People who get upset about Obama criticism

[Fading Captain]

If he's disappointing people on certain issues -- on any issues -- then he's going to get criticism.
And he should.
Do people think he should be free of criticism because he's a Democrat? Or because he's not George W?

DUers need to get past the idea that Obama should get a free pass on the issues that have troubled us for 8 years. When he fails, when he adopts Bush-like stances and platforms, we need to call him on it.

And when he does the things that reflect our values, he needs to be commended.

[Mari333]

1. agree.

Politicians work for us, not the other way around.

[DainBramaged]

2. So, even though he has accomplished [fill in the blank] in [fll in the blank] days

we should be criticizing him because he hasn't fulfilled your personal agenda?


I love DU. :eyes: It gets more like a theater of the absurd every second.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[pocoloco]

14. Yeah fuckin right...

You forget the last 8 years of lockstep already??

[DainBramaged]

18. "Fuckin' right what? You miss Booshe already?

[acmavm]

20. It is NOT about anybody's personal agenda. Unless you mean Obama's.

THE LATEST FROM OBAMA:

US doesn’t need outsourced jobs: Obama

27 Mar, 2009, 0930 hrs IST,IANS

WASHINGTON: In the midst of its worst recession in decades, President Barack Obama says it would be better to create new jobs that can't be outsourced instead of bringing back such low paying jobs from other countries.

'Not all of these jobs are going to come back,' he told a questioner during an 'Online Townhall' from the White House who asked when would jobs outsourced to other countries come back and be made available to the unemployed workers in the US.

'And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back because, frankly, there's no way that people could be getting paid a living wage on some of these jobs -- at least in order to be competitive in an international setting.'

______________________

OBAMA ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL:

<snip>Obama opposes outsourcing of jobs
Agencies Posted: Jun 28, 2008 at 1133 hrs

Washington, June 28: Taking a tough stand against outsourcing, the presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama said that the choice is between giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas or give benefit to those corporations that keep jobs domestically.
"We can keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, or we can give tax benefits to companies that invest right here in New Hampshire," Senator Obama said at a joint appearance with Senator Hillary Clinton in Unity, New Hampshire.

"We can have a tax code that rewards wealth and hands out billions of dollars more to big corporations and multimillionaires. Or we can provide a USD 1,000 tax cut to 95 per cent of families in America, start rewarding work and not just wealth, and eliminate income taxes for seniors making USD 50,000 a year or less," Obama said, adding that's an agenda for change that we can believe in. That's the choice that we can make in this election.

"We can allow millions of Americans to work full-time but still not make enough to support their families, or we can raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation, and ensure that hard work pays off in America," the Illinois Senator said.
http://www.expressindia.com/story_print.php?storyId=328...
___________

Obama vows to stop outsourcing, India Inc irked
started by TruthSeeker 7 mnths ago

Washington/New Delhi: In remarks that are bound to raise hackles in India, Barack Obama made a strong anti-outsourcing pitch after securing the Democratic Presidential nomination vowing to end tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas if elected to office.



Playing to the gallery on the hot button issue of outsourcing in his acceptance speech, Obama kept up with the rhetoric on the subject that has been a staple of Democratic campaigning and went on to spell out what he would do as President on the front.



"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America," said Obama, who has been fiercely opposing outsourcing.

Source: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/obama-vows-to-stop-outsourc...
_____________

Obama vows to award US cos that stop outsourcing
Agencies
Posted online: Sep 04, 2008 at 1250 hrs

Washington, September 4:US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama once again touched on the ticklish issue of outsourcing and while vowing to end tax breaks to companies that ship works overseas conceded that all lost jobs could not be redeemed.

Promising to retain as well as create more jobs for the Americans, the Democratic nominee said while all lost jobs cannot be redeemed, further movement can be halted by giving incentives to companies investing in the country.

"Not all jobs that have left are going to come back. We can stop some of them that are already leaving by stopping to give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and saving those tax breaks for investing in plants and equipment right here in the US," Obama said at a campaign stop in Ohio.

http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/357238 /
______________________

Outsourcing critics worry about Obama advisors

By Krishna Kumar V. E.
December 10, 2008


Outsourcing critics worry about Obama advisors

Critics of outsourcing who saw in Barack Obama their saviour, are now worried that the President-elect of United States may tone down his commitment to stop sending jobs offshore because of pressure from his advisors.

Noted Wall Street Journal writer William J. Bulkely believes that the reason for such a meltdown in Obama’s position could be that as many as 17 members of his transition economic advisory board are corporate honchos who have a long history of outsourcing.

Bulkely quotes Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of Technology and author of the famous book ‘Outsourcing America’ as saying that the Obama team is yet to take up the issue of white-collar outsourcing very seriously.

The President-elect had promised to stop tax breaks to companies that shifted jobs overseas, a position that he still holds but could be forced to change giving the diverse opinions held by members of his transition team.

The blog says that almost every member of the advisory board that has been involved in corporate America has been connected to outsourcing. The author goes on to say that the companies where these advisors worked earlier are refusing to comment now.
http://www.bpowatchindia.com/bpo_news/obama_outsourcing...

See any problems here? This is just on outsourcing. He's gone back n the wars, telecom spying, investigating the bush** admin. The really big things that brought a lot of votes over to his side.

Is lying all right with you as long? This place was on fire every day about the liars and lies from the last administration. But it's okay if it's a dem?

[DainBramaged]

21. I am about to block this thread and it's creator, so I'll leave you with this.

if Obama hasn't put out the Booshe fires fast enough for you, take up knitting, because you will forever be disappointed. Oh and since nothing we did or said changed anything during the Booshe years, nothing you folks do or say will change anything for the next 8 years. America, for better or worse elected Obama President, not your candidate, and it's time we give him a break instead of finding ways to bash him..

Goodbye, and good luck with your angst.

[acmavm]

24. WE elected Obama all right. He just isn't the same guy who was out on

the campaign trail making promises. That guy disappeared the minute the election was over.

My angst? You mean the country's angst, don't you?

He will be a one-hit wonder for abandoning those that trusted him and found out that he didn't intend to investigate bush**, cheney and the boys. He didn't intend to keep that 16-month promise to get out of Iraq. He never told them that he intended to escalate the war in Afganistan. That he was going to reward the people who gamed the economy and ruined so many lives by continually giving them billions.

Do you think you're cute or clever with your 'Booshe' crap? What is that? Can't you spell? You forget the guy's name? You think it's cute? It doesn't take months or years to recognize a fucking disaster in the making (the bailout bullshit and the Goldman Sachs boys who are running it). It doesn't take years to figure out when the talk don't match the walk. You're just intellectually lazy and childish.

[alarimer]

58. Yes and WE (or at least I) did not elect Goldman-Sachs either.

I certainly did not expect there to be so many of these corporate whores in the government and I am sorely disappointed and even upset at this. The very people responsible for our economic woes are in charge of fixing it. In this at least, there is not much difference between Obama and Bush. Not the change I voted for.

I am going to stop holding my nose and voting for Democrats just because they aren't Republicans. Very often they are not much better.

[Solomon]

130. Good riddance.

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. Say anything to get elected. Many were blinded by the light and remain so even now.

[pacalo]

43. Why are you so angry -- the OP wasn't vicious in tone about Obama.

Let's be reasonable & open-minded to others' differing opinions, please!

I detest the lock-step attitude we've had to endure on the boy king's watch. Haven't you had enough of it, too?

I think Obama has the potential of being the best president of our time & I hope he is successful in that. I give him a lot of elbow room, considering the gigantic mess he has to straighten out.

Please don't hold on to the notion that Obama has a blank check for no criticism. He's human & he can make mistakes. And we should be watching, considering the corporate hold on this nation, don't you think?

[Ken Burch]

66. It isn't necessarily about "he hasn't done everything yet"

It can also be about(and I think with most of those who take a critical support stance it is)making sure that what hasn't been done doesn't get lost in the shuttle and that support for further changes is built.

Nobody here wants "Booshe" back. All the people you're sniping at are doing is standing up for what they believe in, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA, TO HIS ETERNAL CREDIT, has said he wants us to do.

Take one of these:



We're all on the same side...'kay?

[Obamanaut]

69. That ignore list must be nearly as long as the member list by now. nt

[Skittles]

99. you really suck

[Political Heretic]

114. For me its not about SPEED its about DIRECTION.

I believe there is/was a better way to address this financial crisis other than the by-wall street for-wall street way that was chosen. And I feel like, even if it ultimately works to smooth out and stabilize our economy (and I hope that it does), we will have missed a golden opportunity to reform and revolutionize a highly corrupt system in ways that would have had far greater, longer, richer lasting changes for future generations.

So, I hope this plan stabilizes things, but sadly that just means we'll be right back in the same broken system we were in before the current recession, where wages were decoupled with productivity, majority standards of livings were in decline, and real wages were stagnant for the middle class and declining for the working poor - all while the wealthiest top percent of Americans saw exponential wealth gains.

We'll be back to the system that gave us this:

Per Capita Income: U.S. Second
Income Inequality: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Overall Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Child Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Elderly Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Infant Mortality Rate: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Leisure Time: U.S. Last (meaning worst)
Maternity Leave: U.S. Last (meaning worst)


And I believe that we had / have an opportunity (with a little courage and bold leadership in the face of Wall street pressure) to chart a new way. Now that would be Change that would bring a tear to me eye! :)

[paulk]

84. I don't think that the Treasury Dept bailout of the banks

falls under "personal agenda", myself. It's big, and Obama's team is on the wrong side of this issue.


Blind cheerleading like you've been practicing lately is just as absurd.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

3. We must obey Glorious Leader.

It is his job to lead. It is our job to follow.

[DainBramaged]

4. For you

[Brucie Kibbutz]

6. for you

[DainBramaged]

8. I'd say you don't like Obama very much, pity.

Maybe you're lost?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

10. If I didn't like him,

I wouldn't have voted for him. Nice try though.

[DainBramaged]

11. Your profile betrays you

[Brucie Kibbutz]

12. You can't be serious.

"Your profile Betrays you". Who are you Yoda or something? Do you sense the Dark Side in me? :eyes:

Get lost, fanboy.

[Two Americas]

131. what is this "like him" stuff?

That isn't support. Why should any of us have to worry about what you like?

It never occurs to me whether or not I "like" a politician, other than the ones I have met personally and gotten to know. I do like some of them, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with them.



...

[Mari333]

5. great gif!! nt

[leftchick]

17. NOTHING

expresses what is happening better than that animation. :applause:

[datasuspect]

35. rushing headlong into the obamahole

the financial industry REALLY does know best.

[Echo In Light]

45. Outstanding clip, incidentally n/t

[Swagman]

64. yeh..great gif ! we all know Obama is up against vested powerful

interests but if he gets one thing done..like universal health care..he will have pefomed a miracle. It's baby steps at present..the enemy is so entrenched

[Brucie Kibbutz]

110. The enemy is entrenched because

he insists on hiring them to be his advisers.

[lame54]

137. what is that a clip from?

[Hanse]

7. It's not that I'm upset over it.

It's more an amused disbelief that the criticism is so stupid, misinformed, and misplaced.

[Two Americas]

23. you can't mean that

Some of the best informed and most active people here, posting some of the best researched, documented and supported essays, have been critical of the administration.

"Stupid, misinformed, and misplaced?" Hardly. You may disagree with the critics, but your smear here of any and all critics is clearly false.


...

[Hanse]

26. Pff. That's a laugh.

Who do you expect me to believe?

You, or my own lying eyes?

[Two Americas]

29. thanks

Wasn't sure.

[Laurab]

34. You just nailed it for me.

I don't mind valid criticism or disagreement - not at all. What I DO mind is that many times I visit DU and think I've gone to Freeperville instead. There are a few people who pop up over and over in the "bash Obama" threads, and I never see them in any other threads I visit. After awhile, they start to stand out.

I'm ALREADY tired of the "lockstep" meme, and all the other things used to justify bashing Obama and bashing those who defend or try to explain Obama. It doesn't mean I agree with everything Obama does, but I think he's on the right track, and I don't go to sleep worrying about the next thing he's going to do to destroy our country, as I did not so long ago with bush. It's a nice feeling - one I'm still getting used to - I think some people have VERY short memories, as well as very unrealistic expectations, or they just don't like Obama...

[Two Americas]

37. this is out of line

When do you see freepers advocating for single payer? Where do you see them calling for the prosecution of Bush administration officials? Calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan? Where do you see freepers taking a strong stand for GLBTQ equality? Where do you see them supporting the UAW workers? Advocating reining in Wall Street? Opposing GMO crops? Opposing wire-tapping? Where are these freepers advocating any of these things?

You will not see that anywhere. Yet you smear any and all dissenters and critics here with this.

I understand your need to preserve a nice feeling for yourself after the Bush years. That is fine. But no one else is responsbible for your feelings, and we are not obligated to say or not say certain things because of how they make you feel, and protecting your feelings does not justify attacking others because they may say things that make you feel a certain way you would rather not feel.


...

[Hanse]

38. You need to learn how to handle constructive criticism.

We're not going to just follow you like some sort of lockstep cult leader.

[Two Americas]

40. ROFL

Say what?

These "reverse" arguments are relatively new and were injected into the political discussion by the right wing think tanks. The trick is to turn anything people say around backward - as in the infamous "reverse racism" arguments.

I advocate that people need to be more tolerant of criticism of the administration, Your response? That I need to learn how to handle criticism. WTF?

I say that people should not demand that we all support the president in one and only one particular way, and should not attack any and all who diverge from that program. Your response? To say that I am asking for lockstep - by telling people to not walk in lockstep and nor demand that others do. Again, WTF?

Yes, all must walk in lockstep in this new program of not walking in lockstep. :silly:

I say that people are revering Obama as a personality, and that this is destructive. Your response? That I am trying to be a "cult leader!"

Yes, all must worship and follow me. :silly:

With the right wingers, we can often tell what they are really thinking and doing by what they accuse us of doing and thinking. I think the same thing may apply to your remarks here.



...

[scarletwoman]

61. Bravo!! Thank you!

:applause: :yourock: :applause:

[paulk]

85. well said

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

115. God that was beautiful.

:)

You have a gift at calling out the reverse argument stuff - much, much better than me where I have trouble articulating why what someone is doing to me (when they are using that illegitimate tactic) is wrong, but I know it is.

I remember my Dad (who has now seen the error of his ways and sincerely apologized for ever being like this) used to do this about his homophobia. He would say, "I'm not intolerant, YOU are intolerant of my intolerance!" or some shit like that.

It's so ridiculous.

[maryf]

42. R this post!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Bluebear]

47. +1

[TLM]

52. I see the left and the right joining hands...

unfortunately it is to bash obama...

If you don't hate obama and bash him, you're in a cult.

I see that meme from both sides.


Your lockstep with the far right is kind of frightening... but i guess the enemy of your enemy and all that, right?

[Two Americas]

59. not so

I am not in "lockstep with the far right."

Let's use a simple example. What if we had one group of people who wanted the government to use nuclear weapons against the Taliban, and another group who wanted the war in Afghanistan to end. Would we say they are in lockstep with each other merely because they both disagree with the current policy? Hardly.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

Criticizing some of the things the administration does, or objecting to the suppressive tactics of some who call themselves "Obama supporters" is not bashing Obama.

That argument is absurd on its face, as well.



...

[Mithreal]

94. WHO on the left hates the President? I see dead people. nt

[Brucie Kibbutz]

60. well said

:thumbsup:

The bots will just ignore it though.

[FLAprogressive]

71. Bravo!

[BlooInBloo]

75. No, it's not. Dissent is PATRIOTIC - remember?

Oh - that's just for the ihateobama people. Dammit.

[Mithreal]

90. Why are you calling fellow DU'ers names like "ihateobama" people? nt

[Two Americas]

111. very perplexing

Your posts never cease to perplex me.

So you are saying that by complaining about suppression of dissent, that this is actually suppressing dissent because people have a right to suppress dissent that is equal to people's right to dissent?

This is another kissing cousin to the right wing "reverse racism" arguments. Those complaining about abuse are guilty of abusing the people dishing out the abuse by suggesting that they are abusers, and that is insulting to them, and they have an equal right to abuse people, and are actually the victims....

We see many variations on this now...

Speaking out against torture is abusive, because it is suggesting that our people tortured people and that is not fair to them to make these "accusations."

Talking about bigotry against GLBTQ people is "going nuclear" and is hateful to hetero people, because it implies that people here are homophobic and that is not being fair to them to make those "accusations."

Opposing bailing out fat cats on Wall Street is hateful, because they are people too and we shouldn't "hate" them.

People speaking out against misogyny are man haters.

People supporting worker rights are "fomenting class warfare."

People talking about racism are accusing whites of being racist, and that is hateful and unfair toward whites and so is "reverse racism."



...

[Political Heretic]

116. You're doing some good work on this reverse argumentation horse shit.

I'm extremely glad someone really has a bead on this insidious form of disingenuous nonsense.

[Laurab]

123. In my opinion, you have unrealistic expectations.

And - you're another name I see in every single bashing thread, but never any other. It's not the specifics that remind me of freepers, it's the bashing of Obama as if he were bush - it looks exactly the same to me. And I do NOT smear "any and all "dissenters and critics here with this". I have no problem with people not agreeing with Obama on things he does. I have no problem with people posting about their disagreement. I DO have a problem with people who nitpick every single thing he does, and the threads that are full of hate for Obama. There are a few people who seem to thrive on posting nasty shit - not even bothering to see if it's true first. THAT I have a problem with.

The man has been in office for about three months. I don't expect him to be Superman, and I'm well aware of what he has inherited. Yes, it's nice to feel relieved after suffering through the bush years, but also to give my brand-new President a chance. Three months is not enough. Last I heard, this was still Democratic Underground, not "Hate Obama Underground", but sometimes it sure seems like the latter.

Oh, and speaking of "smearing any all" - I've often seen that done to anyone who takes the time to argue with the dissenters. The lockstep meme, the "trying to stop free speech" meme, and several more.

I normally avoid these threads, and will do so again, because it seems a certain group of people has one purpose, and it's silly to argue with them. You can all hate Obama amongst yourselves - it's clear he wasn't your choice, and he's going to suffer for it, but frankly, it's not worth arguing with any of you.

[Two Americas]

127. not true

You claim I am "another name I see in every single bashing thread, but never any other."

Hint, hint, wink, wink.

First, I don't bash the president, I defend others don attack and support their right to criticize elected officials without being subjected to insinuations about their character and motives - as you just slyly did about me. I have defended Obama from unfair attacks and unrealistic expectations. I talk about the self-described Obama defenders, and they "hear" that as attacks on Obama. I can't control their reactions.

Secondly, it is almost impossible to post about anything here these days without getting into these loyalty tests and foo fights about Obama - for or against, all or nothing.

Thirdly, I post frequently about poverty, homelessness, and agricultural and food issues, and many other topics, and don't mention Obama at all. Too often the self-described Obama supporters come into those threads and try to start fights about Obama - for or against, all or nothing. You may not be interested in those subjects, so you may not be familiar with my positions or posting behavior. But you didn't let that stop you from engaging in speculation and insinuation.

So much for fending off the assault on my character - not a subject that I chose or initiated.



...

[Laurab]

129. It was no assault on your character

It was what I've seen and read, and yes, your name stands out. Perhaps I don't go into the other threads you post in, but from what I've seen, you just plain don't like Obama. I have no desire to continue this - I have my opinion, you have yours. You're free to nitpick whatever you want about Obama, of course, but I don't have to read it - I'm TIRED of reading it, and will be attempting to just let people bash amongst themselves, because, really I'm just a keyboard warrior like you, and I prefer to spend my time on more positive things.

Maybe I'll see you in another thread sometime, I'm not wasting any more time with this one.

[Two Americas]

132. yes it is

When you raise suspicions and make insinuations about a person's motives and sincerity and integrity, that is an assault on their character.

You are free to have your opinion, and to express it. You are not free to speculate maliciously about others without being challenged for doing that.


...

[Starry Messenger]

63. Maybe you need to actually *go* to Free Republic and actually sample their wares.

Trust me, you'd quickly spot the difference.

[Richd506]

80. I agree with you

I think it's naive for people to think Obama will wave a magic wand and it'll all be fixed. It isn't his job to represent only the liberal constituents; he has to represent everyone, no matter how much I disagree with republicans.

[Two Americas]

121. no one thinks that

No one thinks that "Obama will wave a magic wand and it'll all be fixed." No one has ever said anything even remotely like that. But it is repeated again and again as a smear. If people saying things that make you uncomfortable can be portrayed as impatient or unreasonable, your hope is that what they will then be discredited and what they have to say will be ignored by people.

It is not the job of a Democrat to represent the wealthy and powerful few, no, not the libertarians nor the bigots. No politician can possibly represent everyone. This is an excuse for cowardice and compromise, and for giving the right wingers new life.

"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."


...

[Political Heretic]

113. You haven't been talking to me.

I haven't been seeing responses from you to my concerns or analysis of things, but I welcome you to get involved. I am neither stupid nor misinformed, you'll find. But we may still have different viewpoints on the best ways for our country to move forward and I'd be happy to hear yours.

[Hanse]

126. Well, that's true, so I looked you up.

I stand by my original comments.

[Two Americas]

128. what does that mean?

"I looked you up?"

You may disagree with PH's opinions, but the last thing you could say about them is that they are "stupid, misinformed, and misplaced."

Support that charge, if you can.



...

[blogslut]

9. Criticism I can handle

Inflammatory posters that refuse to listen to reasoned responses, I cannot.

[Two Americas]

44. then don't

What you can and cannot "handle" is not any measure of what should or should not be said by others, or given fair consideration by the readers here.

If you see "inflammatory posters that refuse to listen to reasoned responses" that is your subjective interpretation. You offer no objective evidence to support this claim. Others can arrive at their own conclusions without you interpreting and evaluating for them who should and who should not be listened to or whose ideas should given fair consideration.

If you can't "handle" that - criticism that you have decided comes from "inflammatory posters that refuse to listen to reasoned responses" - in other words you are talking about the messengers and not the message - then don't. Ignore them.

Why should the rest of us base what we say - and what we read, and what we give consideration to - according to what you say you can or cannot "handle?"



...

[MadMaddie]

15. Constructive Criticism is fine

But to bitch and moan because he hasn't addressed hundreds of issues in less than 3 months is ridiculous.

I don't agree with everything he is done but I realize that he is doing Triage of the most critical issues down to the least critical.

[Two Americas]

22. that makes no sense

In other words, any critics are OK unless - according to you - they "bitch and moan because he hasn't addressed hundreds of issues in less than 3 months."

No one has done that. Not one person has bitched and moaned, and not one person has berated him for not addressing hundreds of issues, and not one person has expected miracles in 3 months.

There is no evidence supporting your claim here, which is largely subjective. By characterizing some vague and undefined group of critics in a ridiculous way, you have cleverly called all critics ridiculous.

You are saying criticism is not OK, and then are trying to claim that you are not saying that.


...

[MadMaddie]

25. Umm I believe I said constructive criticism is okay

And no I did not call all critics ridiculous...and yes many people on DU are complaining daily that he is not doing everything perfect and the way they like on many issues.

You are way over thinking this.

You stated that he should not get a free pass - he has been in office less than 3 months and you apparently believe that 3 months is plenty of enough time to do everything right the first time, and if he doesn't get it right then we should kick the shit out of him because it wasn't right.

He said many times that he would make mistakes and that we wouldn't like everything he did. Sounds like he was being honest.

Am I saying that we should be Republicans and march lockstep with everything that happens? Absolutely not, but in order for us to fairly evaluate the job he is doing it should be longer than 3 months don't you think?

[Two Americas]

28. I don't agree

You say -

"Many people on DU are complaining daily that he is not doing everything perfect and the way they like on many issues."

That is a subjective interpretation. There are few, if any, who fit your description in my opinion.

You are saying that some criticism is OK with you and some is not - according to a vague and subjective interpretation and evaluation of others.

How long a politician has been in office has nothing to do with what people should or should not be saying. People are judging the first 60 days by the first 60 days, and responding to what is being done and said now. That is the only way it could be.

There aren't any legitimate reasons for restrictions on expressing dissent based on time.


...

[Castleman]

73. You seem to be very logical about this....

what's wrong with you?..:-)
I agree, folks, three months are nowheres NEAR enough time to fix even 1% of the shit Bush did, and you're already crucifying Obama?
I see Obama slowly but surely changing the game, he let the Repukes hang themselves on the stimulus, and they came out looking even worse than they started, they're going to fight the budget, and he's going to let them ruin themselves further. People who have long been supporters of the GOP are seeing that their Congresspeople truly don't give a damn about them, only their own power, and those people are starting to get angry. When Repukes actively fight against the things that this country so clearly needs to get on track, they just weaken their position that much more. And it's only been THREE months. Face it, the economy is the most critical issue we have now, not GLBT rights, not getting us out of Iraq, (which, by the way, is slowly happening) and to bitch him out over Afghanistan? I very much believe I remember him saying that Osama was going to be brought to justice, and the Taliban re-gaining power isn't going to help that, now is it? I voted for Obama because I believe he's the guy for the job, not because I though that the day after the election the world was going to be sunshine and light with everything fixed and prosperity for all, I kinda figured it'd take some time....time I'm willing to give him.
And to those who who seem to violently disagree with his appointments?
Who do you want to get you through shark infested waters, a rookie guppy, or another, battle tested vicious shark?
I have supreme confidence in most of them, and let's give them a fair chance to do their jobs as well.

[Two Americas]

134. no one is "crucifying Obama"

You like his appointees, others do not.

There is nothing to support your idea that your opinion about what is best for the administration to do will lead to success, while the opinions others about what is best for the administration will not.

There is no evidence for your claim that you are supporting the administration, and those with whom you disagree are not.

There is no evidence to support your claim that you are "giving him a chance" and others are not.

No one here voted for Obama thinking "that the day after the election the world was going to be sunshine and light with everything fixed and prosperity for all."


...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Kablooie]

27. I agree. If you have alternative ideas you have a right to express them.

He has admitted himself that he will make mistakes.

[SpartanDem]

30. critism is fine

What I have problem with is people who feel betrayed over issues that he clearly stated his opinion about. Obama made perfectly clearly made his views on Afghanistan, Iraq, single payer healthcare and other matters that doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but what it does mean if you can't go around feeling betrayed.

[Fading Captain]

32. I think you're wrong and right.

Even though Obama never promised Single Payer Health Care, Democrats certainly have a right to feel disappointed when the leader of their party is carrying the water of the insurance companies.

Even though Obama pledged to focus more on afghanistan, Democrats have right to be disappointed that their leader is ramping up war efforts.

Sure, obama isn't busting any campaign promises.

But campaign promises are what they are. The principles of the American left -- peace, civil rights, economic justice -- are equally and more important.

If you're "left" of Obama, then you have every right to criticize him when he fails to meet your ideals.
Same thing if you're right of Obama.

This is a discussion board. Not a cheerleading squad. Americans on both ends of the spectrum need to get away from cheering for the home party, and cheering for principles and ideas.

[TLM]

56. here's the problem...

the notion that anything short of 100% of your agenda, is 100% serving the opposite of your agenda.

The idea of incremental progress is lost on those with a mentality of instant gratification.


"If you're "left" of Obama, then you have every right to criticize him when he fails to meet your ideals.
Same thing if you're right of Obama."


I agree those to the far left of Obama are THE SAME THING as those far right of Obama... critics. And then the question becomes why are they critics, and how valid are their criticisms.

And guess what, again the far right and far left are the same in that their criticisms are usually unfounded, reactionary, and best laughed at and disregarded.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

62. laughed at and disregarded

That is exactly right. Problem is, these people on the "far left" that are being "laughed at and disregarded" helped get President Obama elected. He and his adoring fans might want to keep that in mind.

[Mithreal]

95. "the far right and far left are the same in that their criticisms..."

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on DU. Care to elaborate?

[Two Americas]

120. that is just not so

Let's take an example -

If one group of people advocates using nuclear weapons against the Taliban, and another group advocates ending the war in Afghanistan, are those two positions the same merely because they are both different from the current policy?

Of course not. The idea that they are is absurd.

Opposing torture is not a personal "agenda" and yes, nothing less than advocating a 100% ban will do, to show you just one exception to your foolish theory here.

Supporting the Left is never about a personal agenda, as you claim here when you call it "what you want" or "your agenda." We support the Left because we believe it to be the most practical and pragmatic way to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. It is a public agenda, a social agenda, a community agenda, not a personal agenda. It is selfless, as opposed to the alternative - libertarianism and Reaganomics, which are based on selfishness.

Why would you repeat this common right wing attack on the Left?



...

[Mithreal]

92. Policy before politician. nt

[billyoc]

33. Actually, that just means you get to feel betrayed sooner.

[fujiyama]

36. Well said

We aren't a bunch of sheep.

Obama generally reflects our values - that's why we voted for him. But he doesn't get a free ride. No Democrat should, and that especially includes turds like Evan Bayh.

[treestar]

39. How can any Democrat be "disappointed" when McPalin was in second place

Obama will get more than enough criticism from Republicans. If you join in it, you're going to risk seeing the country go back to the right again. It's politics. This country is not that far to the left and is in the thrall of a corporate media that works for the right wing all day. We just barely escaped. To me, it is way too big a risk. How do you plan to get the majority of the voters disappointed in Obama because he's not farther to the left? Take over CNN and Faux? How can we get that power?

We just don't have the luxury. Reality is the thing here. There are REPUBLICANS. They exist. They own the media. They have as much or more money. Left wing idealists seem to work their asses off to get the right wing back into power! Maybe they just like criticizing for its own sake. Republicans in power thus makes them happier.

[Fading Captain]

41. Only an idiot looks at the world in a Republican vs Democrat view

nm

[Mithreal]

97. "If you join in it, you're going to risk"

Much of the criticism that is expressed is really dialogue among "friends" in order to strengthen our own progressive arguments. At least that is my take on it. If among "friends as you suggest, it is unsafe to discuss our differences, then IMO our democracy is doomed and we have missed the opportunity to prepare ourselves when we go out into the real world and face those with utterly opposing ideas and those that need some persuasion.

I 100% strongly disagree that criticism from the left is going to weaken the President. In fact I can give examples of how it will make him one of the great ones if we support and push him to keep his promises and provide him the space to do even more for the good than he promised.

No one should be afraid discussion here is going to tank Obama and the idea is so ridiculous it deserves a response.

[Odin2005]

46. There is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing.

Krugman, for example, is giving constructive criticism. DUers calling Obama a "Corporatist" or saying he is "like Bush" are bashing.

[BostonMa]

48. Are you a teen?

Your posts are very immature. "Bashing" for instance.

[Odin2005]

53. I'll be 23 in a month.

The immature people are the ones who are whining and moaning because they expect Obama to fix 30 years of Republiconomics in 3 months.

[Kansas Wyatt]

68. Surrounding himself with people who have done very well during...

"Republiconomics" or who have been sucking on the government tit for the last 30 years just rubs people the wrong way. Especially when people see plans to implement McCorporate Policies, when real change was the purpose for him being voted in office with his Party controlling Congress.

President Obama & the Democratic Party have ONE chance to get it right and put an end to the last 30 years of Working People being defecated on. If they keep propping up Corporate America, with the Globalism needle stuck in Corporate America's arm, they had better get used to term limits. Because they will put the Republican Party back into power.

How do Republicans get elected?
Democrats represent Corporate America over Working People, so Republicans just pick votes up on morality issues.

Democrats don't get elected on fucking chic special interests. Democrats get elected when they stand up for and actually represent working people. For the Party that is suppose to have more intelligence, Democrats are really stupid.

[Mithreal]

101. Democratic Presidents (and others) must win by a landslide or they lose

If the Dems do not look into rigged voting, we will never elect people like Gore, Kerry, and Kucinich. The only way we will win is when we have blowouts that beat the margin of theft.

One of the parties is going to be able to more skillfully wield populism and unless the real economy is growing, health care is universal and public, unions are free and strong, and outsourcing ends, to name just a few, we are going to lose to those people who are caught up in a Republican populist message and are willing to steal elections.

The way we win and tombstone the dangerous Republicans is by not being a party of the corporations, so I agree.

[Bluebear]

50. You forgot to call them all "PUMAS".

[Odin2005]

54. Not PUMAS, Naderites.

[Bluebear]

57. Everyone must have a label or a name for your tidy pigeonholing, evidentment.

[Forkboy]

78. That is just sooo 2001.

Time to update your scapegoat rolodex.

[Two Americas]

55. Everyone has their own subjective interpretation

Everyone has their own subjective interpretation as to what is and what is not "constructive" criticism. We have had many, many posts calling Krugman a "PUMA" and worse and attacking anyone who posts articles from Krugman as "haters" and "PUMAs" and traitors to the cause, and of having secret agendas to "tear down the president" and on and on.

There are no objective standards for determining what is and what is not "constructive criticism." For many people "constructive" means "things I agree with" or "posted by someone I like" and nothing more. There are however, objective standards for managing and engaging in discussion. Talking about the messenger rather than the message will always degrade the discussion, and it is rarely ambiguous when someone is doing that.

Attacks on the ideas of the other person are not personal attacks. Attacks on things Obama loyalists say are not attacks on Obama. Criticism of something the administration does is not "being against Obama." That is where most of the confusion about this is, I think.


...

[Mithreal]

98. Name calling is silly. Escalating wars is like Bush, just saying. nt

[TLM]

49. I've not seen anybody say he shouldn;t be questioned or criticised at all...

I see people pointing out how stupid it is to be proclaiming obama an evil right wing corporatist who duped us all, because he hasn't reversed 20 years of republican policy in 60 days.

The idiots screaming all is lost and Obama is evil and just as bad as bush... are being called out for being either liars with an agenda or flat out idiots.


I say again this is democratic underground... not socialist underground or green party underground or even far leftist liberal underground.

This is a place where we work to support democrats and get democrats in office, not to sit around bashing the dems and tearing down the democratic president.

If you have a desire to voice your hate for obama, or you want to rant about how wrong the dems are or how bad you want Obama, to fail... there's a site called freerepublic that specifically for bashing dems.

[Two Americas]

135. not true

No one here is "proclaiming Obama an evil right wing corporatist who duped us all, because he hasn't reversed 20 years of republican policy in 60 days."

No one.

No one here is "voicing hate for Obama, or "wanting Obama to fail."

No one.

No one is saying that "Obama is evil and just as bad as Bush."

Claiming that people are when the express disagreement with something the administration does, in order to cast suspicions on their motives and discredit them, is clearly an effort at discouraging criticism and questioning.

Of course no one is saying that the president "shouldn't be questioned or criticized at all" forthrightly or honestly. That would not work, because people would see it for what it was.


...

[Egnever]

51. constructive criticism is one thing constant hand wringing over stupid stuff is another.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

65. Folks can bitch all they want. What's draws counter-fire is that some act all

surprised by Obama's agenda or political reality. Also, the attitude of some of these critics reminds me of spoiled children when they don't get what they want. Most of the critical threads are filled with an all or nothing attitude as well.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

72. He should make bad decisions with impunity

because he never said he would do otherwise in the campaign. That makes a lot of sense.

Even if people are surprised, what the fuck difference does it make? It doesn't make their argument any less valid. It's just a lame excuse the bots use to discredit people who criticize their favorite celebrity without actually speaking to the issue.

[ProSense]

82. "Even if people are surprised, what the fuck difference does it make?"

Real suprise and fake suprise are the same?

Feigned surprise is a lame excuse upon which to base criticism. It's as if the person doing it wants to claim being duped as part of the surprise. Why not just make it clear that the disagreement goes back to before the election?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

86. Like I said...

He should make bad decisions with impunity because he never said he would do otherwise in the campaign? That makes a lot of sense.

I'm sorry I just don't share your concern over "real" or "fake" surprise because it's got nothing to do with any of the issues at hand. It's just a lame tactic used by the thought police around here to discourage people from disagreeing with them.

I wish you luck in your noble endeavor to weed out all the "fakers".

[ProSense]

96. Frankly, it appears those who want to criticize Obama for everything

are thin-skinned people who can't seem to stomach defense of him. When called on BS arguments, they seem to always resort to claiming that people are trying to stifle dissent and shut people up.

Good luck to you in mounting your next outrage for the good of mankind.





edited typo

[Brucie Kibbutz]

100. thin skinned?

You're one to talk. It's all or nothing with you, isn't it? Anyone that criticizes anything is being critical of everything. That attitude is childish and it does nothing to help the President but if it puts your mind at ease, go ahead and do it. I wouldn't want you to worry your little head about the actual issues themselves.

[ProSense]

102. No, that's your view.

Childish is people throwing tantrums because his policies don't align with every one of their views: projecting failure, claiming that Obama is a one-term President, vowing not to vote for him ever again, claiming that he is ripping off Americans, that he's continuing Bush's policies, which put the country on a path to disaster. Seriously, is that where Obama is heading?

Obama has only been in office nine weeks. It's interesting that people have gone to such lengths to define his entire Presidency based on nine weeks.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

106. They're defining nine weeks of his Presidency.

Not the entire eight years of it. Is that OK with you?

You are willing to assume an awful lot about people that voted for the same candidate you did just so you can have an excuse to badmouth them.

[Mithreal]

104. "thought police" and "worry your litle head" are pretty dismissive

maybe even offensive.

Otherwise I think you made a couple of strong points.

I hope you don't think I am "thought police", I just think we need to be as persuasive as we can be and the person you are discussing things with seems pretty open and reasonable.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

109. We need to be persuasive but we also need to be honest.

Character assassination of anyone that disagreed with the Bush cartel is what our enemies resorted to for the last eight years. It's what enabled a fringe element to run our country by acting through a simple minded brat from Texas. Of all people, we Democrats should be the last ones advocating for any President to be above criticism. I think we can all see what that did for our country. Unfortunately, that is the way some in our party have chosen to show their "support" and it's just about turned this place into the armpit of the internet.

[Mithreal]

117. Agreed about honesty and policy before politician, but harsh words

can spoil an honest answer too, not just a persuasive one.

I have often used harsh words too so I am not casting stones.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

118. That's a good point.

The stakes are high and I think that is where a lot of the emotion is coming from. It's not just that our opponents disagree with us. The Elite are using the economic crisis to attempt to land a deathblow,so to speak, in the class war and it's got people on edge. This isn't a battle we can afford to lose. That's why it's so disappointing that some are so eager to second guess people that voted for the same candidate they did.

We are also a far more diverse group than the enemy is so there's bound to be more differences of opinion. Whenever I look around in the political subforum on the gun boards, they are all in 100% lock step. Any crazy ass conspiracy theory Glenn Beck comes up with is promoted as truth by every last one of them. Instead of it being a positive force in their party, it just makes reasonable people cringe. I'd rather we didn't follow their lead.

[Mithreal]

103. Reasonable people can deflate those types of criticisms easily then. nt

[Two Americas]

136. no one does

It gets repeated over and over again here, that any who criticize the administration are "surprised." They can then all be called "children" and "idiots" and otherwise maligned and discredited. But people are for the most part not expressing surprise. Most critics are saying the same things now that they said before the election, and would be saying them regardless of who was in office if they were doing the same things.

Many of those here who are resistant to hearing any critical analysis, and who are intolerant of dissent, have shifted their positions. Before the election they insisted that Obama was the anti-war candidate and attacked anyone who said otherwise or questioned that at all. Now, the same people claim that Obama was never an anti-war candidate, and that people who thought he was were not paying attention, and that anyone opposed to the war now must therefore have thought he was an anti-war candidate and are now "surprised," and that this proves they are not to be taken seriously.

Pretty convoluted "logic" you are asking us to accept and agree with here.

Who changed their position? Who may be the ones who are actually surprised? Those who have taken a consistent position all along, or those whose positions are shifting according to the circumstances and their feelings?



...

[AmyCamus]

67. DU's much less of a joke now that individual thought is allowed.

It's fun watching the same old lock-steppers freakout when anything less than hive-think is posted.

[FLAprogressive]

70. yup. and the locksteppers criticize lock-step when it comes to their precious Blue Dogs or New Dems

ironic, actually.

[BlooInBloo]

74. (shrug) And whiner criticism should expect pushback. So there's no problem right?

Because dissent is patriotic, right?

:rofl:

[ulysses]

76. you should know.

:D

[Forkboy]

79. Don't knock it until you try it.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

87. Because dissent isn't nearly as patriotic as

kissing a politician's ass.

[Mithreal]

89. Arguing that way is dismissive and weakness. nt

[HughMoran]

77. These back and forth threads gopping up the Greatest Page make me laugh out loud

DU is a giant cluster-fuck lately. Who knew winning would be so complicated?

:)

[Richd506]

81. I don't disagree with this thread however...

I think that it's important to give the man the credit he deserves and not condemn him if you don't get everything you want out of him.

[Mithreal]

105. Yes indeed. And no one is condemning him here though.

Criticizing actions, yes, always skillfully and rationally, no.

[Castleman]

125. Exactly! What are the odds of ANY POTUS

Giving you exactly what you want? Just about forty three billion to one... I voted for Obama because I felt he best represented my views and ideals. I KNOW he and I wouldn't agree with some things, like gun rights & military actions, but that's about 5% of what concerns me, he and I see eye to eye on the other 95%, which is why we all voted for him! I KNOW I'm gonna disagree with him on some things, but that's OK, ain't it? For anyone to expect him to address every single concern you have and expect him to act accordingly in three months?

Only place that's ever going to happen is in ImaginationLand, just watch out for the not so cute forest animals....:P

[ProSense]

83. The bigger problem is people addicted to outrage. n/t

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

91. No funny thing about me is that

I recognize that Obama isn't Bush; that between Hillary and Kucinich, Obama was more qualified to be President; and that making up shit is not valid criticism.

[ProSense]

93. And this:

You are LOATHESOME with your constant bullying of people who don't think EXACTLY like you do....

If you ever see me responding to a poster like this, or calling people bots and the like, and not with a valid argument tell me to "fuck off."

OK?





edited typo

[Mithreal]

108. That is entirely unnecessary and counter-productive. nt

[Mithreal]

107. I do not think so many are addicted to outrage.

I just think people's expectations and emotions are really high. They expect this place to be an oasis from insanity. And many are heavily invested in the hope and change message and do not want to let this President fail or be less than he could be.

[Political Heretic]

112. My criticism is a sign of respect. I speak out because I believe my voice is heard by this Pres.

I speak out because I have some hope. People keep telling me to shut up. But I would be silent if I didn't have any hope.

[Mithreal]

119. Then maybe, just maybe, democracy stands a fighting chance. nt

[NNN0LHI]

122. Just having the Nuclear Football out of Republican hands ... any Republicans hands is enough for me

I don't think some people were aware of the danger we have all been in during the past eight years. I felt like I was living through the The Dead Zone. I couldn't sleep well for eight years.

That alone is enough CHANGE for me. The rest of the stuff is small potatoes by comparison.

Don

[acmavm]

133. Shhhh, didn't you know? We're all renegades from FR! A real

rocket scientist (who thinks that FR was shut down) came up with the solution to the 'why is everyone so mean to Obama' dilemma.

We're busted!

<snip>
Coincidence?
I've noticed that since that certain anti-Obama message board closed down DU has been being spammed with anti-Obama posts. Anyone else noticed that too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8304642