Guys, it is possible to support Obama AND continue to push for a more progressive direction

[Ken Burch]

It isn't about "giving him time".

It isn't about "it's only been three months".

It's about staying in the game and not letting things get lost in the shuffle.

There is no way that trying to get the administration to go further does the administration OR the party any harm.

The enemies are on the RIGHT.

The danger is on the RIGHT.

If President Obama is to be trusted(and that's reasonable to ask that)than progressives in the party deserve EQUAL trust.

it's the Republicans that you should be denouncing, not the left.

So lighten up and fight the people that SHOULD be fought.

OK?

[BlooInBloo]

1. That would have a chance of passing the laugh test if the ihateobama people...

would ever give him credit where due.

[Egnever]

2. Nuff Said

[Ken Burch]

4. Don't equate everybody who disagrees or expresses disappointment

with these mythical "ihateobama" people.

It's the RIGHT that hates Obama.

You have got to accept that it isn't the left that's the problem.

For myself, I do give him credit on closing gitmo, the stimulus, choice, and at least committing to getting out of Iraq.

A lot of us who've had concerns do this as well.

Don't assume it's all one way or all the other, ok?

[BlooInBloo]

6. (shrug) When they give me something to distinguish, I'll distinguish...

I already gave you one clear way that such a distinction could reasonably be drawn.

But if the ihateobama people are going to walk, talk and act like ducks, don't bitch about being called a duck.

[Political Heretic]

9. Right. You'll distingush.

Okay... haven't seen that yet.

[Ken Burch]

11. Don't aim that at me, bro

I've already shown that I'm not an "ihateobama" type.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. The hyperbole on both sides IS the problem

Calling Demcorats who disagree with him haters is simply inaccurate. I ask you this. If a person declares that they think another should have lesser rights, is that person to be called a 'hater'? If not, why not? If disagrement on issues = hate, then those who oppose equal rights for GLBT people could and should be called by that name. Because if simply not agreeing about some issues is the same as hate, then opposing equal rights under the law for my family is certainly the same as hating my family.
Shall that be the level of discourse we come to? the ihategays people would include some big players. and if disagreement = hate...then they are ihategays people. Right? If not, why not?

[Political Heretic]

3. It's not about speed its about direction.

I'm glad Obama is president, and I do believe he has character, but I knew from the beginning that he did not yet see all the flaws of our economic system or class structure they way others do, and that we would need to constantly advocate and attempt to persuade the administration to move in a more progressive direction in those areas.

[Ken Burch]

5. Well put. That's all, really, that anybody on the left is doing.

it's the RIGHT that should get the hostility.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

7. Honest debate is fine.

Many of the points made from the most leftist here are valid, but it gets tiresome reading things like "he's the best republican since Reagan" or that impeachment should be on the table. Not exactly productive conversation.

[Political Heretic]

8. That shit is just unnecessarily inflammatory

Even if it were true, and I am not saying that it is, people throwing that kind of shit around are purposefully trying to stir up crap and have a flame war.

I hate that.

EDIT - referring to the "best republican since reagan" thing, so everyone is clear, not the poster.

[Ken Burch]

10. Point taken, but that's hardly the majority of people who take a "critical support" position

And it is possible that at least some of those who are being what I'll call "left-inflammatory" are either secret-freepers or DLC'ers doing undercover shitdisturbing to make the progressive wing of the party look bad.

[Life Long Dem]

12. Ahhhh... the sore sport posters

The thing is, we won, and flaming will not upset us. In fact it keeps Obama on his toes (thanks). It only tells me your still upset though.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Exactly. His track record isn't all that progressive. Right now the US people are more progressive

than the president and congress.

[BlooInBloo]

25. BWAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

Then why does Obama have record-high approval ratings from the "US people"?

Get out of your bubble, sometime.

[quickesst]

15. Yeah.....

...screaming "FUCK YOU OBAMA" is key to that "tough love" support. The issue in the thread is only one of several that have recieved this type of comment.

"FUCK YOU GATES.


AND FUCK YOU OBAMA."


<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8302987>

The "critics"(being nice here) know as well as anyone that a single issue is not THE issue. The economy, gay rights, Afghanistan, just to name a few, coupled with dealing with the very loud right-wing slime machine, and the "Fuck you Obama, I want it all, and I want it now" left makes Obama's job that much harder. Most on the left-left are pissed because Obama hasn't sling-shotted the country to the far left end of the ideological spectrum. Bush tried it to the extreme right, and because of great resistance from the left population, did not succeed in the end. That type resistance will be present if Obama attempts a similar move to the far left. They do not understand that most democrats(yes, they exist outside DU) have no desire to be ripped from their center-left stance and made to embrace the ideals of the far left. They simply do not understand that if one wants great change in this society, it cannot be done by force, browbeating, screaming, and crying. Rather it should be done in a methodical way as to make change appealing to people rather than something they feel they are being forced to do.
If some on the left cannot grasp the reality that if the present resistance to Obama is not tempered, and if their support does not outweigh their criticisms, the democrat's reign as the power in this country will be short-lived, and we will have to deal with another Bush-type regime in 2012 that will make the last eight years seem tame. How anyone, and I mean anyone on the left can rationalize that Obama's defeat, and the re-installment of a nut-bag right wing administration will be an improvement over what we have now is just bizarre to say the least. Maybe they like being perpetual victims of evil government. After all, if Obama succeeds, what will the self-perceived "heroes" of liberalism do with their time? Think about it. If Obama fails, what chance is there that someone who will fulfill the far left's desires have in 2012? A snowball's chance in hell comes to mind. Thanks.
quickesst

[cali]

16. Ken, your goodwill is apparent (at least to me)

that's not so true of quite a few others.

[ProSense]

17. No

Can you say betrayal?

[empyreanisles]

21. You're incredible. And I actually thought you were on the team at one point. (eom)

[TheKentuckian]

18. It is totally possible

but seldom happens from an observable standpoint and it is also clear that much of the party has forgotten the enemy is on the right. Which also means the actual right, not just anyone who one thinks is to the right of themselves.

The more conservative element of the party is absolutely who needs to get that inside the beltway, seriously 100% of the problem, but I'd have to say its more 70/30, so called hard left, left-left, progressive, or whatever on here attacking anyone or view to the right of themselves or their own. That's the way I see it but I guess I'm more than a bit a "bot" or whatever.
I'm all for a good hard push to the left for the country (at least from where it is) but make believing Obama is just the same as Reagan and Bush the Dimmer doesn't seem a productive means to that end. You loose the debate when you go so far that you make your audience think "um...bullshit", no matter how close to home the point hits (or you perceive it to).

[treestar]

19. Push your fellow citizens

No politician can get into office or stay there and be a real progressive until the voters want that.

Expecting one politician, no matter how inspiring he is, to just talk people into it all is insane. Obama is sincere and genuine and he isn't going to stray too far from what the people who elected him want. The far left alone did not do it. In fact, he is there because of the independents. Convince the independents on the issues - and congressman and Senators, too. Obama can't just tell them how to vote.

[glitch]

20. Not if you can only see life in black and white.

Then it can only be "you're either with him or against him".

[paulk]

22. "progressive direction" can be hard to define,

but I agree with you in general. This is supposed to be a liberal/progressive site, it would seem that pushing our Democratic administration and Congress toward the left would be a function of this place. Members should be free to discuss politics based on that understanding.

The attempts to squelch all criticism by lumping it together under names like the "ihateobama" people, the demands for loyalty, the personal attacks, the dragging up of the primaries as a reason for disgruntlement, the flat out lies - none of these things lend themselves to any sort of civil discussion.

[mkultra]

23. the only real policy moves that have been made are economic

and they seem to be working. If you judge before you know, your just a freeper in nice clothes.

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. K&R ... Obama is DEPENDING on criticism from the left... Without it he will not defeat the RW.

[Karenina]

27. He has articulated quite clearly that he's counting on

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to push him in the direction they want him to go. He TOLD the bankers he was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks. Are the only "dogwhistles" Amis can hear the ones that appeal to their basest instincts? :shrug:

[Number23]

31. It's fascinating, isn't it??

Obama won by bringing together the largest coalition of Americans from all walks of life and political beliefs in modern history. Liberals, conservatives, and independent alike. Even though I would personally characterize him as "center-left" he won support from many Americans of ALL political stripes.

And yet many here on DU absolutely INSIST that the only way this man can be supported and be able to serve the multi-faceted coalition that voted him in to power is to ignore them all and push him FURTHER to the left. And what's really fascinating about many of these same people is that when Obama does enact a policy that is a noticeable step to the left, they STILL give him no credit. But yet, when he takes a step that some here could construe as a step to the right, they can't howl loud and hard enough.

Can't help but make you wonder what in hell is going on...

[Occam Bandage]

26. Sure. Are there any examples of people doing that?

[leftofthedial]

28. I don't know. Is it possible to root for the Yankees and still want the Red Sox to win?

I refuse to support Obama's right-wing, supply-side, "free-market" policies on the economy, his military occupations of Middle Eastern countries, his retreat from the rule of law, and his violations of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. I don't care if he has two "D's" by his name. Repuke is as repuke does.

[walldude]

29. LOL.. judging from the replies to your reasonable request

for sanity, we're all screwed.

I actually saw a post today, a serious post in response to the "pirate" thing, that said "today we are all freepers". And they were serious.


I can't wait for Randi to get back on the air and get her board back up, I can't handle the insanity that is DU anymore.

[wildflower]

30. I agree

Thanks for posting it.

Thom Hartmann puts this well; something about the leader following the parade that we start. I can't remember the exact quote.

I think being supportive but continuing to push is what we should do, and honestly I think that's what Obama wants us to do.

[4lbs]

32. I make a distinction between those pushing for more progressive progress and those that do almost

nothing but criticize him.

I believe you are the former. You support him and would like him to be more progressive quicker. There is no problem with that. I believe you've also voiced support for a lot of the things he's done.

However, there are some others that will always find something to dislike about the way he's doing things. Their post history is 95%+ negative. They couldn't find a positive thing to post about President Obama if their lives depended on it.

For example, I would like healthcare reform to be quicker, but it's now being tied up in Congress. Not much that President Obama can do about that, unless he wants to become almost like a dictator or tyrant and try to browbeat the committees.

I would also like EFCA to have been passed already. However, it seems a few Senate Dems are being obtuse and blocking it. Not much President Obama can do about that. He has already publicly stated that he will sign it if it ever reaches his desk. The ball is now in the Senate's court, since EFCA will easily pass the House.

Yes, I was a little surprised at the $84 billion supplemental defense bill asked for by the White House. I wish he didn't need to do it, but I feel there is a valid reason for not having it in the original $3.6 trillion budget. Nevertheless, I will give the President benefit of the doubt when he says that this is the only time he'll do it. However, if it happens again, I will voice my extreme displeasure at him going back on his word.

Regarding the administration's stance on not wanting people in the CIA and federal government sued for civil rights violations wrt torture and multi-year detainment, I was also confused on that one. However, the stance may be that those doing the torturing were given the green light by the previous administration, so in their minds it was considered legal since they had a written document from the US Attorney General at the time stating it was ok. If anything, Gonzalez and Yoo, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld should be the ones prosecuted and sued. Would it really serve a purpose to imprison and sue the ones at the lowest on the totem pole, when all their higher ups said it was fine and they were helping their country? That's a tough one. One thing I do definitely agree with is regarding those people at Guantanamo that were continuing to torture and mistreat the prisoners, even after President Obama publicly stated he was going to stop it. Those people need to be prosecuted because they flouted stated Presidential policy. To me that's bordering on treasonous action to still be mistreating prisoners after the President says publicly it will stop.