Gonna ask this again, since nobody's given me a good answer yet:

[Ken Burch]

What HARM does it do to President-elect Obama for progressives to speak out?

He doesn't mind, so why do you?

[emilyg]

1. I don't mind.

[Ken Burch]

2. Glad to hear that.

n/t.

[opihimoimoi]

3. There is no harm unless the message is intended to be?

[Two Americas]

11. an invitation to witch hunts

We can't divine what people's intentions are, and encouraging speculation about people's imagined motives and intentions is reactionary and suppressive. It creates a climate of fear and suspicion, and breaks down the discussion.

[bobbolink]

4. "IT's so unpatriotic" "If you're not with us, you're against us"

Seems like we've covered this ground before....

:(

[LaydeeBug]

31. Next thing yanno, it'll be "They hate us for our freedom" nt

[bobbolink]

38. ......

:applause: :rofl:

[ikojo]

5. AMEN!!!! I think some don't want the right to

know we have disagreements in the family. Screw that thought. Remaining silent and thinking progressives had a place at the table during Clinton's first administration is what got us DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell NAFTA, WTO, and Welfare "Reform".

Keep the pressure on. Obama needs to hear us and he expects to hear us.

[LWolf]

6. I don't.

;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4716530

[cali]

7. Who minds? If someone writes something that I think is bullshit

or a distortion of fact, I'll say so. That's not objecting to anyone speaking out.

[BlackmanX]

8. There is no harm because letting people vent is what prevents revolution in this country

It's not like the party really gives a care about what a few loud (disorganized) voices on the left think about gays and the cabinet when the markets are collapsing. There's governing to be done and in the grand scheme of things alot of this crap doesn't matter. On second thought a reason why people don't want Obama to be criticized is because he hasn't taken office yet and they're worried that it might cripple Obama's presidency before it starts or maybe they fear that he'll end up like LBJ. Personally I think the suppression of dissent during the bush regime is bubbling up and might explode right in Obama's face and more stress will be put on Obama simply because that's what happens when a reformer takes office after somebody who suppresses speech.

[pipi_k]

58. I think there is some harm

in letting people vent because then they've gotten rid of a lot of that energy we need for change to happen...even if it's got to be done by revolution.

I see the same thing in my family. This or that member of the family will call me up to vent about the same old stuff time after time. The energy gets discharged (on me) and then life goes on as before. Nothing ever changes. A few times I've actually said, "Look...tell so-and-so how you feel, not me. I can't change your life for you...only you can."

Reply...."Yeah, I know"

But then a few days or a week later it's the same old stuff again. Why? Because the motivation and energy needed to change is redirected.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.

As Thomas Jefferson said in 1787, "A little rebellion every now and then is a good thing for America"

[pleah]

9. A good reason for not sitting down and shutting up,

The early bush years. It is never wise NOT to question the government.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. We need to take back the control.

I for one, will never sit down and shut up!:evilgrin:

[Incitatus]

10. You should NOT question your President-elect during a time of war!

:sarcasm:

[Dragonfli]

12. There is no good answer to your question.

There will always be those that have a need to worship a hero or authority figure.
When their image of the "Hero" is called into question, it threatens their security as it is based on a need to be lead by one whom they feel must be infallible. It is only this false sense of infallibility that provides them with their feeling of security.

If you are experiencing extreme responses of agitation to questions you have posed, I would say you are asking the right questions as they must fear you will expose a flaw in their hero.

[RetroLounge]

13. Because you can't criticise Jesus to Fundies.

So you can't speak up against Obama to certain people here.

RL

[cali]

14. you know, if you aren't outraged in just the right way

as proscribed by certain people here, you're called a bigot or complicit or an enabler. This shit cuts both ways. And there are people here for whom Obama is very much the enemy. There are dogmatists on both sides here.

[RetroLounge]

26. I think that may be the case with some

But the majority are not asking you to be outraged also, just not to shit on their outrage and tell them to STFU.

and many people have been doing just that.

RL

[Two Americas]

15. absolutely no harm

The point of electing Democrats is in the hope that they will listen. They cannot listen if we don't speak. We cannot speak if we must self-censor what we say in the name of some misguided sense of hero worship or party loyalty. It makes no senses whatsoever, though it is promoted here daily, that now that Democrats have won people on the Left should be quiet or hold different opinions than they did when the Republicans were in power.

While no harm is done, some things are threatened by us speaking out.

It threatens the success of the campaign by the conservatives among us, who wish to covertly drive the party to the right.

It threatens the ideas of those who are frightened, and who want to find a safe place in being super-loyal in the hope that this will be sufficient. The reality of what is happening is frightening. We want to hope that the election of Democrats will save us from the dangers, will alleviate us of any responsibility, will free us from the need for making any sacrifices or taking any risks.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnester]

17. ugg...gone thank god

[treestar]

18. He'll listen

Where did he say he would not?

It's the Bushites that won't listen to people once they recognize they aren't getting total agreement. And it extends to some on the left, who obviously expect Obama to act like a right winger and refuse to listen to and exclude the conservatives.

[Diamonique]

19. I don't mind people speaking out.

I do mind people speaking out over and over and over again every single day for two weeks.. and still counting.

[wyldwolf]

20. is this another of your "if you don't agree with me you're trying to shut me down" posts?

[JuniperLea]

21. Speaking out does no harm to anyone

What is harmful is the attempt to force others to believe something they don't, and the ensuing arguing. There is nothing progressive about forcing something upon another.

[Hanse]

22. No harm to Obama at all.

I think it's just annoyance at a bunch of obnoxious jerks making fools of themselves.

[starroute]

23. Speaking out is fine -- turning on one another is not

Just to be clear about it -- Obama is a centrist by temperament who has certain more left-leaning aspects, especially when it comes to dealing with the poor and deprived. He also appears to be extremely good at actually listening to other people, seeking out a diversity of opinions, and responding with flexibility and pragmatism at times of crisis.

All of that suggests to me it will be the job of the netroots to keep up the pressure, make sure we are not ignored, and serve as a kind of think-tank for generating progressive ideas. But Obama's native centrism should not be allowed to turn us against one another. He is what he is, and overall we are likely to get a lot further by working with him than by working against him.

It dismays me greatly when I see one thread after another writing off the Obama administration before it even gets started.

In addition, the squabbling here lately reminds me of nothing so much as the 2-3 months after the 2004 election, when DU was convulsed over suspicions of election fraud and almost ground to a halt under the weight of incessant threads devoted to fruitless wild-goose chases and what appeared to a large number of trolls, infiltrators, and provocateurs doing their best to stir the pot and muddy the waters.

I thought that winning, for once, instead of losing would make things different this time, but apparently not. However, I also think there are people in the GOP who would love nothing more than to see the Democratic Party divided against itself -- and who may be just as good at using wedge issues from the left as from the right. If those people aren't here already, they surely will be once they catch the scent of blood in the water.

I think we've had our primal scream moment, and it helped to get a lot of things out in the open -- but next comes a whole lot of hard work. And anybody who would rather keep screaming instead of working is only going to be an impediment.

[AntiFascist]

41. I don't get the dichotomy...

placing someone like Warren in the spotlight is acknowledging the superiority of the Religious Right, and is fully deserving of the outrage. This can only work against progressive causes. True centrism would be reaching out to these people for debate and challenging them, not granting them positions of honor, even if it is only for 3 minutes.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

24. No harm done.

People around here tend to think Obama is this weak little butterfly who can't handle criticism. He's a big boy and can take the criticism.

I like the guy a lot and am stoked he is going to be our next president, but I won't hesitate to say that he made an awful, insensitive choice for the invocation. I also wish his cabinet was a tad more progressive, but I can deal with that.

[JohnnyLib2]

25. I don't mind and it's not his choice in the first place.

:patriot:

[Terran]

27. *yawn*

Did someone say it was causing harm?

[LaydeeBug]

28. I don't know why they want debate to "sink". I just think that stinks.

and I will stand by my gay brothers and sisters until the right thing is done by them.

[shayes51]

29. We do no harm to our country by speaking out.

We do great harm if we do not.

[stillcool]

30. I don't mind 'progressives' speaking out...

but I would prefer it if individuals could express their own opinions without the labels and the hyperbole.

[gollygee]

32. He might lose the election!

right?


One of the things that has always bugged me about Republicans is how they only speak good of other Republicans NO MATTER WHAT. A Republican could be caught live on TV skinning a baby seal and eating its flesh and then performing multiple abortions and the Republicans would spin it as positive. I really like that Democrats call bullshit on each other.

[Divine Discontent]

50. heard that plenty during the primary & esp. during the G.E.

I agree, it's nice to hear BULLSHIT be called. It needs to be, or we're not a Democracy.

[yowzayowzayowza]

33. On a personal level, none atall, but as a ruling ...

coalition things like message discipline matter. We certainly don't need to become right wingers goosestepping to talking points, but once a decision has been made supporting our leadership is important. Regardless our personal opinion, attacking Obama for the Warren decision is counterproductive as it fosters a media frame of the fractious left wing, rather than accepting Obamaz inclusion frame and attacking our intolerant adversaries thus making this a story of tolerant vs intolerant religious attitudes. Constantly tearing down our leadership has consequences. Are we going to rule as a herd of cats or a pride of lions? Both are independent creatures, but working together despite differences has itz advantages.

[cooolandrew]

34. Erm cos I'm enjoying seeing our side get a high approval rating for a change and we'll have a whole>

8 years of critique once the show is on the road I'm more up for basking in the glory for the little time it may last.

[DCBob]

35. Nothing wrong with speaking out but...

you should also be prepared to listen to those speaking out against what you are saying.

[DailyGrind51]

36. Speaking out is part of our civic responsibility, it is HOW that is often the question.

Bashing Obama's (or others') faith, or painting all Christians with the Warren brush for example.

[Undercurrent]

37. Speaking out is good.

It's solidly in the American spirit. It's not only our right, but our duty to speak out against injustice.

It's the yelling out of insults, and accusations that hurts. Especially yelling at people who support the same cause of full and equal civil rights for all of our citizens, but might have a different approach to getting from hear to there.

Anyway, that's my opinion based on my time in the trenches -- the 1960's civil rights movement, the anti Vietnam war, women's movement, and others.

[Blarch]

39. Ummmm.

speaking out and dividing the party is two different things.

[WillyT]

40. None... In Fact, It Is Required Of Us...

FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was – and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. Mindlessly cheerleading out of a misplaced sense of loyalty will not help him. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals.

In the current political world, I believe that Obama and the Democrats need a strong left wing that is out there agitating in order that we can continue to build popular support and also give them a political excuse to do things that the political establishment finds too liberal. Being cheerleaders all the time, however enjoyable that is, is not going to help them. Leaving them out there with no left wing cripples them.

One of the problems for Democrats has been that there has not been an effective progressive voice pushing the edge of the envelope. Therefore, when they inevitably "go to the middle" as politicians often feel they must do, the middle become further and further right. It is my belief that one of the roles of the progressive movement is to keep pulling the politicians back to the left, which often means that we are not being publicly "supportive," in order that we really do end up in the middle instead of farther to the right than the country actually is.

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-him-do-it-by-digby-i-was-reading.html

:shrug:

[Deep13]

42. Will you be more specific? Apropos of what? nt

[gravity]

43. The more you complain, the less people will listen

You can speak out all you want, but if it is the only thing you do, then no one will take you seriously.

Learn how to choose your battles and respect others even when they have different opinions.

[democrattotheend]

45. Exactly

Very well said. We ought to hold our fire for policy differences that have a direct effect on people's lives.

[Raineyb]

55. Wow! Imagine thinking that left of center points of view would be listened to and respected on a

Democratic message board. What nerve!

Clearly the OP is out of line.

:sarcasm:

I find it odd that it's generally the people who call themselves centrists who lecture on the need for respect while constantly giving their left of center brethren none whatsoever.

Regards

[democrattotheend]

44. None. But if we want to be effective we need to be smart about it

If we want him to listen to us we can't be getting bent out of shape over every little thing and hold our fire for genuine policy disagreements, not symbolic acts like who he picks for the prayer at the inauguration or who gets to chair a Senate committee. I thought the organizing on his website around FISA was great, and while it did not change his vote it at least got a response and it was clear that they got the message that some of his most committed volunteers and donors and activists were not happy and that he needed to respond. We should be prepared to do that kind of mobilizing again once he takes office, when he inevitably makes a compromise we are not happy about. But if we are going to be effective we can't get up in arms about every little thing - we need to pick our battles. Every interest group with a wishlist will be deciding what's worth pushing for and what to cut him slack on...netroots activists need to do the same. And personally, I don't think something symbolic, however offensive the symbol might be to some people, is the right thing to mobilize our "troops" over.

[Horselover Fat]

46. it depends on if you are making progress or not

do you think posting thread after thread on DU is making progress towards changing Obama's mind?

[Hellataz]

47. 1. It gives the GOP more ammo against him. 2. It prevents you from getting what you want.

I fully support questioning our government, but the way people go about it, with such anger and emotion, instead of civility and rationality does nothing but harm.

What harm does it do you ask?

So more so than doing Obama Harm in his future in politics, It harms those who are protesting him, because you will never get the change you want going about it with such hostility. Obama has shown himself to be a man who appreciates a rational difference in opinion, being more open to the ideas of those who present him with disagreements in a civil tone. I can only assume that he sees people coming at him with negativity and hate the same way he sees the conservative side that dislikes everything he does. I doubt THEIR concerns top his priority list, so why act like THEM? Voice your concerns in a constructive way and I bet you'll see the change you want.

[bluedawg12]

48. It does no harm to him, it gives him "cover" to change on issues

he is fully capable of reconsidering issues now that the campaign is over and the GOP already has their own arsenal of made up crap, what progressives say is hardly going to chnage thier fantasy world.

The frail ones are some of his supporters, I fear.

Here's an example of some real change that has already occured. Reading helps.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/on-transition-website-obama-promises.html

"By contrast, (from the election web site) the Change.gov website includes a section addressed explicitly to the gay community, and it covers not only ENDA and hate crimes, but also promises Obama's support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an expansion of adoption rights for gay couples, his backing of "full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples", and his opposition to a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

>>One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions."

[Radical Activist]

49. That's an example of the problem.

In the thread on that blog post several people pointed out multiple false claims. They stretched the truth to make it look like Obama was shifting around his positions. Pushing the flip-flopper or "moving right" memes play into Republican hands very well. If Obama actually does those things then it's fair but it doesn't help anyone to stretch the truth or exaggerate. That's what most people object to.

[bluedawg12]

51. Protests give him cover to change and go left on progressive issues

the more difficult ones, like gay marriage, DADT, or DOMA.

I am not talking about him moving right. There is evidence because of the protests he has placed some of these issues on his new Interim team web site. Moving left, not right.

In the example above I showed he was moving left. See below.


Here's an example of some real change that has already occured.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/on-transition-we...

"By contrast, (from the election web site) the Change.gov website includes a section addressed explicitly to the gay community, and it covers not only ENDA and hate crimes, but also promises Obama's support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an expansion of adoption rights for gay couples, his backing of "full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples", and his opposition to a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

>>One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions."

[Radical Activist]

52. You didn't respond to what I actually wrote.

I don't have a problem with protests. I have a problem with blogs like the one you linked that distort the truth. Obama always backed civil unions. Several posters pointed out in another thread that the same information for GLBT rights was in fact on Obama's campaign website and wasn't buried, despite what that blog falsely claims. No shifting took place.

But now you're making Obama look weak and unprincipled even though he's maintaining the same position he always had.

[bluedawg12]

53. What are you talking about? He's moved to the left.

1.) There were two web sites, one during the election and one after the election.

2,) They both had information about gay rights. The election site had gay rights buried in the depth of the web site.

3.) The transition team web site, the post election site, has the same information but more accessible and more front and center.

How does that make him weak?

How is moving gay rights to the front and center issues page now that the campaign is over, moving to the right?

>>UPDATE: Several readers write in to point out that BarackObama.com does contain some of the aforementioned text on gay rights, but it's buried about four clicks deep under the 'People' tab rather than under the 'Issues' tab. The point is, these are not exactly things that Obama was putting front and center.<<

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/on-transition-website-obama-promises.html

[Radical Activist]

57. No, he didn't. Your link is still wrong

no matter how many times you link it. See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8036393&mesg_id=8037548

They had to admit that they lied about it not being on the campaign website, as you linked in that update, but even their update was still wrong. It wasn't buried on the campaign site at all.

Why do people feel the need to make things up?

1) He didn't "reconsider" or "change" on this issue at all. He maintained the exact same position.

2) The link you posted was incorrect about it not being on the campaign website. It was.

3) Even when the blogger you linked admitted in the update that it was on the campaign website, they still claimed it was "buried four clicks" deep which is misleading. It isn't buried any deeper than any other issue.

This is what get's people frustrated at those who UNFAIRLY attack Obama at DU. Moving Obama left is fine. Honest criticism is fine. Stretching the truth in your best effort to make him look bad and create made-up controversies isn't productive and it pisses people off. There's a lot of that going on at DU and elsewhere.

[bluedawg12]

61. Link : the two Obama web sites, did you read those?

Please go to Obama campaign site, barackobama.com, under CIVIL RIGHTS and show me where there is anything about Support for the LGBT Community like there is in the now in the new post election , change.gov. site, under CIVIL RIGHTS. There isn’t.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/civil_rights/

http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/


In the campaign web site, under “People, ” please show me where there is anything about Support for the LGBT Community like there is in the new post election , change.gov. site, under CIVIL RIGHTS.

There isn’t is there?

[Radical Activist]

63. Two clicks. Not buried.

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

It even has a copy of his HRC questionnaire. It's MORE extensive than what I see on change.gov.

So again, why do people feel the need to exaggerate and mislead?

[bluedawg12]

64. Write the source of the blog, I am sure you know more than Nate Silver.

Good day.

[CTLawGuy]

54. It's fine to speak out

but I'm concerned about the lack of proportionality. Proportionality is important, if we don't have it, then we do things like invade entire countries becuase they might have plans to make a WMD program, or something.

So Obama picks Warren, bad choice. But people act as if he enacted Paragraph 175 or something. I gurantee you the public at large does not notice, much less care, who gives the inaugural invocation. The guy will pray for two minutes and then go back to Saddleback. It was a token gesture to the right--and it's a pick of a fundie preacher who actually cares about issues other than abortion and gays.

It's ok to say it was an insensitive choice, but to start calling Obama a sellout or a homophobe over it is insane. Barney Frank's response was good--basically say it was wrong and insensitive and leave it at that. Hold off on the impeachment proceedings.

[Shiver]

56. It does absolutely no harm to speak out

It's encouraged, actually.

My issue, however, has always been that we ONLY speak out when something happens that we don't like. If we only speak out about the bad things, and we don't, as someone above stated, choose our battle wisely, we run the risk of being seen as never being satisfied. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, yes, but if the wheel continues to squeak after numerous applications of grease, it starts to feel rather pointless to go and get the oilcan.

We need to stand up and make our voices heard when we are upset, but we should also speak out when they do something we like. Let them know when we approve as well as disapprove - it helps them understand what we want and what we don't.

This wouldn't have mattered with the Occupant, but Obama does seem to want us to speak up, and seems ready to listen. Let him know when you like what you see, and let him have it when you don't.

[biopowertoday]

59. Constructive criticism is good for the USA/Obama and democracy.

[mkultra]

60. the angered voice of the left

will eventually migrate to the low information middle which will be bombarded with input from the right as well. Since the data from the right will be negative, you are insuring that the middle forms a negative opinion.

May not be fair, but it is reality.

[Teaser]

62. I dunno, but I do know that posts on DU have

little to no real world consequence, harm or weal.

[Orsino]

65. Reminding blindly partisan supporters of the new president's responsibilities...

...might make them uncomfortable, if he fails to deliver. Official protocol says we're all still supposed to be cheering his Not Being Bush. Please update your calendar accordingly.