To add to what Atrios says here while I of course think people should keep whatever problems they may have with Barack Obama in perspective, it's probably actually helpful to his political ambitions to have him be criticized from the left. According to the silly conventions that govern our political debate, if you're not to some extent provoking vocal criticism from your base, there's considered to be something wrong with you.
« Canada Day | Main | Changing the Rules »
Constructive Criticism
01 Jul 2008 02:58 pm
Comments (20)
According to the silly conventions that govern our political debate, if you are a Democrat and not to some extent provoking vocal criticism from your base, there's considered to be something wrong with you.
I don't think there's anything silly about desiring a leader who doesn't follow lockstep the monolithic ideology and kneejerk reactions of his base.
Ideology is ultimately pretty stupid in the face of the complexity of reality. Hasn't George Bush taught us that? Or does he just have the wrong ideology?
I don't think there's anything silly about desiring a leader who doesn't follow lockstep the monolithic ideology and kneejerk reactions of his base.
Ideology is ultimately pretty stupid in the face of the complexity of reality. Hasn't George Bush taught us that? Or does he just have the wrong ideology?
FUCK. Isn't the premise of HITS that Democrats need to ditch the Republican Daddy metaphor? Why help perpetuate it? Why play to the Beltway?
Hey, waddya' know! The PUMA group that is supposedly sooooooo pro-Hillary was started by a McCain supporter!
It appears that it's essentially a Trojan horse type of organization, designed by a McCain supporter to stir up trouble for Obama. I wonder how many of the PUMAs posting on various boards are really just McCain supporters in disguise.
In theory, I have no problem with government funding of faith-based charities. The religious organizations are closer to the ground and usually better at getting what's needed to those in need. I understand that there is going to be a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth about it, however, IMHO, as someone who once put of few summers in with Catholic Charities and currently volunteers at few of the religious-based skid row charities here in LA, there is a lot of very good work being done.
My problem is, well, which religious organizations get funding. I suppose I can deal with even a few very conservative Christian organizations getting funding, as long as said organization has a track record of delivering services, but I'll be pissed if, for example, Scientologists get a penny of tax dollars.
I'm sorry, but during the primaries those of us who preferred Clinton to Obama were called racist, toothless hillbillies, low-information voters, feminazis, and all sorts of names. I daresay most of us were concerned with matters of substance, and found that Obama is just too conservative on too many issues. But hey! Now we've got permission from the 20-something men of the centrist segment of the blogosphere to criticize Obama, and everything's okay!
I suppose there are some parallels between this and the situation with being pro- or anti- the invasion of Iraq, with people who were supporters at the time and who are now acknowledging that the invasion was a mistake refusing to grant that the people who were against the invasion from the outset just possibly may have had perfectly good reasons for it.
In theory, I have no problem with government funding of faith-based charities. The religious organizations are closer to the ground and usually better at getting what's needed to those in need.
"Here's your bowl of soup. And by the way, have you heard the good news about Jesus?"
I'm sorry, but during the primaries those of us who preferred Clinton to Obama were called racist, toothless hillbillies, low-information voters, feminazis, and all sorts of names.
By whom?
I daresay most of us were concerned with matters of substance, and found that Obama is just too conservative on too many issues.
On domestic issues, they are virtually identical. On foreign policy, HRC is clearly more hawkish and prepared to continue key elements of Bush policy.
But hey! Now we've got permission from the 20-something men of the centrist segment of the blogosphere to criticize Obama, and everything's okay!
Why would you ever need it?
I suppose there are some parallels between this and the situation with being pro- or anti- the invasion of Iraq, with people who were supporters at the time and who are now acknowledging that the invasion was a mistake refusing to grant that the people who were against the invasion from the outset just possibly may have had perfectly good reasons for it.
Except, of course, your preferred candidate.
I'm sorry, but during the primaries those of us who preferred Clinton to Obama were called racist, toothless hillbillies, low-information voters, feminazis, and all sorts of names. I daresay most of us were concerned with matters of substance, and found that Obama is just too conservative on too many issues.
Issues of substance? Like blackmailing Obama into paying off Hillary's campaign debts? Unity!
Issues of substance? LIke the epic pandering on Florida and Michigan?
I think Obama has the election won. We'll see how progressive he is. (He'd probably get more done with Lieberman on his side)
David Brooks today:
"Amazingly, Democrats have cultivated this donor base while trending populist on trade by forsaking much of the Clinton Third Way approach and by vowing to raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthy. If Obama’s tax plans go through, those affluent donors could wind up giving over 50 percent of their income to the federal government."
That's their problem, not ours.
I doubt he'll invade anyone which should make the isolationists happy.
The hysteria over FISA seemed like a little much to me.
The thing is, if the ultralefties like Petey are proven wrong about Obama, they'll behave just like some on the right and forget that they were ever wrong. That's called a fanatical mindset, oblivious to facts.
Supporting faith based initiatives now is politically convenient. It does NOT make it a good idea. Churches are already tax exempt - so why give them taxpayer money on top of that? Further, I would remind everyone we're going to be running a deficit of around 400-500 billion dollars this year. President Obama (assuming he doesn't pander himself to defeat) will have to start cutting fat out of the budget and do it fast. These kind of Bush era spending increases should be first on the chopping block. And if he thinks there will be too much political heat to kill this kind of pork, wait until he has to address our 600 billion/year "defense" budget. Not all of Obama's critics are on the left or Republicans. A good number are Democrats who are sick of watching our country being driven into the ditch. We expect - and our country desperately needs change and a lot more than symbolism, slick speeches and pandering.
I'm sorry, but during the primaries those of us who preferred Clinton to Obama were called racist, toothless hillbillies, low-information voters, feminazis, and all sorts of names.
By whom?
I daresay most of us were concerned with matters of substance, and found that Obama is just too conservative on too many issues.
On domestic issues, they are virtually identical. On foreign policy, HRC is clearly more hawkish and prepared to continue key elements of Bush policy.
But hey! Now we've got permission from the 20-something men of the centrist segment of the blogosphere to criticize Obama, and everything's okay!
Why would you ever need it?
I suppose there are some parallels between this and the situation with being pro- or anti- the invasion of Iraq, with people who were supporters at the time and who are now acknowledging that the invasion was a mistake refusing to grant that the people who were against the invasion from the outset just possibly may have had perfectly good reasons for it.
Except, of course, your preferred candidate.
Wtf Melinda I'm sorry, but during the primaries those of us who preferred Clinton to Obama were called racist, toothless hillbillies, low-information voters, feminazis, and all sorts of names. I daresay most of us were concerned with matters of substance, and found that Obama is just too conservative on too many issues. But hey!
There were a million reasons why Clinton supporters chose Clinton, but her being the more liberal of the two was definitely not one of them. Don't forget, Hill was attacking Obama from the right the entire last two months of the primaries. Also, given the whole baby bonds and iraq vote issues, do you really think Hill is immune to Republican bullying? If anything, she would already be doing the full Kerry I voted for it before I voted against it dance. We need an unapologetic Dem, and Obama's the closest we'll get (aside from Edwards... too bad).
I'm generally on board with most of the harsh criticisms of Obama, they're certainly deserved, and they do help somewhat him vis-a-vis the general election (though his poll numbers are for sure going to take a dip in the next two weeks).
I have two concerns though. (1) As we see in this thread, such criticism fuels the ignorant infernos of Clinton irredentism that still exist on the tubes, which can get really annoying. (2) Relatedly, legitimate criticisms often come hand in hand with some fairly unsavory jockeying for influence, and you need to be cognizant of who's being empowered when you bang your spoon against the high chair.
Eventually people will realize that Obama is a politician - which means he lies, panders, takes money from unsavory people, doesn't know a hell of a lot what he's talking about (and doesn't care), and generally works for the rich than the poor.
I don't care about his "faith-based" whatever crap, that's utterly irrelevant to the future of the country, even if he is pandering to the right wing religious nuts.
I care that if Bush doesn't start a war with Iran, Obama will because he thinks Iran is "a threat" - which pretty much locks in your diplomatic options. And that he thinks the US can "win" in Afghanistan and "take the fight to Al Qaeda" in Pakistan - both positions are wrong and dangerous and clearly do nothing to remove US foreign policy from the "terrorism is a military problem" mindset that Obama claims to be wanting to ditch while offering no alternatives in his actual foreign policy speeches.
When Obama speaks, he is manipulative and intellectually dishonest.
"They are going to scare you. They're going to say he's young. They're going to say he's inexperienced; they're going to say he has a funny name. And did I mention that he's black?"
Senator Obama, you are inexperienced. You have taken credit for Illinois bills that other politicians worked on. Emil Jones Jr. (your mentor) placed your name as a co-sponsor on laws that you now cite in your campaign ads. How did you reward your friend? You directed tens of millions of dollars in earmark pet projects to his Illinois district.
You have stated that you do not take PAC or lobbyist money. However, only half of the $265 million dollars that you raised came from small Internet donors. A large part of your donor base comes from law firms representing lobbyists from the mortgage and financial industries.
In this campaign, you have used race as a wedge issue. If anyone disagrees with you, they are attacked as racists, soon to be racists, or "bitter, deadenders, or delusional."
What gives you the right to call anyone a racist? You have been a 20 year member of a church that practices "Black Liberation Theology." It is a religion that is rooted in black racism and Marxism. If any of your supporters cry foul have them read the "Mission Statement" by Cone and West the architects of BLT.
"Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks)."
It is a religion that encourages the "victim mentality" among blacks. Reverend Wright's sermon how Hillary could not relate to being black is a perfect example of that culture. It perpetuates racism against whites by focusing on black barriers. In addition, it reinforces the belief that "people are poor because they are victims of others." It is not a reasonable explanation that you failed to comprehend the philosophy of your church for 20 years.
There are many legitimate reasons to oppose you as the nominee. The fact that you were a member of a racist and Marxist church disqualifies you to be President.
The only "victim mentality" being demonstrated here is by you pseudo-Democrat right wing Clinton freaks, Ward.
Hey, go over to Comedy Central and review Jon Stewart's question to Obama: "Are you going to enslave the white race?"
That's on a par with your comments. At least Stewart was joking.
Now hear me out...
My hope at the moment is that Obama follows the same path that Bush did on his route from candidate to president. The current president ran a general election campaign centered around his "compassionate conservatism" and touted his desire for a "humble foreign policy". I recall many liberals were not that worried about his victory-- "he'll be like his dad, a moderate", they said. As we've all have had the awful privilege to watch, he ruled instead as a war mongering, culture war rousing ideologue.
I take Obama at his word when he says he does not want to be the next Bill Clinton. He aims to be transformational like Reagan or Roosevelt. Even if its ego and not goodwill (which I don't believe) that drives him, he'll do what he can to make sure he leaves behind an America that bears the stamp of his leadership. Thats means big things like healthcare, energy policy, renewed diplomacy, and a rigorous effort to reform public education.
The beauty of it all is that he'll like have a large majority in congress to make sure it happens.
Comments closed July 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've been saying this for a while now. Obama has his base fairly well sealed up. Any liberal thinking about voting for McCain need only look at John Roberts, Scalia, and crew to change their minds. Of course many of his positions are moving toward the center. Its an election where both candidates are seeking to make big grabs from the center. There's too much hand wringing going on here by people who should know better.
Posted by RoboticGhost | July 1, 2008 3:18 PM