How did a group dedicated to discussion regarding a Democratic POTUS, on an ostensibly ...

[tblue37]

96. Nor am I a member of the group, nor do I post there.

And I actually do think some members are unwilling to consider that even liberals and Democrats (some Dems are not particularly liberal, but rather center-right) might sometimes have reason to disagree with Obama's choices--for example, with his choices regarding advisors (especially his economic team!) or regarding the use of free trade agreements to allow corporations to benefit from the US taxpayers' money and support while shirking their own responsibility to pay a fair share of taxes, and while laying off American workers and taking all the jobs to cheap labor countries.

We might also have reason to be dismayed at his tendency to start negotiations from a weak position and to cave too easily when Republicans are intransigent--which of course they always are.

I think Obama is probably the best president we could have gotten elected at this point, but I do wish he were much more progressive, much less cooperative towards corporations and far right Republicans, and much more willing to use the bully pulpit to push for better policies and to push back against Republican obstructionism.

On the other hand, I vehemently applaud his Supreme Court appointments, and I do believe he has accomplished more than some people ostensibly on our side are willing to give him credit for.

Despite the fact that I am sometimes disappointed in his choices and actions, and I sometimes disagree with him, I am appalled at the virulence of the hatred some DU members exhibit in their posts. They don't just disapprove of some things and disagree about some things. And they don't just disapprove of most things and disagree about most things.

They rage against him as though they genuinely believe, as many Republicans and fundamentalists do, that he is the antichrist!

Such viciousness is not a rational response to his presidency, even though some of what he does is worthy of criticism. I suspect that some of the inflexibility of the BOG is a response to the extreme hatred some DUers display towards Obama--a hatred far greater, in fact, than any negative reaction some of them had toward BabyBush. If the Obama haters were less virulent, then perhaps the BOG group members would be less defensive.

I don't doubt that we have right wing infiltrators, and that some might even be paid infiltrators. In fact, I would be astonished if we did not. I suspect that some DUers who post really nasty comments about Obama are infiltrators. But I am quite certain that many are not infiltrators at all, but rather Democrats and liberals who really do hate Obama. I don't think that hatred is necessarily based on racism, though I am quite sure that at least some of it is.

I think many liberals hate anyone who is not liberal enough. All groups have those who insist on absolute ideological purity, and they inevitably hate those on their own side who are not "pure" enough more than those on the opposite side who should be their true enemies. (Life of Brian, anyone?)

I do not approve of personality cults, no matter how admirable the focus of such a cult might be. And I do think that some people are excessive in their worshipful attitude toward Obama (and Michelle, too, I might add). We do not have to idolize the Obamas the way some fans idolize their favorite celebrities. But I certainly can see why people who strongly admire President Obama might want a "safe" group where they can post without constantly feeling they have to defend against posts that are not merely criticism, but rather expressions of virulent hatred against the person they so admire. And it does bother me that a site like DU should have so many posts and threads that use the name of such a group in a way that so obviously drips with contempt, just as their extreme contempt toward our president also bothers me.