This is my new favorite thing about the Obama haters...

Apparently it's quite popular for some of the haters to convince themselves that EVERYONE supporting Obama has somehow been fooled into believing that he's tall version Dennis Kucinich.

Uh... newsflash... that so is not the case.

We HAD two choices (when the primary was still going... another newsflash: it's frickin over!):

An official, proud DLC candidate.

A candidate who has criticized DLC policies and forced the shitstain organization to stop trying to claim him as a member (the soulless, lying assholes).

Kind of a difference, huh? It's clear enough for most liberals, anyway.



Anyway... so yeah... this is what's cracking me up lately:

Butbutbut... Obama's a centrist! Cognitive dissonance! Cognitive dissonance!

Austan Goolsbee! Austan GOOOOOOOSLBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


Really?

Grow up.

But I understand that it's far easier to just suck up the media's (and Hillary's) 'empty suit' meme, and assume that it's really the others who haven't done their homework.

Please, share some more wisdom with us!

Fuckin hell.

do you think that they make their decisions based on the news and conversations?

Most of the voting public are not visiting DU or looking in depth as to their choices

What I do know... living in TX, by the way... is that MOST of the Obama supporters I've met actually HAVE read his policy stuff from his website.

But you go right on ahead and believe what you want, and use that assumption to make broad-brush statements. If it works for you ... whatever.

People who support Obama are taken in by his fancy speeches, and have not taken any time to do any of their own research into his positions.


HOWEVER, people who support Hillary are enlightened, and are not supporting Hillary simply based on her last name, or the fact that her husband was a wildly popular president.

Americans are as stupid as you say they are. People have been watching and listening for over a year now.

Links, proof or just an opinion?

thank you for delivering from my delusion that Obama is the Messiah

are you going to take my Playboy mags too, Ma?

That implies we just follow along blindly. All the Obama supporters I know or talk to are hightly educated in current political issues and weighed the candidates' positions carefully before deciding who to support.

have biased my opinion of Obama supporters a bit...LOL

No offence to other Texans

pretty rhetoric means nothing.

We know he is a centrist. I personally have warmed up to his brand of centrism because of his eloquence, his intelligence, his charisma, and the way he has run his campaign so far. But I am going into this with both hope and my eyes wide open. The center-right Democratic party and its chosen candidate Obama are a huge contrast to the far right theocratic/fascist Republican party and its chosen candidate, McCain. The programs and policies of an Obama administration working with a Democratic congress are something I look forward to, not something I dread.

The OP is continuing a fight from the DLC is dead thread, where so many Obama supporters' posts showed a demonstrable ignorance of his positions. Far too many seem to think that Obama is liberal and refuse to admit that he is a centrist or even just a moderate. Some people seem more hung up on whether a candidate identifies as a member of X organization rather than whether that candidate votes the same way as X organization advocates. Six of one, half dozen of another. :shrug:

One with doilies and the good china?

:eyes:

made possible by some badly worded OP / posts.

Nobody's being distracted by the nonsense. But feel free to keep shopping it. I understand that there's not much else y'all have to rant about.

fuckem

I can't seem to resist trying to use reason to argue about this nutzoid crap. No point... ignore...

I (along with others apparently) find all this DLC is dead, long live the revolution posts from supporters of a moderate liberal nominee to being strangely disconnected from Obama's voting record, his rhetoric, etc. to say nothing of his campaign staff and likely cabinet appointments.

Liberals like me have a problem with Obama supporters proclaiming that he is the antithesis of Clinton even though their voting records are NEARLY FUCKING IDENTICIAL. Obama supporters do themsleves no credit when they ignore his actual votes and policy positions in favor of the pretty speeches.


Oh an btw, the DLC hates Obama so much that Emanuel just endorsed him.

The DLC lost control of the DNC in 2004. That was step 1.

The DLC lost the meme that they were WINNERS who WIN STUFF in 2006. Step 2.

Now their darling candidate has made a fucking embarrassing spectacle of herself with her pitiful loss. Step 3.

They are DYING. And good fucking riddance.


Oh, and did I say the DLC hates Obama? No I didn't. They tried to claim him as a member.

Read more slowly. Fuck.

I just don't see this as the great defeat for the DLC that so many others do. Obama's a good man, but many of his policies are DLC and he is far too willing to compromise in order to reach across the aisle. He'll make a good president, so long as we have a vocal and active left to push him from the center.

His policy positions are more important to me than whether he calls himself a member of the DLC. A rose by any other name. :shrug:

He used to be a powerful man in the DLC.
Now he is a clown.

* Joe Lieberman.....former chairman of the DLC.....pathetic psuedo Republican. At least he knows where he belongs.

* The DLC used to highlight a "Search Membership Roster" on the front page of their website.
No more.
Democrats have gotten wise that an affiliation with the DLC can cause harm, and are trying to hide it now.

* The Darling of the DLC, with all their Big Money and Big Media Corporate Connections.....shot down on the way to her "inevitable" coronation.


* DLC Public Relations Gurus like Carville, Begala, Zimmerman, ALL either madly crawfishing or looking like buffoons on TV.

* Rham Emmanual (and other strong DLCers)...venal rats leaving the sinking ship and trying to latch their cart on to the NEW leader. Rham also had split allegiance being the DLC House Stooge from Chicago.
If he hadn't supported Obama, he would NEVER have held his seat.

So, yes. The DLC is dying. But I caution every Democrat to not turn their back on these assholes until we have driven a stake through their black, Republican hearts.






"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

:thumbsup:

:yourock:

I had to reactivate "ignore"

I'm tryin' to be a good egg...

but, just like in the Godfather saga...

"just when you think you're out... they suck you back in."

that's my best Pacino... sorry

k/r

and I'm adding to it today.

I wanted to be a good egg... after watching Obama's speech... but coming back to read all this fucking crybaby bullshit crap... ugh!

How dare you bring up the blatant truth!?

:banghead:

And a ride on the pony express?

Face it. Everyone loves ponies!

It died down for a while but Hillary revived it to obscure the differences between her and Obama in order to attract liberal women.

There are differences between Obama and Kucinich but it doesn't make Obama any less of a liberal. Kucinich has been playing a game of moving left so he can say he's "the only candidate who stands for..." Its a campaign tactic but it doesn't get him anywhere.

to so many.

They lost ALL HOPE!

How COULD HE!

It's like being on a board with a bunch of fucking 10 year olds. Swear to God.

That's what the Argus said when it endorsed her. And the Hillaryites say Obama is the panderer. :crazy:

That is a new delusion.

After Edwards' left it became "OBAMA IS TOO LIBERAL!"

threads by the HRC boosters. Like their candidate, they never can seem to keep their slanders straight...

They are also very "concerned" about his being too far too the right... all of a sudden.

Troll season... ugh.

but nary a peep from them when the HRC boosters are in full slander mode against our nominee.

Here's what gets me: it's fuckin over!

WTF?!

but swear that they're not actually clinton supporters, their candidate was Edwards (occasionally someone else but usually Edwards).

Yeah right, and my candidate is Charles XII of Sweden.

Lots of those are also the same ones that went all teenage angst "WAAAAAAAH there's just really no hope! How could he DO this?! Oh wooooeeee are weee who see the TRUTH! I don't know what I'll doooooo!" when Edwards endorsed Obama.

Bat. Shit. Crazy.

This place was full of Edwards supporters before he dropped out, and when he did... the support for Obama went up exponentially.

So not surprising.

anything but "concern" threads about Obama going too far or not doing this or that right, or threads lecturing (genuine) Obama supporters at DU on why it's necessary to get down on our knees and lick the crap off the HRC booster's feet.

but somehow... strangely... never seem to do much criticizing of the other candidate they don't support.

What an AMAZING coincidence! But no... not biased. No dog in this race. Nooooooo. Never.

It says quite a bit about Hillary that folks are too embarrassed to say they support her.

Second, you've shown that you have no idea who Goolsbee is or just how bad the Chicago School is. And for some to claim that Obama is the antithesis of the DLC and this primary shows that the DLC is dead or dying all the while the DLC's own economist is writing Obama's plans really does demonstrate a rather high level of cognitive dissonance. Especially given that freaking Emanuel just endorsed him. It's like saying that PNAC's dead just because McCain won instead of Romney, even though McCain has PNAC advisors. Makes no sense.


By god it SHOULD bother anyone but a free marketeer that Obama has a DLC economist who is a professor at the Chicago School as his economic advisor. Enough to keep us from voting for Obama? No. But enough to know that we will have to push hard after the election to get Obama to move left economically, rather than sitting around thinking foolishly that we have elected a liberal Dem so everything will turn up sunshine and rainbows.

But thaks for stalking me! I feel so special now!

As for repeating the BS... whatever. There's the "antithesis" canard again. Again, and more slowly:

Not. Antithesis. Just. Not. Card. Carrying. Member.

Did that help?

Anyway... I see logic isn't gonna work so... good luck.

I can't imagine how you respond to the fence sitters.

You are still failing to acknowledge that it's a bad thing for Obama to have Goolsbee as his economic advisor. Really, that's all I'd like from some Obama supporters, just to acknowledge that the man has this one single solitary flaw and that they are critical of him for it. I don't want anyone to call Obama an ax murderer, just admit that he needs to ignore the Chicago School and that Goolsbee is a right wing jackass who needs to be kept far, far away from any Dem administration.


And I addressed the card carrying member idea upthread. It really doesn't matter what he calls himself, if he votes like a centrist he is a centrist.

Obama's healthcare proposal leans farther to the right of Hillary's -and Hillary's economic proposals lean farther to the right with respect to re-regulation than Obama's indicated he'd like.

But anyone who thinks there's a bona fide progressive in the race is engaging in wishful thinking (or perhaps delusion). Whether Obama governs the way that his Senate record and policy proposals indicates- or whether he'd be like Bush, promising to be one way to get elected, then acting another is anyone's guess.

But one shouldn't be too quick to feather their cap with that notion, or they're liable to be disappointed.

One is card carrying DLC.

One is not.

That is a difference. It's sad that so many are so committed to trying to pretend it's not.

Anyone who thinks that 'different' means 'antithesis' needs to work on their vocabulary.

Progressives don't vote to deny citizens their right to hold abusive corporations accountable in federal court, they don't criticize filibusters against one of the most extreme (and unethical) judges ever to be nominated for the federal bench- and they don't vote for Bush's insane energy bill, then come to Oregon claiming to be against siting an LNG terminal off of the coast when they supported the bill that took away local power over siting the terminal in the first place.

Obama's been every bit as much of a go along to get along with the beltway crowd type as Hillary has been the past several years in the Senate- perhaps (by calculation) even more so.

My guess is that he'd govern just the same, though as I mentioned, we might be surprised.

There's two differences.

Come on now....

(That puts the lie to that "no difference in their records" meme... not that I expect reality to become any more popular at this particular moment in time.)

And she refuses to explicitly say she'll restore the constitution (as Obama has done).

Why wouldn't she do that?

Sorry... YOU may see these things and still manage to think there's "no difference". I see a difference.

Good luck.

And what constitutional quotes are you talking about?

Sounds pretty vague to me.

Here's a question for you: do you think that either one would hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions?

I wouldn't expect to see that from either one, hence my conclusion that from the record, there's been no progressive in the race- at least since this incarnation of Edwards dropped out.

Perhaps some other kind DUer who isn't fed up with people talking without knowing will do it for you.

As for me... what I think shouldn't matter to you. Support our nominee or don't. Those are your choices.


Oh, and btw... many progressives (including Feingold) said Edwards was a sham... and that those who believed in his turnaround since his days as an IWR-co-sponsoring Senator were being fooled. So... yeah. Just sayin. Perspective and all.

and are taking things on assumption rather than evidence.

All too common practice practice around here, it seems- and indicative of group think- something I just mentioned on another thread.

:rofl:

Yeah... I was right the first time.

GOOD LUCK!

and reverting back to ridicule.

Fortunately, it's not me who'll need the luck- it's people who've hitched their wagons to the political and economic system in the states. And I wish them that, because you've got an uphill battle just to get a Dem into the whitehouse, much less enact and implement rational policies that deal effectively with the fundamental changes that are taking place.

even among republicans, I don't sense much hatred. He's hard to hate.

It's so very popular with the "POOR US!" crowd. I couldn't resist that sardonic twist.

then he dropped out and I leaned towards Edwards

then he dropped out and I knew, compared to Hillary, my choice would be Barack Obama.

No brainer, really.

path here... so many went from Kucinch to Edwards to Obama.

It's nice to be in good company, isn't it?

I'm fired up and ready!

The fact of the matter is, Obama is liberal and just liberal enough. But he's also thoughtful enough to recognize the faults along with the good in his "side" of things as well without appearing to be politically opportunistic. While Obama does his best to come to a place of understanding with political issues from all walks of life, Hillary acts like a tattered windsock blowing whichever way the political winds point, and she bases it all on the latest talking points so she can always look in sync with whatever is popular. Luckily, most people are smart enough to see right through that shit.

I honestly don't know WHAT Hillary Clinton stands for. Never did, in fact. This is why I've never been able to stand behind her or defend her. Everyone understands that you have to often play to the center in national politics. That's how the game is won. But a good person will never confuse you on what they actually stand for. Hillary's political compass is constantly spinning. This is why the arguments of her followers are never consistent.

Rare to see such logic around here these days.

Thanks.

You're not only fiery, but you're always spot on. You go with your bad self! :headbang:

:blush:

Thank you. And back atcha! :headbang:

Why? Because while Obama is roughly half as progressive as Dennis, he's probably twice as persuasive.

But we need to be realistic: Obama tends to drift toward the center, at least according to his past legislative record. The best way to protect against that is to give him a fucking historic landslide in November and fill the Congress with people to his left.

I think he'll win the fall election easily. But if WE want to win in the fall, we have a lot of work to do.

We need to make sure to have as many populists in congress as possible... and never stop pushing them.

Really it's always up to us. No major reform benefitting the people ever came from the top down. It's always bottom-up. Always. A charismatic leader helps... but it's really up to us.

That more than anything is why Obama is a superior candidate to Hillary.

the fact that with his academic pedigree... he didn't immediately move to start raking in the big bucks... but instead turned to an area of need and did the whole community organizing thing... I can't help but love that.

Says *volumes*, IMO.

and his platform fits the DLC nicely, regardless of what he may have said about them. Declining to be an official member, while "fitting" their agenda, is a savvy political move. Why pretend otherwise?

While I don't "hate" him, I don't much like him, either. I'd have more respect for many of his supporters if they'd stop trying to portray him as a liberal.

Frankly, some of DLC Queen HRC's positions are more liberal than his. If you haven't noticed this, start with public education.

For the most part, their records and positions are so close as to make little difference.

Which is why it made little difference to me which one of them was nominated; I didn't have a pony in this race.

Do you consider everyone who doesn't think much of him, or who recognizes that he his a centrist, to be a "hater?"

It's such a popular term to use when denigrating those who criticize Hillary, I thought I'd give it a spin. :P

As for their differences... it's a matter of perspective. Education may be one thing that some of her supporters consider as one of her more liberal positions and that's something they consider very important (despite congress' role in shaping such things... like with healthcare).

Willingness to restore the constitution and support for open government, IMO, are more important.

And despite whatever positions whoever would like to point to in order to argue about who's more centrist... it's like I said in the OP.

One is a card-carrying DLC member, and so we have NO reason to expect her to move away from that organization's agenda (the republican lite infiltrators, according to Wellstone).

One is not.

That is a difference, and not a small one.

Is Obama everything I ever wanted in a progressive political candidate? No. But he's good, he's smart, and he's shown himself to have an open mind. That is HUGE.

I have great hopes. I expect they won't all be fulfilled, but seeing as Bush exceeded my worst expectations in the other direction, you never know.

That and your first sentence... these are frickin COMMON SENSE. The vast, overwhelming majority of his supporters don't consider him to be Jesus Christ, or expect him to deliver everything they've ever wanted... (AND a pony!).

I find it laughable that so many don't seem to want to ignore that reality, and substitute their own... calling him a messiah... calling him "Saint" Obama... calling his supporters "worshipers".

It's grade-school bullshit... and still flinging it at *this* particular point in time... frickin hilariously sad.