Interesting turn, in criticizing Obama..

[Peacetrain]

If someone criticizes Obama..which is their perfect right, and another poster defends him, which is their perfect right.. suddenly the person defending Obama is taking away the rights of the person criticizing Obama?

I think we need to reset the rules here. Everyone has a right to their point of view, those who criticize and those who are satisfied.

Now if you have people holding opposing viewpoints, will there be clashes?..well of course there will..opposing points of view and push back.

But give it a rest with the cult meme. If a poster can't take the heat of a push back, when someone disagrees with their "assessment", then the question becomes, what makes that point of view so "special" and "not open to criticism"?

[ClusterFreak]

1. Amen and kicked and recommended. n/t

[Bodhi BloodWave]

2. Can do nothing but agree with ya here Kicked and recommended n/t

[liberalmuse]

3. This is what I've been seeing...

and I could be biased, because although I've criticized President Obama, I'm mostly holding it back until I see how some of this stuff unfolds. The news reports, usually from one source and posted on every left wing sight ad nauseum just don't provide enough information for me to be comfortable taking them at face value. They aren't presenting even close to the whole picture and so I wait for more stories with different angles written by different authors to come out so I can piece things together, step back and process the bigger picture. Obama critics often say they are merely exorcising their right to free speech, however, if you call them into question, more often than not, you will often be criticized for worshipping the 'cult of personality' or 'drinking the koolaid'. People have the right to criticize President Obama freely on DU, but it would really help if both sides would stop resorting to name calling and labels, and instead provide healthy arguments as to why they are criticizing or defending Obama.

[Bucky]

4. STOP CENSORSHIPPING ME!

Sorry, had a Pavlovian moment.

[HughMoran]

5. Listen here you cheerleader cultist zombie, how dare you take away my right to criticize!!!!11!!1

To a person, any moran who says stupid (and embarrassingly ironic) crap like that is on ignore.

[solstice]

6. But that is NOT what usually happens. Usually what happens is

that Poster A criticizes Obama...and Poster B swoops in and attacks Poster A. Generally the attack is something along the lines of calling poster A a freeper, accusing Poster A of not having voted for Obama, calling Poster A a PUMA, claiming Poster A never liked Obama anyway, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and Poster B generally attracks a mob of high-fivers who join in the attack on Poster A, accusing Poster A of "poutrage," wanting a pony, etc. etc. etc. It's old. Very VERY old.

And your post is just another way of attacking those of us who dare to critiicize Obama - only now you're player the poor put-upon martyr.

[HughMoran]

8. lol

It's funny reading how people see though their particular set of blinders.

K&R!

[tranche]

10. I see a lot of smartass smirking from Poster A

As opposed to a reasoned critique of his policies. Things like the following seem to get Poster B riled up:

Obama = Bush
New boss same as the old boss
You can keep the change
Just words

Peopled worked hard for this guy and aren't miserable enough to completely flush this administration down the toilet just yet. This is probably why you get Poster B swooping down on Poster A.

Poster A usually comes off as a sniveling shit. When they don't Poster B most times stands down.

[Hutzpa]

11. Wow

you got it all figured out.

:eyes:

[tranche]

12. Thanks! Great thing is. I'm proven right with each post.

nt

[Skittles]

26. CORRECT

[CakeGrrl]

29. Not "usually" to your perspective, either. "Kool Aid, anyone?"

That tired old retort has been a pretty common issue from some Obama critics to someone who pushes back at the criticism.

It's funny that I was thinking of martyrdom just yesterday. Someone complaining about those he perceived to "deify" Obama was being patted on the back for his 'bravery' in making his post, as if anyone here besides a moderator holds the power to inhibit his criticism.

The "martyrs" I've seen wring their hands over this phantom censorship of their criticism when none exists. If they can't handle the heat of pushback, tough.

[SkyDaddy7]

41. Whatever~

There are by far more critical post about Obama on this site than positive...Or at least when it comes to the "Greatest Threads"

Seriously, just look now.

If anything criticizing Obama has become the thing to do. I am not say criticizing Obama or any elected offial is bad quite the opposite, but to act as if criticizing Obama on DU puts one in the minority or is the one who suffers the harshest of blow back is simply not true.

Again, just look at the "Greatest Threads"

[treestar]

7. K&R. We cultists appreciate it.

Back to defending our leader from criticism ;)

[wyldwolf]

9. Let's be blunt... don't sugar coat it

If someone criticizes Obama, they are First Amendment warriors! If someone disagrees, they are DLC loving corporatist warmongering bullies.

[vaberella]

16. Who are probably non-minority homophobes as well.

I was called the first (based on my avatar) and implied the second.

[Arkana]

56. This. A thousand times this.

Dear God in whatever sky palace above, a THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES THIS.

I just got skewered in the Helen Thomas thread in GD because I *gasp* disagreed with her.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Because most people stand by defending the President.

[ericgtr]

14. Disagreeing is one thing but comparing him to Bush is another

and those who do it are not better than all the freepers out there that they bitch about all the time. Rachel does it all the time and I can't stand to watch her most of the time because of it.

Does anyone really think that Obama is the same as Bush? I mean really?

[vaberella]

15. I have to agree. There are several posters doing the whole Obama=Bush on this site.

n/t

[Cha]

17. And, I have those threads hidden

because if I didn't I would eventually jump on and it would lead to posts getting deleted and a lot of anger(learned the hard way). There's no good coming from me defending President Obama from people who are intent on being miserable and trying to bring everyone else down with them.

I saw a woman in our co-op yesterday who had hosted Obama meetings at her house during the primaries and the general. She told me she's very happy with the prez when I mentioned how much attack he was under now from the repubs, the corporatemedia, and the impatient ones. There's a lot of people out there who don't turn on their friends or persons they've supported and gotten to know just because they're under a lot of fire.

[grahamhgreen]

34. Is he for or against prosecuting for war crimes?

[HopeOverFear]

18. People, people...the ignore feature is there for a reason.

USE IT.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

19. I think some here won't be content until they've convinced everyone that Obama is the Antichrist.

By their calculations, anybody that supports the president is a cheerleader. That lack of insight is a rather odd mindset to wade through here. It often makes me wonder if I'm in the wrong place or if they are.

[Clio the Leo]

20. I say criticize away....

.... as long as a. those criticisms are well-informed and b. the person criticizing isn't throwing in the proverbial towel on Obama. That happens FAR too much around here. Without question, he is the most empathetic leader we've had in our lifetime (save Jimmy) and there aren't a whole lot of other folks down the pike with that quality. He is our best hope to get a lot of the progressive things done that we elected him for. The cries of "he's lost me!" are just plain foolish. No other party can get a candidate within striking distance of the White House and the GOP CERTAINLY isn't going to help any of us out.

I see a lot of folks who I think are frustrated because they like the President and feel a bit disappointed in him ... but they WANT to like him again. That's cool.

But you're right. The "cult" BS is straight out of the GOP playbook and should have no place here.

And now that I've said that, I'll return to my shrine now. :)

[ooglymoogly]

21. Truth and reality have a lot to do with it....facts, not worship should be the word of the day.

I do not see this as a worship site. Politicians no matter who they are, are accountable for the things they do. If they do something outside of our basic principles and the constitution, as democrats, it is incumbent on us to call it out... nay shout it out and not make excuses for it.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yes, dissent is patriotic only when it's against Obama. Otherwise, it's nazi censorship....

You understand correctly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Peacetrain. you old apologist..you.

Cultist, Loyalist, Bot and all the other insults.:rofl:

:fistbump:
Recommended
:kick:

[Jennicut]

24. For the last time, its called a discussion board. I think I need to go back on vacation.

I just came back from NH in the nice peaceful White Mountains...right back to more arguing. Actually, I missed the arguing. :)

[MUAD_DIB]

25. The one thing that Du doesn't have a shortage of is drama queens that like to

have tantrums over Obama not having solved all the problems of the last administration.

[liquid diamond]

27. Don't forget about those demanding their issue be put at the

top of Obama's list.

[Political Heretic]

33. The whole idea of a sequential list is an invention. It is inaccurate and unhelpful.

Posters that continue to imply a sequential list, on which all issues appear in a certain order are mis-characterizing and over simplifying politics and the responsibilities of a president.

For example, the administration's choice to file a motion to dismiss and to cite Bush administration era arguments referencing DOMA as reason was not something they were compelled to do. The Justice Department, to fufill it constitutional responsibility, is under exactly zero obligation to file a motion to dismiss. They can allow it to go to a judge. Anger over that motion is not about Obama not having someone's "issue" at the "top" of a "list."

It is also the case that a president has multiple policy agendas going forth at once, not one by one by one. Some people feel that either a) that set of policies moving forward are the wrong ones altogether or b)the implementation of those policies is weak or ineffective. That also is not about having someones one issue moved to the top of a metaphorical "list" excluding all others.

Finally, the President also sets the tone for both policy moving forward and for his (or hopefully one day, her) future agenda. This is often referred to as the trajectory. Some people feel that this trajectory is headed in the wrong direction, away from change and toward reinforcing the status quo. That also does not have anything to do with someone taking a single issue and wanting a president to focus on that and nothing else.

In other words, this "meme" you are perpetuating is mostly false and a clear distortion of what people are actually saying. I suspect it is done to attempt to discredit critics without actually being able to discuss their concerns on their own merits.

[mkultra]

40. Your ascertion is wrong

It is perfectly logical to assume that there is a graduated list of items that will be approached. Probably not sequential, but rather ranked based on divisiveness.


Essentially, Obama governs from the center and attacks with a bi-partisan call. This weakens the position of many moderate republicans(and conservative democrats) making compromise on more centrist issues easy. If we where republicans, we would stand together on each bill that came up, but we are not and as such, support has to be built for each and every bill.

Eventually, the shine will wear off the bi-partisan bubble and it will not longer be possible to use this weapon as a tool. At that point, pure partisanship will take over and the time to bring forward the divisive issues will be at hand.

Essentially, Ranged weapons first, then melee.

[kenfrequed]

46. Meh

This is one of those standard "powder-dry" "chessmaster" arguments that don't play out when you think about the nature of politics or negotiation. It even ignores the very tactic espoused by the DLC of 'triangulation' whereby you hold court of a 'middle consensus' existing between two contrary positions. (A useless strategy that seems to acually personify xeno's paradox).

If you are telling the leftist activist and the people that have specific issues to wait, or to cool their agitation for their pet issue, or to tolerate increasingly rightward movements then you ultimately undermine even a centrist position. Pulling the left to the center does not strengthen the center, it forces you to move further to the right as the imagined center moves.

To properly negotiate all major sides must have a seat at the table. Not just those that pay, but those that garner votes. To my knowledge the progressive caucus in the house is a fairly large group.

[mkultra]

51. well, i guess we will just need to disgaree

As you have really presented no substance regarding my statements. This is not really a standard "hold your fire" argument. I merely stated that i felt the administration would have come into the game with a graduated list of activities to address. The "leftist activists" can do and say whatever they want as im sure they will do unabated. I do take issue with your argument that they are the largest caucus in the tent. Rather i would say that of Obama's constituents, the largest portion will be either the moderate democrats or the centrist independents.

I also believe it would be fool hardy for Obama to come immediately to the floor with a partisan charged issue first and then expect cooperation on other issues, even more centrist ones, after the fight has ended. I disagree that the administration can do all things at once while i do think they can do more than one thing at a time.

Iv have never deeply studied zeno's principles as it was my understanding that they discarded many years ago. Can you poitn to whihc principle you think this paradigm follows?

[kenfrequed]

52. The paradox analogy elucidated

Zeno's paradox suggested (among other things) that you could fire an arrow that would never reach its target because it would constantly half to move half the distance between its current position and the target.

This is appropriate because the conservatives will always claim Democrats are socialists or whatever. Therefore the 'moderates,' Blue Dogs, DLC, and corporate friendly dems will always take that step to be in the 'center.' But the accusations of the right wing will not change. Ever.

So media provides blind, tacit, unknowing (save Fox) assistance with this tactic as they will always put up a republican and a democrat. And most outlets would rather put up a moderate democrat to go up against Patty-Patty Buch-buch, or Gingrinch, or whatever right wing lunatic they can dredge up.

This means of course that the DLC establishment Dem's that get a lot of media face time will be perceived (FALSELY) as being the left wing.

As to substance I believe every issue I would suggest that he has run to the middle on you would either dismiss with the phoney 'chess' metaphor. But let me list a few anyhow.

Healthcare- as a senator he was for universal healthcare. Granted most of his presidential bid he was rather vague or generalized about the whole thing. But now the Democratic stance is anything but universal single payer and the republican stance is NO reform. What do you think the middle ground between these options is? Wouldn't it have been better to at least start at universal single payer and then Compromise on something???

Closing Gitmo- This apparantly won't even get accomplished properly, and what about the secret prisons? Well I suppose there is no reason to abide by the constitution or the Geneva convention when you can just whip out Gitmo as the symbol.

DADT/DOMA- There was no need to put out a letter supporting or upholding Bush on DOMA. None. As for DADT Truman Desegregated the military with very little public support. We are at over 60% for letting gays serve. What would have been the loss or cost in this decision?

[mkultra]

53. i see, well to address appropriately

ill ignore your assumption of my intent and simply answer based on my perspective and expectations of Obama. These expectations are a fabric of my measure of his ideals and his methods garnered during his presidential run.

Considering healthcare, I don't consider his position on this to be strategic so much as his timing(again, the topic of our discussion.) Simply put, while he did express tepid support for SP before he ran(something I found post election) he did campaign and healthcare with a public option. This is the approach he is taking now. Now, it can be noted that he has mentioned the only unacceptable outcome as "no reform." This, taken with the fact that SP folks weren't really invited to teh discussion early on seems to demonstrate that he has blocked off both extremes and narrowed the alley. The only way i can see calling this centrist is in relation to the polls which show that while a majority support SP over no plan, many more support a strong public option above all. Of course, public opinion only defines the spectrum on a longer time line, but i would say that this stance is more directed at the majority of Americans and less to the progressive left.

Again, considering my contention regarding timing, healthcare is not a divisively charged issue as most Americans want something soon so dealing with it directly after stimulus is apropos.

Assuming the closing of gitmo will never occur properly is completely assumptive. He has laid out his path on this more than once and it seems logical to me. There really are only two solutions: Let all that remain go free, or find a place to put them. The proper method of handling these folks that should have been followed by the Bush regime is to treat them like POWs and have the military tribunal review each case to determine status. My understanding is that this is what is going on now and people are coming out of Gitmo as they are cleared. Whoever is left will need to be tried with access to council and housed somewhere in the United states. Another issue that Obama has been actively trying to find a solution to. So essentially, unless your point of view is that they should all be set free, then its clear that the issue is being worked.

DADT/DOMA
Again, an issue being worked, just obviously not the way some want it to be. Im afraid im not aware of any letter sent out by the administration so i cant address that. I can say that i do feel the DOJ should autonomously be defending the government execution of the law. I know that Bush has used executive directive to temporarily change law but i think that's and abuse of power that should not be copied. Legislation is the answer and DOMA and DADT are highly charged issues that will result in a fight on the floor. Once that fight starts, it will probably drag until the end of his term. Right now, Dems in congress need to be whipped into supporting the issue before it comes to the floor.



Again, i see no flaws in the logic. I admit i am being assumptive in some places but i would also point to your own assumptions. Your image of Obama is just built off of a different set of assumptions.

[liquid diamond]

54. Your second paragraph reminds me of how civil rights leaders

challenged segregation in schools (Brown vs. Board of Education) and then moved on to more controversial social issues such as interracial marriage. I think society at that time was more tolerant of blacks and whites going to the same school together than blacks and whites marrying. I've tried to tell those throwing tantrums about Obama throwing gays under the bus that social change is slow and history fucking supports this, but they continue comparing him to Bush and demanding their pony now, now, now!

Well there are issues that affect us ALL that need to be taken care of immediately like the economy, health care reform, and national security (North Korea, Al Queda, etc.)

[mkultra]

55. yes, its the difference between those who make real change and those who soap box

At the end of the day, you either do something or you grab your box and go home. When you start doing, you start to see the natural path to accomplishment is graduated. Its funny because we call it progress and the right calls it the "slippery slope"

[Richd506]

28. Totally agree

[byronius]

30. Present.

[boppers]

31. Abstain.

Recommend further review.

[Political Heretic]

32. I agree, that both strong critics and strong supporters should be respected. However,

...the devil is in the details.

The trouble begins when emotions are high and people on either side start insulting posters or talking down to them. That just escalates everything.

There are some good examples of strong supporters who don't agree with me about the trajectory of the administration so far, who are very thoughtful. I enjoy talking with them. They also make sure that I have all my facts straight (and I hope I do the same for them).

But of course there are also a lot of people that try to calm their own fears and uncertainties by ridiculing and belittling those that present and challenging alternative point of view. And that is of course frustrating.

I think that everything should be open to criticism and discussion. But you also need to understand that there is a lot of uncritical trash being spewed here as well. Certain arguments - criticisms or defenses - have little merit and fairly transparent attempts to belittle a poster. Those tend to be met with harshness.

[TahitiNut]

35. Why is it "criticizing Obama" and not expressing disagreement with an action or policy?

Why does DU seem to seat a hanging jury and put someone on trial for some often-misunderstood policy or program? Is the distinction lost on so many? Does every disagreement or disappointment have to result in character attacks?

Sheesh. :eyes:

[vaberella]

36. Because most state Obama this or that...not the policy issue they have.

The issue is about and seems revolving around Obama...this is the major difference. So it's Obama lieing, it's Obama who equals Bush, it's Obama this or that....so it turns into criticizing Obama. Shoot, you'll find many on here who will say well Obama's actions or policies are a reflection on him so they have a right to criticize him.

[bos1]

37. I'm hard left but I defend Obama from a very realistic POV.

Reposted one last time today:

Back in the day, I was excited when Bill Clinton was elected, relieved to see the Reagan/Bush era end, to have GHW Bush lose after one term, after living through the Iran-Contra and S&L scandals, the US waging illegal wars and supporting death squads in the Americas... generally, the incredible rise in militarism during that time.

When Clinton sent missiles into Iraq in his very first year in office, ostensibly over an assassination plot against GHW Bush that sounded as laughably bogus as it turned out to be, I pretty much threw in the towel on supporting Clinton. I felt that he was just another pro-military puppet.

Later I came to understand that I had been naive. I learned more about what is possible in politics, and came to appreciate what the very imperfect Clinton achieved, such as an economic miracle in balancing the budget and reversing the first Bush deficits, some reductions in military spending, a general PR victory against the right wing lunacy that has so much power in the US. I saw that my "everything or nothing" view had been impulsive and immature. The installation into the White House by judicial fiat of GW Bush, and his vivid example of true warmongering and maliciousness, helped cement this view.

Nowadays I appreciate the radical voices that want change right away, that want justice immediately, that can't stand compromise in the face of the evils concocted by US military corporate control of the system, by throwing soft drug users into prisons, by the appalling lack of national healthcare, by an administration that legitimized torture and waged a war that was one big war crime going unpunished -- another long list I don't need to go into.

But I also understand that Obama has already done incredibly good things after only a couple months in office. I understand he is up against a right wing PR onslaught that is more extreme than anything seen in four decades, at least. I really see him as very promising so far (stopping Gitmo trials, opening relations with Cuba, taking strong stands against torture, reversing the US image abroad in one fell swoop -- that list is long, too), and is in some ways a positive force just by being in office at this time, I will support him even through the decisions I don't appreciate, for the time being. At this point he's batting about 700, I'd say, which is great.

Don't be so quick to reject Obama if he fails our idealistic expectations on one or two issues or instances. Appreciate what we have, while fighting for what's right. That's all.

[Alcibiades]

39. Obama has been much better than Clinton so far

If I have to settle for a centrist, moderate Democrat, I'll take Obama any day. The Clintons were hapless against the right-wing noise machine, but Obama and Axelrod seem to have it pretty well figured out, and are able to control the terms of the political debate much more effectively.

[scheming daemons]

49. Obama's first 5 months have been head and shoulders above Clinton's

It's really no contest.

[countingbluecars]

38. K&R n/t

[The Wizard]

42. This is the flawed logic used by

the recently deposed Miss California who felt the free speech rights her grandfather defended while in uniform were abridged by anyone criticizing her. It was also the argument made by the vapid lunatic Palin and her supporters.

"suddenly the person defending Obama is taking away the rights of the person criticizing Obama?"

[4lbs]

59. You are pretty much on the mark here. (n/t)

.

[ekwhite]

43. I don't have a problem with substantive debate

What I have a problem with is those who immediately launch ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with them.

[happygoluckytoyou]

44. CRITICIZE? that is the best part of being a DEMOCRAT... (we can disagree and discuss!!!)

[happygoluckytoyou]

45. DID I MENTION...... we don't like the work LOCKSTEP.... we argue and look for the BEST solutions...

[get the red out]

47. Many ignore Obama hate threads

Why bother? It just leads to name calling and accusations of censorship to support the President, nothing to be gained by even dealing with it. Look at the Obama hate threads and see the same people posting over and over. Makes me wonder if they are numerous or just hysterical.

[SunsetDreams]

48. agree

"Look at the Obama hate threads and see the same people posting over and over

You got that right, it's getting to where I don't even open threads by a few people. I already know what I will find. They are so predictable, so why bother. Their opinion has become irrelevant to me, based on their own consistent actions.

[dionysus]

50. you dissent stifling hope dust sniffer you!

:hi:

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked, but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, Peacetrain.:thumbsup:

[4lbs]

58. I have no problem with criticisms or defenses of the President, as long as they are based on sound,

logical, factual evidence.

Too often though, that isn't the case, and people are ranting based on a headline, without reading about the ENTIRE thing. Nor will they admonish other parts of the federal government (i.e. Congress or the Supreme Court), or state governments, for their role in such.

For example, on healthcare reform, somehow President Obama has turned his back on a public option, according to some critics.

Although the fact he has publicly reiterated his strong support for such several times this month wasn't mentioned and belies that claim.

Nor do the critics mention that it is those in Congress, namely the "soft" Senate ConservaDems, that are holding up the public option, and trying to acquiesce to a lesser co-op plan.

It is these soft, spineless Democrats in the Senate that are claiming that there aren't enough votes, even though the President made it easy to require only 51 votes, without the possibility of a filibuster.

So, what those soft Democrats are saying is that they feel that with 57 (current) "Democratic" Senators, Sanders, and Lieberman, they can't muster 51 out of 59 votes?

Where is the criticism of that from the same critics of the President?