home

Criticism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:10:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A reader comments in an e-mail:

Why are you [BTD] so stuck on attack threads on and branding Obama as just another politician? Making the same argument over and over which does nothing but divide our party and [keeps] us from fighting for the issues we care about is stupid. When you make the same case over and over again by selectively picking stances and articles that support that point you lose credibility. I do give credit to TChris and Jeralyn regardless of whether I agree with them their threads have been interesting and fair.

I agree with the praise for Jeralyn and TChris. This is an Open Thread.

< Obama's Disgruntled Liberal Supporters | Saturday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Criticism | 192 comments (192 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTD...if you weren't given all that ammo, (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    then you wouldn't have anything to write in that regard. :)

    Exactly. Obama branded Obama (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM EST
    or Axelrove did, anyway.  If their brand, their actions, are dividing the party, then somebody darn well say so.

    Talking about their brand, their actions, is not divisive.  If Obama wasn't talked about, imagine to what lengths they might go to get attention.:-)

    And if he wants propaganda, he certainly can afford to pay for it.  But some bloggers won't be bought.

    Parent

    Or Bossed! I like the Old School in this respect (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:38:24 PM EST
    But some bloggers won't be bought

    This rickety NuDem Boss Machine with overpaid consultants and chatterers and greedy camp followers -- eye fixed firmly on the trough -- will wreck the strong foundations of the once proud House of Dem.

    Unbought and Unbossed is my preference. We used to be able to be both and can liberally do so again.

    Just not if we let slide the self-defeating hooey that the FISA mess isn't pure fascism but centrism or "just" politics.

    Parent

    The Reader Might Have A Point (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:14:46 PM EST
    if he/she likes covering up Bush's illegal activities, likes the idea that the President Is Above the Law, likes eliminating 4th Amendment rights, thinks expanding faith based initiatives so that religious groups will have more money to pursue their anti-gay, anti-abortion, teaching creationist theories instead or science etc., like Obama putting forth rhetoric that is not only weaker than Roe and opposes Casey, runs Republican ads against UHC and falsely claims his plan is universal and puts Social Security on the table.

    Personally, I don't like any of the things above that Obama and members of the NEW Democratic Party are current willing to spend political capital on and so far they are fighting against rather than for the issues I care about.

    So I hope that BTD continues to write just what he is writing. Obama and the New Democratic Party are willing to be complicit and/or capitulate on issues that promote Bush or Republican agendas. If I had my way, the majority of Democratic voters would tell the the party loud and clear that these actions are not acceptable.

    Parent

    Just because you're paranoid (none / 0) (#181)
    by makana44 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:39:15 AM EST
    doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

    They found a way in through the back door (a time-tested way -- by shamelessly lying). Electing them into office seals the deal...the once proud House of Dem is history. The left is marginalized. The center and right becomes the entire playing field, and the only drift is rightward.

    A third party then becomes the only way back...a very long, hard way back.

    If I had my way, the majority of Democratic voters would tell the the party loud and clear that these actions are not acceptable.

    And just exactly how do they do that? BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM.

    Parent

    It's all good (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST


    Parent
    That is not what the (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    email said! LOL

    Couldn't resist.

    Parent

    Other people may disagree, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:15:43 PM EST
    but I want you to keep doing what you're doing.

    It's important.  Just as others who are doing what they're doing to get a good outcome in November are.

    It's called democracy, people.

    To have it you have to work for it.  You have to fight for it.

    I love the fight.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    I appreciate your thoughts but here's the thing - within the rules of the site, I write what I think and about what I care about. Not what anyone elese thinks or cares about.

    I always have and I always will.

    But there are differing points of view on all of this.

    Parent

    I think you've done (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:33:03 PM EST
    a great job.

    You and Jeralyn have walked quite the tightrope.

    I appreciate that.

    It's July.

    We're not there yet.

    Parent

    btd, many of us enjoyed you as well at (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    dk. i remember well many of your comments in the 2004 campaign. you are appreciated.

    Parent
    To be fair. . . (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:27 PM EST
    I think the point about Obama being a politician has been made here at Talk Left and if anyone hasn't gotten the message they only need listen to Obama (and read the mainstream media) to figure it out.

    I know nothing about the anonymous critic you quote, but I find the comment

    Making the same argument over and over which does nothing but divide our party and [keeps] us from fighting for the issues we care about is stupid. When you make the same case over and over again by selectively picking stances and articles that support that point you lose credibility.

    pretty galling from someone I expect a few months ago was spending an awful lot of time "making the same argument over and over", "diving our party", "selectively picking stances", and "losing credibility" in their attacks on Hillary Clinton.  I think any plea, if that was the overall tone of the email, for unified support of Obama now (I position I support) that comes from Obama supporters needs to include a statement that perhaps they themselves haven't always been successful in doing what they're asking of others.

    I voted for Clinton largely because I was so fed up with the blind self-righteousness of a certain strain of Obama supporter (shallow of me, perhaps, but I couldn't see any significant policy issues on which to decide) and if they can't tame that self-righteousness in victory any resulting harm to party unity will be largely on them.

    Have no idea (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:27:18 PM EST
    what the reader wrote or thought about Clinton. I do think that it is funny to read these sentiments from people I know were ripping the crap out of Clinton before. Fairly and unfairly.

    Personally, I think that was fine. I never criticized anyone for criticizing Clinton or anyone else. How could I? I criticized her my fair share. Obama has gotten a lot of criticism from me for many years now. I think it is sound and I stand by what I have written.  

    Parent

    You should stand by what you have written. (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM EST
    I'll stand by it with you.  

    You haven't written "Obama criticism" threads.  What you have done is discussed "What Obama has said/done" and it isn't your fault that he says one thing and does another.  

    Bravo to you, Jeralyn and TChris!  I wish all bloggers were so honest!  

    Parent

    Your position is largely mine. . . (4.50 / 2) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:38:37 PM EST
    and I think both Clinton and Obama have earned their fare share of criticism -- as is natural and expected with anyone who plays on the national stage.

    I meant to write "suspect" instead of "expect" in my original comment -- I suspect (without, as I say, any actual knowledge) the commenter of engaging in the same behavior they criticize you for.

    However, I think it's a fair comment that working to gin up anti-Obama sentiment is not, at this time, in the service of advancing the issues you want to advance.  If you see yourself as a completely apolitical commentator then you should write only about what interests you.  But if you see yourself as an advocacy commentator you might give more consideration to the ultimate effect of your work.  

    For instance, I'll mention the great amount of criticism that groups like NARAL come in for when they issue a very narrow, targeted endorsement of someone like Linc Chafee.  They get slammed (including, if I recall, here) for paying too much attention to their immediate concern and too little to the broader issue.

    In this case, while it's true that Obama is a not atypical politician (albeit a good one) there's no percentage in forcing that realization down the throats of his ardent supporters, nor of providing comfort to people who are planning to sit out the election in November.

    If you're forecasting a blowout (as I am) it's not all that important, but in a tight race (which you've said you believe it will be) it might have some effect.  Ask yourself "Is the net effect of my body of work more or less likely to see John McCain in office in January 2009?"

    Parent

    Please don't encourage BTD to (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    become solely an Obama cheerleader until Nov. 9.  (I can't believe you wrote that!)

    Parent
    I'm certainly not. . . (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:48:27 PM EST
    encouraging him to become a cheerleader for anyone.  But there are plenty of targets for criticism in politics -- 99 other Senators, 435 Representatives, and the entire Administration.  With all the criticism aimed at one person, it gives the appearance that the writer believes the target is uniquely deserving of approbation.  

    A more equitable distribution of criticism would still serve to make BTD's point (that Obama isn't really different from other politicians).  Right now I'm afraid that it's easy to come away with the message that Obama is especially bad.  And he isn't.

    Parent

    Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Rahmbo (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    among others have been the targets of my criticism.

    I have even coined a word, Hoyerism, that I think gets to the point.

    Parent

    Lay off hatin on Rahmbo will you? (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:42:53 AM EST
    Step aside and let someone do it who'll do it right.

    The trash-talking twerp and I are both trained ex-dancers. I say I have him beat in the two categories that matter. (I concede twerp as one of the rare areas in which he excels.)

    I hung out at the bad end of the Swan Line and was denied my rightful solo. Some total hack of a choreographer didn't think I plausibly repressed my desire to beat the snot out of the hunters or mobilize the other Swans to band as one and peck them into oblivion.

    As for the trash talk I will let my record at TL potty-mouth for itself without even directing judges to the deleted stuff.

    So then, the weapons. Gel-insole lined Capezios and nocturnal lattes.

    The field of battle: the abandoned haunted Volvo dealership, so storied to keep away the society gawkers and Looky Lou's.

    The shroud: a makeshift quilt of Sternly WOrded Dem Letters and Patrick Leahy's guffaw-inducing ignored subpoenas.

    Open style, no holds barred.

    Someone bring Peppermint Foot Ointment, Bactine and bunion cushies.

    Parent

    Our noble leader here is trying to get (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:53:28 PM EST
    Obama off his duff to step up and lead, given he is the titular head of the Democratic party and our presumed nominee for President.  I think this is a good use of BTD's time, although I miss all those posts on getting out of Iraq, FISA, etc.  

    Parent
    Who is Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    What does he stand for?

    Unanswered questions...to a point.

    He has a short history, and even that one is troubling.

    He's trying to just stay in the public eye just long enough to retain name recognition, but even doing that, he makes mistakes.  His FISA vote was incredible.

    So he's going to Germany.  BFD.

    He's trying to stay under the radar.  This is not making me confident in his ability to lead, and I need confidence in a president after Bush.

    The country needs a leader, not a footnote.

    Obama could very well be a footnote.

    Parent

    Exactly the question asked (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    in Michael Goodwin's column in the NY Daily News.  Devastating.

    Parent
    Um, gee, I would argue (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:05:56 PM EST
    that the presidential candidate is, indeed, uniquely important.

    And btw, last thing this world needs is another cheerleading site.  There are fifty zillion of them out there, and only a handful like this one that aren't.

    Dissent is democracy.


    Parent

    that is critical. the people in the (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    democratic party have to hold obama's feet to the fire. sure applaud the good parts but if we are nothing but cheerleaders, what have we become? nothing good. those who ridicule the criticism of obama miss a very important part of the political process. it sure appears the so called leaders in the democratic party are not "leading".

    Parent
    The Presidential candidate. . . (1.00 / 3) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    is uniquely important.  But the one we have is not uniquely bad -- and I believe that quite a few people who read BTD's stuff do believe that Obama is uniquely bad and find support for their belief in BTD's posts.

    I can't ever see Talk Left (or, to be fair, even sites like Daily Kos) being "cheerleader" sites.  But at this time, and until November, I'd hate to see them become anti-Obama sites.  I don't want to see Talk Left (or BTD's part of it) vis Obama in the same way that I saw Daily Kos vis Clinton in the primary.

    Parent

    Obama is extremely bad, objectively (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    speaking. On paper, he has the thinnest resume imaginable, somewhat worse than Bush's, in terms of political experience.
    He obviously has some charisma, but he is so green in almost all respects, it is frightening.

    Parent
    You know, I'm awfully rough (none / 0) (#71)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    on Obama, but I have to disagree that his resume is thinner than Bush's was.  Bush may have been governor of Texas, but it's known that the governor is not the guy who runs the state of Texas.  It's a two-month-a-year job.  So I think Obama's Illinois senate time and what little time he's actually spent in the U.S. Senate (instead of running for president) put him ahead of Bush on experience.  Marginally, anyway.

    Parent
    Marginally. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    Which doesn't make it good.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:33:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's IL job was part-time; furthermore, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    until there was a Dem. majority in his last year, he was little more than a placeholder.
    But I agree its a close call. I put Bush ahead because of the executive experience.

    Parent
    True, governor is an executive position (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:33:30 PM EST
    It is an alarmingly close call.  Yet since I'm rough on Obama, as I've said, I want to be fair.  

    I dislike Obama.  But I despise Bush with a deep and abiding passion.

    Parent

    I dislike Obama now roughly as much as (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    Bush in 1999-2000. I also trust him less.
    Anyway, this is all venting.
    Obama has big advantages running this year, and running against McCain. He has to really blow it to lose; I think he's up to doing so, unfortunately.

    Parent
    no defending obama here but truth (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    be told the job of governor in texas is not the real seat of power. the lieutenant governor is the real powerhouse. bush had an ole dem politican who kicked buxx and took names. he ran things and bush go the credit.

    Parent
    You are right. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by wasabi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    In Texas, the Lieutenant Governor has the power and the Governor just gets to sign bills and execute people.

    Parent
    bush sure did both didn't he. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:35:44 PM EST


    Parent
    If anyone wants. . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    to advance the idea that Obama isn't a more substantive person that Bush, that's lunacy.  That argument could be made with reference to Obama and McCain, perhaps, but Bush?  My nine-year-old daughter is more substantive that Bush.

    Parent
    I would take it further, actually: i think (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:34:25 PM EST
    much of his campaign tactics are modeled on Bush 2000. Obama is probably smarter than Bush, but he doesn't show it very well when he's not reading a script.

    Parent
    Any politician. . . (none / 0) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:41:59 PM EST
    who doesn't model his campaign on successful campaigns of the past, or at least allow those successful campaigns to inform his or her own, isn't much of a politician.  I believe that Obama is more modeling his campaign on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign but he recognizes that the "George Bush" of the 2000 campaign (the campaign creation, not the man himself) occupied a place that many Americans find attractive.

    As a politician (not a messiah) I expect our candidate (whoever it is, and including Clinton) to study Bush's campaign and take whatever political wisdom they can from it.

    While it may well be true that Obama is not a great extemporaneous speaker (something both Clintons excel at) not being a great speaker and not having a command of the issues are different things.  Every word that comes out of Obama's mouth indicates that the breadth of his knowledge of the issues after four years in the Senate exceeds Bush's after eight years as President.

    Parent

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    YES, Obama's words show that his knowledge of the issues markedly exceeds Bush's.  

    BUT... Obama is so far behind Hillary Clinton (Bill too) in terms of depth of knowledge on issues, and really, why would I compare Obama (or almost anyone) to an idiot like Bush?  (I don't buy that Bush isn't stupid.  I think, by and large, that he IS stupid - the kind of stupid that comes from having no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.)

    Parent

    Obama is more substantive than (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:39:03 PM EST
    Bush.  Yes, I agree totally.  My biggest problem is that I neither know nor trust Obama.  Hillary Clinton I feel I know well, and I trust her.  I don't agree with all her votes, but I know her well enough to feel confident that she would make an excellent president.

    I disagree with people who say McCain will be Bush's third term.  I don't like McCain and I'm not going to vote for him, but at least I can admire a few things about him.  I can't say the same for Bush.  There is zilch that is admirable about him.

    Parent

    Hillary was willing to take boos (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:43:17 PM EST
    in order to show some integrity--for instance when she would not commit to  action on immigration in her first 100 days, to an audience of Hispanics.
    She has a lot of moxy.

    Parent
    My big regret (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:57:15 PM EST
    is that we Democrats have destroyed the incredible chance we had for a clear win and an excellent president.

    I didn't really want Hillary in the race at first.  I'm not fond of dynastic presidencies and I didn't like that she voted for AUMF.  But I went to listen to her, and I watched the debates, and read up on her platform, and found that I liked her a great deal.  In fact I kept hearing that from others - they thought they didn't like her, but then they actually listened to her and found out that she's really pretty damn great.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 8) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:19:34 PM EST
    I am offended by the comparison to Daily Kos and Clinton in your comment. I ask that you retract it.

    I ask that you point to even one post that is comparable to what was done to Clinton in the primaries. For crissakes, that site accused Clinton of DARKENING photos of Obama.

    I see no reason to continue this discussion with you until you do.

    Parent

    Very well. (2.00 / 2) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    I retract the comment in which I said that you accused Obama of darkening photographs of Hillary Clinton.  Indeed it already seems to be gone.

    I only said that I don't want to see your section of Talk Left become an anti-Obama blog.  A reasonable person could use your material to argue that Obama is uniquely disqualified to be President.

    If you don't think that's happening, look at the approving comments in this very post.  That exact argument is made in support of your posts -- to wit, people stating Obama is uniquely disqualified to be President, so why shouldn't you go around saying so?

    Is that really, truly where you want to be?  If so, more power to you.  The argument that you are either apolitical, or an issues person who is disinterested in party politics, is completely fair.  I think that's the argument you're making -- that issues trump actual political outcomes.  But I don't think you believe that.

    Parent

    Obama is what he is (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    If some people believe the facts of what Obama is makes him uniquely unqualified then they are entitled to their opinion. It is not mine and I have never said anything like that. You want to hold me accountable for opinions expressed in my threads. That seems absurd to me. I certainly am not responsible for the opinions you express.

    I have always written what I believe about things I want to write about. I have not changed.

    My goal is not to get Obama elected. It is to further issues in ways that I agree with and to express my views. It so happens that Obama being elected is a necessary, but not sufficient, contingency. How he gets elected matters alot.

    Finally,you question where you equated me with Daily Kos' treatment of Clinton in the primaries. This is what you wrote that I found offensive:

    But at this time, and until November, I'd hate to see them become anti-Obama sites.  I don't want to see Talk Left (or BTD's part of it) vis Obama in the same way that I saw Daily Kos vis Clinton in the primary.

    The day you see me accuse Obama of even one thing remotely comparable to what Daily Kos accused Clinton of on a daily basis, come talk to me. Your  statement was and is offensive to me.    

    Parent

    Where you say (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    "My goal is not to get Obama elected."  Exactly.  Some bloggers will consider it is their goal to get him elected.  Others, while remaining progressive and involved, while being good Democrats, will have other goals, such as fighting for policies.  Carry on!

    Parent
    The statement is offensive (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by Amiss on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    to many on this site. This site for a lot of us is a place of sanity in an otherwise crazy political year.

    Anyone such as BTD, Jeralyn and others are admirable for giving us the freedom to express our views even tho they may differ from the "current party line".

    Parent

    Internally inconsistent. . . (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    My goal is not to get Obama elected. It is to further issues in ways that I agree with and to express my views. It so happens that Obama being elected is a necessary, but not sufficient, contingency.

    If it's necessary to get Obama elected to further your issues, and your goal is to further your issues, then it must be your goal (in part) to get Obama elected.  Is there a flaw in my syllogism?

    You want to hold me accountable for opinions expressed in my threads. That seems absurd to me. I certainly am not responsible for the opinions you express.

    That is an interesting question.  Obviously, you are not responsible for other people's opinions, especially when they run counter to your stated opinions (which, as I understand them, are that Obama is by far the better candidate than McCain).

    But are your responsible for your actions (writing and publishing your posts) if those actions lead to furthering the dissemination and adoption of those opinions among otherwise reliable Democratic voters?

    I don't say that you are.  But I do think it's worth your considering.

    Parent

    There are two variables (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:06:12 PM EST
    One involves Obama winning.

    The other involves Obama gaining a mandate.

    I think that Obama's recent actions have hampered both. I think what I write may be a small part of sending a message to correct these failings on both variables.

    Parent

    The intersection. . . (none / 0) (#144)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    of sending a message to change Obama's behavior and becoming a hero to those pushing the notion that Obama's too flawed to vote for (just look at the other comments in this discussion) is a perilous one, especially during what you believe will be a very close election.

    Look, I'm not suggesting (despite the silly rhetoric of some commenters here) that you become a cheerleader for Obama.

    But a little more balance, and a little less cosseting of the notion that Obama is uniquely unqualified to be President are things I think you ought to consider.

    I predict, by the way, that you will come to this conclusion on your own later in the campaign season.

    Parent

    Ugh, Larry (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:13:55 AM EST
    Could you be a little more condescending?  Especially towards our host here?

    Parent
    What you want is a party-blog (none / 0) (#189)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    ... essentially one which is here to ensure that Obama wins.

      While BTD wants him to win but sees some definite problems and hopes that Obama snaps out of it, it is NOT this blog's focus (as far as I know) to be a party newspaper for Obama, printing ONLY what will please you, and others like you, as helpful to Obama's winning and no more.

      It's the last thing I want for this place, which has been the one sane place on the Net to talk about the pros and cons of all of this.  That it was originally more supportive of Hillary will still be an influence, and it's not here for you to change it to what you want of it or for your not subtle attempts to get the 'right kind' of talk that I remember reading so much about in China at the time of Mao.

      That's what is so scary about Obama forum-supporters.  There's a politely tyrannical element about it in your case that worries me more than anything except the ever flowing horrors of bile still coming from other Obama supporters toward Clinton (who lost the pledged nomination but never by enough for Obama forumners), and of course Obama has never lifted a finger to do anything about it.  He benefits from the fanatic feeling.

      There are many places on the Net where you will feel more comfortable with the correct-type of Obama talk, but your challenge to change things will be here.  I hope BTD stays true to his own thinking and his desire to say what he is really thinking.  If not, the readership will go way down.

    Parent

    'Fess up, Larry. You wrote the (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    e mail.  

    Parent
    Hee, hee. (none / 0) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:45:33 PM EST
    No, and if you look at my original comment you'll see I was a lot harsher on the emailer than on BTD.

    Parent
    You were, actually. (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST


    Parent
    These grave concerns and horrendous poss. outcomes (4.75 / 4) (#178)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:55:44 AM EST
    ... are indeed sound reasons to mute criticism of Obama's latest in a months' long spree of appalling and plausibly indefensible words and deeds. The lonely, exquisite suffering of dragging this three hundred pound cross without assistance or applause is heroic indeed.

    The only mystery is how you have remained silent on this until now, given the seriousness of the situation:

    I don't want to see your section of Talk Left become an anti-Obama blog.  A reasonable person could use your material to argue that Obama is uniquely disqualified to be President.

    OMG what a f*cking nightmare! Someone might "use" an individual opinion on the inenr netz "to argue" something. Oh, oh, oh ... what fools we mortals be! [/returning to the pleasantly dull pastime of scratching my ass while watching the cat try to pull off my tube sock]

    Parent

    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM EST
    But at this time, and until November, I'd hate to see them become anti-Obama sites.

    In other words, you'd just like everyone to shut up and be good little soldiers.

    Oh my.

    By all means, shut down dissent.

    Stunning.

    What country is this again?

    Parent

    Well. . . (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    In other words, you'd just like everyone to shut up and be good little soldiers.

    Despite the offensive imagery of your language, if you're asking whether I want to see people act in such a way as to defeat McCain in November the answer is "yes", and I believe that's the official policy of this site.

    By all means, shut down dissent.

    In this particular discussion, I am the dissenter and you are the voice of the prevailing popular view.  I do not want to "shut down dissent".  I do want to elect Obama in November.

    Parent

    Re the commenters here who say they (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    will either vote for someone other than Sen. Obama or leave the Presidential choices blank:  surely you agree BTD largely leaves them to comment to each other?  Much as I would have liked for him to support Clinton's candidacy, he has never done so.  

    Parent
    I certainly am _not_ suggesting. .. (none / 0) (#126)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:01:42 PM EST
    that he has ever suggested that people sit out the election or vote Republican.

    But his posts have become one of the homes of anti_Obamaists, and his arguments are circulating as support for the idea of sitting out the election.  I don't believe that's his intention, but I think it's one effect his work has been having.

    Parent

    Whoever is circulating BTD's posts (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    as supporting sitting out the election must be selectively editing.  He frequently states he'll vote for Obama despite his weaknesses, including, rather surprisingly, the FISA vote.  

    Parent
    Look on the bright side, Larry (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:31:32 PM EST
    TalkLeft is the only explicitly pro-Obama blog I can stand to read, which makes it the only consistent source of pro-Obama material for me.  That may not sound like much, but it's what's keeping me from voting for McCain, and there was a point there not so long ago that I was actually considering campaigning for him, I was so p!ssed off.

    If I manage to talk myself into holding my nose one more time and voting for Obama, most of the "credit" for that will be owed to BTD and TalkLeft.  Not that I expect I will do that, but at least me sitting out the Presidential election is better for Obama than me pulling the (R) lever.

    Parent

    That certainly flies. . . (none / 0) (#147)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    in the face of what I've been arguing.  If you were thinking about campaigning for McCain and yet BTD's posts have convinced you to vote for Obama I somehow can't imagine we're reading the same posts.

    But it certainly is a silver lining.

    Parent

    Larry, it's true. I won't vote for McCain under (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:44:25 PM EST
    any circumstances, but someone like BTD, who will vote for Obama, warts and all, has a much better chance of reminding me why I am a Democrat because of his posts, not in spite of them.

    Parent
    I think the point is that it pays (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    to maintain credibility. The fact that BTD doesn't filter his posts through a "how much will this hurt Obama?" test makes the support that he does give to Obama more credibility. Credibility, BTW, is somewhat intangible, so logically it shouldn't matter whether BTD holds his fire or not, but as you see here, it actually does.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:59:57 PM EST
    I haven't decided to vote for Obama yet.  :)

    The thing is, I come here, in part, for the posts taking Obama to task, because it's just so enormously frustrating to read about some new stupid thing he's done without having a place to vent about it.

    But unlike, say, No Quarter, TalkLeft is sane.  I get some confirmation that, yes, Obama has once again done a stupid thing, but the criticism is rational and proportionate, and unmixed with wild accusations of him being a secret Muslim terrorist working for the Chinese.  It's methadone, if you will, instead of heroin.

    And it allows me later, after I've vented a bit, to look back and say, "OK, yes, that was stupid of Obama, but it's not OMG the stupidest thing anyone's ever done and we're all going to diediedie."  And these days, after this primary?  That's not so shabby.

    Parent

    "Anti-Obamaists." (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    Ye gods.  That alone is enough to make not want to be a "Pro-Obamaist."  Is there now "Obamaism," too?

    And if your issue is that others who cut and paste BTD's posts, then your issue is with them.

    Next we'll be burning books, not blogs.  Many a book-burner took issue with how people read them -- and still do.  We have book-burners in my area who went after Shel Silverstein books in a public library but said they had no problem with parents buying them for their children at home.

    Do you see the parallel?

    Parent

    judgment at nuremberg is on retroplex (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    right now as i blog. some parts of it have made stop and listen thinking how slippery the slide down the hill into loss of rights and freedom. btd this one of the reasons you need to hold politicans' feet to the fire.

    Parent
    Counterpoint (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM EST
    BTD has written clever posts since Obama has claimed the nomination where the emphasis was on why people here need to unite behind the party and its nominee in November. Maybe since the focus was not STFU and fall in line, these posts were too subtile for die hard Obama supporters (I don't mean Larry) to understand. I  noticed a few people wavering as they processed what BTD wrote. I, also, saw the same people's opinion harden back again after several Obama Unity Ambassadors (h/t Steve M) appeared and undermined his efforts with their tactics.

    Personally, I'm a stubborn old broad, who has been making up my own mind for decades. I came to this site initially before I decided who I was going to vote for because I wanted to discuss my concerns about the various candidates including Obama and the issues without being called names and attacked non stop. If this blog changed its tone completely and became another Rah, Rah, Rah Obama can do no wrong site, I'm not sure if I would stay. I would still get the information about issues and candidates from various sources and Obama is still the only one who can influence my decision. To say that Obama has not been winning me over especially the last couple of weeks would be an understatement. To put it mildly, he just made the hill I would have to climb to joining the unity bandwagon into a mountain.
     

    Parent

    Big Brother Larry (none / 0) (#191)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:16:27 AM EST
    Oh so sincerely softsoaping the You Must Not Say Anything That Will Hurt Obama.

    The real problem is that Obama is doing that, himself, and it's not our duty to ignore it or defend it.

    You can try relentlessly to guilt-trip BTD, but he's not particularly vulnerable to it and you are not subtle, and it's not going to work.

    Parent

    Don't worry, Obama is taking himself off (none / 0) (#205)
    by laurie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    to Europe, for the Olimpics period.
    Since he won't be doing anything apart from adressing some seemingly adoring crowds in front of cable tv, mild dissent over his (non) actions in Congress will cease.
    Happy now? BTD no longer upsetting the apple cart? Everyone can take a vacation...

    Parent
    I believe (4.50 / 8) (#54)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:15:38 PM EST
    Obama is not the best candidate.

    I don't have to come here to have it validated.  

    He doesn't have the ecperience or the qualifications.

    He could have proven otherwise, but then he stopped debating, refused to do tough interviews and had his appearances carefully crafted.

    If that doesn't bother you, well, that's too bad.

    The parallels to Bush are not my imagination.

    Parent

    Obama is uniquely bad (none / 0) (#186)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:10:58 AM EST
    as a Dem. candidate for pres. in my lifetime (and I ain't no spring chicken).  He has done and said things no Democrat on this level has ever done.  I'm talking tactics and strategy, not just positions, to the extent he has any.

    No candidate I've supported has ever become the nominee, but before this I've always comfortably (if not always happily) supported the eventual nominee energetically.

    Parent

    Speaking for myself only (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    I think Obama is especially bad.  I don't mean "worse than McCain" but I do  mean that we have no idea what will happen if he winds up in the WH.  My guess is he will be malleable the way Bush was because, like Bush, he wants to "lead" while leaving the work to advisors. Some advisors and underlings would be great, but we have no way to know if that's how it would work out.

    Even if Obama wanted to do the hands-on work (he does not have enough of a record, or enough experience, and the record he has is not terribly encouraging), I have to question very seriously what he has in mind.  He really has NOT shared enough with us.  The things he HAS shared disturb me. MORE faith-based, discriminatory organizations getting my taxpayer money? That's especially bad, from a Democrat.  Voting for FISA while suggesting he will "fix" it later?  I've heard that from politicians before, and they've disappointed me every time.


    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#185)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:48:25 AM EST
    it gives the appearance that the writer believes the target is uniquely deserving of approbation.  

    I do not think that words means what you think it means.

    Parent

    Maybe Opprobrium? n/t (none / 0) (#195)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST


    Parent
    An interesting comment and utterly misguided (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM EST
    I do care that Obama win the election but HOW he wins is incredibly important.

    I want a mandate for REAL change, not the fake kind that Obama has been peddling. POLICY change. SO I hold his feet to the fire on POLICY. I point out that his political capitulation have been bad politics as well as bad policy. Why? Hoping that with others, we may be a pressure point to STOP it from continuing. Small, maybe almost unnoticeable pressure to be sure, but a little but might start a little something. If not, well, I feel better about it at least.

    On NARAL, you completely misstate my criticism of NARAL, particularly on the Chafee issue. The endorsement of Chafee was outrageous not because it undermined Dems, it was outrageous because it undermined reproductive rights, NARAL's avowed sole purpose. Why? Because Democratic control of Congress is favorable to the right to choose. Moreover, the specific Dem candidates running against Chafee pledged to filibuster ANY SCOTUS nominee who did not support the right to choose. Chafee did not promise that and even voted FOR Roberts and AGAINST the filibuster of Alito.

    Chafee ran against candidates who were better on choice and reproductive rights than Chafee. Their endorsement of Chafee made no sense at all.

    Parent

    Yes, that's my point. . . (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    The endorsement of Chafee was outrageous not because it undermined Dems, it was outrageous because it undermined reproductive rights, NARAL's avowed sole purpose.

    You exactly state my point.  NARAL focused on the narrow advancement of their goal (by endorsing a pro-rights Senator) and lost sight of the larger fact that their goal would be better advanced by getting a (more-or-less) pro-rights party into power.

    If the net effect of your holding Obama's feet to the fire is to make it marginally more likely that McCain will get elected I'd say you're guilty of NARAL-ism.  You don't need to look too far into the comments sections of some of your posts to see that your material appeals to the "There's no difference between McCain and Obama" crowd.  That's not your belief (I can't believe you believe that), but you're certainly shoring up that belief in others.

    As you know, I have no problem criticizing Dems or anyone else.  But at this particular juncture, from now until November, every vote counts.  Keeping Obama honest is a good thing -- but not if it also results in keeping him in the Senate.

    Parent

    Now that you mention it, if Obama loses, (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    thereby remaining in the Senate, he will have enormous pressure and motivation to perform as a check on McCain, along with the other Democrats.
    A Congress with spine might be worth having McCain as President.
    Democrats stand for NOTHING now.  A McCain victory, accompanied by big Dem gains in Congress, would be a perfect opportunity for soul-searching and ACTION.

    Parent
    And if Obama stays in the Senate (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:38:24 PM EST
    he can lead the fight to fix FISA there and keep one of his promises, anyway.

    Parent
    My conclusion reading the comments (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    to BTD's posts isn't that those who say they will vote for Sen. McCain will do so because they think he is the same as Sen. Obama.  

    Parent
    I disagree in all respects (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    First, when Obama gives way on policy, it hurts the POLICY (it makes it closer to true that there is little difference between Obama and McCain) and I believe the the narrow politics of Obama winning. In truth, I think that Obama getting hammered on FISA could and likely will help HIM and the issues he has not yet capitulated on. He knows NOW there is a price to be paid. I would argue that if the blogs had done their job, if activists had done their job, Obama would have known this BEFORE he made these mistakes. If they had been more like ME, this folly could have been averted.

    Second, on NARAL, you ignore my points that NARAL blew it both on TACTICAL and STRATEGIC grounds. Whitehouse and Brown were BETTER than Chafee on reproductive issues.  

    Parent

    Are you assuming Obama didn't (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    know he would be criticized for changing his stance on FISA?

    Parent
    I assume he did not know (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:21:50 PM EST
    it would become what it became.

    To say he chose this problem knowingly is to question his sanity.

    Parent

    That's it in a nutshell. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST
    He is way too bright and politically attuned not to have realized the effect of this particular change of position. Or Sunstein is exercising complete mind control.

    Parent
    He thinks he's bright. I find him far (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    too glib to impress.

    Parent
    I'm conceding he's bright. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST
    Princeton, Harvard Law School, Harvard Law Review, little "p" professor at University of Chicago Law School.  He's bright.

    Parent
    Let me put it this way. There are plenty (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM EST
    of college professors who are indeed smart, and who can convince you of that over dinner conversation on politics; however, that is a far cry from convincing me they could hold the reins of government.
    While Obama does show intelligence, especially in his prepared speeches, he is far too glib and careless in his non-scripted remarks for my comfort.
    He also does not appear to be deeply knowledgable about any policy, as Hillary is in several.  

    Parent
    Princeton? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    What I read was Columbia.

    Parent
    My bad. Occidental and then (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Columbia.  But still, . . .

    Parent
    Princeton? (none / 0) (#196)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    Occidental and Columbia maybe?

    Parent
    Do you really (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    think that the response he got from the FISA flip flop will make him rethink reversing himself on other issues? There were a lot of people criticising him for FISA but saying that they would still vote for him. It seems to me that there would have to be something more than just criticism from the netroots. I don't think that even withholding a vote would make a difference because of the way he has treated Hillary's supporters. He seems to think that they will automatically show up to the polls in Nov and vote for him.

    Parent
    Surprise (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Amiss on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST
    He seems to think that they will automatically show up to the polls in Nov and vote for him.

    Boy is he in for a surprise!

    Parent

    Agree, he knew but calculated that it would not (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    do permanent damage.  And we don't know yet whether it has or not.  

    The reaction has largely been: 1) he's secretly against FISA and will fix every thing after he's elected; or 2) extreme objection to his vote followed by the reassurance that the person speaking will vote for him anyway.  Oh and a third -- Markos threatened to withold a donation, for now.

    He was more than happy to reap the benefits of Obamamania in the online communities, but that doesn't mean he ever evaluated them as indispensible to winning (or even slightly important to winning).

    He knew, and didn't care.  Or he didn't care enough to know.

    Parent

    He probably won't re-think (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:45:52 PM EST
    It's awfully hard to get something through a candidate's head.  But someone's got to keep trying.

    Amazing numbers of people are going to cut Obama slack on one thing after another until November.  They've bought into the hope/hype, and they can't or don't want to back down now.  Uniquely this year, however, I think Obama and his campaign have pissed off a huge number of Democrats.  This is why I don't think he's so great as a politician.  It will be very interesting to see what happens in November.  Personally I believe it's wide open.  Anything can happen.

    Parent

    Oh Bull! (none / 0) (#96)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:38:53 PM EST
    "If they had been more like ME, this folly could have been averted."

    Now that is laughable Armando. Everyday after Clinton dropped out you spent your time praising Obama and trying to convince everyone what a "great president he will be". And when that didn't work you tried another tact and pounded "a Pol is a Pol", which is a ridiculous argument on it's face, in order to try to get him votes.

    Not until Obama revealed what he was going to do about FISA did you write anything negative about Obama at all. You gave him a pass on many of the other things he did over the last three weeks. So for you to say 'if other bloggers had been more like me' is patting yourself on the back for no reason.

    Frankly Markos stood taller when he publicly stated he was going to withhold his maximum contribution from Obama. And Matt Stoller probably did the best job of going public in a series of posts on who Obama really is and what we should not expect and why. Not to mention many posters here on this blog who have been consistent in talking truth about Obama and have been adamant about sticking to the sacred princiles that we have spent years trying to instill into the Party - principles that Obama has no use for.

    So there are many bloggers out there that you give no credit to who have been talking about the ways to hold Obama's feet to the fire. A task that I feel will only be met with futility.

    Parent

    Erratum: Sen. Clinton did not (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    "drop out."

    Parent
    Officially No She Didn't (none / 0) (#139)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    Effectively she did.

    Parent
    I find the word harridan deeply offensive (none / 0) (#204)
    by laurie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    When are Obamanites going to stop being misogynist? No Unity there.

    Parent
    56% of Dem legislature voted against FISA (none / 0) (#193)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:21:45 AM EST
    Something close to that, since 44% of Dems voted for it, including the one who promised to filibuster it.

      That he couldn't is one thing, but then to be in the minority of Democrats voting for it -- that was just plain cowardly.

    Parent

    Sorry, Larry, (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    I totally disagree.

    Your cheering for Obama will not get me to vote for him.  Nor will fearmongering or calls for party unity.

    Obama has to do this.

    He's not.

    Don't blame others for Obama's shortcomings.

    Parent

    It would make more sense (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    for us, at this juncture, to stop wasting so much time on the presidential race and instead focus on improving Democratic numbers in the Congress.  Didn't the Republican Party already show how to thwart a president's agenda during Clinton's terms?  The difference between that Republican majority and the new Democratic majority in Congress is that the Republicans showed discipline and had backbone.

    I'm FAR more interested in increasing the margin in the House and Senate than winning the White House.  And also increasing governorships.  At the rate the party is going, however, including added costs like renting a stadium for a speech (just to name one item), all the money will be spent on the presidential race rather than divvied up among dozens of downticket races that could have a more important result anyway.

    Parent

    Hear, hear. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    We in the Midwest, Montague, know how perilous are the situations of some of our members of Congress and state legislators, too.  We are so purple here.

    Parent
    Very purple. Downright lavender :) (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    But yeah, it's touch and go a lot out this way.  I'm just happy to have Harkin for a senator.  (And embarrassed, naturally, by Grassley, but he'll leave his Senate seat in a coffin and not before.)

    Parent
    Why? Do you take heart from (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    the votes of the recently-elected Blue Dog Democrats, such as McCaskill and Tester?

    Parent
    Tester voted against cloture for (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:39:14 PM EST
    and against the FISA Capitulation bill. Take heart.

    Parent
    Good on him. I took his name in vain. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:42:56 PM EST


    Parent
    There's your answer (none / 0) (#124)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:58:58 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    Important Correction If You Are Discussing FISA (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    McCaskill and  Webb always vote in support of Bush and the Republicans. Whitehouse even voted with them this time around.

    Tester voted in opposition to Bush and the Republicans on FISA. To the best of my knowledge, he has always voted against FISA since he joined the Senate. In this he has keep true to his campaign rhetoric. Horrible on Iraq along with McCaskill and Webb, but great on FISA.

    Parent

    Regardless of their relative power (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:44:17 AM EST
    holding the White House is FAR MORE important than having a filibuster proof Congress.  Even a veto proof Congress is not as effective as being President.

    Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress for most of his tenure.  

    Winning Congressional seats comes with winning the White House.


    Parent

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:40:23 AM EST
    There is no point in holding a politician's feet to the first if the politician loses.  

    Criticizing Obama is fine.  Hammering the same point over and over and over for several weeks seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Parent

    Obama is the one using the hammer (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    He keeps using it, one strike after another.

    That others might talk about it is irrelevant except that it points out he is hurting his own standing with the citizenry who see how easy it is for him to turn on a dime and then justify it.

    Parent

    The amount of misinformed nastiness (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    directed at you in actually kinda funny. If it doesn't bother you, you should take it as a point of pride.

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    I'm not surprised at this criticism, given the times I've seen BTD mocked or insulted on other sites. I don't know what he's done to deserve that, other than to retain his core integrity when expressing his opinions -- and I recognize that even when I disagree with him.

    I'd consider it a point of pride as well, BTD.

    Parent

    I appreciate the folks read (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    what I write. Any feedback is confirmation that you are not writing to yourself. Good and bad.

    Parent
    What is stopping your critic from (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    "fighting for the issues" s/he cares about?

    Keep up the good work.  Missed your posts Friday.  

    Don't know (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    Indeed, not sure what issues he cares about. Presumably not FISA.

    Parent
    Some of us think differently (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by janarchy on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:32 PM EST
    If anything, the point of democracy is to hold our leaders feet to the fire, to demand that they follow through on their promises, do what they were elected to do, and not just b.s. us just so they can get a huge salary, all the perks and benefits and then do nothing. The point is for the people, by the people.

    It always galls me when anyone complains that intelligent dissent and/or criticism is a bad thing because it's divisive. The American voting public is not supposed to be a bunch of sheep who just do what they're told. If that was what the Founding Fathers wanted, they would have just installed another monarchy here.

    Obama was not my candidate of choice. (He's still not) However, if Hillary Clinton had gotten in, I'd have hoped that the same rules had applied. Obama is not a messiah, he's an elected official and a nominee for the highest office in the land. That doesn't mean he should be given a pass and a rubberstamp by the voters. We all see how well that worked out for us re: George W. Bush.

    Same rule applied to Hillary, Edwards, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:31:05 PM EST
    Biden, Richardson, Dodd, etc.

    I admit they did not apply to Kucinich and Gravel. I never wrote about them. That could rightly be viewed as unfair of me.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by janarchy on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:00:50 AM EST
    That's what I was saying. If Kucinich or Gravel had said/done something to warrant that kind of scrutiny, then yes, they deserved it too. I appreciate that you don't let anyone get away with stupidity or weasel words just because there is a D after their name on the ballot. I think most of us here do.

    Parent
    I appreciate this information (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Green26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM EST
    and these views. Keep it up, BT.

    btd, i notice that a number in the media (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    and other blogs quote you, so you are doing something right. also you keep a fair mind regarding politicans and the campaign. you keep blogging. many of us would be dismayed if you didn't.

    On the one hand it's a valid question (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    that the commenter asks.  

    But on the other hand, as a person who's been alive for five decades now, I have at last become truly, truly tired of being told to get in line and vote.  To not criticize the candidate because he's the lesser of two evils and heaven forfend I should give any ammo to the opposition.

    I've been holding my nose while voting, far too often, for over three of those decades.  On occasion I don't have to hold my nose, but I'm a really liberal person and thirty years ago it was hard to find a politician who took a bold stance on gay rights.  Hell, it still is, too much of the time.

    My nose is kind of sore by now, and to what end?  All those times I did what they asked, and the country moved more to the center, to the right.  I've lived through Reagan and thought that was the worst possible until Junior Bush.  Now I've lived through Junior Bush.  

    And still the Democratic Party has never given me a presidential candidate who carried through on all or even most of the important promises.  Yeah yeah yeah, life is hard when you're a politician, but I'm tired of caring about that.  All those people I voted for are wealthy and are doing just fine.  They aren't going to suffer in their retirement.  Not that I will, either, but for some reason I still vote as though lower middle-class and poor people count.  Such people help to build this country just as much as wealthier people do, and they deserve to share in the resources that their labor has helped to create.

    The chickens in Congress - yes, I mean Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and many more - don't deserve my assistance any longer.  From now on, I'm holding candidates' feet to the fire BEFORE they get into office.  If that keeps them from getting into office, so be it.  If there is one time in my lifetime when progressivism should work pretty well at the ballot box, this is the time.  Obama is screwing it up and I'm very displeased about that.  I'm through with enabling this kind of behavior.

    The other day, I sent a thank-you email to my senator, one of the few who voted against the FISA bill.  If your senator did the same, thank her or him and feel lucky, next time you vote, that you have a good senator.

    I actually don't remember.... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:40:13 PM EST
    ...being told to not criticize Kerry. I voted for him and I thought he was okay, but I remember criticizing...for example for his weak responses to his Iraq position and for his tepid response to the swiftboat ads.

    Parent
    Plenty (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    of people were very crtical of Kerry in 2004. Kos, himself hated him iirc.

    It seems that the only person you couldn't criticize was Howard Dean.

    Parent

    Your results may vary (none / 0) (#117)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    I had friends to whom I complained about Kerry, and they would beg me to keep it to myself out of fear of Bush winning.  Like they thought if I criticized him to others, those people might vote for Bush.  In fact I myself lived in fear of that to some extent.  Didn't do me much good in the end.  My state turned red in 2004.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    your post said a lot of what I agree with. I'm tired of enabling these craven losers too. And I'm no Nader purist. I can and certainly have voted for candidates that I only agreed with 50% of the time. Maybe even some I agreed with less than 50%. The main thing I ask is that they have a spine and can effectively defend themself. I've seen it one time in my lifetime--Bill Clinton. All the others listen too much to the Washington DC CW and it's been the killer of campaign after campaign. It's one of Obama's fatal flaws too.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM EST
    Poor BTD - he's too hard on Obama for some (tben, etc.), and not hard enough on Obama for others (talex, etc.).

    As the saying goes, that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    means that BTD, Jeralyn, et al., are doing something right.

    Parent
    Which talex, might I ask? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I didn't realize there was more than one. n/t (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST


    Parent
    At present, there seem to be 26. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I see. Veeeeery interesting. LOL (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I, for one, appreciate all (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    your posts, even when you get grumpy and defensive about them. Amazingly, if people feel the need to complain about content here, why aren't they telling their side at other sites?

    I don't get (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:11:04 PM EST
    why people complain at all about what is on this site or any other they visit.

    They have two choices:  

    1.  don't visit those sites

    2.  speak up and state your own alternative case if you disagree with something.

    I don't get all this complaining and whining...that NEVER worked at my house.  Never.

    Shut up.  Bed.  No dessert.

    Or whatever the age-appropriate penalty was.

    Don't these people have moms?  Good grief...

    Parent

    Ahem. I draw the line (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    at gratitude for the grumpy posts.:-)

    Parent
    BTW, although I admire the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:38:56 PM EST
    strength of Jeralyn and tchris's commitment to the criminal defense point of view, in my opinion, they only present that viewpoint, although in an interesting fashion.  

    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM EST
    It sounds good to em but I know nothing about criminal law.

    Parent
    See, it's working! (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:06:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Look. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    he's done a fine job of pointing out Obama's shortcomings.  I'll never get into the "he's the devil" kind of comments, because it's inflammatory and stupid.  That the idiots said that about Hillary put them right in the gutter.

    There are real issues with Obama.  I'm happy, thank you very much, to stick with them.  They're issues I've had since Day 1, which he was, right above Gravel, on my list of dem candidates when this all started.

    Exposing Obama to the faithful.. (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by yourkidding on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    is long overdue. The hypocrisy of Obama supporters complaining of selective 'reporting'
    is staggering.

    I'm having a wonderful time saying "I told you so" to the dismayed faces of the Obama devotees.

    Oh, & Bill Clinton was right.

    Well, the only people who don't know (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    Obama is a run of the mill politician are committed to voting for him, no matter what, so it really doesn't matter.

    I would like to know their issues???? (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:03:14 PM EST
    Making the same argument over and over which does nothing but divide our party and [keeps] us from fighting for the issues we care about is stupid.
    Uh, I think we are fighting the issues that we care about. I believe there was at least 4 issues that we care about that Obama got us worried about in the last two weeks. I am not a lemming just because I am suppose to be for the sake of the party.

    GIven this is an open thread, (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:20:42 PM EST
    isn't this interesting?  [Warning, Huff Post.]

    New group calls for open first ballot in Denver

    Gee, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:28:32 PM EST
    you and Larry sound almost like twins.

    Amazing.

    Really? I always thought Larry (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    came across as sincere and intelligent.

    Parent
    So did I (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    until tonight.  Hmmm.

    Parent
    Probably too many Bifs. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:33:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Larry's cool in my book. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Larry may be cool generally, (none / 0) (#101)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    but he's ice cold tonight.

    Parent
    Larry is likeable enough. (none / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I think TChris (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    does a fine job of pointing out the differences between McCain and Obama, on labor laws most memorably.  

    Those differences are important.  But for instance, there WAS a big difference between McCain and Obama on FISA.  Now, there isn't.  How did we get to that juncture?  How can we pressure Obama to not collapse his views?  

    It's important to keep up the criticism.  It has only been a few days since the FISA vote, a little over a week since Obama's misleading letter about it.  If there's been a lot of criticism lately, it's been deserved.

    oh.our.god! (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    however did you recover? :)

    is there an operation, that reverses the "stepford obama fan" syndrome? i guess, in the interests of "party unity", we're just all supposed to ignore the man behind the curtain.

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no! sorry, can't do it.

    Well, your usual trope is to remind people (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:17:14 PM EST
    how old and experienced you are, as if no one else here is over 25.
    So why don't you remind us what you saw in the 60s and 70s, which none of us were around for.. lol

    Huh? Did you mean that comment for (none / 0) (#199)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    Tben? I was making fun of him.

    Parent
    The sentiments in that email are a bit insulting (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM EST
    to the commenters on this blog.

    I read BTD with interest.  I think about his opinions as expressed.  But I come to my own conclusions.

    I rather resent the suggestion that BTD has some sort of Svengalian sway over me.  Maybe the emailer has been spending too much time on blogs where someone 'important' posts and opinion and the masses rush to agree with it, even if it's the polor oppposite of the opinion expressed 10 minutes earlier.

    I'd say from the ease with which most of the comments here disagree with BTD, most folks are like me.  I mean, I would have been upset about Obama's FISA vote even if BTD had never written a word about it.

    Didn't seem to me (none / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:28:20 AM EST
    that the emailer in question was suggesting that BTD was driving opinion here.  Seems he or she was suggesting that BTD plays to the crowd.

    I don't know which diaries you are reading but it sure doesn't seem to me that most posters disagree with BTD except on the rare occasion when he praises Obama.

    Parent

    The only way BTD can 'harm' Obama (none / 0) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    is if we are all or mostly likely to be swayed by his opinion simply because it's his opinion, and not because of what he says or how he says it.

    We can all read and we can all think for ourselves.  One way you can tell that is that even posts agreeing with him give reasons rather than thoughtless echoes. They rarely agree with him on every point; many explore differences within agreement.  It is called discussion, and these days it surprises me not at all that many don't recognize it as such since it is one lonely isle in a sea of Obama boosterism.

    If this is the best Obama's supporter have -- entitled demands for one blog they don't own to fall in and quote the party line -- he's in trouble.

    I think that, having seen what a netrootz-MSM gang jihad of hatred can do against a highly qualified candidate, Obama's supporters are now getting a little panicky as they realize the same tactic could be used against their own, not-as-qualified one.  Thus the demands for boosterism.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    some people looked at the Republican Party under Bush and said to themselves, "Hmmm, wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic Party had a bunch of lickspittle lackeys propping up every stupid move they make, too."

    What I don't understand is why so many people seem to want to be the lackeys.

    OOOH SNAP!! Good on ya Nadai... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:00:01 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD, keep doing what you do best. If I get (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    off my rear in November and vote for Obama, it will be because someone like you, who didn't lose his credibility in this primary, convinces me to. Issues matter and I don't care what kind of package those issues come in.

    If Obama becomes the politician you want him to be, he'll have a much better chance of winning and the people who are advocating win any way you have to, don't understand that. Speak to me about what I care about if you want my vote. And make it up to the Clintons for what your campaign and your supporters did to them. I know they aren't perfect but they aren't what some tried to turn them into either.

    The point is simple and pertinent: (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:31:44 PM EST
    hammer Obama and his geniuses enough on the travesty and wrongness of their move to the center and maybe they won't do it quite so much. Say it once and move on and it dies - Obama then takes on even more republican-kite persona.

    I agree that this is a major, major mistake by Obama's geniuses that makes Obama even more vulnerable to the same ole republican/US corporate media slime machine. Give the voters a stark contrast by going hard left and let the chips fall where they may, i.e., let the voters choose between more bush and the anti-bush.

    Sounds like you are shilling for McCain (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:51:36 PM EST
    now.. tsk, tsk.

    Ageism hurts all of us and I wish (2.00 / 0) (#169)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06:03 AM EST
    people wouldn't resort to it.  But how could I be shilling for McCain when my comments clearly says I'm against him?

    My point was that my pro-Obama view is suppressed here at TalkLeft, while you have commented many times that we should vote for McCain because even though he's against our issues, the Dems in Congress will limit him.  Your response was to claim I was violating site rules, when actually you are violating them by repeating the same theme in many topics:  vote for McCain.  

    The bias against pro-Obama commenters stifles our viewpoint.  Perhaps it makes others uncomfortable, but I think a left wing blog should be able to handle people supporting our candidate the way I do.  I've never attacked other postes and I think my ideas are very useful in these discussions.  Those of you who participate in driving off pro-Obama people like me do a disservice to this site.  


    Parent

    I am realistic about age. Someone who is (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    73 has more to prove than someone who is 50.
    Admittedly, 73 isn't terribly old by today's standards, but I think it was very wrong that Reagan's age was NOT taken into account in 1984. IN fact, he was already somewhat senile then, but no one would seriously question his competence.

    Parent
    I don't think you understand the comment policy (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53:17 AM EST
    Jeralyn has said that people can discuss ways in which McCain is better or support him as long as they follow the rest of the rules, no chattering, baiting, organizing for him from TL etc.  That isn't what MarkL is doing anyway.  We can all see his comments, we know what he says.  

    No one is trying to drive you off.  You are mistaking disagreement for suppression.  And given that half the commenters here are refugees from pro-Obama battering on sites which are nothing, I repeat nothing like the conversation here at all, your repeated complaints will not win you support from most of us.

    This may not be the right site for you.  No one owes you, or Obama, their support or their agreement.  If you have pro-Obama arguments, make them.  If you feel someone's response is inappropriate, ignore them.  Use the arguments of those who disagree with you to sharpen your own.  If that isn't enough for you, there are 100s of sites that make nothing but pro-Obama comments 24/7.

    Parent

    Accountability (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Manuel on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:30:55 AM EST
    We need to hold Obama (and the whole Dem leadership) accountable for their positions and actions (or lack thereof).  If the same song needs to be sung over and over again, then so be it.  We need to stay at it until they listen.  Thanks BTD for carrying the tune.

    I'm glad Obama is the best thing (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:19:46 AM EST
    in SOME way.

    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:50:10 AM EST
    Maybe I should put in the "this comment is in reply to a comment that has been deleted" right now.

    The rhetoric of totalitarianism (4.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:07:55 PM EST
    is the same as the emailer BTD quotes.  It's the basis on which they burn books, imprison dissenters,  and kill those who speak out.

    It springs from the same idea.  Dissent = enemy.  Enemy = anything wrong is dissent's fault.

    Now, I doubt the emailer was advocating any of those things.  But the underlying principle is the same.

    This sort of argument is so anathema to me, I can't even articulate it.  Instead I'll quote one of my favorite SCOTUS passages of all time:

    But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
    BTW, (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:17:28 PM EST
    Obama is just another politician.

    I think many of his supporters have gotten that clue.

    talex 26 (3.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    please do not comment on BTD's posts. Thank you. You have been banned under Talex and now are posting as talex 26. Once banned, you cannot come back as a different user.

    I will let you continue on my posts for a while, but no more on Big Tent's. Thank you.

    okay....I should have reworded this.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:46:27 PM EST
    this was not directed toward BTD, but to obama followers in general....sorry for not being clearer.  I am with BTD on this one folks.

    The part that is hard to grasp is if an (none / 0) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:48:46 PM EST
    obama fan believes obama is the best candidate evah, why we he/she try to hard to never have anything even remotely derogatory printed about him.  It is in the interest of vetting.  And if you are an obama fan and think everything he does is just fine ad dandy, you should consider yourself delusional on many levels...

    Sorry, if I threw you off Pie...

    Ah, I see. (none / 0) (#38)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    S'okay.  :)

    Parent
    whew....and my apologies to BTD if he (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:00:34 PM EST
    took it wrong.  I screwed up.

    Parent
    Perhaps it is because (none / 0) (#76)
    by Amiss on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    Why are you [BTD] so stuck on attack threads on and branding Obama as just another politician?
    Maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama is JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN.

    While he ran on the platform that he was not just another politician, that he was the candidate of change, he is showing us more everyday that he is just that. Nothing wrong with it, but I feel he mislead a lot of people and we the people deserve better than that.

    BTD (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM EST
    does the person who wrote that email even read your posts? Truly, it seems to me your posts are almost always about issues.

    And I guess now pointing out any of Obama's shortcomings are "creating party disunity". Ugh. More sledgehammer unity. Are people so clueless that they think totalitarianism is the answer?

    Truth Fails Political Pandering Test (none / 0) (#100)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    Utterly amusing. Obama is a POL and BTD is very meticulous about truth telling. It may be in his IMO, but he is usually RIGHT ON. Something unimanigible in this time and place, particularly now... truth fails the political pandering test every time.  

    If I cared about Obama at all (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:06:54 PM EST
    Or if I cared about the Democratic party at all, I would be less upset about this statement:

    "I do not agree with Obama.  He is wrong.  And I believe he is not fit to be president."

    than I would be about this statement:

    "Obama lacks the courage to stand up for what he believes in."

    Because I think the second statement does more damage to the brand.

    But I also think, with what Obama did on FISA, the second statement, in this case, can be made in a way that is truthful.  It is substantiated by an accurate assessment of the events as they played out.

    Jeralyn asked that you come back (none / 0) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    tomorrow.  Just in case you missed it...

    10 comments per 24 hours.

    Bush With Brains? (none / 0) (#157)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:19:01 PM EST
    After several weeks of mining the past statements of candidate Obama for subordinate clauses that show he was never promising to lead the vanguard of the revolution, progressives bloggers have, by and large,  with a few exceptions, thrown in the towel & admitted:  okay, maybe he was never what we pretended he was. So what are we left with? A competent George Bush? I don't hear much about the Supreme Court lately, and the vital necessity of a President Obama submitting appointments since his recent Scalian statements on the DP,  handguns, and "feeling blue". The most recent suggestion for hope is the appointment of Democrats to bureaucratic positions. Expectations seem to have been lowered.

    Los Angeles Times on (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:03:58 AM EST
    issues on which Senators Obama and McCain now agree:

    LAT

    I find that (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:48:12 AM EST
    list disconcerting about the New Dem Party.

    Parent
    Wonderful link, thx (none / 0) (#201)
    by laurie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    I was certain that would happen. It's called confounding the issues, so as to damp down debate on experience, and get down to who is more likeable, or more of a loveable family man.

    Parent
    Sen. McCain wins there too: more families. (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST


    Parent
    oh BTD, you're so mean... snark (none / 0) (#180)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:40:11 AM EST
    I sort of understand the sentiment. Well, I'm giving the critic the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're just trying to have the dems win as opposed to being a kool-aid drinker, but who knows. I can get some of that in that Republicans are famous for sticking together whereas Democrats, well, we're hard to herd around. But you know, I like that we're difficult. And I like that we are critical of our own. That's kind of the difference between the parties at some level. That's part of the problem with the new party people or kool-aid drinkers, they seem like Republicans in behavior. Ewwww.

    This is a polical- cum- legal blog (none / 0) (#200)
    by laurie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    Of course people nit-pick. That's why we enjoy reading it.
    BTD being an Obama supporter gets more upset than others over some of BO's actions.
    Why he can't talk about these issues on his own blog I don't know. Or does he have to ask the Party for permission?

    And If Obama Fails as President? (none / 0) (#206)
    by tdraicer on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    >I think Obama is especially bad.

    I agree.

    > I don't mean "worse than McCain" but I do  mean that we have no idea what will happen if he winds up in the WH.

    He doesn't have to be worse than McCain to want him to lose in November-you just have to believe (as I do) that he will fail as President and revive a faltering GOP in the process. Four years of a faux-Democrat followed by 8 or 12 or 16 years of more Wingnuts is not my idea of progress.

    Observer.. (none / 0) (#207)
    by nextgen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
    When I come here I get the feeling that people are fighting the primary contest, still.  I don't see the behavior in question as a effort to shape policy or hold Obama accountable.  Instead, I see them as an effort to highlight the negative, over and over as if that will somehow change the fact that Sen. Clinton, won't be President.  

    Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Clinton, Edwards or Biden would have had my support had they won the nomination because of some big ticket items.  I am convinced that if John McCain is president we will be at War with Iran within 24 months, I can't support that direction which makes a democrat, any democrat favorable to me.  

    It's time folks stopped fighting the primary fight.  If you don't want to support Obama, fine, but at least stop pretending it's due to some purist position.  Be honest and just say your mad Sen. Clinton lost at least that way people will have a clear context from which to view your opinions.  

    The OP (e-mailer) was right, constantly trying to magnify every negative without counter positives does nothing to advance the (a) cause, unless that cause is to undermine our (p) nominee at every turn possible.  

    I think the key is balance without it the topics look like tools to achieve a damage Obama goal rather than true support of positions.  

    Then again, I could be wrong and there is balance.

    Sould Be Clear (none / 0) (#208)
    by nextgen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:46:27 PM EST
    If there is no balance, it feels like ect...ect..ect..

    I KNOW many who criticize him are actually supporters, it's just not as cool right now.  

    All the cool kids are mad at Obama.

    Parent

    Whoa, hold on there (none / 0) (#209)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST
    Be honest and just say your mad Sen. Clinton lost at least that way people will have a clear context from which to view your opinions.

    But that would NOT be honest, because it is not the reason most of us oppose Obama or refuse to vote for him. In my case it is ALL about the DNC behaving undemocratically: disenfranchising Michigan and Florida, and trying to keep HRC's name off nominating ballot (in direct contravention of those very roooolz they bleated about to justify the MI&FL debacle) -- THAT is IT, the end, period, stop. The rest of Obama's failings are just icing on the cake and it is he, not anyone else, who daily reinforces my belief that he is a really lousy candidate.

    For others who refuse to fall into line, the reasons vary but I think the one I express is one of the major ones. And the antipathy to voting Obama is helped by the fact that McCain is not viewed as a horrible alternative. That's the reality you must face if you want to "convert" anyone to voting for BO.

    Your statement that we are "mad Hillary lost" reflects ignorance about what motivates us and a patronizing attitude that we are all just a bunch of overemotional, hysterical women.

    No. I have voted Dem every single election since I was eligible to vote, not only presidential but straight downticket Dems on every slate. Many times I've voted for the guy who was not my first, second, or third choice. Many times I've held my nose and voted for the Democrat. And here's the thing: I would have done it this time, too, but the DNC took that option away from me. And many people, many Democrats, feel the same way. So if you want someone to blame for this mess, you can go to the DNC with your complaints.

    Criticism | 192 comments (192 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment