o no! Shirley Sherrod supports Obama!!!

[Whisp]

:rofl:

She is talking to Blitzer right now and just said that. Good for you Shirley!

*sticks finger in air for DU weather change on opinions about Sherrod now.

[FrenchieCat]

1. She said she believes in what he is doing......

even if she doesn't get to work for the USDA!

[BootinUp]

2. Not very bright, no wonder she was fired

:sarcasm:

[Whisp]

5. I know! I thought she was such a smart and sincere woman!

man, they are getting tricky, these obama people.

:rofl:

[impik]

7. She's a sell-out! I knew it!

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Martyr no more, now.

....From DU hero to a fellow sellout in 24 hours.

[vaberella]

6. Always they wanted her to get her hate on. Blitzer must be dying inside. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

4. And she crawled out from under the bus to do it. Amazing.

:evilgrin:

[Old Vet]

11. Holy Shit.........................

People, Its called forgiving, Many were duped, Myself included. Now your bashing her????????????????

[Cha]

17. No, sorry..they're not bashing Shirley Sherrod..au

contraire!

[Old Vet]

21. My bad Cha, meant admin......

Maybe she understood alot of people at first were duped.

[CakeGrrl]

31. No, I'm

needling the people who jumped all over this to accuse Obama and Co. of claiming yet another victim of their evil corporatist self-serving ways.

[Bonobo]

89. Wrong place.

[kjackson227]

8. Well, well, well. She didn't throw Obama under the bus...

like some were salivating for her to do. Obama says, "checkmate" once again, LOL.

[opihimoimoi]

9. What do we expect??? And,.....its all good....better than supporting GOP

[liberalmuse]

10. That's a kick in the nuts, isn't it?

To the Obama trashers (I'm not talking about the dissenters - most of his genuine supporters agree or disagree at some point). They were so happy yesterday. I can't wait for Beck's statement on this - I'm sure he's very happy that Sherrod received her apology and offer of reinstatement. Waiting...

[xchrom]

12. She treats the Obama admin better than they treated her. Nt

[FrenchieCat]

13. It's the lesson of redemption and forgiveness......

some understand it due to their home training...

some just hold on to the hate and let it fester.....

[Jennicut]

16. Holding on to hate over mistakes can turn you into a shadow of yourself.

I have learned that the hard way. Shirley Sherrod seems to have a ton of experience in life that has taught her well.

[Skittles]

76. mistakes?

no, fucking up to appease rightwing hacks has been a theme

[Kahuna]

107. deleted, les't I get a pizza delivery...nt

[Old Vet]

18. Exactly, ................

Although many dont get it.

[Pirate Smile]

27. Ain't that the truth. Running on perpetual outrage.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

135. Agree, forgiveness is vital for a life that always moves forward. nt

[Kdillard]

19. No I just think she knows where the blame lies in this fiasco.

[eleny]

23. That's certainly true

I admire her a lot for her strength and poise throughout this episode.

The administration did the right thing with its apology and then Vilsack's mea culpa. But I do hope Vilsack resigns sooner than later. He's a weak link in the chain of command.

[girl gone mad]

32. +1

[mzmolly]

58. Who's they? Vilsack took responsibility for believing the liars

and said HE made the questionable decision, alone.

[polmaven]

95. You don't really think the president himself

had anything to do with firing her, do you? I mean, he has a few other things on his plate. I don't think he, himself, was consulted on the matter.

[Beetwasher]

14. SHE FAILED ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW DARE SHE NOT DESTROY OBAMA!!!!!!! She's WEAK!!!!

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vaberella]

22. How about "UNSTRONG"?

I'll never get over that. :rofl:

[polmaven]

96. But don't you think

you should refudiate it? After all, it isn't in the dictionpedia.

[blm]

15. You can support Obama and expect the WH to do the right thing re Sherrod's firing. Why asume they're

mutually exclusive?

WH screwed up AND people want Obama to make sure the actions of the WH (whoever it was) is corrected. There's nothing anti-Obama or even controversial in that position.

[Whisp]

20. agreed. and the right thing was done.

not fast enough for the instant gratificationers, but it was done.

I am very happy that Shirley is a well adjusted adult and doesn't feed her bad wolf with hate biscuits.

[eleny]

28. My disappointment was over how fast the administration acted on Breitbart's accusation

Considering the source, it was a real foul up.

But it's been made right and Ms. Sherrod deserves our respect.

[hulka38]

119. Especially considering it was a 43 minute speech by Shirley.

You'd think the WH could get someone to see the whole speech in order to understand the context before pushing her out of the car. Instead they trusted the veracity of Fox News reporting...again.

[dionysus]

125. "feed her bad wolf with hate biscuits."

:spray:

[sandnsea]

38. Do you know who ordered this in the White House?

Because I still haven't seen anything beyond the Dept of Ag involvement.

[blm]

44. If someone told Sherrod the WH called 3 times and they had to force her resignation in a rush

it certainly stands to reason they were being truthful given the pace of that forced resignation.

[sandnsea]

51. So the answer is no

And she also said the administration didn't want to hear from her, so it is possible she equated the administration to the White House, when The Administration meant the Secretary of Agriculture to Carol Cook, the one who told her she had to resign.

The White House has officially said they had nothing to do with this and that the President was briefed after the whole hoopla broke. Sure, they could be lying. But you know, don't give them the same benefit of the doubt you're screaming they should have given Sherrod.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/transcript-of-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-remarks/

[blm]

52. I don't doubt that Obama wasn't in the loop...however that level of panic wouldn't have occurred

unless someone very important WAS....and I don't doubt that guessing Rahm would be a safe guess.

[sandnsea]

56. The Secy of Agriculture is pretty damn important

And her remarks were pretty damning, although the context does temper them.

[blm]

61. yeah, but Vilsack wouldn't make a decision involving race like that - just not in him

from everything I've seen of him over the years.

Sorry, sand, but I'm making my conclusion based on the characters involved - and I highly doubt Agri Dept would have gotten the heads up warning that Sherrod would be the topic at FOX news before the WH did.

[Barrymores Ghost]

73. I, sadly, am inclined to agree...

I noted in another thread that it's very significant that the order to terminate came as directly and immediately from a top-level Cabinet secretary in DC as it did. I can't imagine Vilsack dropping himself into a hot LZ like this and making a decision to perform a ritualistic and very public black sacrifice without at least checking in with Rahm first.

But, I suppose anything's possible.

[sandnsea]

80. Yeah, had to be Rahm

:crazy:

I'm sorry. Too many people have lost way too much perspective. This is not a White House level story. It just isn't. It's an NAACP fight with the Tea Party and the NAACP lost. That's what it is.

[Whisp]

60. I think the panic was here, and not in the real world.

I expect CNN to latch onto anything that might incriminate Obama even in the smallest way. And I expect that from many here as well.

but Panic?
I'm sure there is daily concern over manufactured non stories, but I don't see them buzzing around over something relatively minor in the whole scheme of things as they are at this time.

[blm]

66. I believe Sherrod and the person in the position of forcing her to resign from her cellphone at the

side of the road who told her the dept had three calls from the WH.

Why is that ignored? You know, many of us are adults who understand that WH calling three times does NOT mean Obama is to blame, but someone acting with authority pressured Agriculture for the forced resignation. Please don't conflate the camps trying to blame Obama as the key culprit for the firing with the camp that only wanted the WH to make it right while acknowledging that someone else in authority at the WH contacted Agri.

[Whisp]

69. yes, I'd like to know more about that phone call and whodunnit, etc.

It will come out in a couple few days.

Wouldn't be surprised if some malcontent had a fix in on the whole scheme with that nogood from Fox to trigger this all. can happen, does.

[dionysus]

124. yup.

[Number23]

24. Well, DUH! She is BLACK, you know!

:eyes:

*sticks finger in air for DU weather change on opinions about Sherrod now.

Yep! :rofl:

[Uzybone]

26. hahaha. Good one.

[glitch]

25. divisive flamebait.

:thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

29. There's lotsa of that here.....

if you hadn't noticed.
Check the Greatest page for the bigger ones.

[Whisp]

30. one DUers meat is another DUers poison.

the times we live in.

so, thats just like your opinion, man.
you say tomaato, I say tomaytoe

:thumbsup:

[Ignis]

33. ...With a hearty side of Strawman.

But let's not let civility get in the way of a good circular back-slapping, shall we?

[Whisp]

34. so when do you want Shirley the shill Biatch fired?

why are you taking so long to decide?
aren't you in charge of yourself?

?

[impik]

43. Oh, yes. *This* OP is the "divisive flamebait" here.

You have no shame.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Whisp]

36. patience, grasshopper.

I give it a day or so, maybe when Sherrod decides what options to take.

There will be payback.

Anyone who supports Obama in these here parts, well they have hell to pay for it.

it'll come.
weather always does.

and seasons as well. We've gone through many many similar outrages in the past. A somewhat small incident blown up to all smithereen disproportions by some asshole RWer/Bagger/Whateverer, and the weak of spirit here start bawling their fucking heads off and screaming FIRE!!!! then some real info sifts in throw the tumoultous sound of breaking hearts and gnashing teeth. Then there is silence, for a while. peace, almost.

Until some stupid news shit takes the same stranglehold over again. and again.

rinse and repeat.

[Forkboy]

37. Oh the drama. How Obama supporters survive I'll never know....

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Whisp]

41. I really thought that

I left my keys in the basket by the dog's food dish.

But they are not there. I have one of those clap and find things, so I'm roaming around the house applauding.

It's been a good day, how about yours?

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

46. I slept most of the day, so it was a good one.

Sleep isn't something I manage to get a lot of, so it was a nice change of pace. :)

[BootinUp]

42. I took this thread rather light-heartedly

why not give that a try?

[Forkboy]

47. Nah.

[jefferson_dem]

45. So "Obama supporters" is lodged as a derisive insult nowadays.

I guess that you are not one then. Thanks for exposing yourself, Forkboy.

[Whisp]

49. • ! ! ! ! ! •

:rofl:

hahahahahaha.

I was just about to mention that but you beat me.

lordy lordy

[Forkboy]

50. I've never been a fan of Obama's, and I've made that clear since the primaries.

Nothing has changed. I see him exactly the same way now as I did then. A decent guy whose policies are not always in line with mine. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever you want to read into that is on you, and can't be my problem.

And if I exposed myself, you'd know it. :P

[impik]

54. "Obama supporters" are worse than Glenn Beck. I'm not kidding. That's how some people here thinks

[Forkboy]

63. You should take that up with the ones who actually believe that. I don't.

I'm friends with quite a few Obama supporters, both here on DU and offline.

[HughMoran]

103. So you don't support Obama.

[Forkboy]

106. To an extent I do support him, but I don't support everything he does.

I don't support his stance on gays, I don't support his stance on the war, I don't support his stance on wire-tapping, I don't support his stance on letting Bush walk away to a life of luxury, I don't support his stance on offshore drilling, etc.

However, he's also done some cool things I most certainly do support. He's done many low key, under the radar type things that have been very cool to see. There was a simple quiz months ago to rate one's support for Obama and I came out at 65%. Hardly a hater, no?

He's exactly what I thought he would be. He and Hillary were my last choices in the primary because they were both identical policy wise. I'm not a centrist, he is. It's that simple. It doesn't mean I hate the man, and it doesn't mean I want him to fail. These are just brain dead constructs thrown up by insecure supporters that have difficulty thinking beyond the binary. And that simply can't be my problem.

[HughMoran]

114. "These are just brain dead constructs thrown up by insecure supporters"

Shit statements like this are why so many people here dislike you.

Oh, and not many people are 'centerists' here, but many are pragmatic - that's the difference.

[Forkboy]

116. Oh noes!!!! "So many here dislike" me!!!

How will I ever recover from your disapproval, Hugh?

[HughMoran]

117. Stop using shit statements and/or insulting people?

[Forkboy]

118. It isn't a shit statement or an insult. Unless one is personally in that group, I suppose.

[POAS]

121. I'm not sure that statement is entirely accurate

I think one can recognize an insult even if one is not a member of the group being insulted. Further I don't think an insult can be excused by insincere denial of intent.

Now I have no way of knowing if the above poster qualifies for membership in any "Group" that may have been arbitrarily defined but I'm sure that attempting to identify the inaccuracy of any definition of any "Group" should not qualify him for ridicule or arbitrary inclusion in said "Group" or to be identified as a "Groupie".

It isn't a shit statement or an insult. Unless one is personally in that group, I suppose.

Now I'm not sure about this statement but it seems to me that your self identifying your statement was intended to insult someone who might be in the "group". Surely that wasn't your intent, was it?

[HughMoran]

122. "Unless one is personally in that group, I suppose." "...supporters(of the President)"

You're joking right?

You do know what board you're on - correct?

[Forkboy]

123. Give it up.

:rofl:

[Shining Jack]

128. Except for the "He's exactly what I thought he would be" part...

...I totally agree with you.

[Cha]

55. The ones I know are doing fine..thank you.

[Forkboy]

65. Tell it to the OP.

Anyone who supports Obama in these here parts, well they have hell to pay for it.

His words, not mine. Makes it sounds like you guys have it pretty rough here, doesn't it? I'm glad to hear this isn't the case.

[Cha]

68. The OP knows.

[Forkboy]

72. His own words say otherwise.

:shrug:

[grantcart]

71. So you not only don't support the President you don't understand how other people can.

Explains a lot really.

[Forkboy]

81. So you put words into people's mouths to argue with what's in your head instead.

Explains a lot really.

[grantcart]

84. Your the one that continually defines "Obama supporters" as a discrete

group that you refer condescending to with patronizing religious symbolic language.


Its neither a group that you want to be associated with nor is it one that you even want to extend the curtain of possible rational thought to include. You have been exceedingly clear.

[Forkboy]

91. Ok, I'll be clearer.

I used the term "Obama supporters" but I really meant "Obama groupies", which is entirely different than regular supporters. I thought "supporters" was DU friendlier, but since you want clarity, there it is.

Now, Obama Groupies are the ones that act like Obama can't possibly do anything wrong under any circumstances, and they comprise a small group of posters here on DU. They are quite separate in my view from regular Obama supporters (in which group I would place you, for instance), many of whom I get along with here, and some of whom I'm friends with elsewhere besides DU. And you're %100 correct, I do not wish to be associated with such people as the ones that act like groupies. As for the rational thought, the group I'm speaking of rarely shows it. When they do, I'll make sure to respond in kind.

And when will you call them out for not extending the possibility of rational thought to the Left? You're silent on that one, all the while we're told we're not part of the "reality based community", not part of the "real world". Where's your concern about extending the "curtain of possible rational thought" when that shit get posted, grantcart?

As for the patronizing religious symbolic language, the OP was complaining about the "hell" Obama supporters go through. Why do you not complain about his religious symbolic language?

There will be payback. Anyone who supports Obama in these here parts, well they have hell to pay for it.

And that was said after no one had attacked him in this thread, and as if all sides don't get whacked here on a daily basis. If the guy wants to play a victim, don't get all bent when he gets called on it.

And could you list the numerous examples of my defining Obama supporters as "discrete group that < I > refer condescending to with patronizing religious symbolic language". If I do it "continually" you should have no problems at all finding numerous examples where I use the term "Obama supporters" as you claim. So, lets see your evidence.

And lastly, you're a smart guy. I'm surprised to see you trying to flog this with me. Perhaps your own bias is showing? One might conclude that is indeed the case, seeing as though, as I said, you never seem upset when the condescending attitude goes the other way.

[grantcart]

97. To answer your last sentence

By using the term "Obama supporters" as a pejorative term you are casting a dark shadow on the Democratic Party and its supporters who overwhelmingly define themselves as Obama supporters.

You admit that it is a careless term and it doesn't reflect your actual thinking.

Its a term that 1)casts people in the Democratic Party in a pejorative way 2)is a common term used by the right in its demogogury 3) doesn't reflect your own thinking as you have clarified above, so for all of the reasons you should be held accountable for it when you have used it. That you consider this a flogging is amusing since your intention is to cast aspersions on other members at DU.

"Obama groupies" and other terms like "cheerleaders", "kool aid drinkers" and so on are outside of the rules of civility here.

[Forkboy]

108. Sometime these terms fit though, grantcart.

Like I said, it's small group, but it most certainly is an accurate term for them. We're just not supposed to use it, so I didn't. Yes, it was careless to use the general term "Obama supporters" in that it caught up the non-groupie supporters in it's net as well, and for that I apologize to those people. But I don't even begin to apologize to those who those uncivil terms apply to.

And I'm still waiting for those examples of all the times I've used it as you claim I do. I've used the term "Obama supporters" a thousand times, and not in a bad way. I was very careful during the primaries to use the term supporters so as not to offend, and I still do so. I screwed up once with Hillary and Ruggerson called me on it (rightfully so). The example in this thread is the only one you'll find. But you seemed confident there was more, and you still talk of accountability for when I have used it.

And again, where was your concern for civility when we're told we're not part of the real world? Will you start scolding these people too, or will you keep turning a blind eye because it's incivility you seem to agree with? You can't have it both ways. Either incivility bothers you or it doesn't. Getting upset at one side's while ignoring the others just says hypocrisy, not concern for incivility. So your talk about being outside the rules of civility rings a little hollow when you ignore it from people you like. When you can reconcile this within yourself get back to me. :shrug:

[POAS]

113. Just a quick question...

I won't argue the answer with you whatever you say but would like to you clarify as you did above for Grantcart.

How do you feel about the small group of DU posters that might rightfully be described as anti-Obama Groupies. Seems there is a small cadre of posters that is quick to condemn the Obama administration on multiple levels, skirt the rules to get their point across and take offense easily when called out.

[Forkboy]

115. I think that group is slightly larger than the pro-Obama groupies.

Without a doubt there are those who hide behind valid issues to spread their dislike of Obama. However, because they use valid issues as cover it's harder to spot which ones are sincere in their concerns and which ones just hate the man. The best way to tell, imo, is when they post some over the top criticism that's just flat out stupid, though validity is open to interpretation, I suppose. If allowed I could name 5 pro-groupies and 7 anti-groupies off the top of my head. I think most of the rest on both sides are sincere in their views.

And I appreciate your polite post.

[Jakes Progress]

131. "Obama groupies" and other terms like "cheerleaders", "kool aid drinkers" and so on are outside of t

What about the term Obama Bashers? That one okay with you? Or how about Haters?

[HughMoran]

102. Can we just refer to you as 'little lizard that shoots tiny flames'?

Your sig animation seems to be saying that, no?

[Kahuna]

109. They are not groupies. They are realists who don't believe that Obama...

is solely responsible for running the entire government to the extent that he makes every single decision or knows about every single decision. When disingenuous posters assail him at every turn as if he is solely responsible for every thing that they don't like, Obama's supporters feel compelled to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. Capish? Got it now?

[Forkboy]

112. LOL....the capish is a nice touch. It's almost as if you think it would impress someone.

:crazy:

If you were trying to prove my point for me, you did well. Thank you. :hi:

[Kahuna]

129. Not really. But yet another disingenuous claim on your part.

I'm used to it. :hi:

[HughMoran]

132. Me too.

It's all a game for some.

Here, knock yourself out.

[boppers]

87. It's easier to survive the temper tantrums of children by remembering that you're an adult.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

104. Is that a little lizard shooting small flames in your signature?

It's something my girls would think is cute.

[VMI Dem]

48. Oh no..she's way classier than him too.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. What? You mean the anticipated "refudiation" will not be forthcoming?

To paraphrase a fave DU'er, "how unstrong" of her. :rofl:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Whisp]

64. thank you!

:toast:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Whisp]

67. lots of things get screwed up every day

didn't you notice?

it's almost fixed now, Vilsack apologized, Sherrod accepted and has forgiven and is now thinking of other things, her options, etc.

do you really want anyone who ever did anything wrong in their jobs, made the wrong decision, etc., fired every time?

that's just silly.

and when you say 'the administration' it is pretty well taken that includes Obama, and I take offense at that because Obama was not in on this from the offset, it was Vilsacks job to handle stuff like that. and he did.

non story. short and exciting for some I'm sure! but another non story brought to you by a Fucks Nutwork and supported by all the other assholes in the network and cable news business. If it has a Chance at chipping away at Obama, LET'S GO FER IT BY GOLLYGEE!!

[NYC Liberal]

74. Who here doesn't support Obama?

Look around. They're all over.

[Skittles]

75. it is getting soooooo fucking old

[NYC Liberal]

70. If you listen real closely, you can hear a faint

popping sound in the distance.

[SunsetDreams]

85. ..

:nuke:

[Dr Fate]

77. I'm glad. It is important that we be united against FOX, if nothing else.

Good for her- Having said that, Obama was wrong for jumping the gun as to right wing demands once again-and I have to wonder when he is going to learn his lesson...

[FrenchieCat]

78. So there is breaking news that Obama knew all along and was running that show?

Or is it like Reverend Wright......where simply by someone else making
a mistake, it's just like your mistake, no matter what you do after it?

[Dr Fate]

79. I'm on your side on this one, trust me!

God forbid I be balanced- I just think Vilsack or whoever did the firing should have looked at the rest of the tape or to maybe ask her for an explanation.

Any way, water under the bridge as far as I'm concernned...You are right-we should be attacking FOX news instead of Obama.

[Kahuna]

110. The way she was fired was very tacky. There's no doubt about that..

But I doubt an additional firing will result. A dressing down and a warning would likely suffice iin this matter.

[dionysus]

126. why is it you guys think he personally micromanages the entire government?

i think he should get out there and make a public statement, or meet with her personally, but i doubt he was even aware of this until after the fact, or more precisely, until the shitstorm hit.

[Fire1]

82. She certainly screwed the pooche!! n/t

[quantass]

83. Good for her BUT has the OBAMA ADMIN learned their lesson now?! Doubt it. Grow a pair Obama!

[SunsetDreams]

86. see you say Obama, I say Vilsack

cause that is what the evidence supports.

[Kahuna]

111. There is nothing wrong with his pair. He just has other priorities and engaging..

in petty outrage is a waste of his valuable time. He is about solutions, not theatrics.

[liquid diamond]

88. IBTL.

Frenchie Cat started one of these threads and it was locked. I guess some people here had their wittle feelings hurt and snitched to the mods.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[RadioFlynn]

92. Who said she didn't?

?

[Enrique]

93. why hasn't this flamebait been locked yet? n/t

[Steely_Dan]

94. Snarky...Baiting

I'll bite. Do you really (honestly) believe that there are people here that want our President to fail. That is something I would expect from Rush. You fail to understand those who are disappointed in our President. I just don't get it. Is it not possible to disagree with the President and then express that here? If the President were to do something that you are passionately against, would you refrain from expressing your disappointment? And if you did, do I have the right to be snarky and disrespectful towards you? This is still America, right?

-P

[Whisp]

98. disagreeing is fine.

but you have to have your noggin in some deep sand to not notice the righteous contempt and hate there is for Obama here, a continous sludge of complaints about everything he says and does, doesn't do, should do, should do better, faster. How he is worse than Bush, a corporate whore shill, a wimp. etc., etc.,

guess you are new

[HughMoran]

105. "Do you really (honestly) believe that there are people here that want our President to fail."

Absolutely.

Edwards supporters, Hillary supporters, Kucininch supporters and others who'd rather see him fail than admit their candidate lost to the better candidate.

No, you fail to understand the difference between those who are disappointed in our President and those who scour the internet day after day looking for negative articles in order to destroy him. Perhaps you would consider taking a closer look at this - you will be surprised to find out that not everybody is as honest about where they are coming from as you claim to be.

[lillypaddle]

120. And it seems to be getting worse each day

Frankly, I don't understand some of the sheer hatred that shines through far too often. Even if your candidate lost to Obama, what's up with the viciousness? Such pleasure is taken in any misstep, or perceived misstep. "neiner neiner, look how he screwed up again!" I just don't get it.

[BootinUp]

130. I don't think its a supporter thing its an ideological thing.

Like Bill Clinton said while campaigning in I think 2006, if you are an ideologue you don't need facts cause you already have the answers. Its different than having a philosophy.

[HughMoran]

133. That's it right there

"if you are an ideologue, you don't need facts cause you already have the answers"

It's not a philosophy, it's a state of mind.

[dionysus]

127. "Do you really (honestly) believe that there are people here that want our President to fail." there

are plenty.

[Jakes Progress]

134. This will do you no good.

There is a contingent here who see it as their religious duty to deflect all criticisms of the president regardless of whatever he says or does. It is their passionate objective to vilify and label as heretic anyone who disagrees with the president. They will say that disagreement is fine but the truth is that they have never seen a disagreement that they cannot brand as hate. And yes a few crazed individuals do believe that we want Obama to fail and that we have some deep, dark plan to overthrow him somehow with the mighty power of our fingers on a keyboard on a simple forum. They will not be reasoned with. This has become their life. Out in the real world, we work to elect Democrats, speak out for policies we believe in, and try to influence voters to avoid the fear and greed of the republican party. This group does more to make that difficult than those who openly oppose the Democrats. Their self-righteous rants and self-aggrandizement irritate and turn off people in droves. I don't know if they just want to be the only special, special Obama favorites that he loves the mostest, or if they are so tone deaf to their actions. Otherwise their selfish desire to lash out at any disagreement can only cost Democrats votes, but they see their need to spew as greater than the need of the party.

Me. I'm really pissed with several things the administration has done and a number of things it hasn't. I earned the right to voice my opinion with hundreds and hundreds of hours canvassing and campaigning. If some don't know how a democracy works or don't want it to work, that is tough. I have a right and a duty to say what I think about the direction of the party I have worked in for forty years. I don't go around republicans and complain about the president. But on DU I have a right to say what I want. They have a right and a duty too. Their duty is to try to convince me and thousands like me that things will get better, that our party will do better. Instead too many tell us to go to hell and shut up. It makes them feel good, but it does nothing to help the party. They need our votes. They are doing the best they can to throw them away.

[TNLib]

99. She sounds like a gracious person that can accept an apology

But it doesn't really change the fact the Obama administration allowed the right wing cooks to pull their strings.

[MadMaddie]

100. Breitbastardbart must be blowing blood vessels....

[Scurrilous]

101. Kick

:kick: