Surprised by the atmosphere here....

[ClarkJonathanKent]

I have been a lurker on DU for years. I love it here, for many reasons. The most significant reason, I believe, is that DU is a place that offers thoughtful, mostly informed compliments and CRITIQUES of politicians and events, critiques being the more important of the two. The criticisms found here are not the criticisms found anywhere else. You do not haggle over Obama's birth certificate, or whether he is a secret Muslim, but rather, you DO talk about his environmental record. You do not give false credence to the idea that there are 2 sides to every story. You do not give false credence to the idea that both sides are equally terrible. Not giving in to these popular misconceptions tells me that members here have an informed and mostly fair perspective, and perspective is key. Facts without perspective are certainly valuable, but without perspective, they are useless. For example, knowing the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is certainly important. But only perspective will determine if you think there is too little or too much of it, and what actions we might need to take.

It is with this in mind that I tell you how sad I am to see this attitude around here that you are either with us or against us. People that critique Obama's record on global warming are being treated like the people that think he is trying to steal our guns. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a person offer a reasonable criticism of Obama, only to be bombarded by snark or insults saying how the person would clearly rather have Bush back in the White House.

This isn't an either/or proposition, and too many people here treat it as such. One can be critical of Obama, but still think he was the rational choice to vote for. Similarly, one can be a fan of many actions the president has taken, but deeply upset by other actions. One can sincerely appreciate and admire some of the actions he has taken in regards to the environment or gay rights, but still be justifiably disappointed in other areas of the environment or gay rights.

I am very disappointed in many elected Democrats right now, but that does not mean I regret who I voted for. And I am sure that 99% of the people that critique Obama here feel the same way. I am sure many people here dislike Clinton or Obama for doing certain things, but still understand that they were the best choice they had available.

Similarly, I have seen people that compliment Obama treated as if they were mindless patsies. This is not fair either, and I think it should stop. That being said, I have seen incidents like this in FAR fewer numbers than the aforementioned dynamic. My focus is mostly on the oppression of dissent.

Dissent is not the same as disloyalty. We can learn from criticisms. This is the Democratic UNDERGROUND, not the Democratic CHEERLEADERS Association. I hope that seems reasonable.

[geek tragedy]

1. The quickest way to make the Greatest page is to bash Obama from the left.

Has been that way since he won in 2008.

There is no oppression or silencing of dissent here. It's the Internet, and people argue.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. you summed it up well in your post title sentence

amazing.

[icarusxat]

93. which is why

gas prices are high...

[leftstreet]

8. Obama's FDR-like speeches used to make the Greatest page

What happened?

[geek tragedy]

9. he got elected nt

[byeya]

16. He got elected and failed to even give lip service to promises that were important to

many of his supporters.

[geek tragedy]

19. DU is not reflective of either the Democratic party or the USA.

Otherwise we'd be talking about how Kucinich fared against the Republican nominee.

[David__77]

31. You don't need a majority to agree with you to rule.

You just need to get the majority to vote vote for the right candidates. Two very different things. Progressives should critically support Obama. SUPPORT being the key word. Progressives need to become indispensable to Obama so that they can exercise influence beyond their numbers. It's far from that situation now - the left is a mish-mash, a swamp.

[geek tragedy]

33. Progressives by and large do critically support him.

But, there are a number of people on the left and the right who are just opposition-party types whose only interest is to oppose/criticize the party in power.

The problem is that they've taken over the Republican party, whereas ours just rant on the Internet to no effect.

[sibelian]

76. OK.

PLONK.

[Skittles]

116. LOL.....sibelian

you get it - yes indeed

[Mojorabbit]

78. Wow, way to diss most of the board. nt

[geek tragedy]

81. I didn't say 'most' of DU. nt

[sabrina 1]

119. Lol, okay if you say so!

DU is so entertaining at times. But you're right about the 'just ranting' part, 'they' would like to take over the Party, but we Progressives are not about to let that happen.

[geek tragedy]

120. Take any poll done re: Obama and tell me I'm wrong nt

[sabrina 1]

121. What does that have to do with my comment? How odd that the first thing to jump

into your head is Obama. What I said was that we Progressives will not allow the extremists who have invaded the party to take it over, to be clear, that would be the Third Way who already have a party of their own.

[geek tragedy]

122. To which party are you referring?

The one that gave you Clinton and Obama as its two most recent Presidents?

[sabrina 1]

145. The Third Party that has infiltrated the Democratic Party. Would you like a history of

how they did it? It's pretty shocking actually, but now most Democrats are aware of them so finally something can be done to send them back to their own party. I was thinking that we Progressives might think about doing the same thing to THEIR party, that would be the Republican Party, what do you think? The more progressives we have in power the better.

[geek tragedy]

146. A bit premature for purges. nt

[sabrina 1]

147. There is never a time for purging. But there is always a time for cleaning out

destructive forces.

[geek tragedy]

148. LMAO. Last word is yours. nt

[sabrina 1]

149. Of course, it's hard to argue against facts, I understand, I've found myself in that

position a few, very few of course, times.

[Marr]

37. You're contradicting yourself.

You're saying on the one hand, Obama's campaign rhetoric was popular here, but his governing style is not. Then on the other hand, you're saying DU is not representative of the country or the Democratic Party.

Well, who do you think voted in the election? Just DU? That rhetoric that was popular around here was apparently popular all over the country, especially with Democrats.

His governing style is far to the right of the campaign rhetoric that *won him the election*.

[geek tragedy]

40. No, I'm saying that (1)it's a lot easier to campaign than to govern; and (2) Obama has always

had wider support from the Democratic party at large than he has had at DU.

[Katashi_itto]

51. +1000

[nineteen50]

36. I believe he was the one that wanted t have his feet held to the fire.

[loudsue]

74. I'm glad you like Obama, but that statement is so friggin' false.

And it is the kind of whiney snark toward Obama's critics that has things so torn up around here. "The quickest way to make it to the Greatest page is to bash Obama from the left".

That statement is the very kind of thing that is categorically not true.

[geek tragedy]

90. It's fucking true. Bashing Obama is way more popular here than bashing

Republicans.

The greatest page will spell that out.

Immigration, sequester, obstruction of judges and appointees to CFPB and Labor and EPA, etc don't matter to a huge segment of the site, which just wants to whine and complain and kvetch about how Obama's presidency has left them emotionally unsatisfied.

[rhett o rick]

111. Your definition of "bashing" is anything that doesnt give acolades to the President. And they wouldn

wouldnt make it to the front page except with the help of your multiple posts. I like to bash Republicans, like Clapper, Mueller, Geitner, Summers, Bernanke, Daley, Immelt, Simpson, Cote, Bush, Gates, McChrystal, Lew, Norton, Brennen, Hegal, Taylor, Comey, Robert Mueller, etc. But when I do you accuse me of bashing Obama.

I am curious, do you support the Patriot Act?

[geek tragedy]

113. Half the people you list are Democrats. nt

[TheKentuckian]

131. No, they are all Republicans. That nominal letter by the name is meaningless.

If one is a robberbaron or one of their footpads then you are on the right.

[AgingAmerican]

152. Criticizing his policies isn't "bashing him"

That's pathetic

[randome]

3. Calling for more reasoned debate is always welcome!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. I'll agree with that

although some will disagree with me for agreeing with that.

[flamingdem]

50. Maturity is sure to kick in after another few days

Snowden will be in Nicaragua, and we'll be back to discussing pitbulls and social security

[graham4anything]

4. President Obama was the single best choice since LBJ. He was not JUST the best available, but the #1

best.

Same as Hillary45 is the singular #1 best available since President Obama in 2016 and 2020.

So I disagree with your saying President Obama was only the best available, when he was the B.E.S.T.period.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. stop with the cheerleading. mmmkay??

[graham4anything]

12. Why should I not give my opinion which many people agree with? President Obama is the

transitional president, the gateway as it is

And not to mention, the single smartest person aside from Jimmy Carter to be president and since Adlai Stevenson to run for President.

Every single move he makes indeed is thinking all those steps ahead, and there is a plan in place from day one, for years from now,
when he no longer is President (but hopefully shall be Supreme Court Justice Obama in 2018 and after.)

as for the wedge issues, like the book says, "don't sweat the small stuff, because all of them are small stuff"
and look at the biggest stuff, like his naming Sonia Sotomayer and Elana Kagen plus possibly more,
and the court turning democratic in 2017 and 2018 with the big switches.

President Obama has put into place ending two wars, closing Gitmo, giving the nation great health care,
the auto industry is thriving, the housing market is better now than in a decade,

and like a football game needing a fieldgoal, to get to field goal range, one has to get to midfield.

After Bush left office, the ball was on the one yard line, and to get to field goal range, one has to get to the other 40 yard line to kick a 60 yard field goal.

Instant gratification doesn't cut the mustard. It is a lifetime goal.

And battles are lost before wars are won.

As Bette Davis said, hang on it's going to be a bumpy ride

and by the time the dust settles, and Hillary is President, it will be smooth sailing from then on
and like in other times, legislation will pass 75 to 25 and 80 to 20 and this obstructionist, from radical rightwing who want to take things back to 1859 will long be gone.

IMHO

[L0oniX]

15. Yea Baby Jane for POTUS...

[Skittles]

75. OMG STOP IT L0oniX

[Divernan]

85. I needed a good belly laugh today - thank you!

[beveeheart]

61. Count me as agreeing with you!

[BehindTheCurtain76]

71. No way

I respect your opinion but I agree with it about as much as I agree that cops are our friends and there to protect and serve. The Clinton's and Obama's are merely B-Team subs that are 'allowed' to win when the Repugs know they can't steal an election. They know that these conservative Dems will ensure the same foreign policy, corporate policy and surveillance policy and regardless of the whining spasms o their kooky base they know they have little to worry about. As far as being smart goes I believe that hasn't helped much and has actually worked against us because that kind of savvyness has only worked to convince us that the crap sandwich we have been handed actually tastes good. Obama makes my favorite, Jimmy Carter, look like a hippie radical

[L0oniX]

99. +1

[TheJames]

96. Yeah, I would join you in a pipe,

but I'm about to leave for work and I can't get all f**ked up before.

[L0oniX]

98. LOL

[L0oniX]

13. Extreme worshipping is rampant here.

[randome]

14. He has his hero, you have yours.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dionysus]

70. yup, plenty worship manning and snowden.. some even stand with rand. nt

[treestar]

83. Another exaggeration

May as well also refer to the unhinged,deranged hatred then.

[Logical]

25. LOL, and you still question the "cheerleading" complaints? n-t

[graham4anything]

30. After 1001 smears against the president, from the birthers to Rev. Wright, etc. it's just another

day ending in Y.
The amazing thing is, President Obama did bring transparency to the nation.

When the 80-20 is in place, then everyone will see it.

after all, look how many years it took before finally, LBJ is being seen as the greatest liberal president of all time, something I saw from day one.

IMHO

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. "finally, LBJ is being seen as the greatest liberal president of all time"

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. I see LBJ for what he is: A President who lied the country into war using a false incident.

[Apophis]

39. What are you smoking?

[totodeinhere]

54. I could name you any number of choices who would have been better progressive alternatives

to Obama. And as far as Clinton goes, she is a corporatist and I would take Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean or Sharrod Brown over her any day.

[October]

7. Welcome toDU

I respectfully disagree, especially as regards your last paragraph.

I've been here a long time - lurked a bit before joining, as most do. Still, the place has changed from civil discussion to mostly snark.

And this place is ANYTHING but a cheerleading association for President Obama. There's no balance.

[Logical]

26. There is plenty of balance. Only those who are losing the argument are complaining. n-t

[October]

144. No. Don't think so. Been here a long time.

I think DU is way out of whack and the trolls have run amok. There is a concerted effort to agitate. Balanced discussion is long gone. Just snark and one-line condescension replies with n/t - hit and run insults and snark.

I well recall eloquent disagreement and enlightening dialogue. It's been gone far too long.

[OregonBlue]

10. Actually I disagree with you. It's more like a right-wing Obama hate fest lately.

Criticism is one thing, it's been all out Obama bashing for over a week. The trolls are out big time and really enjoying themselves.

[randome]

20. I think this is worse than the heydey of Occupy.

Which I'm not mentioning in order to hijack this thread or to elicit anyone's opinion on that!

I just mean there was a lot of bitter debates going on last year and the year before.

But the subject of Snowden\Obama seems to have eclipsed even that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[tularetom]

24. Am I a right wing Obama hater when I am critical of the president for doing right wing things?

Like proposing to implement the chained CPI?

Or not closing down Gitmo?

Or continuing and even expanding the godawful surveillance policies of the Bush administration?

Or failing to prosecute war criminals and Wall St thieves?

I've never criticized him for his support of gay marriage, for curtailing our involvement in Iraq, or even for the Affordable Care Act.

But I'm definitely not his biggest fan when he acts like a republican. Which he seems to be doing a lot lately, unfortunately.

[msongs]

32. why of course you are, and far worse, so please don't criticize any policies ok lol nt

[ElboRuum]

64. No. Did someone accuse you of being one? n/t

[G_j]

34. that's a problem

it seems like Obama critics are
constantly compared to RWingers and Teabaggers by people such as yourself. I've been voting Democratic for over 40 years. For me, getting called a troll and hater, is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, or at best, severe ignorance.
And I don't see that happening the other way around.

[nineteen50]

41. The louder the cheer-leading the louder the criticism

[TimeToGo]

66. Or . . .

[treestar]

84. Why do you use the negative term "cheer leading" for one side

and the more neutral "criticism" for the other? Why is it not "support" vs. "criticism?" Because you are completely biased, that's why.

[mick063]

158. yep

Squeeze jello and it oozes between your fingers. Greater pressure loses containment.

Fealty will screw us.

There is no lesser of two evils. Only anger and frustration.

[Skittles]

68. LOLOL

CLASSIC EXAMPLE ABOVE!!!

[Number23]

73. Yep and yep and yep again.

[Doctor_J]

125. Right-wing hate fest? Can you point me to some posts that criticize Obama for being too liberal?

Just one or two would be enough to prove your point. TIA

[friendlyFRIEND]

11. I've lurked here too

and I think that DU is at it's best when people disagree.

Standing in a circle jerk chanting a mantra isn't productive or educational.

[Shankapotomus]

17. I would like to downplay it as a "family squabble"

but I think some my object to an implied familial connection.

[spooky3]

18. Well-said. Thanks for posting it.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. My complaints are always based on disagreement with Obama's and all democrats' policies.

The racist claims that he was not born in the US or that he is Muslim are not only ignorant but not relevent and not productive. I want to talk about things that affect my family's daily life like education, healthcare, and fair wages. We must address the problems made by corporations driving down wages and privatizing every public institution we have. These issues are too important to gloss over, to just assume they will get done somewhere down the line just because we have a democrat in the White House.

[carolinayellowdog]

22. Amen

but alas your comments will fall on deaf ears because the disappointment=bashing meme has taken strong hold among those who want an excuse to express visceral hostility toward the less-party-faithful

[Scurrilous]

23. Oy.

@#$% this underground crap.

This place began when BUSH was president. It was an underground then (a la the French Resistance) as Democrats were on the outside fighting (so to speak) the Bush administration.

Now that we have a Democratic administration the whole emphasis on underground (and not Democratic) is silly.

It's like when you go to those whackjob conspiracy sites. During the Bush administration they were all Bush! LIHOP! MIHOP! Bilderberger/Tri-Lateral blah blah.

Obama was elected. They took the same articles, deleted Bush's name, and replaced it with Obama. And people eat it up. Suckers.

[pacalo]

27. Well said.

And a hearty welcome to DU, ClarkJK!

[DCBob]

28. You must not be a very good lurker..

because it's painfully obvious this site has turned into an Obama bash fest.

[Scuba]

29. Bravo. Excellent post. Thanks.

[randr]

38. Well said

As a life long Democrat it has been, for me, important to clearly understand and define my own principles as they evolve and try my best to reflect them in my daily life. I believe the Democrat Party has established itself as the party that holds our candidates' feet to the fire.
Our principles and political aspirations are far more important than our loyalty to a candidate--period

[CakeGrrl]

42. Nice try

but you gave it away your real sentiment with your closer:

"This is the Democratic UNDERGROUND, not the Democratic CHEERLEADERS Association."

If you think the "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is attributed largely those who are more supportive of the President than others, you haven't been reading enough around here. Or you've been cherry-picking what you read.

I can grab an easy handful of namecalling, insulting posts directed at fellow members of this forum from the past few days and can pretty much guarantee that they came from steadfast...critics of the President.

[OregonBlue]

43. Nailed it CakeGrrl. The trolls are out in force and having fun at our expense.

[LondonReign2]

62. Yes, everyone that disagrees with an Obama policy

is a troll, a racist, and a hater.

We should all agree to STFU and love our leader, no matter what.

[MjolnirTime]

65. Greenwald's Army?

[Myrina]

89. I think you're un-necessarily defensive.

99% of the OP called for reasoning from BOTH sides of an argument, yet you take the last line & somehow twist it into a (personal?) troll attack.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Bobbie Jo]

95. I suspect

This isn't his first DU rodeo.

[JTFrog]

44. So I guess whining about DU is okay as long

as you are pushing out the cheerleader meme.

"Similarly, I have seen people that compliment Obama treated as if they were mindless patsies. This is not fair either, and I think it should stop"

Yet, in the very next paragraph, you throw out the cheerleader meme. Pardon me if I pass on your version of reasonable.

[Scurrilous]

48. I guess the old Pony VS Cheerleader Compromise has been rendered null & void by the new jury system.

One side couldn't invoke pony (as in 'sorry you didn't get your'), and the other couldn't yelp cheerleader (or post images of said).

Now, anything goes...

[flamingdem]

52. What about a cheerleader on a pony?

Was that ok?

[Scurrilous]

56. No sex threads, remember?

[burnodo]

55. Yes

Happened earlier when a post whining about DU was not locked. I guess rules are selective around here.

[marble falls]

45. I agree. I have severe problems with his drug, privacy, Afgan, I think single payer...

is better - I certainly would not vote for Romney if given the chance. I vote for Obama and I'd hope he'd throw a "Hail Mary" to his 'legacy' by 2014. But calling him another Bush is wrong and unfair.

[zeemike]

46. And a quick read though of this thread and you see

Which side tries to dominate the conversation....the ones that try to oppress decent...which if you think about it makes sense.

[NRaleighLiberal]

49. very well said and spot in IMHO. n/t

[nashville_brook]

53. really nice post! the either/or push is counterproductive b/c like you say, we can

agree on one point of policy and disagree on another. the whole point of being active in policy debates is to sharpen the results. the all-or-nothing rhetoric is a failing of process, and we'd be smart not to reward it or react to it.

[Warpy]

57. I think we got a huge influx of recovering Republicans

who still have that light switch authoritarian mentality and who don't understand the nuance of supporting a president because he was much better than anything the opposition offered but realizing some of his policies and political strategies have been deeply flawed.

I think it comes as a surprise to many of them that this isn't Democratic Rubber Stamp the way the Republican sites they so recently abandoned were.

I'll cut them some slack and be civil while I'm explaining why their take on things is wrong.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. You Better Believe It!

[SunSeeker]

126. LOL! nt

[blkmusclmachine]

59. The only ones who have been disloyal to the Party,

have been our elected representatives.

[stupidicus]

60. I'm still trying to figure how/why this is something "new"

to so many around here -- lurkers or not.

I made the same observations and points in response to the great "chained cpi" debate, which differs little to not at all in terms of the points you made in terms of the form and substance of the rhetoric and accompanying tactics.

The important one missing here imo I'd pose in the form of a question I asked before the last election in response to all the "you're a troll/rightwinger/Romneyite trying to discourage people from voting BS" in response to our concerns about chained cpi --- "Who's doing more damage in terms of the all important turnout and contributing more to discouraging it, those expressing honest concerns and/or disagreement with the policies under examination, or those telling them basically to sit down and shut-up?"

I'd argue that the wouldbe censors would be the biggest contributors to whatever discouragement occurs, because they are the ones closing the tent door and that to all hopes of the betterment sought with the criticisms. Not only is that level of intolerance for differing opinions, dissent, etc about as "illiberal" as you can get, closing the tent door leaves only one reason to vote dem -- the alternative. Fear of the alternative alone is not near as effective in inspiring and preserving allegiance as whatever positive things those you'd ally yourself with can and should provide in their own self-interest if nothing else, and the demands from the cheerleaders around here is tantamount to a demand that we be something we are not to gain and keep acceptance within their fold.

If anything will discourage me from voting dem as I have for decades, it won't at this time be the many disappointments I've had in the pols I've helped elect, but rather my inability to be part of a group like you posted about here if I was to assume they are representative of the whole as they'd like to think they are.

Personally I think they are part of a vociferous minority here and in the real world as far as those of us allegedly on the left are concerned. The goal of we the majority doing the criticizing, is to make our side better, and not just a "lesser of two evils" choice. Identifying the flaws, etc, in the current crop is how we find and vote in their betters if need be. Electing better dems is the solution to much of what ails us as a nation, and that will never happen as long as critical examination is discouraged in the way it has been around here.

[dreamnightwind]

108. Excellent post!

I'm arriving late to this thread, but wanted to give you a shout-out as I think you expressed the situation quite well.

[stupidicus]

118. thanks

this is not the first place I've had experiences like this. All of the online political boards I've been on in the last decade and more before dipping my toe in this pool of presumably and exclusively, fellow lefties, have been "co-ed" so to speak, so the peer pressure to "tow the line" has been greater but similarly ignored...lol. Being critical of BHO in the presence of cons was something many dedicated dems had a hard time dealing with, no matter how large or successful a record one might have compiled defending him from the dishonest nonsense coming from rightwingers.

Another thing I don't get is the way so many around here seem to think that such conflicts are inherently bad, when conflict is more often than not the starting point of solutions. This is not to say that the means by which the conflicts are resolved are equally bad or good. I think the polarization in this case might ultimately be good even if the quality of discourse is now often bad, because should it inevitably be shown that illegalities/unconstitutional actions have been going on with the NSA, etc, that the credulity of the current defenders of such will largely be shattered, and provide them with the healthy scepticism the rest of us have about the need for and desirability of such, as well as more tolerance in the future when other issues arise that honest speculation and/or criticism is applied to.

I had hoped after BHO threw chained cpi on the table after months and months of denials such was possible, much less likely, and of course, all the name-calling, etc, that that particular humiliation would have led to more of that than we're seeing presently over the NSA/spying issue, in a "Fool me once..." kinda way.

[dreamnightwind]

150. Yes, I have had the same dashed hopes

It seems as though too many are merely entrenched in a "side", fighting for the perceived benefit of their side regardless of the particular situation in front of them. As a result, learning rarely happens.

For me the eye-opener was the healthcare debate. We were told again and again that Obama had this, meaning he was playing x-dimensional chess by not tipping his hand while the debate raged on. No way would the president take single-payer off the table, no way would there be a mandate to buy private insurance, no way would there be a mandate to buy private insurance without a public option, no way would he be secretly pushing the Heritage-Romney-Wellpoint plan, and no way would he do this without strong price controls. Not sure if my representation of the debate is perfect, but I watched it unfold, and watched the various arguments here on DU, basically I watched hope slip away as it became increasingly clear that the insurance corporations were the ones calling the shots.

OK, all well and good in a way, it's politics and it isn't pretty. It was a poop sausage they were making but I've been around awhile and can understand that money rules. But what I couldn't abide was watching the pretzel logic on this site by the unconditional Obama supporters. They used heavy doses of denial, shouting down people who warned about what might actually be happening. With each step in the process the goalposts were moved, until what was finally revealed was the poop sausage that had been constructed behind closed doors. The unconditional Obama supporters, most all of them anyway, never returned to admit how wrong they were, never apologized, never admitted that the doubters were correct, nothing. They just moved on to the next case of defending the indefensible.

Healthcare is just one example, and perhaps not the best one, but for me it was the first one where I saw the whole dynamic play out and realized that there is no actual dialogue happening with many of the blind supporters. There is just a fight, a defense, largely removed from the supposed goal of advancing a liberal or progressive agenda, of rolling back the many wrong steps that were taken during the Bush (and Clinton) administration.

I have no idea if the unconditional supporters are even liberal, how many of them are paid for posting here (I would dearly like for this issue to be thoroughly explored and ended), nor what kind of country they ultimately strive to live in. Many of them actively opposed Occupy in the same way they oppose Snowden, Greenwald, FDL, Manning, Assange, Chomsky, Kucinich, etc. So are these people Democrats? Former Republicans who moved to our party? Paid stooges? Some of each, probably. But it's a huge energy drain on this site and gets in the way of the real discussions that need to happen if the Democratic Party is to become the party of the 99% again.

Sorry for the length of this, I ramble. Hopefully not a total waste of time.

[stupidicus]

159. far from a waste of time

it rings many a bell.

While I was likely using this place as a news-gathering service it is back at that time, I didn't read or participate in the threads until about a year or so ago now. That endless moving of the goalpost you described only to inevitably fall face first into at the end, was exactly what I observed with the SS/chained cpi debate.

The bell it rung is one I've made a point of many a time to the characters you're describing -- that there are many things of that sort that the rightwingnuts don't have a monopoly on, including "debating" tactics. That's what they've (rightwingers on other boards I've been on) done for as long as I've been on them, starting with the wmd BS -- be wrong as a factual matter time and again, like recently with the Benghazi and IRS scandals -- and then just drop them like they never happened while maintaining that they are still the sharpest tools in the box. The only mystery left as I periodically remind them, is whether they are more dumb than dishonest, or the other way around.

Given this, the conditions here make a great deal more sense to me. It reads to me like the many oldtimers around here battling it out currently over the NSA thing, and the way in which they are doing it, is perhaps more representative of an accumulation of many small or large charges -- however you wanna look at them respectively -- than something isolated to the more recent ones of SS and the NSA I've witnessed and participated in. It also reads like this is not a chicken/egg situation as I suspected, and that it is almost if not always the dissent that is the catalyst/proximate cause for the escalation in/revisiting of the rancor -- with the "good guys" picking the scab off with the customary "bizness" directed at those dissenting.

Thanks for the post and insight it provided dream.

[MjolnirTime]

63. Nice try, Superman.

[Skittles]

67. you speak the truth, Clark

[another_liberal]

69. Good for you!

That truly needed to be said.

[Hydra]

72. I'm not surprised

In fact, I'm surprised it took this long.

DU has had a rift open between the people fighting for policies and the people fighting for the people in office. This rift opened up almost as soon as the primaries were over- Each person here has a line they won't cross, and when our party asks us to cross it for the greater good, there are going to be problems.

The lines came early for me. I don't support deepwater drilling. The Admin and its supporters told protestors like me to STFU, that we needed the oil and that the adults were finally in charge and overseeing it properly.

When the inevitable happened, the President went on national TV with a plan to fix everything: "Pray."

This was not the first insult. Not by a longshot. "Legalizing" spying. Letting Bushco go. Spitting in the face of the LBGT community. Bailing out the banks while pushing an insufficient stimulus for everyone else. Selling out unions. There is almost an endless parade of the betrayals and other "sensible" ideas being pushed.

At some point, they're going to alienate everyone. In the mean time, you're going to have a split...until at some point most everyone will be on the same side again, because as we drift rightward even further, people here will realize that they are not republicans and don't want to be.

I think that's the essence of the problem here- our leaders want us to be the new moderate Republicans. I'm not one of those. I'm a civil liberties, social and economic justice Democrat. And I'm not budging.

[Skittles]

77. THANK YOU HYDRA

I am not one of "those", either - I care more about my country than panting over a politician

[forestpath]

86. +1000

[Oilwellian]

97. Hydra, that was so well said

and touches on a core problem in the Democratic party. There are millions of us who won't budge and that poses a big problem for the party.

[Marrah_G]

101. I wish I could recommend this post

[datasuspect]

112. people of conscience have a conscience

partisan hacks are the useful idiots of the 1%.

[Doctor_J]

154. It took awhile to grind me down

But the entire Obama term has been one long list of giveaways. Deepwater drilling. Arctic drilling. Corporatized Health Care. Union Busting. Teacher abuse (remember Rhode Island?). Arne Duncan and Michelle Rhee. Prosecution of whistle blowers. Offers to cut SS and Medicare. Renewing the Bush/Obama billionaires' tax cuts. Refusal to take a stand on LGBT rights (states rights??). And KeystoneXL and TPP are right around the corner.

Eventually anyone with any principles at all has to stop backing up. The president doesn't seem to have any. I have mine and was able to bend them for a little while, but stop giving in long ago.

[Cha]

79. This is Definitly not any Cheerleaders for Obama association. All you have to do is

look at what the Recs are and you see that isn't true. More threads that Bash Pres Obama are what are standard operating procedure.

So your sentence..

This is the Democratic UNDERGROUND, not the Democratic CHEERLEADERS Association.

.. seems disingenous to me.

FYI I don't object to criticisms of the President.. it's the mind blowing "bootlicker", "authoritarian" bullshit and Pres Obama is a "douche" assholeness that does not fly.

[davidpdx]

82. You forgot the

Obama=Bush meme which I've seen a lot of.

[JTFrog]

91. And this hit and run

proves your point perfectly. Just look at the swarm around the chum in the water.

[SidDithers]

123. Whining about DU isn't Meta when it's bashing Obama supporters...

There's a real double standard in what gets locked and what gets left in GD.

Sid

[Cha]

134. I know, Sid.. The Obama Haters are in Charge. I hope they don't think

that they're being so sneaky that they're getting away with shit?

We see you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. there are those who politics is about advancing a policy agenda and there are those who see politics

as electing the personalities they like. If someone's politics is about advancing a policy agenda and they happen to be essentially what would have been a moderate Republican a couple decades ago or if they are personally enamored with Barack Obama - then they are most likely going to be pretty much satisfied with this Administration. If their concentration is on advancing an explicitly liberal, progressive or left-wing policy agenda then they not going to be so satisfied with the Obama Administration. Although I do agree that the later - those are genuinely politically liberal, progressive or left-wing - should not be shocked at how things have turned out if they had really followed what candidate Obama was saying back in 2008 -

[ctsnowman]

87. K & R

[LindaCollins11]

88. thanks

I agree with this 100%

[FSogol]

92. Cool story, Bro!

[Bobbie Jo]

94. This. nt

[Puglover]

155. Hey Bobbie Jo

Howz come this "Cool story bro" is like all neat and acceptable? And one below was, well not so much?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3026772

[Bobbie Jo]

156. I'm flattered

and impressed with your ability to recall my old posts, as you've done this a number of times at random.

At the same time, it's really kinda creepy.

In response to your bizarre gotcha attempt, let's just say the poster at the link you provided has a track record that we're all familiar with, and I'll just leave it at that.

Comparing the two OP's in context might provide some additional clues. It was tacky, and I said so. Now what?

Hope that helps.

[Saviolo]

100. As a fellow long-time lurker

I made a similar comment in a thread about how Obama was the friendliest Pres ever to gay rights. I feel bad that people are starting to miss shades of grey and take an all-or-nothing for-us-or-against-us attitude.

Do I agree with everything Obama does? Hell no. Spoilers: No elected official is ever going to please anyone 100%, or even 100% of their base at any time. It's not going to happen. Ideologies just don't work like that. I disagree vigorously with Obama about a great many things.

Is this a huge plus for Obama? Hell yes. I appreciate the work that Obama did towards this goal. This is actually huge. Just by talking about how he has evolved on the issue, and talking about equal rights, changed the political landscape into something that made this possible.

Saying you agree with something he's done doesn't make you a cheerleader. Saying you disagree with something he's done doesn't make you a basher. We're all individuals, and isn't it nice that, in general, progressives are all progressive in different ways, while regressives are all regressive in the same way?

[ClarkJonathanKent]

102. Let me first say thank you to the mostly polite responses so far..

Most of the people that disagreed with my post were still very polite about it, and I appreciate that. With respect to what some people observed, I would like to apologize if my choice of the word "cheerleaders" was inappropriate. If I may clarify, I would like to agree with another poster that saying positive things about Obama doesn't make one a cheerleader. I was referring to the people that seem to dogmatically praise the president without ever acknowledging that he does have faults.

I would like to thank all the people that agreed with me because that feeling of solidarity is much appreciated. The last time I posted on this forum, I was basically ridiculed. One should be prepared for that when posting in a forum, but it still surprised me.

Back on topic, I would like to make an observation for the people that disagreed with my post, and ask a question. As far as "Obama bashing" making the most popular threads, I would simply like to point out that this is not a bad thing. For example:

Let's say you know a dude from work and become friends. You know each other for a few years and think he is a great guy. Then one day, you find out that he sometimes hits his wife. 99.9% of the time, he is a great guy. But the act of beating his wife is so significant that it becomes the dominant piece of information in your assessment of him, regardless of whether it is .01% of his actions. Similarly, I can guarantee you that all the people that post or participate in "Obama bashing" threads probably have 50 things they like about the President, whether it be his actions or a personality trait. I am sure they would acknowledge it if you asked them. But the things they don't like about him are often prominent in our thoughts because (and this is a huge assumption) most of the people here participate because they want to discuss the things that need to CHANGE and be fixed, and not necessarily the things that need to stay the same. Have you ever worked for a person that was mostly a good boss, but sometimes really screwed things up? Did you ever point that out to your boss? Ever point it out to your co-workers? Were you "bashing" your boss? Were you ignoring all his good points? Or were you making thoughtful observations about things at your job that could be improved? I think it was the latter. Which brings me to the question I wanted to ask....

What constitutes bashing? Are the people complaining about the chained CPI proposals "bashing?" Are people complaining about lack of action on Climate Change merely thoughtless Obama bashers? Are any complaints against Obama valid? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Should every Obama failing be blamed on Republican obstructionism of Congress? Democrats are only responsible for the good, and bear no responsibility for the bad? Should any person's complaint or observation of Obama or the Democrats be immediately reduced to bashing?

I seem to recall a prominent Catholic official respond to one of Bill Maher's rants on Catholicism, and instead of actually addressing the points that Maher made, he simply denounced him for "bashing" the Catholic Church. It felt like a pretty cheap trick, meant only to distract and belittle, and to be honest, it feels the same way when I see it here.

[carolinayellowdog]

130. "Bashing" is projection-- what THEY want to do to YOU to punish criticism

This is my observation based on participation in discussion fora that have nothing to do with politics. Dogmatic disciples of various gurus will rally the troops with the "basher" label to monger hate towards anyone who questions the belief system, no matter how patient and polite the questioner is. And once they have thrown out the "basher" label, that encourages fellow believers to engage in personal abuse of the critic. S/he "bashed" our leader, therefore deserves "bashing" as punishment. People should think twice, three or more times before engaging in such visceral hatemongering language-- but a group dynamic can encourage them to do it unthinkingly.

[Blue_In_AK]

151. Very well said, Mr. Kent.

[indepat]

103. Sadly big brother often treats dissent as a form of disloyalty that will not be tolerated, as in the

case of the OWS movement: to wit, you better not criticize the establishment, its policies or actions, the status quo, nor their corporate Wall Street masters, all of which make a mockery of government of, by, and for the people, and the 1st Amendment for lagniappe.

[jimlup]

104. Well said! nt

[alfredo]

105. I say this about our politicians, "He's an asshole, but he is our asshole."

I had no expectations for Obama other than him being a competent leader. He was too conservative in some areas, but I didn't see him as so right wing that he'd be a threat to our nation.


I warned my right wing friends that the new powers given to Bush would pass on to Obama. Now they are complaining that Obama is some kind of dictator.

[otohara]

106. I Suprised At The Number of These Threads

We get it, many very disappointed in the man and outraged when others aren't sufficiently outraged.

Patience DU'ers, he'll be gone soon and we can get disappointed all over again

[Progressive dog]

107. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

As others have pointed out, your use of the CHEERLEADERS crap shows which side you are on.
Why isn't it cheer leading to compare Paul Revere, a patriot, to Ed Snowden, an alleged felon fleeing from justice?

Your position even contradicts itself in two consecutive sentences.

You do not give false credence to the idea that there are 2 sides to every story. You do not give false credence to the idea that both sides are equally terrible.

You claim that there are not two sides to every story right before you claim that it's false to think that the two sides are equally terrible.

The attack Obama side routinely uses tea-party name calling with Nazi, Fascist, authoritarian, etc. being used to describe the President.

If you actually want more civility, write about the issues, not about how upset you are that shrill, false, and ignorant attacks against elected Democrats should not be called what they are.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

132. I will try to address this:

Your position even contradicts itself in two consecutive sentences.
You do not give false credence to the idea that there are 2 sides to every story. You do not give false credence to the idea that both sides are equally terrible.

You claim that there are not two sides to every story right before you claim that it's false to think that the two sides are equally terrible.

I am not sure why you think this is contradictory? Do you think both Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the state of the country? Do you think they are equally terrible? I personally feel that they do not deserve equal blame (Republicans deserve more) and they are not equally terrible (Republicans have the obvious lead in that one). You are welcome to elaborate because I simply don't understand your point.

Additionally, your use of the opening statement...

As others have pointed out, your use of the CHEERLEADERS crap shows which side you are on.

...is pretty ironic considering I was trying to minimize that whole "us versus them" mentality. The word cheerleader should only be applied to those that dogmatically praise the President or Democrats with no acknowledgment of failings or misdeeds. Do you think no such people exist here on DU? I don't know if that term applies to you because I am not familiar with everything you have ever said here. Have you ever been vocal about a disappointment in Obama? Have you ever spoken here about something you felt was a failing or a betrayal on his part?

[Progressive dog]

133. You are joking, you have to be

If you understand that" both" refers to two, then simple reading of your post shows that it contradicts itself. You called it false that there are two sides to every story, I didn't, so where does the democrat and republican stuff come from. I didn't comment on that. I commented on the cheer-leaders bull and the twisted logic that got you there. The cheerleaders explanation you just gave just reaffirms my belief in which side you are on. So now only some Obama supporters are cheerleaders, but this is your stand on the what you call "critics"

Dissent is not the same as disloyalty. We can learn from criticisms.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

136. I think you are deliberately trying to be difficult here

When I referred to the false idea that both sides are equally to blame, or both sides are equally terrible, I was referring to the Republicans versus Democrats thing, not the supporters versus bashers. I think most people understood that.

And yes, only some supporters are cheerleaders. Clearly that is the case. Many of his supporters are also critics, including myself. If your brain can't understand that, and only sees things in absolutes, then there is nothing I can do about that.

I also couldn't help but notice that you did not answer any of my very direct questions.

Does the term "cheerleader" apply to anyone here on the forums?
Have you not noticed any poster that dogmatically praises Obama while never acknowledging failings?

Have you ever noticed a failing or betrayal about Obama?
Have you ever spoken about a failing of his here on DU? If so, are you an Obama "basher?"

[Progressive dog]

138. You started trying to be difficult and stayed

there. You refuse to negatively characterize any of the Obama detractors, but you have no problem calling supporters "cheerleaders."
That doesn't make you a neutral arbiter. As far as your questions, they again show your bias. You asked not one question that implies that anyone ever unfairly criticized the president, that anyone re-posted libertarian conspiracy theories that were accepted by many. Don't pretend to be neutral.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

139. Is this the "I know you are but what am I" distraction?

You are making assumptions about my stances and sticking to them, rather than incorporating and adjusting to what I have actually said.

I never said all supporters are cheerleaders. I never said people don't unfairly criticize the president. Of course some people here are unfairly harsh. Are you incapable of acknowledging facts if people do not present the equal but opposite facts?

If someone asked you if you ever saw a black person act in a racist way towards a white person, would you refuse to answer the question simply because they didn't preface it with, "Yes, white people are also racists...." That seems pretty childish.

Again, I will point out that you didn't answer any direct question.

[Progressive dog]

140. my assumptions are from your own words

I never said all supporters are cheerleaders.

I never said you did, you either have a problem with truth or understanding.

I never said people don't unfairly criticize the president.

You never said they did either.

Are you incapable of acknowledging facts if people do not present the equal but opposite facts?

There is no such thing as equal and opposite facts.

Of course some people here are unfairly harsh.

Finally a minor acknowledgement of your previous bias.

Again, I will point out that you didn't answer any direct question.

Actually I did, you can go look again, I just didn't answer in the way you wanted.

If someone asked you if you ever saw a black person act in a racist way towards a white person, would you refuse to answer the question simply because they didn't preface it with, "Yes, white people are also racists...." That seems pretty childish.

You can't resist the racist references, the slavery comparisons, but you just acknowledged that you didn't think that it was necessary to treat Obama supporters equally, and you aren't honest enough to just say it.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

141. This probably stopped being productive a long time ago...

I am going to break this down for you.

You said that I called Obama supporters "cheerleaders."

You said this as if I was doing something bad.
The only way it could be bad is if:

A. Absolutely no supporters qualify as "cheerleaders."
B. No one here at DU qualifies as a "cheerleader."

The statement itself also implies that I mean ALL supporters are cheerleaders because only a moron would object to the idea that SOME supporters are cheerleaders.

The only way we can find out which of these is your opinion is if you answer actual questions. Since you refuse to do so, we can never arrive at a consensus or find some middle ground.

Unlike yourself, I actually addressed points you were trying to make. I participated in a dialog in a good faith effort to reach some sort of resolution.

You did not. All you did was keep moving the goalposts and ignore direct questions when the answers to those questions would betray your narrative. So I think I am done. Now I know how Obama feels when he tries to have a reasonable dialog with the Republicans.

Take care. Feel free to have the last word.

[Progressive dog]

143. You don't give up making stuff up

I said you didn't treat both sides equally. I said you were biased. You continue to prove it, while you make stuff up about what I said (I notice no quotes). Propaganda can be true, if it only gives part of a story, it still can be propaganda.

[Tarheel_Dem]

137. "The attack Obama side routinely uses tea-party name calling with Nazi, Fascist, authoritarian"

There's a good reason for that. Snowden's Paulite friends & fellow donors have directed their minions here. They're given lots of encouragement and free reign, and it's no coincidence. They may call themselves longtime "lurkers", but there are other choice names as well.

"Take a look on Democratic Underground

They have the gov't paid trolls out, trying to limit the outrage & rebellion on there.

If that is the reaction of hard core Dems to the news stories on the NSA, I want to stoke up some more of it.

Lots of traffic on DU.

It's the most popular Dem internet site, except for Huffy Po - where everything meaningful gets censored."

http://www.dailypaul.com/288556/clapper-and-feinstein-get-caught-lying-big-time#comment-3103138

[Lifelong Protester]

109. Very well said. While some actions of the President

and Democratic members of Congress, may disappoint me, I will continue to work to press for the change I want to see happen. There are many reasons why he was the best, not perfect, choice.

You are being very reasonable.

[patrice]

110. You appear to have decided that the majority of the responsibility for what has gone wrong

lies with one side over the other, that being the Obama supporters. Please correct me if I am wrong in that perception.

.................................................................

When legitimate questions are treated in a hostile manner often enough, snark is an understandable response.

..........................................

I still can't understand why we are acting as though all Obama supporters are in fact Obama supporters, especially when they say something particularly outrageous, mean, snarky, or dumb. Trolling of that type would not be that hard to strategize and act out with collaborators, as evidence of why Obama is bad. The same thing could hypothetically be implemented for the Obama-opposed position, but, for some reason, we just go right on believing everyone who comes here is exactly who/whatever they claim to be.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

128. Not sure if this was addressed to me.

If so, I think I need clarification before I can address anything.

Are you asking if I think the Obama supporters are mostly responsible for what has gone wrong here on DU? Or are you asking if I think Obama supporters are mostly responsible for what has gone wrong in this country in general?

[patrice]

129. here at DU. nt

[ClarkJonathanKent]

135. I think there is certainly a lot of blame to go around.

I have seen some people try to post nice things about Obama, only to be shouted down by people who want to classify him as a tyrant. That sort of thing definitely has an adverse effect on civility and discourse.

That being said, as long as the people who are putting Obama down are offering factual criticisms, I can't necessarily argue with heart of what they are saying.

It is sort of like my observation about the guy who hits his wife. Let's say the wife in this scenario is your sister. If you get in a conversation with your sister about it, she may say a ton of good things about her husband. And maybe those good things are true or accurate. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to yell, "BUT HE F&%KIN HITS YOU!" It may be insensitive. But maybe it will shock her into leaving an unhealthy relationship?

To be somewhat technical, I would not put the majority of the blame on "Obama supporters." I am a supporter. I am positive that many of the critics here are supporters. We WANT Obama to do great things for this country. I would, however, put a majority of the blame on the Obama SYCOPHANTS. There is a difference, and I think that term definitely applies to some people here.

It is sort of like the Catholics that refuse to acknowledge the wrongdoing of the Catholic church versus people that are Catholics but DO acknowledge the wrongdoing but work toward changing the institution. Would you call the people that DO acknowledge the failings of the Catholic church "haters?" Are they not "supporters" simply because they acknowledge wrongdoing?

I hope that makes sense.

[Crow73]

114. Dissent is not the same as disloyalty...

I have dissent for any and all that put the good of the few above the good of the many.

[JDPriestly]

115. Beautifully said. Thanks. You express my opinion and my sentiments.

[Crunchy Frog]

117. Nuance. What a radical concept. n/t

[great white snark]

124. You make DU suck.

What a condescending douchey post and it was named "Democratic Underground" not for one single reason you think as per skinner's account.

Democrats come first here; Democrats are supported and elected here.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

127. Given your name, I am not sure if your comments are supposed to be taken seriously...

but based on your avatar, I think you are serious.

Therefore, let me simply say you may be better served if you put PRINCIPLES first, rather than Democrats (and hopefully the two will not often be mutually exclusive). After all, do you support a particular candidate because they have a (D) next to their name, or because they have principles in line with your thinking? What happens when you participate in a primary, does your head explode?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

153. +1 n/t!!!!!!!

[Dash87]

157. K&R Question everything, regardless of who

is in charge.

Putting blind faith or going easy on this country's leaders is foolish, if not downright dangerous.