Bloggers on Obama and What Bothers Them Most

If Big Tent Democrat were here (he's still on vacation) he would be writing about these posts.

  • Eriposte at Left Coaster:
  • I have seen enough of Sen. Obama's supposed "post-partisan" non-ideology in action to know that, while he will certainly be better than any Republican as President, he is definitely not my #1 choice in the Democratic primary. I have deep concerns about what an Obama administration would be like - one that will likely be interested in compromise as an end in itself, while repeatedly ditching the progressive netroots as he has been inclined to do already (even before winning), when his soaring rhetoric meets the reality of the not-so-soaring ideology of Congress and the Republican Noise Machine. It is probably the expectation of this dynamic, along with Sen. Obama's willingness to repeatedly throw progressives under the bus, that has Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan - who once infamously tarred swaths of the left in this country as a fifth column - energized and welcoming of his candidacy.

The Republicans plan on running basically running their standard playbook, the difference is that unlike most Democrats, present and past, Obama seems oblivious to possible general election issues and is running headlong into a potential GOP buzz saw.

He will either be painted as uber liberal based on past positions that he clearly staked out while in Illinois, or he will be painted as a flip flopper as he trys to temper those positions in a general elections run.

On Obama not being tested:

One of the knocks that I have made against Obama is his lack of experience and his lack of vetting. He has never been tested in a tough race. I have to wonder if he isn't trying because he doesn't fully understand what the general election will bring. I wonder if he knows how hard it will be....Furthermore, the longer the campaign runs, the more I feel that my early gut about Obama is more right than ever. That is a very smart guy who think that he can get by with slick talk.

I don't know what Big Tent would say but for me, while Obama is clearly better than any Republican, and will have my support if he's nominated, he's not ready, either to be President or to win a general election. This isn't his time. 2016, maybe.

< Miami Homegrown Terrorism Trial : Jury Says Its Deadlocked | Poll: Huckabee Would Lose to Dems By Double Digits >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The criticism is all over the map (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    One person says he is too liberal, another that he flip flops, another that he triangulates. name the cliche' criticism and some desperate blogger has thrown it out there.

    Obama criticizes Paul Krugman and suddenly Krugman is the General Petraeus of the blogosphere.  Obama says he will negotiate directly with foreign leaders and now he is too liberal. Comes out with health care plan with no mandates and he triangulates. Cheap shots from every direction.

    Certainly there are valid criticisms of Obama, he isn't perfect and neither are the other candidates.

    Bottom line is some people think optimism and hope is for suckers, so they are going to try and toss anything they can think of at it in the hope that something sticks.

    Who's more progressive Obama or Clinton? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    I've seen some here and elsewhere trying to paint Barack Obama as some kind of democratic right wing darling, yeah right. In response I urge you to check this article.

    Liberal views could haunt Obama

    He's certainly made compromises, but in the compromise department, it's obvious to me that Hillary Clinton in her time in the Senate, has been far more willing to set her progressive principles aside, and cater to the right wing and conservatives.

    And what has Clinton's apparent shift into the realm of centrism gotten her, certainly not any crossover support from the Republican side of the aisle. Perhaps moderates in this country might be more willing to vote for her, but look at what it's cost Senator Clinton, her soul perhaps?

    you are just proving the point (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    that Obama will be (mis)perceived as the liberal and  can't win. This isn't about selling souls, it's about getting elected and getting the Republicans out and which Democrat is best equipped to do it.

    Well, if that is the case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    Hillary has only ran for one elected position, so what is her experience as a candidate?

    So you and Hillary are taking the position... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    That the Democrats need to fool much of America into believing that that she's more moderate than she lets on in order to win the presidency?

    Which is much the same position the Democratic candidates took in the last two presidential elections, and apparently the American people saw through it.  So basically Hillary has adopted the same old tactic and is expecting a different outcome this time around, right?

    Where to my way of thinking Barack Obama has worked to reshape the debate, into one which reaches beyond partisan politics, and appeals to Americans on a completely different level.  Obama has the ability to reach beyond these sharply drawn political lines.


    Well, I can tell you this: (none / 0) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    This weekend I got together with five friends from college.  We are of similar backgrounds, upper to middle class white guys.  I'm the most liberal, none are conservative.  Most are moderate.  All Democrats.

    We all agreed we would vote for Obama but not Hillary.  Every single one.  I was surprised no one would.  More than anything, they said that if Hillary was the candidate, they probably would not vote. Extremely small poll, but these guys are pretty much your average Dems.

    The problem to me with these Obama/Clinton scenarios is the it takes for granted the many Dem votes that we will lose if she wins the nomination.  I don't think that is the case with Obama.

    I don't want either one of them.  I'm for Edwards or Dodd.


    I have (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    heard that from other democrats, even very liberal ones.  I don't really get it, she is not my first choice, but she is a good choice.  There are certainly things I don't like about her, but there are things I don't like about all of them.I wish she would have run in 2004, I think she was a better fit for the mood of the country then.

    My list:
    Hillary tie Biden

    If gravel was the nominee, I woudn't vote.


    Well, I don't see much of a difference (none / 0) (#11)
    by DA in LA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    Between Hillary and Republicans.  I certainly don't like her votes on Iraq and the Iran resolution.

    Her ties to big business are a serious problem.

    The fact that she leads all Senators who are at her  level in earmarks is a major problem for me, as well as the fact that she does not want earmarks made public.

    As my wife says, "We finally got a woman who could actually be president and she's no better than the ones with the c*&ks."

    My wife is a huge feminist and a Democrat.  She's not voting for Hillary either.  She's in the Obama camp.

    This is a problem, folks.


    Liberals who won't vote for Hillary. (none / 0) (#16)
    by kindness on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    I have friends who say that.  Of course, these same friends voted for Ralph Nader, twice!

    Seriously, no one here is making the case that Hillary is the best thing since Budda.  But suggesting that she is republican.....where have you all been these last 7 years?  Do you think running head first into a wall, again,  is going to be a good thing?  Jesus.

    Hillary isn't my first choice.  But she's better than any one of the Repubs up there.  If it comes down to it, I'd much rather have a conservative Democrat in the office than have another totalitarian meglomaniac that will certainly bring us to the next World War.

    What are some of you smoking and can I get any (except that whole I don't want to vote for a democrat in '08 ugly side effect thingy).


    Well appearently (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    some bloggers don't think Obama can win because he hasn't pandered enough to them, and they wont defend him in the general.

    Okay (none / 0) (#19)
    by DA in LA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    But some of us are done being taken for granted.

    The Democrats have moved to the right and are nothing like the Dems of old.  I'm done with them unless they can start nominating candidates that represent me at least partially.

    She does not.

    And yes, not that much better than a lot of Republicans.  They aren't all Karl Rove.


    Really strange perception you have (none / 0) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:56:56 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 97.0% of the time during the current Congress

    Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress

    Oh, come on. (none / 0) (#20)
    by DA in LA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    You're going to go with meaningless percentages.  Thanks, I'll actually base my vote on detailed information that I pick up from the news.

    Or I could go with percentages.


    Here, this is a reason: (none / 0) (#21)
    by DA in LA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few. She has also refused to join many of her Democratic colleagues in signing a letter endorsing a treaty that would limit arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations.

    Try to be more (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    specific.  Was it part of the anti-terror bill? What Senate/House bill number was it?  

    Did you miss the part about (none / 0) (#23)
    by ding7777 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:03:48 PM EST
    voting with the Democratic majority 97% of the time?

    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by DA in LA on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:15:28 AM EST
    And I addressed it, but you can continue to deny reality or accept that if Hillary is the candidate, you have a problem

    No. What you did was to (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:32:06 AM EST
    cut/paste Steven Zune's anti-Hillary Presidential commentary.

    FWIW, here's a list of votes where Hillary goes against the Democratic position.

    The closest vote to support Zune's commentary is the Feinstein Amdt. No. 4882; To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.

    Hillary voted NO, along with Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden,  Christopher Dodd, Daniel Inouye, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Chuck Schumer.

    Although Obama voted YES, for the defeated Amendment, Obama, Hillary, Biden, and Dodd voted YES for the final H.R. 5631.

    Unless you support Dennis Kucinich, how or why Hillary is "more Republican" than the other candidates escapes me.



    Misperceived? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    Tell Barbara Lee and Carol Shea-Porter that.

    I don't buy that we can't run an authentic liberal (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    and win.

    He's ready now.

    He's never had the support in the blogosphere that Edwards or Clinton has.  Big deal.

    Jerome Anderson over at MYDD (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    added more crap to the already large pile.

    First, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned

    that gets you banned but if you say the opposite, that people support him because he is black that is fine?

    Also from MyDD's david mizner:

    He'll change things. How so? He's black. That's a good reason to support him, I said, and I meant it. He's eloquent, someone said. Definitely, I said. Two people said they felt much better about Obama because he'd been blessed by Frank Rich.

    This coming from his random sampling, which is of course some people he met in a bar. Hum at MYDD you can use your bar friends to make it sound like Obama supporters only support him because he is black.  But if someone suspects when you say he is unelectable, and that is based, on not substance but rather because "it's more just a feeling," that this "feeling" may be his race.. BANNED

    The word the pops to mind is hypocrite.

    Anyhow it goes on to basically say he can't win because he hasn't pandered to bloggers enough, and therefore they wont support him in a general.  So now bloggers are going to toss a general election democrat under the bus because he didn't pander enough? More desperation from Edwards/Hillary supporting bloggers.

    Electability (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    In recent weeks I've decided to support Clinton and I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Obama.  Having said that, however, I don't think "electability" should be the issue folks decide this race on.  I didn't think that when the narrative was Obama is more electable than Clinton and I don't think that if the narrative is that Clinton is more electable than Obama.  

    The truth is we don't know who is more electable and voting for someone you don't really like because you think you can get others to vote for them strikes me as a losing proposition.  That was part of the problem with Kerry, IMO, many people who voted to nominate him didn't like him that much, so how do you convince the rest of the country that he's the guy?  "He's not my first choice, but you should vote for him," isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

    I tend to agree with Bowers that one reason why Obama seems to get such different reactions from folks is because there is a difference in how they see the current culture.  I understand Obama's appeal to people who want to move past the current partisanship.  Unfortunately, I find myself on Bowers' side and don't believe that's possible, making me want a partisan candidate first and foremost.  So the things that draw others to Obama, drive me away.  Just as the things that drew me to Clinton, which includes her strong partisanship, drive others to Obama.  Perhaps that's one reason why things have gotten so nasty of late - it's not about a particular policy, but a worldview and those can be a lot tougher to reconcile.

    I can't wait for primary season to be over.  

    re: Obama is a sure fire loser in the GE (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    Ms. Billionaire anti-union TV celebrity

    She isn't antiunion. Are you have desperate now you have to trash Oprah?

    lying oppo against Edwards and the Whirlpool plant closing.

    First off it was a cheaply made fax of a supposed oppo piece that i doubt his campaign made.  second nothing in it was a lie.

    Then check the latest polling on who runs best against the ReThug field.

    yes the latest poll shows that, but there is no consensus among polls that Edwards is the strongest.

    Remember how Kerry was Mr. Electable and Dean couldn't win.

    Turned out Kerry was too busy to respond to the Swift Boaters and his 'campaign' went down with all hands.

    I see no parallels between Obama and Kerry.  If you are comparing Edwards to Howard Dean, i see similarities, but I'm not sure that bolsters your case for Edwards.

    yeah edwards never tries to mislead people (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    Mr. Edwards responded: "Well, I've been very aggressive about ending the war, and from the very beginning, and the things that we need to do to bring this war to an end," he said.

    Your savior sounds like another lying politician to me.

    Speaking of Digby (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:11:08 PM EST
    I think she has just shown us that she is more than willing to participate in Obama hit jobs.  I don't see how anyone can take her criticisms of him seriously.

    check out the evidence here

    Her excuse straight from Judy Miller, if my sources are wrong I'm wrong.  how many more bloggers are going to destroy their credibility, on Obama smears.

    You Are On Drugs (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    Some kind of Obama fever drug, no doubt. Digby like Judith Miller???  You either never had the ability to discern between people or it is your Obama fever.

    Digby apologized for getting something wrong. She has never done a hit piece on Obama.

    Boy do you have it bad.  

    So, I see that I'm being slammed quite hard on Daily Kos for posting a link in an earlier post which stated that Oprah Winfrey runs a non-union shop. Dkos diarist Bob Johnson claims this was a smear and condemns me for linking to an unsubstantiated article that claimed she pays sub-standard wages and benefits.

    First of all, this kind of thing happens all the time in blogging. We link to articles as a matter of course, and sometimes they are wrong. The way we normally deal with it is to write a note to the blogger and ask them to correct the error rather than write a DKos diary calling him or her a lazy smear artist based upon a four word error and a link to an article. But this is primary time and people are not especially courteous about anything so I won't take it personally.



    lets compare quotes (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    First of all, this kind of thing happens all the time in blogging. We link to articles as a matter of course, and sometimes they are wrong.

    Judith Miller:

    "If your sources are wrong," she said, "you are wrong."

    Digby has an opinion on Obama based on a visceral feeling or her support of another candidate, she should be honest about her opinion.  if its not based on substance don't try to make substance match your feeling.

    I love how bloggers get all general Patreus about people when it suites their opinion.  First no one can respond to attacks from Krugman, now no one can respond to untrue attack from Digby.

    Digby apologized for getting something

    She didn't apologize, this is an election untrue attacks can sink a candidate, so this innocent mistake crap is not acceptable.  If she publishes something negative about a fellow democrat she better be damn sure she has her facts straight, or she is just making the republicans job that much easier.

    Can she credibly criticize Perry Bacon Jr. after this?


    You Are Deluded (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:29:58 PM EST
    digby=Judith Miller  

    The key quotes:

    Miller: I was f^cking right.

    digby: So, I was wrong and I will correct that in the earlier post.

    Of course you are too high on Obama to even get the point of digbys post:

    Not sure why I am bothering with this as you are too far gone, but here goes:

    But my larger point still stands. All progressives should support unions, especially incredibly wealthy progressives like Oprah Winfrey. She is not a WGA signatory and is not supporting the strike.

    And we should all be on the lookout for what promises members of the entertainment industrial complex are extracting from our politicians for their support. If you care about our new participatory democracy, it's important. Money has a way of making even the most passionate progressive get greedy.

    And btw, if I wanted to smear Oprah, there are some truly kooky whacked out allegations out there on this subject that I could have used. I linked to the article I did because I'd read a lot about her being non-union in the context of the WGA strike. There wasn't anything more to it than that.



    apology (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:45:28 PM EST
    digby: So, I was wrong and I will correct that in the earlier post.

    Thats not an apology.

    Judy Miller admitted she wrong after she got caught too.

    She attacked a fellow democrats campaign, the least she can do is make sure her facts are straight. Now that they are proved not to be she can at least actually apologize. I think you drank the digby juice.  She is wrong and her non apology is wrong.


    You Are Too Far Gone (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:11:49 PM EST
    Per the NYTimes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:56:02 PM EST
    Judy admitted in the story that she "got it totally wrong" about W.M.D.

    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:08:48 AM EST
    To say that Judith Miller equals digby is insane. Hopefully it is temporary and you will get over your fanaticism after the primary. If not there is always Jesus.

    BTW- you don't have to inform me about Miller. I have followed her career closely and have not missed a beat.


    I never said she was Judith Miller (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:48:32 AM EST
    In fact i don't think she is anything like Judith Miller, but thats what makes this so bad.  She has stooped down to that level.  It's beneath her and she owes her readers a better explanation and an actual apology.

    Digby is not infallible and she messed up bad here.  when she starts sounding like Judith Miller it is fair to point that out.


    Obama (none / 0) (#36)
    by jjr3 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    "He will either be painted as uber liberal based on past positions that he clearly staked out while in Illinois, or he will be painted as a flip flopper as he trys to temper those positions in a general elections run."

    Isn't that true of any Democratic candidate?