When did DU become an anti-Obama site?

[Boomerang Diddle]

I don't really come here that much so I must have missed something, but the absolute hatred for President Obama I have been seeing here past few days is striking.

Now I know there is a good portion of people here who have hated President Obama long before he was even ever nominated for president, so is it just that they have gone on yet another hate Obama frenzy or has the whole site gone mad?

And why do these people who hate Obama so much even post here? Is it a power trip? Do they think they can take over this forum and make theirs or is it pure delusion - do they think the more and more they post how much they hate Obama that the rest of us are suddenly going to start agreeing with them and join in with them in their Obama hate-fest?

Now, I know I'm going to be called a bunch of names and be told how Obama is this and that - heard it all before - but I do find it odd so many people are ready to abandon the man when he is still barely into his first term.

[sharp_stick]

1. Oh yeah, that thing he did

you know the one issue that really is more important to me than any other issue!!! Oh shit man, I'm off the Obamanation bandwagon now I tell ya. He's just like Bush but worse because he's not fixing that one issue fast enough.

This place was a lot more fun before we won, now the whining and pathetic bitching is threating to take it down the road to irrelevance.

[Buzz Clik]

3. +1

Well stated.

(By the way -- prepare yourself for a lot of "my outrage is justified!" posts)

[Peacetrain]

6. .... ah yep

[scheming daemons]

8. Bingo...

[polmaven]

63. I agree with you...

There are one or two things the president has done with which I disagree, but there are many, many more with which I could not be more pleased.

The "if he doesn't do EVERYTHING I want him to do, the way I want him to do it, and RIGHT NOW I'm done with him forever" folks are just a tad annoying.

[Lorax7844]

72. I think it was when he started shitting on things that were

the reason a lot of us worked for him and gave him our money.

Being fucking weak on the public option is not gaining him ANY CAPITAL.

Don't give me that pony shit, I didn't vote for capitulation.

[sharp_stick]

74. Ah shucks

sucks to be you. I guess I was one of the few that had a clue what I was working for and what the Democratic party actually does in a reality based environment, no surprises here.

[YOY]

2. Hatred? You mean people being upset over Single Payer?

Hatred is an illogical emotion based on prejudgements.

People being pissed off because he seems to be capitulating to corporate greed doesn't. He's still far better than anything the pugs could have pushed on us.

We're the left and the center. There are some far-left loons but when you see emotion here there is usually justification.

[Boomerang Diddle]

22. Why would people be upset over single payer?

Obama never promised single payer, so getting upset over that is what is illogical.

[Cha]

40. Yeah, I've discovered they make up

shit just like anyone else who feels justified because they're not getting their way.

President Obama never said he was for single payer but here you go again.

My son would like single payer too but does he go around blaming Obama? No.

And, he's not capitulating to anything..he's trying to bring back the country from the abyss but some are so self centered all they can do it take it out on an internet board with vitriol towards our new Dem Prez.

[YOY]

55. He has a chance to fix things and make them right.

It will get him re-elected with certainty if he does. Single payer would make hings right. There is no excuses anymore for not having it.

EOM.

[GCP]

81. June 29th 2008 - AFL-CIO speech by Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Isn't the internet great :sarcasm:

[PolNewf]

101. I hope the sarcasm was about the date n/t

[GCP]

104. The sarcasm was in response to Post 40

"President Obama never said he was for single payer but here you go again."

Did you view the video?

[Fire1]

90. Emotion against him, justified? Not really. n/t

[YOY]

124. If you cannot discern honest criticism for batshit stalwart opposition then the fault is yours.

Some is real. Some is not. None of it is anyway near the craziness and insanity the Pugs are dishing up these days.

[Fire1]

128. funny you should mention that b/c most of what I've seen

on this board, as of late, can only be described as 'bat shit opposition.' To the point that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between this and a freeper board. I know it's not just me b/c too many others have concurred. The rhetoric is the same. Opposition should be driven by FACTS not CONJECTURE, which is all that's been on this board for the last four days.


edit for terminology.

[YOY]

129. I hardly think I am "Batshit" for disliking Obama's rejection of Single Payer (at least verbally)

He has done things I like and that I dislike. He is working at a fast pace and there is still much to do. When I agree, I applaud. When I disagree, I criticize. When I think he is being strategic I keep quiet.


Goosestepping is for Republicans.

[Fire1]

130. See post above. n/t

[YOY]

131. I still can't tell if you are trying to peg me for batshit or saying that there simply is batshitery

Honestly, I've got my facts. I am not a hater. I just want the man to work on the solution and not compound it.

[Fire1]

132. The bat shit crazys know who they are and I'm glad that

doesn't apply to you.

[Enrique]

4. we still have picture threads

no hate here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591103

[T Wolf]

5. "When did DU become an anti-Obama site?" Not a anti-O site, just more fed up with his

selling out to the reichwingers on this important issue.

His lack of courage is what appalls us who complain. If he was a strong, active voice for real progress, he would have more fans here because the "he-can't-do-anything-wrong" crowd will never abandon him and the real Democrats would be more enthusiastic.

[GarbagemanLB]

10. +1

[Hepburn]

13. +1....

...my issues are and were:

1. End the war; and

2. Reform health care.

So far...the record of the new Admin is not very good.

[Boomerang Diddle]

25. And it has to be done NOW! Right this very minute!!!

I mean, it's not like these are complicated issues and take time to resolve, is it? Obama should just snap his fingers and make all that is wrong in the world okay!

Now! Now! Now!

[Moochy]

33. Rude poster posts picture of Veruca Salt on the internet without a hint of irony

The Internets thank you for your active support.

[Cha]

43. I think it's the perfect graphic

of what's going on with some people.

[CTLawGuy]

120. Veruca Salt Democrats

would be an apt name for these people.

[JTFrog]

125. VD's. How fitting. n/t

[Cha]

42. Yeah, yeah..snap snap..

not fast enough.

[YOY]

56. Yeah it's not like people are dying or going broke or anything!

n/t

[Cha]

57. Pres Obama didn't get us into this

crisis.

[YOY]

59. No shit! Nixon did. Obama can get us out of it.

I love the guy to pieces. The question is if he has the guts to do what should have been done years ago. He can fix it and he can fix it quick and right. He has the power and this is exactly the sort of thing that he is supposed to do.

[Cha]

64. Yeah, well, some around here are acting

like they don't know how long it took to get us into this bust.. and that's what he's trying to do is get us out. Why do you think he ran?

[YOY]

65. To keep the status quo in the issue at hand from all I'm seeing.

n/t

[Boomerang Diddle]

17. How original.......

:sarcasm:

[mkultra]

27. the "he-cant-do-anything-wrong" crowd are the democrats

the support him because they support the democratic party in its fight against the republicans. We keep our eye on the ball while morons like you run around and complain about nonsensical shit like bi-partisanship and congressional debate and just general shit the goes along with politics and every presidency.

democrats are members of a party who have chosen to bind together to fight a larger foe. Don't act like your one of us.

[GarbagemanLB]

31. Wow, you really do worship the altar of the two-party system don't you?

As long as its a Democrat doing it, it's okay! Keep fighting those nasty Republicans because, well, they're Republican! Let's ignore petty things like principles or ethics and just blindly back anyone with a D next to their name.

People like you are the problem. It always comes down to the 'us vs. them', two-party mentality. The reaction to criticism of Democrats is always, "so you want the Republicans in charge?", as if that is the only alternative. Keep playing the game. One day you'll get your pony.

[mkultra]

75. i guess you havent heard, but it's a two party system

and the republicans are the problem. That's correct, i fight the republicans. When given any choice, i will ALWAYS choose the lesser of two evils. In politics, if your lesser evil wins enough times, the center pin moves in your direction and the choices get better. This is how we influence the political system.

The reaction to your criticism of democrats will always be as you state because that is reality. Its not right, it just is. Idealists who seek the perfect candidate are the ones that will always be sans their pony.

[Political Heretic]

60. Wow... that just might be... yep, I think that's the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

Never before have I actually heard someone honestly say that the best people are those who silently march in lock-step no matter what their leaders (in this case it would be "masters") do...

That's fucking brilliant, that is.

By the way, the fight isn't between Democrats fighting Republicans - the fight is between instruments of the will of the ruling class and working class Americans. The sometimes have D's after their names.

Those are your choices - solidarity with working America, or "solidarity" with the privileged elite. (Ds) and (Rs) are a distraction.

[mkultra]

76. if you cant see that the lesser of two evils is always the best choice

in a two party system, then you are disconnected from reality. The republicans are the best representation of the will of the ruling class. I will fight them, tooth and nail and i will not sacrifice a loss to them because of some unrealistic disconnection from reality. If the partys switch roles again, i will too. Until then, its a two party system, just like it always has been.

The Ds and the Rs own the system and that's where progress is made. You can paint your flight of fancy regarding the rise of the working class all day long but you and I both know that it is not happening in this century. Without violent revolution, all that you have is the democratic system.

The time for ripping and shredding our own is in the primary. That time is over. Its time to focus on the republicans now. This time around, we just about wiped them out. Your welcome.

[Political Heretic]

82. Republicans are not the problem. 21% of America identifies as "Republican."

Democrats control both houses of congress by huge majorities and the White House. That's a nearly unprecidented lock on power.

Sooner or later you're going to realize that the "lesser of two evils" frame is insufficient. You're right that there are some minor net goods that can come from having a democrat in the white house as opposed to a republican - that's why I voted for Obama. And you're right that there are some minor net goods that can come from democrats in control of congress - that's why I vote for them.

But the far more critical truth is the truth that spans beyond party lines: our system is controlled by the interests of a tiny ruling elite of privileged moneyed interests, and that control reaches deep across party lines into both parties.

You have two choices while you and I both continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" (because I already do.)

The first choice is to not ignore this truth. You can see voting for a "lesser of two evils" as a strategic choice leading to other, larger ends but not the end itself. Never underestimate the power of just telling the truth as at least a starting point. Right now we can't even get everyone to find the courage to just admit that our system is broken, and that most republicans and democrats play a major role in its dysfunction. That alone is a major hurdle. And remember, you can tell the truth while still making a strategic decision to vote for Democrats for the marginal goods they might produce, just like I did.

The second choice is to dismiss any and all sense of responsibility to be about that work, and rest comfortably in your engagement in a rigged system that doesn't work. Marginal gains that come from the "lesser of two evils" serve only to continue applying band-aids to people who are bleeding out, and problems that are enormous in scope. The "slightly better" we sometimes (not even all the time) get from corporate sponsored democrats over corporate sponsored republicans are totally unsustainable because they are so limited in scope.

The second option is pure escapism. It says, "I really don't want to be bothered to worry about the real and severe problems facing our society, so I will construct a rationalization frame in which I can feel better about inaction and lack of intellectual honesty."

What can we do about a corporate dominated political system which permeates both parties? I'm not afraid to say I don't know or even to say possibly not much. But the one thing we can do, is at least be honest about it.

[mkultra]

84. interesting

I agree with most everything in your description but not in your choice in course. I am fully aware that all political structures are controlled by an elite. I think the difference here may lie in another place. I see this control as a natural facet of its occupation by humans. In effect, people are all weak with a few exceptions. Those few exceptions are rarely able to win and when they do, they are almost always killed or shoved out of power by a strategist with more willingness to make deeper cuts in his opponent. Im under no illusions that there is a right and wrong here. There is only wrong and more wrong.

I have goals that I think are moral and ethical and I work for THOSE goals in EFFECTIVE ways. blathering endlessly, or as you like to say, telling the truth, is overrated by you. This is in fact, your disconnect from truth. I know, i know, its a fairy tale story of how the truth takes hold and a common people rise up and throw off the shackles of ....whatever.

Here is a different version. During WWII, we fought a crazed, land hungry murderer. On our team, we had our own crazed ruthless killers and relentless generals who pitched kids into the black pit for a bit of pride and dropped fire bombs on cities full of women and children. This "truth" is documented and well known now but was rarely spoken of in the heat of battle. The question to ask here is why. Why, did not more people discuss these horrors when the war was in effect.

Sometimes, people need to put aside the mistakes that people on their own team make in order to achieve a greater goal. A call you may have heard put as "putting aside petty grievances." In summary, the whining bitching crying masses do no real good but they do plenty of harm.

[Political Heretic]

86. You're making some understandable but incorrect assumptions about what I think

Nice post - we seem to be either getting somewhere or at least having a pleasant exchange.

Be careful not to automatically make assumptions about where I'm coming from and put me into a box in which I don't belong. For example, you wrote:

I know, i know, its a fairy tale story of how the truth takes hold and a common people rise up and throw off the shackles of ....whatever.

I would never say something like that. If you think I would, or think that's what I was saying, we haven't reached clarity yet. However, I do certainly know people who do say things like that, so I know where you could hear that - but you connected it to me without first being sure that is something I would even say.

In my previous post, I was careful to talk about being honest about what the truth is a start. I hope I didn't slip up an actually say "tell the truth" implying that action takes the form of just "speaking out" or something. All I'm saying is that the basis for anything we're going to do has got to be an honest acknowledgment of the actual situation. We're already past that step though, because you said that you agree with almost everything in my description. Okay, so we are at least truthfully acknowledging conditions "on the ground" if you will. It's ok to disagree about stuff after that, because that's where the opinion starts rolling in....

Here is a different version. During WWII, we fought a crazed, land hungry murderer. On our team, we had our own crazed ruthless killers and relentless generals who pitched kids into the black pit for a bit of pride and dropped fire bombs on cities full of women and children. This "truth" is documented and well known now but was rarely spoken of in the heat of battle. The question to ask here is why. Why, did not more people discuss these horrors when the war was in effect.

I don't know why, but if they had, things might have turned out a little better. And to support that, and also as counter-example, I offer that we consider Vietnam. There is an example where more people did discuss the horrors while the war was in effect, and that acknowledgment of the truth then translated into actual action - action that I think most people agree, played a critical role in ending the war.

Sometimes, people need to put aside the mistakes that people on their own team make in order to achieve a greater goal. A call you may have heard put as "putting aside petty grievances." In summary, the whining bitching crying masses do no real good but they do plenty of harm.

But in order to do this, there first has to be agreement on what "greater goals" actually are. For example, almost no one is going to accept classifying concern about two wars of aggression, trillions in largely unregulated wall street bailouts, and concern over health care as "petty." Also, I don't believe that any health care legislation at any cost - no matter how weak an ineffective, not matter how many people are left out or put in situations where their situation is not improved - is the "greater goal."

The greater goal, in my opinion, is for people to stop constantly putting more quarters into the same rigged game that can't be won. Or if they are going to do that, at least do it with some sort of a game plan. You want to put some quarters into a rigged game for a while so you can understand the game better, better figure out how its rigged, and see what can be done to overcome it - great. I say go for it. But just putting quarters into a rigged game for no other reason than because its the "only game" is nuts.

The greater goal, I believe, would be for the American working class (very broadly speaking... I essentially envision the overwhelming majority of America - middle-class through desperately poor) to clearly see and agree on the complete corruption of the current system and clearly see that it is a system that seeks to excludes wherever possible, rather than include, them from meaningful participation and input. And from that place of conscious awareness, at least make informed decisions. Maybe those would be strategic decisions to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or maybe it would be to attempt to organize and resist. But either way decisions made from clarity of understand are usually far better than decisions made from misunderstanding or ignorance.

No the truth doesn't set you free... but its a start.

In summary, the whining bitching crying masses do no real good but they do plenty of harm.

I'm going to have to stand with Thomas Jefferson on this one, and his attitude towards the people, rather than one that sees them as "whining bitching crying masses." That's an attitude exemplified by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and those indebted to his philosophy, that believed the masses were basically too stupid to take care of themselves and required the rule by a small and privileged aristocracy....

Thomas Jefferson saw it differently. He wrote the following in a letter in 1816:

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom ... We must not make are election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude ... , as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, ... and the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling mismangers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on our necks of our fellow sufferers. "

So I guess I would respond to you by saying that I too, am not among those who fear the people.

[mkultra]

123. ok.

Your ideals pretty much match mine except for in a couple if important places. The smaller ones are that i think there or more than just minor net gains to be won with democrats than republicans. Again, i know the score, but i think the republicans are far more open about their willingness to sell their representation to the highest bidder. The democrats on the other hand still manage to draw a few altruistic people(if there is such a thing) that work towards a common good and are less likely to engage in the more serious corruption that will get them exposed. Essentially, because of their image, they must give us something.

WWII worked because we all pulled together to make it work. The level of dissent was low and people had no problem grinding away at the job to complete the task, whatever the task was that week. Vietnam failed because it was an immoral war(by degrees), our approach was a failure, and public dissent was heavy.

But in order to do this, there first has to be agreement on what "greater goals" actually are. For example, almost no one is going to accept classifying concern about two wars of aggression, trillions in largely unregulated wall street bailouts, and concern over health care as "petty." Also, I don't believe that any health care legislation at any cost - no matter how weak an ineffective, not matter how many people are left out or put in situations where their situation is not improved - is the "greater goal."

The greater goal, in my opinion, is for people to stop constantly putting more quarters into the same rigged game that can't be won. Or if they are going to do that, at least do it with some sort of a game plan. You want to put some quarters into a rigged game for a while so you can understand the game better, better figure out how its rigged, and see what can be done to overcome it - great. I say go for it. But just putting quarters into a rigged game for no other reason than because its the "only game" is nuts.

The greater goal, I believe, would be for the American working class (very broadly speaking... I essentially envision the overwhelming majority of America - middle-class through desperately poor) to clearly see and agree on the complete corruption of the current system and clearly see that it is a system that seeks to excludes wherever possible, rather than include, them from meaningful participation and input. And from that place of conscious awareness, at least make informed decisions. Maybe those would be strategic decisions to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or maybe it would be to attempt to organize and resist. But either way decisions made from clarity of understand are usually far better than decisions made from misunderstanding or ignorance.

No the truth doesn't set you free... but its a start.

Here is where you and I part ways. This idea that a whole class of people can not only clearly see the truth but also agree on the goals to solve the problem is where your toes don't touch the ground. They wont and never will. In the history of the planet, the only way that serious change has occurred has been either through violent or religious revolution. In both of these cases, The governmental system must become so ridiculously corrupt, that revolutionaries where able to rally the people to make change. If the people where lucky, and the leader was moral, then a system that is fair was created.

That is what happened here in America. They created a system that is not fair, but is the least susceptible to corruption because of its transient nature. but i digress.


To return to the point at hand regarding dissent and criticism, i offer the following thoughts. If we think back about how Bush managed congress when he had a majority, i think you will find that he got nearly all the legislation he asked for and the republicans lock stepped to his tune. He used the bully pulpit effectively for one reason only, his mandate. No, he didn't have a mandate of the people at large, but he did have a mandate amongst conservatives. He was vastly supported by his constituents and they backed him him at every turn. This made it clear to the congressman that he had the ear of his people and that their congressional future relied on him. We have done the opposite. We have criticized and walked away from Obama until the individual congressman have broken from his pulpit and have now fallen into their respective groves, just like us.

You can show dissent all you want, but its well know that we self destruct and this is how we do it. In the end, your type of thinking will actually lead to a crippling effect which will in turn lead to a loss in 12 or in 18. I know that there are some Hillary supporters here that actively work toward that goal, but I doubt you are one. You should see that the end game of your logic is actually just you kicking your own ass.

[Sebastian Doyle]

66. Problem is that some "Democrats" don't fight Republicans.

Max Bluecross. Kent Co-op. The entire membership of the DLC. When have they lifted a finger to fight against Republicans?

[mkultra]

78. they are dead weight in this boat

the DLC took a pretty hard hit this time around and they are fighting back. they are the people that will attack dems before republicans.

[dionysus]

34. see...when you frame it as obama supporters vs "real democrats", you realize that you...

eh nevermind, it's not worth the time...

[Cha]

46. As in..he's saying we're not "real Democrats( Americans)" because

we're not like him?

What a loser argument.

[graywarrior]

36. I know where you can register as a republican.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Give those who fall for the neocon message

that the problem is the "far left" a few years and after the ribbons have faded and they will be there signing up. Their support isn't ideological or centered, but a contest, a game. They..... ah cripes, why bother?

[Cha]

41. You have no idea what the President goes

through to get what's best for this country and saying "lack of courage" is always a dead give away when trying to smear Obama.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. +1

[scheming daemons]

7. January 20th, 2009... at 12:01pm

That's when the "he isn't doing enough for my pet issue!" folks started up.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Ha!

Nailed it.

[Clio the Leo]

19. No, it was February 2007 ........

.... and there will always be people who are too easily upset with the President.

However, they're outnumbered, both here and across the country.

Loud does not equate to populous. ;)

[Cha]

47. I beg to differ.. I saw it

starting before the Inauguration with a long whiney thread on how much the Inauguration was going to cost!!11111..and it's been one speculative whiney thing after another since then.

[Hutzpa]

95. Nahhh

started from the dog issue, when are the Obama's going to get their pet crowd.

[Kdillard]

106. + 1

[rurallib]

11. If we don't criticize and hold elected official's feet to the fire

we are not being good citizens.
Should we be robots like republicans.
I will be doing some OFA work Thursday, so I am not anti-Obama. But he needs to know how we feel about his policies.

[mkultra]

28. this is why we get two and lose. this thought process is retarded

the answer to your second question is "to some degree." If you want to get your policies through, you pick the candidate the most closely represents them and vote for that person. If your candidate does not win the primary, slamming him only insures that your ideal candidate has less of a chance. Bitching about Obama on this board does not let him know how you feel.

[Jennicut]

12. Well, we never had a Dem BE president when DU existed

It started in 2000 so all we ever did was rail against Bush.
With a President actually in the party most of us here support its different. There will be disappointments and ups and downs, as there are with all Presidents. We react on a daily basis, not over time. This site is also naturally more to the left then the President is and even many members of Congress are. I like Obama, I like him as a person. Sometimes its our duty to be critical and pull him more to the left. He is nothing like Bush imo. Not selfish, babyish, and non caring. So I will never react toward him as extremely negative. Some things said here seem like hysterics. But there is nothing wrong with legitimate criticism. However, saying you will never vote for him again, he is just like Bush, etc. is pretty ridiculous. In other words, criticizing the guy for real reasons I find nothing wrong with, acting hysterically and comparing him to Bush is pretty crazy.

[Arkana]

24. As much as we hate to admit it, Dubya and his Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time Players

were our uniting force--we all hated him, so there was that common thread.

But without them this is where we are.

[Jennicut]

26. Of course it was, its easier to be united against something

as evil as Bush. Dems come in many different shapes and sizes and are all different on the left side of the spectrum. :)

[GarbagemanLB]

14. Let's all be mindless sheep like the right-wingers! Obama is infallible!

No, we will hold his (and congress's) feet to the fire and criticize when necessary.

[Boomerang Diddle]

20. Never heard that before...........

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. The minute Obama beat Hillary in Iowa.

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

16. and some of us have no use for either one. both are corporate

tools and war enablers.

[Boomerang Diddle]

21. They are EVIL!! Evil I tell ya!

:sarcasm:

[mkultra]

29. then why are you here?

[Cha]

48. Yeah, so what are doing here?

Trying to undermine our Prez and SOS?

[dionysus]

52. just to strut around and be nasty to people on the internet.

[DevonRex]

30. Yep. That's exactly when it happened.

:yourock:

[Ferret Annica]

18. Don't be so thin skinned

I temporarily became a Democrat again to vote for him in the primaries here in Oregon and I really like the man. But I disagree with him on several things and have an obligation as an American to say so when this is the case.

To his credit, he shows excellent character when faced with public opinion challenges. The Bush and Cheneys of the world could learn a lesson in American Democratic principles from his example with their little things like loyalty oaths before allowing folks into closed, controlled public events when they were in power.

His support of logging without laws in the Tsongas National Forest in Alaska did tick me off in particular and served to demonstrate how myopic he and Demos like him can be. Which is why I will also honor the democratic process by returning to my usual vote for third parties practice in 2012. (I am a Pacific Green.)

Democrats and Republicans are too much alike for me to have had any delusions Obama was not going to disappoint me in some areas, so I feel no rancor or spite toward Obama and his people. But people who have a crawl across broken glass and hot coals to support him strikes me as creepy, and Bushbotty in tone.

That I can definitely say I find disturbing and a turn off.

[Mystayya]

23. Not sure what site you are looking at

But I see a pro- Obama site where Progressive Democrats are upset about the Healthcare Bill getting so water-down that it becomes more destructive then helpful to the general population. You may think everything he does is wonderful and that no one should ever get upset with the President or Congress, but frankly it's unrealistic to expect everyone to think as you do.

[Cha]

50. Yeah, that's not what he's talking about .

The OP is about the vitriol and hate..so I'm not sure if you knew that and trying to change the subject but you're not addressing what the OP is about..that's for sure.

[Mystayya]

68. I guess I am just not seeing what you are seeing.

I spoke directly to the OP and did not change the subject. Not sure why you are coming at me in this manner.

[DU GrovelBot]

## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Moochy]

32. When you set your signature picture.

your perception shifted and now you see criticism of him as hatred of him.

[Cha]

51. Yeah, fuck that stupid

analysis.

[Prism]

35. Being rabidly pro-environment . . .

. . . I cannot support the vast deforestation required to build all the crosses necessary to create and maintain these kinds of threads.

People see what they want to see.

Some see an anti-Obama site that seethes hatred for all things President and Democratic.

I see a generally pro-Democratic site comprised of left-liberal disappointeds, presidential loyalty enforcers, and thinly-veiled propagandists. (And if your cause is LGBT rights, you cannot get away from that latter aspect ever).

It's the nature of every party in power. For all the words spent discussing how lockstep and authoritarian Republicans are, Bush's years were actually marked by a very similar mixture. You had "Support Bush or you are unpatriotic!" types, but you also had a large body of ideologically purer conservatives who hated Republican spending, or Bush's perceived softness on immigration, or NCLB, or the Medicare drug benefit.

People with no power (us) are going to have a large element of discontent with those in power (Democrat or Republican). Why lament what is and has always been a hallmark and great selling point of our democracy?

[DevonRex]

37. Since the Greens never shut up. nt

[Laelth]

38. When he started signaling willingness to knife his progressive base in the back. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Cha]

39. Well, I just Rec'd~ your thread and it's in the zeros..

There's more than a few who pop up whenever they smell blood from corporatemediawhore lies who were nasty to Obama during the primaries and nothing's changed with them so there's that..and we have our troll faction who come in under the guise of whatever trolls think they can get by with until they're served their fucking slice.

And, we have those who flounce around crying.."I will not vote for him in 2012!111"..at least we won't have them on the board during election time.

But, thankfully, there're a lot of supporters of the President who do the research and realize what a shitload he and his team were handed by the fuckers, bushncheney.. and don't get taken in by the corporatemediawhores' lies ..who make this place worthwhile for me.

[HamdenRice]

44. I think I saw the first "Impeach Obama Now!!" post around inauguration day

and that's not an exaggeration.

[mkultra]

45. +1 It is the remains of the democratic bigots.

[kiva]

54. Perhaps you are mistaking this site for a fan board.

You could just as easily call this an anti-Clinton or anti-Kucinich or anti-Pelosi or anti-anyone site since I've seen posts that vehemently criticize damn near every Dem in and out of office.

This board started well before Obama was on the national stage and most of us joined because we were interested in issues, not personalities. It remains so despite the attempts to change the focus of DU. It's not about 'taking over' in a 'hate frenzy', it's about supporting issues we care about--the war, health care, equality for all Americans, the environment--you know, those liberal issues. When our president says or does something we perceive as going against those things we will say we disagree, perhaps in ways you find over the top.

[Political Heretic]

58. Skinner: substantive obama criticism acceptable and welcome here.

Skinner has addressed this subject, definitively.

Despite your possible wishes for a DU "cleansing" of disagreement or dissent, Skinner has - to his great credit - stated explicitly that substantive criticism democrats, including the President is welcome here.

If you feel a specific instance of criticism does not meet the criteria of "substantive" - you are free to hit the Alert button.

Few people are posting "how much they hate Obama." That's your re-spinning. Many people are posting their strong disapproval of the administrations handling of key issues to date, and giving concrete reasons why they disapprove. Just because you might not like it, doesn't make it inappropriate.

[CakeGrrl]

67. "Fuck Obama" is not "substantive criticism"

Based on something that hasn't even happened. It's nothing but a non-constructive anger outburst.

[Political Heretic]

69. Then click alert.

[CakeGrrl]

119. I posted that in support of the poster you tried to refute. That is all. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

61. I guess when he stopped backing the platform he won on?

[ZombieHorde]

62. Many people do not support politicians, they support issues.

People of this ilk can easily attack Obama on one thread and compliment him on another thread.

Obama has done things I like, such as supporting stem cell research, and he has done things I don't like, such as mocking marijuana supporters.

[Bullet1987]

70. No one hates Obama...I voted eagerly for him and want him to succeed

People are tired of the mixed messages coming from the White House and Obama's seemingly compliance and willingness to back down from strong opposition from the GOP. He's not fighting for something that NEEDS to be fought for. Which is causing people to think he never intended to really alter anything in the first place and instead we'll get something watered-down and ineffective.

[Zodiak]

71. A useless OP

You do not even think that there might be a fucking REASON for it? We just suddenly decided to be anti-Obama....we secretly hated him all along?

What kind of bullshit is this?

Damn, what is it with the many people who just cannot see that when people feel betrayed, they get pissed. Pretty fucking basic.

[paulk]

73. well - it became "anti" Obama when hyper partisans like

yourself decided that any criticism of the President was "hate".

[treestar]

77. When it became apparent that some people just wanted a left wing Bush

They didn't believe Congress was a separate branch with its own powers, after all.

It is disappointing that the Senate's Democratic majority is not all that liberal or progressive, but that's not Obama's fault. That's the fault of the states who elected them. At least they aren't Republicans, but sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference.

[Phx_Dem]

79. About a week after he was elected. n/t

[vaberella]

80. Well it's been simmering under the surface for a while now. n/t

[politicasista]

83. It's not just Obama, is Anti-Dem period

It's always been like this (unfortunately)

[seabeckind]

85. Since this is an opinion thread

This is my opinion:

First, I am a member of humanity

Second, I am an American

Third, I am a democrat (way over on the left democrat)

Fourth, I support Obama.

Some people have god in the above list.

If anything happens at a lower level that conflicts with what I believe in above it, I oppose it. What that means is that if I see Obama supporting a position that I think is contrary to what I believe is good for america or the democratic principles, he's on his way under the bus.

Like Geithner and Summers, or LaHood, or Sebellius.

[DCBob]

87. I quit coming here and posting mostly because of the anti-Obama sentiment..

I just check in from time to time to see if DU has come back to its senses... unfortunately not yet.

[Les Streeter]

93. Yeah, I think you are wise.

Lots of fools with money and time to burn hang out here.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[akbacchus_BC]

116. That person may be a long time reader at DU before starting to post,

so please don't be so dismissive, just my penny's worth. Having said that, I disagree with his/her sentiment.

It takes a while to learn the rules and what is correct or not correct.

[sofa king]

88. There is a sense of betrayal.

The anti-O crowd was in evidence even before he announced his Presidential run. Or, at least I thought I saw them. Some of them had their own agendas with their own candidates, and such.

Others noticed very early that Senator Obama was quite clearly a centrist candidate, rather than a progressive candidate. He didn't really make much of a secret about it, but in contrast to the Hitler-without-the-mustache crowd which was ruining things at the time (and thanks in large part to their negative attack ads, which so many of us found to be positive), he looked to a lot of us like he was a liberal.

But he's not a liberal, never was, rarely pretended he was, and likely isn't going to be one. Many of DU's died-in-the-wool progressives are a little bit bitter about that, and plenty of us wonder if centrist half-measures will be enough to reverse the damage done.

I, for one, think that we're screwed. I think President Obama is already turning out to be a superb President, but I have serious doubts that he will be able to reverse what has happened beyond his own terms.

I'm viewing this time as the eye of a hurricane, a time to start digging in for the second, far worse tempest which is sure to follow President Obama, when everything that was temporarily shored up collapses around us. But the guy continues to surprise me, almost every day, and there's a chance that I'll change my tune somewhere down the line.

[earth mom]

89. Obama could easily win all our hearts. He knows what to do.

Problem is he just ain't doing it.

The Top 5:

Health Care for All.

Peace in the Middle East.

Global Warming Prevention.

Job Creation with Strong Labor laws.

Kick the Corporate Bastards to the curb.


If there's a will there's a way, especially if you are the President.

[Kaleko]

94. Translation: Obama could easily wave his magic wand. Being an all-powerful magician,

he knows what to do.

Problem is he just ain't doing it.

The Top 5:

Health Care for All.

Peace in the Middle East.

Global Warming Prevention.

Job Creation with Strong Labor laws.

Kick the Corporate Bastards to the curb.


If there's a will there's a way, especially if you are the Second Coming of the most famous miracle worker of all.

[Laelth]

107. At least he could show as much spine as FDR.

"If we can not do this one way, we will do it another, but do it we will." -FDR

Why can't Obama at least tell us he will fight for our values, even if he is unable to accomplish everything we want?

He's not even pretending to represent us.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kaleko]

108. I also wish Obama would be more combative and aggressively outspoken on behalf of US.

But that's not how Obama operates. The guy truly is a uniter, not a divider. He genuinely tries to represent the whole of the US; he's guided by a vision that includes everyone, where the president is acting as an attractor force drawing even the most vicious of his opponents into his big embrace.

Progressives are screaming because many of us think he's gone much too far in his inclusiveness. For me, the jury is still out on what Obama is going to accomplish with his Aikido-style tactical politics.

[Laelth]

109. Indeed. The jury is still out.

As is quite obvious, however, many of us on the jury are turned off (in a big way) by this particular attorney's style.

All the same, thanks for the civil response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kaleko]

112. Have you considered that Obama might be HOPING that progressives would raise

a huge, enormous stink about every concession he makes to our corporate overlords?

I think it's entirely possible that Obama needs us to play our part and hit back hard, so he doesn't have to, you see? He's doing the fighting through us in arenas everywhere around the world where he can't be simultaneously.

While he can remain magnanimous and statesmanlike, we wield the swords and knives and it is us who dangle the bloody heads of traitors we've cut off in front of everyone in cyberspace.

[Laelth]

113. Absolutely. I hope that's exactly what he's doing.

In fact, I have argued here, on a number of occasions, that those of us on the left need to criticize him and the Democratic party just to give them cover. It's useful.

I have certainly considered that Obama may have provoked the left, but I am now having serious doubts about his motivations. Only time will tell if my suspicions are correct.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kaleko]

115. Yeah, it all boils down to correctly assessing who Obama is in his essence

and where his deepest allegiance lies.

I'm happy to report that I still don't see duplicity in this guy's soul - and I've tried. And I used to be a psychologist, so... there's the training to read people and then there's also a natural gift which made me want to become a therapist in the first place. In short, I trust my gut about this man. To put it in somewhat Jungian terms, Obama is an agent of light and life trying to take over the reigns from an army of agents of death. Epic! LOL.

[Les Streeter]

91. Since the only requirement for continued membership here is

how much money you can put into the pockets of the owners of the site, NOT, how much logic or education or Democratic principles people have.

[Jennicut]

100. You do not need to contribute money here to belong to this site.

Geez, we sure are picking up more and more trolls these days. I contributed just last year and was here since 2006.

[akbacchus_BC]

117. You have it all wrong! You do not have to contribute to be a member, and

we are not putting any money in the pockets of the owners of this site. It costs a lot of money to maintain a site like this and most of us are happy to contribute, it is the best site on the Internet for Democrats to meet and exchange their views.

If you don't like it here, please feel free to leave!

[Akoto]

118. Um, what?

I've been a member here for years, and I've never had to donate a dime. Suggesting that those donations are for the administrators' financial gain is a blatant lie. It costs a great deal of money to run DU. The site goes through a tremendous amount of traffic and bandwidth use for an independently run political forum, and that ain't free.

[ncteechur]

92. The way to get to the legislation we want may not be the most conventional way.

Give the man a little space--I doubt he has forgotten what or who he is fighting for.

[Engineer4Obama]

96. Delete

n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

97. Disagreeing with Obama is not a being anti-Obama...

I disagree with him on Afghanistan, but that does not make me anti-Obama.

[vaberella]

99. Let's be clear. Majority of the people we see clamouring are in disagreement with Obama

not his policies. And that is what should be the issue. Further more, they are disagreement with him over things he's not stated and where he has put his foot down against. However, then comes to confusion over Obama and what may be misinterpreted or misconstrued by the words of his cabinet. I stand by what the President has stated and his stance on some policies. As an aside, I agree with you on Afghanistan. The one thing that always held me back about our President is his policy on Afghanistan---but his goood has always over powered this issue I have with war.

[nmunderground]

98. Already is

[tabasco]

103. During the primaries

and it hasn't changed.

[krawhitham]

105. November 4th

[rucky]

110. There's alot of content & alot of opinions here.

So I guess DU *is* whatever you're looking for it to be.

[CitizenPatriot]

111. recommended

this is how "we" deal with power. Completely fall apart and eat our own -- only 8 months is. Frankly, it's a miracle we even got him elected. yeah, yeah...I know. I'm a fool and a fan and whatever else. Never mind that I wasn't even on the Obama bus until after Hillary was defeated. I'm a moran who has the audacity to not be uber cool by being disaffected and cynical from my back seat.

HI!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

114. One of the key reasons

I am a member of the Democratic Party and have been since the first election I could vote in (1992) is health care. I do not HATE President Obama. I love the guy.

But he is negotiating with Health Insurance Corporations.
And negotiating with people that if the health care bill said: On a go forward basis we are overturning the Emancipation Proclamation, and siezing the property of women as well as taking away their right to vote . . . STILL :rofl: WON'T vote for this. :rofl:

Throw them under the bus. I realize there are people who are here because they were indies supporting Obama - but it IS Democratic Underground. What you are reading is righteous indignation that we have a Leftist President and Congress and can't get this shit done! :wtf:

[QC]

121. Why don't you ask Political Tiger? Apparently you guys are really, really close. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

122. Maybe the 8 years of hate and negativity and lies wasn't enough for them?

:shrug:

[comtec]

126. Do you want an actual answer, or are you just being an asshole?

I agree it's only been 5+ months.
So here's what he has and has not done:

This is a list of things he could have done day 1 with the stroke of a pen:
-has NOT closed gitmo - campaign promise
-has NOT closed abu ghareb - campaign promise
-has not lower the age for medicare to 1 minute - thus eliminating this entire debate
HAS ended torture, 5 minutes after his inauguration
HAS kept his word and has had fireside chats on Utube every week
DOES have town hall meetings

These are things he said he woudl do and has reversed on
-ENDING the war in Iraq - he has only promised to shift forces to Afghanistan
-He is expanding the war in Afghanistan with NO EXIT STRATEGY - this might be acceptable if we knew when and how we're leaving
-DOMA - need I say more?
-DADT - need I say more?
-He has said in campaign speeches he would support universal health care and has promoted this before - links provided up forum
-He HAS made good decisions about how to help the economy
-He IS starting to demand accountability in regards to the bank stimulus, but he is still too much of a lap dog imho
-Demand that congress eliminate the 8% ceiling on what people pay in payroll tax - bill gates has no excuse for paying so little
-instead he has said nothing about this. It would not only save Social Security but pay for universal health care

He has a LOT on his plate... but we gave him ON A GOLDEN PLATTER everything he should have needed to get this taken care of day 1.
We gave him 60 votes in the senate (ok 59 until recently)
we gave him a OVERWHELMING majority in teh house
The polls are VERY CLEAR on what the American people WANT - 70+% want universal health care and are willing to pay for it

So there you have a small list...good and bad.

i'm sure you don't ACTUALLY give a rat's ass. but there are the facts. do what you will with them

flame away.

[harun]

127. This is what I want to see Obama working on

(as I have posted before)

• Ending Cuba embargo, normalizing relations
  
• Single Payer Health Care
  
• Making higher education more accessible and affordable to Middle/Lower class
  
• Making housing more accessible and affordable to Middle/Lower class
  
• Reducing military spending
  
• Ending occupation of Iraq
  
• Ending occupation of Afghanistan
  
• Closing Guantanamo Bay
  
• Capping Credit Card interest rates
  
• Getting electric cars available for sale (not lease)
  
• Building new high speed rail routes
  

A lot of these he can be farther along on than he is. So at this point withholding judgment. We'll know the situation after Health Insurance Reform gets passed.