if they disagree with you. And, your arrogance as a whole here at DU in the last day has reflected the arrogance and sense of entitlement Obama has suddenly seemed to assume in the last couple of weeks which has been what seems "off." Confidence is one thing, arrogance is quite another. That in addition to growing awareness of more of his statements and positions as I EDUCATE myself.

As many of us felt months ago, this isn't a coronation.

I've read hundreds and hundreds of slams against Edwards over the last couple of months...intentional "trash" threads, many of which with little substance...and have managed to explain my take while respectfully disagreeing. Never once did I consider calling anyone uninformed, uneducated, moronic, and many of the other lovely labels bestowed upon those who disagree.

for all the reasons you cited.

support someone who attacked those kind of supporters.It's one thing to disagree it's another to be condescending.

as us?

:sarcasm:

Whatever FC. Actions speak louder than words. I judge him as a candidate by his actions. And he has shown that he is not Presidential material.

and be entertained by "ex-gay" clowns who declare "God saved me from homosexuality"....doesn't that give a true measure of the candidate that he would hire this bigot, over the objections of numerous LGBT groups, give said bigot the headlining role at the concert and then refuse to apologize for his decision and for the homophobic filth this "ex-gay" clown spewed at the concert?



Also, if Obama meant, in his clumsy attempt to wrest the Reagan mantle away from the GOP candidates, that he would change the policies of the Reagan era...why didn't he say just that?

that Obama was hot for Ronnie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3254346&mesg_id=3254808

That wasn't the only red flag. He also wrote as if Bushie had won two elections (both were stolen, and if Obama had done his homework, he would have at least provided
a footnote to review the disenfranchisement of thousands of African-American voters in FL thanks to Jebbie
and Katharine Harris). He included a personal story of meeting Bushie boy, just to demonstrate what a great guy that POS is...on and on.

I am a 57 yo woman who lived in CA when Ronnie was Governor. My husband is a psychiatrist and he watched as Reagan and cronies dismantled the mental health care system in CA; that model has spread across the country throwing hundreds of thousands of people into jails, on the streets, or left in the ER to get mental health care.

You may like the guy, Frenchie Cat; we're all entitled to our opinions. But come off your self-righteous high horse. Lots of us HAVE done our homework and come up with a different opinion.

I don't think he's ready. I don't think he knows who he is or what he stands for. I think he's way too ready to make nice with the very people who have set this country on the road to fascism. I don't believe he's a savior ("Obama can deliver us from the evils that this nation now represents").

When I heard Obama's speech 4 years at Kerry's nomination I was kinda impressed but not now. I share your dislike of his being ready to make nice with repukes. Its appauling. And call me crazy but I don't like politicians who sound like preachers delivering sermons. Perhaps being a Canuck I'm just not used to hearing that tone.

did in his first book........

reason...the willful ignorance and idiocy in this forum has no limit.

The best thing I've found is to put a lot, and when I say a lot I mean like 30 people or more, on ignore.

It does wonders to be able to focus on good posts and posts by supporters of other candidates that actually take the time to think things through. You can actually enjoy the debate a little more.

In this thread alone I have well over 40% of the posts on ignore.

Try it for a few days.

Do yourself a favor and call his senate office. Ask his secretary what his position on S.1959 is. I'll give you a clue. He plans to vote for it. How can any progressive support a legislator who is for such a despicable bill?

help her.

That's not a slam on people's reading habits. To run the country, you'd better be able to make clear, unambiguous statements at far less than book length.

and I have not changed my mind that Obama is does progressives a disservice by invoking the name of that evil fuck Reagan.

It need to be pointed out that Reagan did not win both elections on so-called optimism and clarity alone. In 1980, he not only ran a cynical racist Southern Strategy campaign but John Anderson's third party campaign siphoned off many Democrats. In 1984, Reagan ran against, "Fritz and Tits". An opposition phrase coined by Republican Joan Rivers.

So Reagan ran on fear of the black man in 1980 and fear of the woman in 1984. I am not going to buy into the rehabilitation of Reagan being promoted by right-wing hagiographers, Obama, and Obama supporters. In fact, I reject vehemently.

"kewl", huh?

I'm so glad you understand Obama now, by reading a book and watching a 50 minute video. I learned much from that admission...only not what YOU THINK.

Sorry, but being politically and historically naive isn't a choice in this Election.

Real Progressives don't stoop that low for votes. Integrity means something to us.

Where did I state that I understand Obama? The OP made the challenge that Obama's critics hadn't read the book or watched the video in full. Well, I have done both and I still criticize Obama for his positive comments about Reagan.

I am not politically and historically naive. Fact, Obama states that American's were ready for Reagan and that he ran his campaign with clarity and optimism. I assert otherwise. In fact, Reagan decidedly was not an optimist but a cynic that tapped into bigot's discontent with the gains made by minorities and women. In 1980, he ran a racist campaign. In 1984, he was handed the presidency by the anti-woman vote.

Ive never heard so little said by someone speaking so much.
But hey, if you trust him, thats good enough for me!

I feel the same way. I see Obama's opponents trot out the same tired, already been discredited 100xs crud and think they have some credibility to stand on. It is their damn jobs to educate themselves about Obama's policies not us. I am with you on no longer engaging in with those who remain willfully ignorant or in denial.

and in the end, the Queen sitting on the Kings lap will long rule.....
or better yet, get ready to fight with the Southern guy who will be neutered by his lack of funds by April.

I will reiterate that I liked what Obama has to say and his approach, and for those who haven't looked at the facts as opposed to the spin...don' t take it from his enemies on this board, who are willing to examine Barack under the microscope (I still don't believe most have actually read what they said they have) while allowing the others to either have evolved or to have been in the pocket of the DLC for years and years and years who forget what that brought us.

Don't let Reagan determine for whom you will vote. Don't let invoking his name make you a reactionary without cause.
Hell, he seems as effective as ever in determining your vote even as his corpse rots in its grave. He'll have the last laugh, and he will be laughing at us, the losing liberals that he totally beat to the ground to this day.