Lesser of two evils.

[ProSense]

Anyone who claims they voted for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils, and a lot of people seem to be doing that these days, but voted for him and other Democrats in the past couple of elections is either being disingenuous or a hypocrite.

By the standards being banded around in these criticisms, if a person voted for a Obama or a Democrat, that person has either been "suckered" or "duped."

Well, no one can weasel out of ownership of their vote using the claim that it was a vote for "the lesser of two evils."

It's still your vote, and you have to accept responsibility for the make up of Congress and for electing the President.

What's even more bizarre is the utter outrage from people who claim to have known what they were getting while charging others who have no such complaints with having been duped.

Ever consider that people who don't feel bitterly disappointed by the President and the Democratic Party also knew what they were getting? That they don't feel duped or suckered? That they can handle the fact that they will not agree with every position or action by elected Democrats?



edtied typo

[geek tragedy]

1. You don't think he's evil?

Obamanazi!

[jobycom]

3. I was gonna go with Obamamandius.

Just for the Shelley of it.

All this parsing of the exact degree of approval or disapproval allowed over Obama, and of exactly how much guilt, blame, and/or joy we are all allowed to feel and/or express, kinda makes me thirsty. I never realized there were this many rules before.

[firedupdem]

2. I am happy I supported Mr. Obama from day one and I still do

100%. I would vote for him again if I could. He's doing a hell of a job with the messes of the previous administration and then some! Nobody was duped...there were choices. That kind of talk is ridiculous.

Thanks for your post prosense.

[stillcool]

4. that whole thing about...

how our government works, and who we are as a nation is a little lost around here. Deliberately. I hope.

[depakid]

5. I reckoned all along based on the record and public statements that this was the lesser of two evils

Unless one supports various Republican-lite (or full on Republican) policies, it's pretty hard if not impossible to conclude otherwise.

If you're honest about it, that is.

[ProSense]

12. If you're honest about it,

it's hypocrisy, worse when couple with the hyperbole that there is no difference between the parties.

I challenge everyone who believes this statement to be true: "no matter which lever we pulled on election day."

Go ahead, pull the other lever next time and prove it.

[depakid]

15. Lesser of two evils states pretty emphatically that there's a difference

That said- what's going on at treasury and the DOJ thus far, leads me to conclude there's Republican lite- or in some cases full on Republican going on (or shall we say, irresponsible public policy)- and other than some vague notion of hope or trust, I don't see much evidence that the trajectory is going to change.

What I've garnered to date looks to be Clinton II, great foreign policy- respect returning to America abroad- but at the same time, citizens all too often being subordinated to corrupt corporate interests- with little accountability or means of redress at home. Not to say there haven't been excellent domestic programs, too. Of course there have! Clinton had some too.

Yet these are extraordinary circumstances- and with the current mandate (which is greater than any Democrat has had since LBJ) there's a once in a generation opportunity to transform some very dysfunctional policies and institutions- not all of which the administration has direct control over. Then again, that's what leadership and the bully pulpit's all about, whether it's Obama using it- or Biden -or some other Democratic official. Or the DNC. To get the Republican leaning, lobbyist loving members of Congress to toe the line. I mean, have Republicans and their polices EVER less popular since say, 1965?

Yet it's progressives who perceive (often justifiably) that they're still getting the short end of the stick- even though it was they, more than anyone, who were in the trenches through the primaries and the general- and who, if they're alienated, will stay home and GOTV on 2010. As they did in 1994.

Now, maybe I and others be wrong about that- and nothing would please me better for Americans. But that's not what the record shows from certain votes in the Senate, to public statements (especially back in June) to actions and omissions that could easily
We shall see. I didn't have all the expectations that so many did- and were led to believe in. What I say- while aggravating at times, is par for the course. Not so with many others- a lot of them much younger than myself- and far more easily disillusioned.

[ProSense]

16. This doesn't:

"no matter which lever we pulled on election day."

Still, the "lesser of two evils" argument is a bullshit cop out. People use it to disown their vote so they can talk shit. You got what you voted for. Work toward change and quit the "suckered," "duped" and apologist crap. If you knew fine, but others knew too, and can still disagree with where things stand today. If you didn't know, then you were either not paying attention or misread his positions.

Now, maybe I and others be wrong about that- and nothing would please me better for Americans. But that's not what the record shows from certain votes in the Senate, to public statements (especially back in June) to actions and omissions that could easily We shall see. I didn't have all the expectations that so many did- and were led to believe in. What I say- while aggravating at times, is par for the course. Not so with many others- a lot of them much younger than myself- and far more easily disillusioned.

Really?

You mean all the declarations of doom and cries that Obama deceived us based on 80 days in office could be wrong? We ought to wait and see based on outcomes?

What a concept!

[depakid]

18. Some people were deceived

For example. when I heard Obama at the Portland rally raise the hue and cry for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE several times to enormous rounds of applause- I knew better- because I'd read the health care plan (which was the worst of the "big 3" -though none of them came close to solving the underlying problems. At best, they'd slow the decline).

Other didn't know- they hadn't read the material. They thought that universal health care might be what they'd be getting. And that was foreseeable on the speakers part. As were the raising of expectations.

I also had a bad feeling, looking at the economic advisors that America was going to get a pack of Clinton era failures and Wall Street cronies- and sure enough.

Others probably hearkened to the change we can believe in mantra. Is that the lesser of two evils? Considering just how far off the deep end Phil Gramm et al. were, I guess so. But far from the responsible way to deal with the financial mess that these very folks were instrumental in creating- or in Mary Shapiro's case, rather active failing to regulate at FINRA.

Something about rewarding failure and complicity- well, that just rubs me and a LOT of other people wrong.

Especially when there were a whole lot of equally if not better qualified people out there who got it right.

[ProSense]

20. Nonsense.

You can't have it both ways: you can't claim "we shall see" and then declare the outcome has already happened.

Not only had health care not passed yet, Obama's position hasn't changed. His public option is being supported by Democrats and is likely to pick up the support of at least two Republicans.

[depakid]

21. Not non-sense. I heard exactly what was said in context

and I know what was proposed and what's currently (and also hopeflly) on the table.

I just shook my head, because it so wasn't necessary to say that way. This was his first monster audience- so I guess it was easy to get carried away- but the crowd would have loved whatever he said about his health care plan.

[smoogatz]

22. "Universal health care" doesn't necessarily equal single payer.

Obama has never advocated single payer--not once, to my knowledge. What I see around here are a lot of people who are upset because he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he'd do, as opposed to what they wished or imagined he would do. Which is obviously irrational. I also see a lot of obvious trolling, mostly from DUers whose names aren't familiar to me as an old-timer (relatively speaking).

[depakid]

28. Obama plan didn't and doesn't cover everyone

Which, regardless of how it's structured- is the plain meaning of the words "universal health care."

Affordable health care -that's another matter (and open to interpretation).

[ProSense]

30. No one believed it would.

If they were paying attention they would know that. It was detailed over and over explicitly and in contrast to Hillary's and Edwards', neither of which were single-payer.

Obama's did have a unique feature the others didn't, and that was the catastrophic care provision.

[depakid]

37. Oh come on now

You know better than that- and I know what he said right to 75,000 peoples' faces.

But that's really, that's beside the point. The larger deal is that:

A) Some of us knew all along the choice was a lesser of evils (and even we'd wanted a "conscience vote" in a safe state, there really wasn't one running); and

B) Some of us are just now coming to that conclusion.

And there will be the inevitable let downs- and aggravations. And if they go too far pandering to the right (and this applies to the Congressional leadership too, such as it is- or isn't) you end up with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html">the politics of disappointment and giving Republicans a chance to get back in the game in 2010.

Bad move, that. Yet eminently foreseeable.

[ProSense]

43. What are you arguing?

He never promised his plan would cover everyone, and no one can realistically claim he did.

What are you arguing?

[depakid]

45. Crikey, get over the minutae

He said what he say what he said. I heard it with my own ears- as did 75,000 at Waterfront Park.

And other people heard other things- maybe what I heard maybe not -and in nay case, they believed what they believed, ill informed, misled or not.

But that's not theme of the OP- the example was simply meant to illustrate a point- not bicker about the crappy health care plan.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. No politician has ever been or will ever be perfect, so I...

vote for someone because either he isn't as bad as the other guy or he is better than the other guy. It doesn't make much difference which in the grand scheme of things, but the mental excercise has its uses.

Obama was better than the other guy, so I voted for him.

He is not perfect, but I have no regrets.

[ProSense]

7. He doesn't have to be perfect, but people

are making definitive declarations in a completely unrealistic time frame.

Charging that people who are willing to wait for actual outcomes are in denial.

No one knows what reality will look like in a year or two.

Given what Obama has done on the progressive side thus far, it's simply ridiculous to assume that he's half progressive and half Republican; that he is going to push for some progressive causes and maintain the status quo in related areas. For example, why would he fight for a progressive budget and maintain the status quo that would negate his efforts?



Edited typo

[Peacetrain]

8. We must be having the same thought process this AM..

Just makes you want to ~sigh~

[CreekDog]

9. I liked my vote and though not perfect, I like Obama

a lot. i think he's an incredibly decent guy who is more in touch with what i want and care about than any president in my lifetime.

i'll take that. :hi:

[paulk]

10. those people have always been here

and they would be making the same complaints no matter who was elected

I don't see what point is served by yet another thread on it

at worst it only blurs the line between legitimate criticism and the sort of nonsense

that is DU's stock in trade

[ProSense]

11. "I don't see what point is served by yet another thread on it," but

another thread with scores of people encouraging BS is perfectly acceptable, right?

[paulk]

13. who defines what is BS and what is not?

isn't that the point of discussion - to argue your point?

[ProSense]

14. Opinion? Fact?

Obama and Geithner are criminals?

You decide.

[paulk]

23. I really think what happens is that legit criticism

and nonsense tend to get lumped together by threads like this one.

Opinions, by definition, are subjective - and "facts" often are, too.

[Spazito]

17. Why you.....you....you...

"ObamaCanDoNoWrongObot" you! I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist using the latest terminology I discovered this weekend, it is so precious!

:rofl:

Oh, and I totally agree with your OP. You vote, you take responsibility for your vote, full stop.

[smoogatz]

25. Dollars to donuts

95% of the people claiming they were duped in some way are freeper shitheads trying to start a bunch of idiotic flame wars (and succeeding, because so many DUers have such lousy impulse control). The other 5% clearly weren't paying attention during the campaign. Obama's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would. Not all of his policy decisions exactly reflect my opinions—I still think he's fucking up the banking bail-outs, big time—but all in all I think he's getting a solid B+, which is a vast improvement over the past misadministration.

[Spazito]

29. I, too, would give him a B+ overall, with some As in specific areas....

such as Endangered Species Act review, Allowing States to Set Fuel Efficiency Standards, Labor Laws, Embryonic stem cell research and a return to Science.

I am on 'hold' re his economic policies as I think it is too soon to judge whether they will be successful or not.

On gay rights, in reality equal rights, I give him a C, he has moved somewhat, certainly better than the bush admin.

One can't opt out of their vote and claim "duping", imo, it is a ludicrous cop-out at best and deliberate flame-bait at worst. If a voter didn't do their homework before hand that is their fault AND their responsibility.

There is no doubt in my mind, a lot of the crap floating around DU lately is deliberate and not based on genuine concern but rather, as you state, the intent to cause divisions and dilute the support the Obama Administration has here.

[Marrah_G]

19. I think your understanding of the phrase "lesser of two evils" is warped.

[ProSense]

33. No, it isn't

You can claim he is the lesser of two evils and you voted knowing that. You can't then turn around and claim that he's disappointing you because he's not living up to your ideals.

You can't project blame on others who voted for him as if you have no responsiblity for helping to elect him.

You can't claim people were deceived based on positions Obama never held.

"Lesser of two evils" is clear. Using that to support the claim that it doesn't matter who you vote for is hogwash.

Using that to claim that Obama supports something he does not is disingenuous.

It seems people are projecting by charging that others were "suckered" or "deceived" just to prove that they were right that he is in fact the "lesser of two evils."

That's nonsense. No one was "suckered."

[Marrah_G]

38. I think we have very different meanings for the phrase then.

I'm going to assume that the "you" you are using is aimed at someone else, since I have not claimed any of those things.

[smoogatz]

24. Better the lesser of two evils than the evil of two lessers

which is what we had with Bush and Cheney in office. I was hoping Big Al Gore would run, but all in all I think Obama's off to a terrific start.

[Life Long Dem]

26. I don't listen to the sore losers crying.

[Mass]

27. Some people were not enthusiastic when voting for Obama. They just thought between

Obama and McCain, the choice was easy, but they still would have preferred somebody else closer to what they believe in. You cannot blame these people.

Those I blame though are those who could not be bothered listening to what each candidate was proposing, think Obama promised something different, and are now surprised he does not follow on those promises he never made. I knew when I started supporting Obama quite a while ago now that there were issues on which I would disagree with his positions. I still disagree with them, which does not prevent me to generally support Obama enthusiastically. But I do not think there are many positions he has taken since being sworn in that have surprised me compared to his campaign positions.

[Marrah_G]

32. Great post- I feel the same way.

[smoogatz]

34. Obama's approval ratings are probably higher in the general population

than they are right now on the so-called Democratic underground. I find that astonishing.

[Mass]

35. Possible. I do not know. I am not surprised they are high. He deserves them.

[azmouse]

36. And when I reminded the 'hateObama' crowd of Pres Obama's

high approval ratings by the American people they said 'ignorance is bliss'.
Yep, to them Americans who like their president are ignorant. Kinda tells you all you need to know about the 'hate' crowd.

[Beacool]

40. The general population doesn't pay attention to much of anything.

:eyes:

[smoogatz]

42. They were paying attention when Bush's approval ratings tanked, no?

Or were they wrong about that, too?

[Beacool]

46. They finally paid attention when it affected their lives.

Were they paying attention in 2004 when they reelected him?

[smoogatz]

47. Depends.

Kerry was a crappy candidate, and the Ohio results were crooked. So yes and no.

[ProSense]

49. It's good that you made that distinction.

I remember when people assumed that Obama would never encounter any opposition because he was a much better candidate than Kerry.

Here are the facts:

Turnout was up in 2004. Eight million to 12 million more voters don't show up at the polls simply because there is an election.

There was a significant increases in young voters, which was not typical.

Kerry received a high percentage of the popular vote (49%), only .3% lower than Clinton's 1996 win and 6% more than his 1992 win. The 2004 election was one of the closest ever.

Kerry set a the Democratic record at the time for fundraising in a month. Hillary fell $10 million short of that record, Obama exceeded it by an equivalent amount.

Kerry set the fundraising record at the time for a 24-hour period because.

People typically don't donate in record numbers to a crappy candidate.

Who were all those people at the rallies that attracted record participants?

How on earth did Kerry break fundraising records and attract people to rallies if he was a crappy candidate?

The people who believed he was a crappy candidate or those who stayed home surely weren't donating and certainly weren't pushing rally attendance to record levels.




Thanks for the opportunity to address this issue again.

[smoogatz]

50. Bullshit.

"The people who believed he was a crappy candidate or those who stayed home surely weren't donating and certainly weren't pushing rally attendance to record levels."

Just utter bullshit. We donated 'til it hurt, and walked the precinct day after day. But Kerry was, in fact, a crappy candidate. It shouldn't have been nearly as close as it was.

[ProSense]

51. You donated

You attended the rallies. You worked your butt off enthusiatically hyping a crappy candidate to all the voters

Frankly, I'd be surprised if you didn't encourage more people to stay home than vote.

Or maybe it's due to the reality of the election, he became a crappy candidate?

[smoogatz]

52. Oh, right--it was my fault.

Kerry was terrible--an embarrassment. The fact that a dithering windbag of his order even got close was a testament to brewing voter discontent with Bush. Too bad we couldn't have run Obama in '04.

[ProSense]

53. Maybe. n/t

[politicasista]

56. LOL! Good one!

:rofl: :applause:

[politicasista]

54. **crickets**

Great post. :)

[depakid]

44. The general population is also vastly uniformed on policy matters

Not that I agree with that assessment even slightly -it's just two very different populations, with two different sets of concerns.

[azmouse]

31. I'm 47 and Pres Obama is only the second elected Democratic president

in my adult life. I've had to live with Republicans in control for way too long.

During the primary season, when I listened to the candidates, Obama was the one that really attracted my attention.
I am not only happy with him as President, I am THRILLED. I'm excited to see what will happen in the next 4 years (and hopefully 8 years).

[Beacool]

39. Well, once he got the nomination the pickings were slim.

Putting aside the alternative that a Democrat would actually vote for McCain-Palin, who else did you have left? Nader and a handful of other third party candidates who had zero chance of winning.

So, it was either Obama, third party or staying home and sitting this one out.

:shrug:

[nolabels]

41. If they were dupped, they did it to themselves

Obama has been pretty much what i expected, brilliant in some ways and duplicitous in others (but possibly not of his making). People that expected one man or one election to solve all of these problems need to wake up and smell the coffee. Moreover how can you expect change when most us are set in our ways. The older we get the more difficult we find it to set things aside. We cannot change when we cling to things of the past

If you have reverence in money then you shouldn't find the wealthy to be abhorrent but if you splendor in frugality then threading the eye of needle can be done in your sleep

[Martin Eden]

48. I don't feel duped and I'm not accusing other Dem voters of being duped

But that doesn't change the fact that we are essentially given two choices and our choice is often dictated by the need to keep from office the greater "evil."

I voted in every presidential election since 1976, and never for a Republican. I have no illusions about the Democrats I helped to elect. I don't think of them in terms of "evil" but I will state that I very seldom have been happy with the choice at the time it was made, or afterwards.

Are we supposed to just shut up when the elected officials for whom we voted turn out to be as disappointing as we suspected? If we're not thrilled with either of the two major-party candidates should we waste our vote on a 3rd-party candidate and thereby help the greater evil gain office, as happened in the 2000 presidential election?

I reserve the right to vote AGAINST the greater evil and to criticize the one I helped elect when criticism is warranted.


on edit:
This is not directed at President Obama. It is a statement of general principles.

[politicasista]

55. Kick

I am second time voter, and I was not suckered once or twice. :kick:

[TheKentuckian]

57. Nobody was "suckered" it is impossible

this is probably the most covered election in history and this candidate also wrote a couple of books to give additional insights.

Anyone who doesn't gladly select the lesser of two evils is nearing insanity and I think in context evil is hyperbole. Who could you get that wouldn't be an "evil"?

I'm very happy with my vote and would do so again. I'd probably work harder to elect Obama, knowing he'd be so aggressive in fulfilling his promises, despite not being over the moon with all of them. Doing what you say should count for something, it does with me.