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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Criticism | 193 comments (193 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 / 6) (#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 / 7) (#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 / 5) (#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 ]

    Obama promised to filibuster FISA, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Palomino on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:13:13 AM EST
    but when it counted--when the time came to vote--he stood with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the GOP. He could have skipped that vote, after all, just as he has skipped so many others. It's not clear to me why Obama's FISA vote should be characterized as a "mistake" and a capitulation rather than as an authentic expression of where he truly stands, by contrast with where he said he stood.

    [ 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 ]

    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 ]
    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.<